CHAPTER XXV. CORRESPONDENCE WITH ARETHUSA HALL. "Before the mysteries of thy word and will Edward always entered warmly into his mother's friendships. And he was particularly interested in Arethusa Hall, a near relative of Sylvester Judd, whose Life she had written, and a friend of his mother's for many years. Although there had been a great change in her religious views, and she considered herself a disciple of Francis Abbott, who was connected with the Free Religious Association, yet the early friendship was never interrupted. Their differences were seldom referred to. In reply, however, to a letter, asking some questions, she writes, frankly and fully. On reading her letter to Edward, he said he should like to answer it, which his mother was glad to have him do. One or two other letters followed, his last reaching Northampton during his mother's visit there. Not many months after, Miss Hall passed into the unknown land, and Mr. Abbott, who published a Memorial for her friends, inserted in it the correspondence which is here given. Northampton, May 21st, 1889. You ask "how the other life looks to me.' I have no idea of its details. I trust; I hope. I think there is great reason to believe in its existence, and every reason to trust that all is wisest and best; that the Ruler of the Universe does all things well. Upon the bosom of this wonderful Nature I feel that I can cast myself and die in peace. The religion of Nature, including man, of course, with all that he has effected, and all that has been effected in this wonderful universe, so far as science can penetrate through the æons of the past,-the religion derived from all this, is to me soul-satisfying, and forms the highest, the noblest Ideal of the Infinite Person, the soul of all, that I can desire. It forms to me a religion incomparably more intelligent, more reasonable, more exalted and wisely devout than the past has entertained. All the historical religions of the world, including the Christian, differ from each other chiefly in degree in seeking in the supernatural for the satisfaction of the infinite longings of the soul. And, dear Margaret, I know the candor of your nature will allow me to say it to you, since it is true, and you will feel kindly to me still when I say:-It is strange to me, how a woman of your intellect, of your natural independence of thought (and, in saying you, I would say also, a man of your son's knowledge, and ministers generally of the highest scientific knowledge), how you can believe the Bible to be other than a record of the best knowledge and thought of the purely human mind, working in the way natural to all minds, simply under the light and knowledge to which they had attained, and how you can take this record as from the mouth of God. And then the God of this whole mighty universe, coming to this speck of earth, entering into the womb of a virgin, and, in due time emerging as a human child, to be a Mediator and Saviour of a race whose ancestors offended the Supreme Parent, and thus dragged all his posterity to perdition! I can't help it, Margaret, but it is to me on a par with all the avators of heathenism. And the whole system is to me but a more civilized form of what we call heathenism! You are too wise to be shocked. You may be pained. You may pity. I should not say it, but in trust of your truly superior intellect, and your great hospitality for what you may consider great error. I have failed to do justice to my thought and my position, but I am too tired to re-write, and thus give more clearness and fulness to them. I think, however, you will be able to read between the lines. I should not have attempted to define my position thus far, had you not rather given me the challenge. I know well all the arguments you can bring against me, have known them from my youth up, through the "bodies of divinity" I have read, and all the preaching I have heard. I do believe I am on a "Rock" more aged than yours, and deep as the foundations of eternity. I am at peace, and my religion is to me the soul of my life, permeated with an enthusiasm such as I never felt under the influence of the faith into which I was born. How beautiful the world is now! What a wonderful resurrection to new life! God, immortal in all ! "O God, I can trust for the human soul!" My Dear Miss Hall: Faithfully, your old friend Thusa. Sing Sing, May 23d, 1889. Your last letter to my mother, in which you kindly refer to me, has so much of interest in it that I have asked the privilege of making some response. I wish this especially because, if I understand what you say, your rock is our rock, and, however we may have come to it, and with whatever difference of expression and explanation, not only our Life, but our Faith rest in the same way upon Him. We should, of course, at the very start, grant the inadequacy of language to express our Faith, and the inadequacy of our Faith to compass the Truth. Our words miss the thought at which they aim, and the Truth evades our definition. Yet, in a partial and differing way, each may apprehend it, and we may meet in the same centre. You "have no idea of the details of the other life," but great confidence "in its existence.' You "trust that all is wisest and best-that the Ruler of the Universe does all things well." There we are quite at one. The only suggestion I find as to details is from the analogy of spirit and character in this beginning of life. I believe that the Eternal Life begins in Time, and that this beginning shapes the continuance and the end; that death is not revolution, but evolution. So from the study of the germ here I come to anticipate certain things beyond. But, because of my belief in him who does all things well, I am most sure of all that it will be better than my best imaginings. That, too, seems to me the teaching of the bold Oriental imagery of the Bible. I have little doubt that our hopes are much alike in this matter. When you speak of the "religion of Nature" I am not sure that I know just what you mean. If you mean simply that wonder, awe, reverence, which in many souls results from the view and study of Nature, in a word the feeling which Nature inspires in us, without reference to any thing to which Nature points, I should say that was to me an unusual sense of the word, for which I should be more apt to think of Nature, including Man, as an effect, not exclusively, but to use the term "religiousness.' Religion seems to me to imply the relation between persons, and I like best to speak of it as the Life of God in the Soul of Man...The religion of Nature would, therefore, mean to me the religion to which Nature points; the personal relation which it suggests. But I think this must be your own meaning: for you say "the religion derived from all this. to me forms the highest, the noblest Ideal of the Infinite Person, the soul of all that I can desire." If Nature, "including Man," inspires you with faith in an Infinite Person, of whose personality our own is but a faint reflection,then we are alike. Right here it is possible that our ways might divide, yet your words encourage me to hope not. I am accustomed to think of Nature, including Man, as an effect, not exclusively. but mainly so. This effect suggests-I should better say reveals- God; and that as something not separate or removed, but at once immanent and distinct. I should not care at all for the geometrical manner of stating his relation to Nature, whether that be called transcendent or immanent, whether he be thought of as working within or without, above, beyond, in front or back of all things. Every such expression is partial. All taken together can but hint at the truth that he is All in all. But I should care very much about being able to say God and Nature, rather than God or Nature, as if the two were not simply interwoven but identical. Some distinctness between the two is certainly necessary, in order to have any relation between the two. Grant sufficient distinctiveness for an actual relationship, then I think all various ways of expressing that relationship, in a degree, truthful. We may think of it as being that of the Cause to the Effect, or of the body to the raiment, or of the soul to the body, or of the life to its manifestation, or of the Ruler to the Universe. Each expression is partial, each helpful. It seems to me that you indicate the acceptance of some such relationship between God and Nature, implying their distinctness. You say "the Ruler of the Universe does all things well;" you speak of "God immanent in all," and of the "Infinite Person, the soul of all." We use exactly the same language. Do we not mean the same? Only one phrase causes me to doubt. Looking on Nature as the work and working of God, I should need to change one word in your sentence: "Upon the bosom of this wonderful Nature I feel that I can cast myself and die in peace." I should put the word God instead of Nature. Yet I could say God in Nature, and be well content. Of course I am here guarding myself against absolute Pantheism, as I would on the other side against Deism. I am merely stating the faith of pure Theism, though I should claim the right to term it pure Christian Theism. But if we have kept near together up to this point, you imply that here our paths diverge. And you wonder that intelligent persons can hold the Cristian beliefs which we entertain. I suppose the difficulty with those who discuss these points often, is that each side imagines the other to hold what it does not, and does not understand the opinions the other does hold. I should be glad if I could show at least how closely the Christian beliefs we hold are connected with what you accept. to me You say "the religion of Nature including Man, forms the highest, the noblest Ideal of the Infinite Person, the soul of all that I can desire." I suppose you would not object to the expression that the Universe or Nature is the Revelation of God. Now, is it not true that the highest thing in the Universe, looked at as such a revelation, is Man? Man is the highest revelation of God. But the highest thing in Man is character. And the highest character is righteous, forgiving, self-sacrificing Love. The holy Life of Love is the highest Revelation of God. Now the Christian claim is simply this, that Jesus of Nazareth presents us this holy Life of Love, and that he is therefore the Revelation of God, the Son of God, who is Love. You may question or deny this claim on historical or other grounds. But I do not see how you can regard it as either superstitious, unintelligible, or unreasonable. We are convinced that in his life and workings Jesus is absolutely unique among the sons of men; that he was sinless and morally perfect, the supreme example of history; that he made unprecedented claims as to his authority, kingdom, and relations with God; that he has, in accordance with those claims, exerted an unparalleled influence for good upon the world through eighteen centuries. This supremacy of character we believe carries with it a Lordship over Man, and also over Nature. Being Lord of Life, it is not strange to us that He should be Lord over Death; and the Resurrection would be no surprise to us, even did we not find it supported, as we believe, by irrefutable testimony. The whole structure rests upon the original claim of a unique, a Divine character, the Revelation of God. As God manifests himself in the Universe, here we find Him manifest in the flesh, "the Word made flesh." When you protest against the idea of "the God of this mighty universe" entering into human condition, etc., we ask what else would you have? All this simply says that in giving His superb Self-Revelation in a Divine character, or as I like to say, in a Divine-human life, God wrought by natural processes, and put His Revelation into human terms. Why should not the holy Life of Love, that was to reveal God to men, be born as a child, and consecrate human life by passing through its various conditions? If the beauty of God is embodied in a flower, why not His Love in a Son of Man? If God's Self-Revelation is to be localised at all why not on "this speck of earth" as well as on any other speck? What are physical dimensions to the soul? If Humanity is God's highest work, why might He not specially manifest himself to Humanity in a human life? I have visited heathen nations and learned something of their philosophies and practices. And I must say that I cannot find their philosophies absurd. They seem to me often peoples dreaming, who catch fleeting visions of what others have in waking reality. Their incarnations spring from the natural and I believe the prophetic longings of the heart to see God. They hint of Christianity as the grotesque shadows do of dawn-only these incarnations are seldom either holy or historic. But the Bible! You wonder that we can receive that as we do. This is somewhat the way in which I receive it. I believe not only in Jesus as the historic man of Revelation, but in the Jews as the historic people of Revelation. Not as a good people, on the contrary, as stupid, perverse, wilful; but as displaying in their history the working of God's rule of righteousness in a way as unique at least among all people, as God's working of art and thought are among the Greeks. Now the Bible is precious to me as containing the records of this Self-Revelation of God in History. I cannot help believing that its historians, psalmists, prophets, apostles, evangelists produced here a sacred library that is of monumental and perpetual importance in the matters of religion. As a matter of fact, it is the chief inspiration of the religious life of Christendom to-day, and has been for centuries. And to me the co-ordination of its parts indicates a special design as much as the harmony in the Cathedral of Cologne. But the great thing is the Divine Life which is at the heart of the Book, as it is at the heart of Christendom. What I have written seems to me the essence of the Christian Faith. It is, doubtless, overlaid by many errors and superstitions, but this is the saving substance. And for this substance I do claim two things. First, it is not unreasonable. Let it be true or false, yet it is a plain, definite system of thought and faith based on alleged historic events. It is nothing that is not consistent with the highest intelligence and the purest practices. Second, the character of Christ, who is Christianity, is so pure and commanding, the occurrences connected with his life are so extraordinary, the impression he has made upon mankind is so deep and widespread, that he justly claims as he more and more receives the reverence, the imitation, the |