Reminiscences of Argumentative Conversations held at sundry times between James Auldlicht and John Dubious, mostly regarding things spiritual. Written and collated by me the aforesaid John Dubious.

Chapter I.

After several dry and caustic remarks regarding the state of the weather, the early wheat crops, and the affectionate solicitude of our paternal Government in leaving us to "mend our ways" and bridge our difficulties the best way we can, my friend James, on this occasion, informed me that he had spent the early part of the day in going over our Lord Bishop's unfinished Palatial Residence with a view to flooring it, or at least putting in a tender to that effect. Now, James being a lineal descendant of that irascible old lady in the First Charles' time, who, when Episcopacy was attempted to be made the State Religion in Scotland, hurled her stool at the officiating clergyman's head, with the naive remark, "Wad ye sing mass at my lug, scoondril?" James, therefore, I say advisedly, inherits a great deal of his ancestress' antipathy to all matters Popish or Episcopalian.

This doubtless accounts for Mr. Auldlicht's brief and bitter summing up of our Bishop's character, abilities, and new Palace. This worthy, he says, puts him in mind of Paddy Kelly's boarders, who never missed a meal and never paid a shilling, inasmuch as he, the Bishop, never missed a pay-day, and never preached a sermon; and here I must remark, that James speaks the truth, as many of his lordship's own flock have testified "that he is a dumb dog which cannot bark." As to the Palace, James avers it is only a bit of empty pride—a pitiful attempt to found and bolster up lordly demesnes and ecclesiastic benefices in this fair young land of ours; that such a gingerbread, expensive building cannot well be for the promotion of Christianity, else this sanctified Jeremy Diddler would have built, or tried to build, a Cathedral first, and an unpretending residence afterwards. How different such conduct appears, from either an "in" or "ex Cathedra" standpoint, when contrasted with that of the meek and lowly one of Nazareth, "who had not where to lay his head," and of whom his Lordship would fain make people believe he is a humble copyist, and zealous servant. I thereupon reminded James that these matters did in nowise affect him—a staunch Presbyterian; as to how his Lordship got through with his arduous duties, or whether he did any duty at all. I also recalled to his recollection an occasion when he, the aforesaid James, made use of some expressions not one whit more liberal than those frequently uttered by his Lordship, the sum and substance of which was—that there was no morality out of orthodoxy—and that Christianity was spreading and not fading before the light of scientific knowledge. Regarding these momentous statements, I forthwith read to James an extract from a work of the Rev. George Gilfillan's, a celebrated divine of his own church. This close observer of the times says that there is a profound spirit of doubt among Christians—that many churches are visibly shaking—that the bonds of confessions and creeds are loosening—that a habit of examining all things, and of taking nothing upon trust, is growing—that morality is acknowledged to be among the heterodox as well as the orthodox, and sincerity not page 185 dependent on creeds or formula—that the silent frozen seas and colossal icebergs of an ancient era of thought are breaking up, and another era is succeeding—that some of the defenders of the present morbid and feeble state of Christianity are abandoning as untrue, or ignoring as obsolete and unmeaning, the stupendous signs and wonders which gather around its cradle—and that those strange signs, so long a terror to the adversaries of Christianity, have actually become a terror to its friends.

On the present influence of the Christian Religion, he remarks—that it has descended below other influences which sway our age—that the oracular power and virtue, which once dwelt in the pulpit, have departed—that sermons are now criticised, not obeyed—that when our modern Pauls preach, our Felixes yawn, instead of tremble—that the thunders of the pulpit are heard only in the agitation of despair, or where the preacher is determined to be popular—that the private influence of the clergy, which formerly sprang from a general belief in Christianity, is lost—that the Christian Sabbath is regarded with passive indifference, and its observance enforced by legislative enactments, and other means, which serve only to excite hatred against the day—that those who attend public worship, in most cases, do so from another motive than to hear the Gospel preached—that the conversions of the present day, except those of the grossly ignorant and debauched, are mockeries of solemnity—that revivals, nowadays, are Pentecosts without the Holy Ghost—that Infidelity, from a cowardly, puny tiling, hiding its head under historic innuendoes, or skulking under the cloak of fiction, has become a monster of Briarean magnitude, meeting us at every point, and in every field, which is a fact openly avowed by thousands, secretly cherished by thousands more, and circulating besides through our literature, art, science, and philosophy—and that few intelligent and liberal minded Christians hold their religious tenets with the sincerity and warmth of their forefathers.

This Author also shows, at large, that the written documents of the Churches have lost their influence, and that their study is superseded by that of ancient medals, fossil remains, and Combe's Constitution of Man; that even the Bible has become a dead letter, has suffered from the analysis of the age, and has lost the awful reverence which once encircled its every page.

In reply to these great staring facts, James declared that any man who firmly believed the prophecies of Christ, need be under no apprehensions as to the ultimate success of Christianity. Whereupon I proposed that we should each express our views of the New Testament Prophecies, more especially the fulfilment, or non-fulfilment, of that remarkable one (Mat. x. 23., xvi. 27, 28, xxiv, 3, 29 to 42) respecting the Destruction of Jerusalem according to orthodox views, and of which the arguments, pro and con, are set down in dialogue form in Chapter II.

(To be continued.)