that it loves God on these sublime terms, it should take care to neutralize the happiness which that love brings with it; so that, if God has not made you miserable, you should never fail, like the ascetics, to make yourself so.  I fear you never can be perfectly ‘spiritual’ till you have made yourself supremely wretched.  But to quit this point,” I continued; “if immortality be a delusion, I fear we say that it covers the divine administration with an penetrable cloud,—­one which we cannot hope will removed.  The inequalities of that administration not be redressed.”

“But do you not recollect,” replied Fellowes, reason Mr. Newman gives for despising any such mitigation?  Does he not say, that it is a strange argument for a day of recompense, that man has unsatisfied claims upon God?  He says, ’Christians have added an argument of their own for a future state, but, unfortunately, one that cannot bring personal comfort or assurance.  A future state (it seems) is requisite to redress the inequalities of this life.  And can I go to the Supreme Judge, and tell Him that I deserve more happiness than He has granted me in this life?’ Do you not recollect this?—­or has this sarcasm escaped you?”

“It has not escaped me,—­I remember it well; but it seems to have escaped you, that it is a very transparent sophism.  For what is it but a pretence that the Christian in general is confident enough of his virtue to think that he has not been sufficiently well treated, and that his Creator and Judge cannot do less than make amends for his injustice, by giving him compensation in another world?”

“And is not that the true statement of the case?”

“I imagine not; whether men be Christians or otherwise.  The generality, when they reason upon this subject, (you and I, for example, at this very moment,) not at all considering the aspect of such a day upon themselves; how much they will lose if there be none; perhaps the bulk would wish that it could be proved that it would never come!  It has been from a wish to escape great speculative perplexities, connected with the divine administration, and not in relation to man’s deserts, that the question has been argued.  When dictated by other feelings, the conviction of a future state has been quite as generally the utterance of remorse and fear, the response of an accusing conscience, as of hope and aspiration; and derives, perhaps, a terrible significance from that circumstance.  But it has certainly not been, in the Christian, the result of any absurd expectation of virtues to be rewarded, or rights to be redressed.  As to the Christian, though he feels that he would not, and dare not, go to the divine tribunal with any such absurd plea as Mr. Newman is pleased to put into his mouth,—­though he cannot impeach the divine goodness,—­he none the less feels that that goodness, if this scene be all, is open to very grievous impeachment in relation to millions who have suffered much, and done no wrong, and to multitudes