It will perhaps be said, that the spiritual phenomena are not so uniform as those of sense,—­as Mr. Parker and Mr. Newman both abundantly admit,—­but that there is an approximate uniformity.  And you must seek it, says Mr. Parker, in the “Absolute Religion” which animates every form of religion, and is equally found in all.  I know the chatters about this incessantly; but when I attempt thus to “hunt the one in the many,” as Plato would call it.—­to seek the elusive unity in the infinite multiform,—­to discover what it is which equally embalms all forms, from the Christianity of Paul to the religion of the “grim Calmuck,” I acknowledge myself as much at loss as Martinus in endeavoring to catch the abstraction of a Lord Mayor; Mr. Parker, on the other hand, is like Crambe, “Who, to show his acuteness, swore that he could form an abstraction of a Lord Mayor, not only without his horse, gown, and gold chain, but even without stature, feature, color, hands, head, feet, or any body, which he supposed was the abstract of a Lord Mayor.”  Or if it be vain to attempt to abstract this Absolute Religion from all religions, as Mr. Parker indeed admits,—­though it is truly in them,—­and I take his definition from his “direct consciousness,” —­which direct consciousness we can see has been directly affected by his abjured Bible,—­namely, “that it is voluntary obedience to will of God, outward and inward,”—­why, what on earth does this vague generality do for us?  What of God?  Is he or it one or many? of infinite attributes or finite? of goodness and mercy equal to his power, or not?  What is his will?  How is he to be worshipped?  Have we offended him?  Is he placable or not?  Is he to be approached only through a mediator of some kind, as nearly all mankind have believe but which Mr. Parker denies,—­a queer proof, by the way, of the clearness of the internal oracle, if he be right,—­or is he to be approached, as Mr. Parker believes, and Mr. Newman with him, without any mediator at all?  Is it true that man is immortal, and knows it by immediate “insight,” as Mr. Parker contends, or does the said “insight,” as Mr. Newman believes, tell us nothing about the matter?  Surely the “Absolute Religion,” after having removed from it all in which different religions differ, is in danger of vanishing that imperfect susceptibility of some religion, which I have already conceded, and which is certainly not such a thing as to render an external revelation very obviously superfluous.  It may be summed up in one imperfect article.  All men and each may say, “I believe there is some being, superior in some respects to man, whom it is my duty or my interest to”—­caelera desunt.