i see that queen alexandra has made a further distribution among charities of the profits from the sale of the late canon fleming's sermon, "on recognition in eternity." the sermon was preached on the occasion of the death of the duke of clarence, and judging from its popularity i have no doubt it is a good sermon. but i am tempted to write on the subject by a mischievous thought suggested by the authorship of this famous sermon. there is no idea which makes so universal an appeal to the deepest instincts of humanity as the idea that when we awake from the dream of life we shall pass into the companionship of those who have shared and lightened our pilgrimage here. the intellect may dismiss the idea as unscientific, but, as newman says, the finite can tell us nothing about the infinite creator, and the quaker poet's serene assurance—

yet love will hope and faith will trust

(since he who knows our needs is just)

that somehow, somewhere, meet we must—

defies all the buffetings of reason.

even shelley, for all his aggressive atheism, could not, as francis thompson points out, escape the instinct of personal immortality. in his glorious elegy on keats he implicitly assumes the personal immortality which the poem explicitly denies, as when, to greet the dead youth,

the inheritors of unfulfilled renown

rose from their thrones, built beyond mortal thought

far in the unapparent.

and it is on the same note that the poem reaches its sublime and prophetic close:—

i am borne darkly, fearfully afar;

whilst, burning through the inmost veil of heaven,

the soul of adonais like a star

beacons from the abode where the eternal are.

the ink of that immortal strain was hardly dry upon the page when the vision was fulfilled, for only a few months elapsed between the death of keats and the drowning of shelley, and in the interval the great monody had been written.

i refuse, for the sake of the feelings of mr. j. m. robertson and mr. foote and the other stern old dogmatists of rationalism, to deny myself the pleasure of imagining the meeting of shelley and keats in the elysian fields. if shelley, "borne darkly, fearfully afar" beyond the confines of reason, could feel that grand assurance, why should i, who dislike the dogmatists of rationalism as much as the dogmatists of orthodoxy, deny myself that beautiful solace? i like to think of those passionate spirits in eternal comradeship, pausing in their eager talk to salute deep-browed homer as, perchance, he passes in grave discourse with the "mighty-mouthed inventor of harmonies." i like to think of dante meeting beatrice by some crystal stream, of lincoln wandering side by side with lee, of poor mary lamb reunited to the mother she loved and whom she slew in one of her fits of insanity, and of an innumerable host of humbler recognitions no less sweet.

but canon fleming's name reminds me that all the recognitions will not be agreeable. i cannot imagine that eminent court preacher showing any eagerness to recognise or be recognised by that other eminent preacher, dr. talmage. for it was talmage's sermon on the wickedness of great cities that fleming so unblushingly preached and published as his own, simply altering the names of american cities to those of european cities. some cruel editor printed the two sermons side by side, i think in the old st. james's gazette, and the poor canon's excuse only made matters rather worse. the incident did not prevent him securing preferment, and his sermon on "recognition in eternity" still goes on selling. but he will not be comfortable when he sees talmage coming his way across the elysian fields. i do not think he will offer him the very unconvincing explanation he offered to the british public. he will make a frank confession and talmage will no doubt give him absolution. there will be many such awkward meetings. with what emotions of shame, for example, will charles i. see strafford approaching. "not a hair of your head shall be touched by parliament" was his promise to that instrument of his despotic rule, but when parliament demanded the head itself he endorsed the verdict that sent strafford to the scaffold. and i can imagine there will be a little coldness between cromwell and charles when they pass, though in the larger understanding of that world charles, i fancy, will see that he was quite impossible, and that he left the grim old puritan no other way.

it is this thought of the larger understanding that will come when we have put off the coarse vesture of things that makes this speculation reasonable. that admirable woman, mrs. berry, in "richard feverel," had the recognitions of eternity in her mind when she declared that widows ought not to remarry. "and to think," she said, "o' two (husbands) claimin' o' me then, it makes me hot all over." mrs. berry's mistake was in thinking of elysium in the terms of earth. it is precisely because we shall have escaped from the encumbering flesh and all the bewilderments of this clumsy world that we cannot merely tolerate the idea, but can find in it a promised explanation of the inexplicable.

it is the same mistake that i find in mr. belloc, who, i see from yesterday's paper, has been denouncing the "tomfoolery" of spiritualism, and describing the miracles of lourdes as "a special providential act designed to convert, change, upset, and disintegrate the materialism of the nineteenth century." i want to see the materialism of the nineteenth century converted, changed, upset and disintegrated, as much as mr. belloc does, but i have as little regard for the instrument he trusts in as for the "tomfoolery" of spiritualism. and when he goes on to denounce a miss posthlethwaite, a catholic spiritualist, for having declared that in the next world she found people of all religions and did not find that mohammedans suffered more than others, i feel that he is as materialistic as mrs. berry. he sees heaven in the terms of the troublesome little sectarianisms of the earth, with an ascendancy party in possession, and no non-alcoholic puritans, jews, or mohammedans visible to his august eye. they will all be in another place, and very uncomfortable indeed. he really has not advanced beyond that infantile partisanship satirised, i think, by swift:—

we are god's chosen few,

all others will be damned.

there is no place in heaven for you,

we can't have heaven crammed.

no, no, mr. belloc. the judgments of eternity will not be so vulgar as this, nor the companionship so painfully exclusive. you will not walk the infinite meadows of heaven alone with the sect you adorned on earth. you will find all sorts of people there regardless of the quaint little creeds they professed in the elementary school of life. i am sure you will find mrs. berry there, for that simple woman had the root of the true gospel in her. "i think it's al'ays the plan in a dielemma," she said, "to pray god and walk forward." i think it is possible that in the larger atmosphere you will discover that she was a wiser pupil in the elementary school than you were.