{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_10801/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_10801","id":"gutenberg_10801","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/10801","summary":null,"tags":["Category: British Literature","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Literature -- History and criticism"],"text":"THE LITERARY REMAINS\n\nOF SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE\n\n\n\nCOLLECTED AND EDITED BY\n\nHENRY NELSON COLERIDGE, ESQ. M.A.\n\n\n\nVOLUME THE FOURTH\n\n\n\nALBI DISCIP ANGLVS\n\n\n\nLONDON\n\nWILLIAM PICKERING\n\n1839\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\nADVERTISEMENT\n\nNotes on Luther\n\nNotes on St Theresa\n\nNotes on Bedell\n\nNotes on Baxter\n\nNotes on Leighton\n\nNotes on Sherlock\n\nNotes on Waterland\n\nNotes on Skelton\n\nNotes on Andrew Fuller\n\nNotes on Whitaker\n\nNotes on Oxlee\n\nNotes on A Barrister's Hints\n\nNotes on Davison\n\nNotes on Irving\n\nNotes on Noble\n\nEssay on Faith\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nADVERTISEMENT.\n\nFor some remarks on the character of this publication, the Editor begs\nto refer the Reader to the Preface to the third volume of these Remains.\nThat volume and the present are expressly connected together as one\nwork.\n\nThe various materials arranged in the following pages were preserved,\nand kindly placed in the Editor's hands, by Mr. Southey, Mr. Green, Mr.\nGillman, Mr. Alfred Elwyn of Philadelphia, United States, Mr. Money, Mr.\nHartley Coleridge, and the Rev. Edward Coleridge; and to those gentlemen\nthe Editor's best acknowledgments are due.\n\nLincoln's Inn,\n9th May, 1839.\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nLITERARY REMAINS.\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nNOTES ON LUTHER'S TABLE TALK [1]\n\nI cannot meditate too often, too deeply, or too devotionally on the\npersoneity of God, and his personality in the Word, [Greek: G\u00edo to\nmonogenei], and thence on the individuity of the responsible\ncreature;--that it is a perfection which, not indeed in my intellect,\nbut yet in my habit of feeling, I have too much confounded with that\n'complexus' of visual images, cycles or customs of sensations, and\nfellow-travelling circumstances (as the ship to the mariner), which make\nup our empirical self: thence to bring myself to apprehend livelily the\nexceeding mercifulness and love of the act of the Son of God, in\ndescending to seek after the prodigal children, and to house with them\nin the sty. Likewise by the relation of my own understanding to the\nlight of reason, and (the most important of all the truths that have\nbeen vouchsafed to me!) to the will which is the reason,--will in the\nform of reason--I can form a sufficient gleam of the possibility of the\nsubsistence of the human soul in Jesus to the Eternal Word, and how it\nmight perfect itself so as to merit glorification and abiding union with\nthe Divinity; and how this gave a humanity to our Lord's righteousness\nno less than to his sufferings. Doubtless, as God, as the absolute\nAlterity of the Absolute, he could not suffer; but that he could not lay\naside the absolute, and by union with the creaturely become affectible,\nand a second, but spiritual Adam, and so as afterwards to be partaker of\nthe absolute in the Absolute, even as the Absolute had partaken of\npassion ([Greek: tou p\u00e1schein]) and infirmity in it, that is, the finite\nand fallen creature;--this can be asserted only by one who\n(unconsciously perhaps), has accustomed himself to think of God as a\nthing,--having a necessity of constitution, that wills, or rather tends\nand inclines to this or that, because it is this or that, not as being\nthat, which is that which it wills to be. Such a necessity is truly\ncompulsion; nor is it in the least altered in its nature by being\nassumed to be eternal, in virtue of an endless remotion or retrusion of\nthe constituent cause, which being manifested by the understanding\nbecomes a foreseen despair of a cause.\n\nSunday 11th February, 1826.\n\n\nOne argument strikes me in favour of the tenet of Apostolic succession,\nin the ordination of Bishops and Presbyters, as taught by the Church of\nRome, and by the larger part of the earlier divines of the Church of\nEngland, which I have not seen in any of the books on this subject;\nnamely, that in strict analogy with other parts of Christian history,\nthe miracle itself contained a check upon the inconvenient consequences\nnecessarily attached to all miracles, as miracles, narrowing the\npossible claims to any rights not proveable at the bar of universal\nreason and experience. Every man among the Sectaries, however ignorant,\nmay justify himself in scattering stones and fire squibs by an alleged\nunction of the Spirit. The miracle becomes perpetual, still beginning,\nnever ending. Now on the Church doctrine, the original miracle provides\nfor the future recurrence to the ordinary and calculable laws of the\nhuman understanding and moral sense; instead of leaving every man a\njudge of his own gifts, and of his right to act publicly on that\njudgment. The initiative alone is supernatural; but all beginning is\nnecessarily miraculous, that is, hath either no antecedent, or one\n[Greek: het\u00e9rou genous], which therefore is not its, but merely an,\nantecedent,--or an incausative alien co-incident in time; as if, for\ninstance, Jack's shout were followed by a flash of lightning, which\nshould strike and precipitate the ball on St. Paul's cathedral. This\nwould be a miracle as long as no causative 'nexus' was conceivable\nbetween the antecedent, the noise of the shout, and the consequent, the\natmospheric discharge.\n\n\nThe Epistle Dedicatory.\n\n  But this will be your glory and inexpugnable, if you cleave in truth\n  and practice to God's holy service, worship and religion: that\n  religion and faith of the Lord Jesus Christ, which is pure and\n  undefiled before God even the Father, which is to visit the fatherless\n  and widows in their affliction, and to keep yourselves unspotted from\n  the world.\n\n  James i. 27.\n\nFew mistranslations (unless indeed the word used by the translator of\nSt. James meant differently from its present meaning), have led astray\nmore than this rendering of [Greek: Thraeske\u00eda.] (outward or ceremonial\nworship, 'cultus', divine service,) by the English 'religion'. St. James\nsublimely says: What the 'ceremonies' of the law were to morality,\n'that' morality itself is to the faith in Christ, that is, its outward\nsymbol, not the substance itself.\n\n\nChap. I. p. 1, 2.\n\n  That the Bible is the word of God (said Luther) the same I prove as\n  followeth: All things that have been and now are in the world; also\n  how it now goeth and standeth in the world, the same was written\n  altogether particularly at the beginning, in the first book of Moses\n  concerning the creation. And even as God made and created it, even so\n  it was, even so it is, and even so doth it stand to this present day.\n  And although King Alexander the Great, the kingdom of Egypt, the\n  Empire of Babel, the Persian, Grecian and Roman monarchs; the Emperors\n  Julius and Augustus most fiercely did rage and swell against this\n  Book, utterly to suppress and destroy the same; yet notwithstanding\n  they could prevail nothing, they are all gone and vanished; but this\n  Book from time to time hath remained, and will remain unremoved in\n  full and ample manner as it was written at the first.\n\nA proof worthy of the manly mind of Luther, and compared with which the\nGrotian pretended demonstrations, from Grotius himself to Paley, are\nmischievous underminings of the Faith, pleadings fitter for an Old\nBailey thieves' counsellor than for a Christian divine. The true\nevidence of the Bible is the Bible,--of Christianity the living fact of\nChristianity itself, as the manifest 'archeus' or predominant of the\nlife of the planet.\n\n\nIb. p. 4.\n\n  The art of the School divines (said Luther) with their speculations in\n  the Holy Scriptures, are merely vain and human cogitations, spun out\n  of their own natural wit and understanding. They talk much of the\n  union of the will and understanding, but all is mere fantasy and\n  fondness. The right and true speculation (said Luther) is this,\n  Believe in Christ; do what thou oughtest to do in thy vocation, &c.\n  This is the only practice in divinity. Also, 'Mystica Theologia\n  Dionysii' is a mere fable, and a lie, like to Plato's fables. 'Omnia\n  sunt non ens, et omnia sunt ens'; all is something, and all is\n  nothing, and so he leaveth all hanging in frivolous and idle sort.\n\nStill, however, 'du theure Mann Gottes, mein verehrter Luther'! reason,\nwill, understanding are words, to which real entities correspond; and we\nmay in a sound and good sense say that reason is the ray, the projected\ndisk or image, from the Sun of Righteousness, an echo from the Eternal\nWord--'the light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world';\nand that when the will placeth itself in a right line with the reason,\nthere ariseth the spirit, through which the will of God floweth into and\nactuates the will of man, so that it willeth the things of God, and the\nunderstanding is enlivened, and thenceforward useth the materials\nsupplied to it by the senses symbolically; that is, with an insight into\nthe true substance thereof.\n\n\nIb. p. 9.\n\n  The Pope usurpeth and taketh to himself the power to expound and to\n  construe the Scriptures according to his pleasure. What he saith, must\n  stand and be spoken as from heaven. Therefore let us love and\n  preciously value the divine word, that thereby we may be able to\n  resist the Devil and his swarm.\n\nAs often as I use in prayer the 16th verse of the 71st Psalm, (in our\nPrayer-book version), my thoughts especially revert to the subject of\nthe right appreciation of the Scriptures, and in what sense the Bible\nmay be called the word of God, and how and under what conditions the\nunity of the Spirit is translucent through the letter, which, read as\nthe letter merely, is the word of this and that pious but fallible and\nimperfect man. Alas for the superstition, where the words themselves are\nmade to be the Spirit! O might I live but to utter all my meditations on\nthis most concerning point!\n\n\nIb. p. 12.\n\n  Bullinger said once in my hearing (said Luther) that he was earnest\n  against the Anabaptists, as contemners of God's word, and also against\n  those which attributed too much to the literal word, for (said he)\n  such do sin against God and his almighty power; as the Jews did in\n  naming the ark, God. But, (said he) whoso holdeth a mean between both,\n  the same is taught what is the right use of the word and sacraments.\n\n  Whereupon (said Luther) I answered him and said; Bullinger, you err,\n  you know neither yourself, nor what you hold; I mark well your tricks\n  and fallacies: Zuinglius and OEcolampadius likewise proceeded too far\n  in the ungodly meaning: but when Brentius withstood them, they then\n  lessened their opinions, alleging, they did not reject the literal\n  word, but only condemned certain gross abuses. By this your error you\n  cut in sunder and separate the word and the spirit, &c.\n\nIn my present state of mind, and with what light I now enjoy,--(may God\nincrease it, and cleanse it from the dark mist into the 'lumen siccum'\nof sincere knowledge!)--I cannot persuade myself that this vehemence of\nour dear man of God against Bullinger, Zuinglius and OEcolampadius on\nthis point could have had other origin, than his misconception of what\nthey intended. But Luther spoke often (I like him and love him all the\nbetter therefor,) in his moods and according to the mood. Was not that a\ndifferent mood, in which he called St. James's Epistle a 'Jack-Straw\npoppet'; and even in this work selects one verse as the best in the\nwhole letter,--evidently meaning, the only verse of any great value?\nBesides he accustomed himself to use the term, 'the word,' in a very\nwide sense when the narrower would have cramped him. When he was on the\npoint of rejecting the Apocalypse, then 'the word' meant the spirit of\nthe Scriptures collectively.\n\n\nIb. p. 21.\n\n  I, (said Luther), do not hold that children are without faith when\n  they are baptized; for inasmuch as they are brought to Christ by his\n  command, and that the Church prayeth for them; therefore, without all\n  doubt, faith is given unto them, although with our natural sense and\n  reason we neither see nor understand it.\n\nNay, but dear honoured Luther! is this fair? If Christ or Scripture had\nsaid in one place, 'Believe, and thou mayest be baptized'; and in\nanother place, 'Baptize infants'; then we might perhaps be allowed to\nreconcile the two seemingly jarring texts, by such words as \"faith is\ngiven to them, although, &c.\" But when no such text, as the latter, is\nto be found, nor any one instance as a substitute, then your conclusion\nseems arbitrary.\n\n\nIb. p. 25.\n\n  This argument (said Luther), concludeth so much as nothing; for,\n  although they had been angels from heaven, yet that troubleth me\n  nothing at all; we are now dealing about God's word, and with the\n  truth of the Gospel, that is a matter of far greater weight to have\n  the same kept and preserved pure and clear; therefore we (said\n  Luther), neither care nor trouble ourselves for, and about, the\n  greatness of Saint Peter and the other Apostles, or how many and great\n  miracles they wrought: the thing which we strive for is, that the\n  truth of the Holy Gospel may stand; for God regardeth not men's\n  reputations nor persons.\n\nOh, that the dear man Luther had but told us here what he meant by the\nterm, Gospel! That St. Paul had seen even St. Luke's, is but a\nconjecture, grounded on a conjectural interpretation of a single text,\ndoubly equivocal; namely, that the Luke mentioned was the same with the\nEvangelist Luke; and that the 'evangelium' signified a book; the latter,\nof itself improbable, derives its probability from the undoubtedly very\nstrong probability of the former. If then not any book, much less the\nfour books, now called the four Gospels, were meant by Paul, but the\ncontents of those books, as far as they are veracious, and whatever else\nwas known on equal authority at that time, though not contained in those\nbooks; if, in short, the whole sum of Christ's acts and discourses be\nwhat Paul meant by the Gospel; then the argument is circuitous, and\nreturns to the first point,--What 'is' the Gospel? Shall we believe you,\nand not rather the companions of Christ, the eye and ear witnesses of\nhis doings and sayings? Now I should require strong inducements to make\nme believe that St. Paul had been guilty of such palpably false logic;\nand I therefore feel myself compelled to infer, that by the Gospel Paul\nintended the eternal truths known ideally from the beginning, and\nhistorically realized in the manifestation of the Word in Christ Jesus;\nand that he used the ideal immutable truth as the canon and criterion of\nthe oral traditions. For example, a Greek mathematician, standing in the\nsame relation of time and country to Euclid as that in which St. Paul\nstood to Jesus Christ, might have exclaimed in the same spirit: \"What do\nyou talk to me of this, that, and the other intimate acquaintance of\nEuclid's? My object is to convey the sublime system of geometry which he\nrealized, and by that must I decide.\" \"I,\" says St. Paul, \"have been\ntaught by the spirit of Christ, a teaching susceptible of no addition,\nand for which no personal anecdotes, however reverendly attested, can be\na substitute.\" But dearest Luther was a translator; he could not, must\nnot, see this.\n\n\nIb. p. 32.\n\n  That God's word, and the Christian Church, is preserved against the\n  raging of the world.\n\n  The Papists have lost the cause; with God's word they are not able to\n  resist or withstand us. * * * 'The kings of the earth stand up, and\n  the rulers take counsel together, &c'. God will deal well enough with\n  these angry gentlemen, and will give them but small thanks for their\n  labor, in going about to suppress his word and servants; he hath sat\n  in counsel above these five thousand five hundred years, hath ruled\n  and made laws. Good Sirs! be not so choleric; go further from the\n  wall, lest you knock your pates against it. 'Kiss the Son lest he be\n  angry, &c'. That is, take hold on Christ, or the Devil will take hold\n  on you, &c.\n\n  The second Psalm (said Luther), is a proud Psalm against those\n  fellows. It begins mild and simply, but it endeth stately and\n  rattling. * * * I have now angered the Pope about his images of\n  idolatry. O! how the sow raiseth her bristles! * * The Lord saith:\n  'Ego suscitabo vos in novissimo die': and then he will call and say:\n  ho! Martin Luther, Philip Melancthon, Justus Jonas, John Calvin, &c.\n  Arise, come up, * * * Well on, (said Luther), let us be of good\n  comfort.\n\nA delicious paragraph. How our fine preachers would turn up their\nTom-tit beaks and flirt with their tails at it! But this is the way in\nwhich the man of life, the man of power, sets the dry bones in motion.\n\n\nChap. II. p. 37.\n\n  This is the thanks that God hath for his grace, for creating, for\n  redeeming, sanctifying, nourishing, and for preserving us: such a\n  seed, fruit, and godly child is the world. O, woe be to it!\n\nToo true.\n\n\nIb. p. 54.\n\n  That out of the best comes the worst.\n\n  Out of the Patriarchs and holy Fathers came the Jews that crucified\n  Christ; out of the Apostles came Judas the traitor; out of the city\n  Alexandria (where a fair illustrious and famous school was, and from\n  whence proceeded many upright and godly learned men), came Arius and\n  Origenes.\n\nPoor Origen! Surely Luther was put to it for an instance, and had never\nread the works of that very best of the old Fathers, and eminently\nupright and godly learned man.\n\n\nIb.\n\n  The sparrows are the least birds, and yet they are very hurtful, and\n  have the best nourishment.\n\n'Ergo digni sunt omni persecutione'. Poor little Philip Sparrows! Luther\ndid not know that they more than earn their good wages by destroying\ngrubs and other small vermin.\n\n\nIb. p. 61.\n\n  He that without danger will know God, and will speculate of him, let\n  him look first into the manger, that is, let him begin below, and let\n  him first learn to know the Son of the Virgin Mary, born at Bethlehem,\n  that lies and sucks in his mother's bosom; or let one look upon him\n  hanging on the Cross. ** But take good heed in any case of high\n  climbing cogitations, to clamber up to heaven without this ladder,\n  namely, the Lord Christ in his humanity.\n\n\nTo know God as God ([Greek: t\u00f2n Zaena], the living God) we must assume\nhis personality: otherwise what were it but an ether, a gravitation?\n--but to assume his personality, we must begin with his humanity, and\nthis is impossible but in history; for man is an historical--not an\neternal being. 'Ergo'. Christianity is of necessity historical and not\nphilosophical only.\n\n\nIb. p. 62.\n\n  'What is that to thee'? said Christ to Peter. 'Follow thou me'--me,\n  follow me, and not thy questions, or cogitations.\n\nLord! keep us looking to, and humbly following, thee!\n\n\nChap. VI. p. 103.\n\n  The philosophers and learned heathen (said Luther) have described God,\n  that he is as a circle, the point whereof in the midst is every where;\n  but the circumference, which on the outside goeth round about, is no\n  where: herewith they would shew that God is all, and yet is nothing.\n\nWhat a huge difference the absence of a blank space, which is nothing,\nor next to nothing, may make! The words here should have been printed,\n\"God is all, and yet is no thing;\" For what does 'thing' mean? Itself,\nthat is, the 'ing', or inclosure, that which is contained within an\noutline, or circumscribed. So likewise to 'think' is to inclose, to\ndetermine, confine and define. To think an infinite is a contradiction\nin terms equal to a boundless bound. So in German 'Ding, denken'; in\nLatin 'res, reor'.\n\n\nChap. VII. p. 113.\n\n  Helvidius alleged the mother of Christ was not a virgin; so that\n  according to his wicked allegation, Christ was born in original sin.\n\nO, what a tangle of impure whimsies has this notion of an immaculate\nconception, an Ebionite tradition, as I think, brought into the\nChristian Church! I have sometimes suspected that the Apostle John had a\nparticular view to this point, in the first half of the first chapter of\nhis Gospel. Not that I suppose our present Matthew then in existence, or\nthat, if John had seen the Gospel according to Luke, the 'Christop\u00e6dia'\nhad been already prefixed to it. But the rumor might have been whispered\nabout, and as the purport was to give a psilanthropic explanation and\nsolution of the phrases, Son of God and Son of Man,--so Saint John met\nit by the true solution, namely, the eternal Filiation of the Word.\n\n\nIb. p. 120. Of Christ's riding into Jerusalem.\n\n  But I hold (said Luther) that Christ himself did not mention that\n  prophecy of Zechariah, but rather, that the Apostles and Evangelists\n  did use it for a witness.\n\nWorth remembering for the purpose of applying it to the text in which\nour Lord is represented in the first (or Matthew's) Gospel, and by that\nalone, as citing Daniel by name. It was this text that so sorely, but I\nthink very unnecessarily, perplexed and gravelled Bentley, who was too\nprofound a scholar and too acute a critic to admit the genuineness of\nthe whole of that book.\n\n\nIb.\n\n  The Prophets (said Luther) did set, speak, and preach of the second\n  coming of Christ in manner as we now do.\n\nI regret that Mr. Irving should have blended such extravagancies and\npresumptuous prophesyings with his support and vindication of the\nMillennium, and the return of Jesus in his corporeal individuality,\n--because these have furnished divines in general, both Churchmen and\nDissenting, with a pretext for treating his doctrine with silent\ncontempt. Had he followed the example of his own Ben Ezra, and argued\ntemperately and learnedly, the controversy must have forced the\nmomentous question on our Clergy:--Are Christians bound to believe\nwhatever an Apostle believed,--and in the same way and sense? I think\nSaint Paul himself lived to doubt the solidity of his own literal\ninterpretation of our Lord's words.\n\nThe whole passage in which our Lord describes his coming is so\nevidently, and so intentionally expressed in the diction and images of\nthe Prophets, that nothing but the carnal literality common to the Jews\nat that time and most strongly marked in the disciples, who were among\nthe least educated of their countrymen, could have prevented the\nsymbolic import and character of the words from being seen. The whole\nGospel and the Epistles of John, are a virtual confutation of this\nreigning error--and no less is the Apocalypse whether written by, or\nunder the authority of, the Evangelist.\n\nThe unhappy effect which St. Paul's (may I not say) incautious language\nrespecting Christ's return produced on the Thessalonians, led him to\nreflect on the subject, and he instantly in the second epistle to them\nqualified the doctrine, and never afterwards resumed it; but on the\ncontrary, in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, c. 15, substitutes\nthe doctrine of immortality in a celestial state and a spiritual body.\nOn the nature of our Lord's future epiphany or phenomenal person, I am\nnot ashamed to acknowledge, that my views approach very nearly to those\nof Emanuel Swedenborg.\n\n\nIb. p. 121.\n\n  Doctor Jacob Schenck never preacheth out of his book, but I do, (said\n  Luther), though not of necessity, but I do it for example's sake to\n  others.\n\nAs many notes, 'memoranda', cues of connection and transition as the\npreacher may find expedient or serviceable to him; well and good. But to\nread in a manuscript book, as our Clergy now do, is not to preach at\nall. Preach out of a book, if you must; but do not read in it, or even\nfrom it. A read sermon of twenty minutes will seem longer to the hearers\nthan a free discourse of an hour.\n\n\nIb.\n\n  My simple opinion is (said Luther) and I do believe that Christ for us\n  descended into hell, to the end he might break and destroy the same,\n  as in Psalm xvi, and Acts ii, is shewed and proved.\n\nCould Luther have been ignorant, that this clause was not inserted into\nthe Apostle's Creed till the sixth century after Christ? I believe the\noriginal intention of the clause was no more than 'vere mortuus est'--in\ncontradiction to the hypothesis of a trance or state of suspended\nanimation.\n\n\nChap. VII. p. 122.\n\n  When Christ (said Luther) forbiddeth to spread abroad or to make known\n  his works of wonder; there he speaketh as being sent from the Father,\n  and doth well and right therein in forbidding them, to the end that\n  thereby he might leave us an example, not to seek our own praise and\n  honor in that wherein we do good; but we ought to seek only and alone\n  the honor of God.\n\nNot satisfactory. Doubtless, the command was in connection with the\nsilence enjoined respecting his Messiahship.\n\n\nChap. VIII. p. 147.\n\n  Doctor Hennage said to Luther, Sir, where you say that the Holy Spirit\n  is the certainty in the word towards God, that is, that a man is\n  certain of his own mind and opinion; then it must needs follow that\n  all sects have the Holy Ghost, for they will needs be most certain of\n  their doctrine and religion.\n\nLuther might have answered, \"positive, you mean, not certain.\"\n\n\nChap. IX. p. 160.\n\n  But who hath power to forgive or to detain sins? Answer; the Apostles\n  and all Church servants, and (in case of necessity) every Christian.\n  Christ giveth them not power over money, wealth, kingdoms, &c; but\n  over sins and the consciences of human creatures, over the power of\n  the Devil, and the throat of Hell.\n\nFew passages in the Sacred Writings have occasioned so much mischief,\nabject slavishness, bloated pride, tyrannous usurpation, bloody\npersecution, with kings even against their will the drudges, false\nsoul-destroying quiet of conscience, as this text, 'John' xx. 23.\nmisinterpreted. It is really a tremendous proof of what the\nmisunderstanding of a few words can do. That even Luther partook of the\ndelusion, this paragraph gives proof. But that a delusion it is; that\nthe commission given to the Seventy whom Christ sent out to proclaim and\noffer the kingdom of God, and afterwards to the Apostles, refers either\nto the power of making rules and ordinances in the Church, or otherwise\nto the gifts of miraculous healing, which our Lord at that time\nconferred on them; and that 'per figuram causce pro effecto', 'sins'\nhere mean diseases, seems to me more than probable. At all events, the\ntext surely does not mean that the salvation of a repentant and\nbelieving Christian depends upon the will of a priest in absolution.\n\n\nIb. p. 161.\n\n  And again, they are able to absolve and make a human creature free and\n  loose from all his sins, if in case he repenteth and believeth in\n  Christ; and on the contrary, they are able to detain all his sina, if\n  he doth not repent and believeth not in Christ.\n\nIn like manner if he sincerely repent and believe, his sins are\nforgiven, whether the minister absolve him or not. Now if M + 5 =5, and\n5-M = 5, M = O. If he be impenitent and unbelieving, his sins are\ndetained, no doubt, whether the minister do or do not detain them.\n\n\nIb. p. 163.\n\n  Adam was created of God in such sort righteous, as that he became of a\n  righteous an unrighteous person; as Paul himself argueth, and withall\n  instructeth himself, where he saith, The law is not given for a\n  righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient.\n\nThis follows from the very definition or idea of righteousness;-it is\nitself the law;--[Greek: pas g\u00e0r d\u00edkais autonomos.]\n\n\nIb.\n\n  The Scripture saith, God maketh the ungodly righteous; there he\n  calleth us all, one with another, despairing and wicked wretches; for\n  what will an ungodly creature not dare to accomplish, if he may but\n  have occasion, place, and opportunity?\n\nThat is with a lust within correspondent to the temptation from without.\n\nA Christian's conscience, methinks, ought to be a 'Janus bifrons',--a\nGospel-face retrospective, and smiling through penitent tears on the\nsins of the past, and a Moses-face looking forward in frown and menace,\nfrightening the harlot will into a holy abortion of sins conceived but\nnot yet born, perchance not yet quickened. The fanatic Antinomian\nreverses this; for the past he requires all the horrors of remorse and\ndespair, till the moment of assurance; thenceforward, he may do what he\nlikes, for he cannot sin.\n\n\nIb. p. 165.\n\n  All natural inclinations (said Luther) are either against or without\n  God; therefore none are good. We see that no man is so honest as to\n  marry a wife, only thereby to have children, to love and to bring them\n  up in the fear of God.\n\nThis is a very weak instance. If a man had been commanded to marry by\nGod, being so formed as that no sensual delight accompanied, and refused\nto do so, unless this appetite and gratification were added,--then\nindeed!\n\n\nChap. X. p. 168, 9.\n\n  Ah Lord God (said Luther), why should we any way boast of our\n  free-will, as if it were able to do anything in divine and spiritual\n  matters were they never so small? * * * I confess that mankind hath a\n  free-will, but it is to milk kine, to build houses, &c., and no\n  further: for so long as a man sitteth well and in safety, and sticketh\n  in no want, so long he thinketh he hath a free-will which is able to\n  do something; but, when want and need appeareth, that there is neither\n  to eat nor to drink, neither money nor provision, where is then the\n  free will? It is utterly lost, and cannot stand when it cometh to the\n  pinch. But faith only standeth fast and sure, and seeketh Christ.\n\nLuther confounds free-will with efficient power, which neither does nor\ncan exist save where the finite will is one with the absolute Will. That\nLuther was practically on the right side in this famous controversy, and\nthat he was driving at the truth, I see abundant reason to believe. But\nit is no less evident that he saw it in a mist, or rather as a mist with\ndissolving outline; and as he saw the thing as a mist, so he ever and\nanon mistakes a mist for the thing. But Erasmus and Saavedra were\nequally indistinct; and shallow and unsubstantial to boot. In fact, till\nthe appearance of Kant's 'Kritiques' of the pure and of the practical\nReason the problem had never been accurately or adequately stated, much\nless solved.\n\n26 June, 1826.\n\n\nIb. p. 174.\n\n  Loving friends, (said Luther) our doctrine that free-will is dead and\n  nothing at all is grounded powerfully in Holy Scripture.\n\nIt is of vital importance for a theological student to understand\nclearly the utter diversity of the Lutheran, which is likewise the\nCalvinistic, denial of free-will in the unregenerate, and the doctrine\nof the modern Necessitarians and ('proh pudor!') of the later\nCalvinists, which denies the proper existence of will altogether. The\nformer is sound, Scriptural, compatible with the divine justice, a new,\nyea, a mighty motive to morality, and, finally, the dictate of common\nsense grounded on common experience. The latter the very contrary of all\nthese.\n\n\nChap. xii. p. 187.\n\n  This is now (said Luther), the first instruction concerning the law;\n  namely, that the same must be used to hinder the ungodly from their\n  wicked and mischievous intentions. For the Devil, who is an Abbot and\n  a Prince of this world, driveth and allureth people to work all manner\n  of sin and wickedness; for which cause God hath ordained magistrates,\n  elders, schoolmasters, laws, and statutes, to the end, if they cannot\n  do more, yet at least that they may bind the claws of the Devil, and\n  to hinder him from raging and swelling so powerfully (in those which\n  are his) according to his will and pleasure.\n\n  And (said Luther), although thou hadst not committed this or that sin,\n  yet nevertheless, thou art an ungodly creature, &c. but what is done\n  cannot he undone, he that hath stolen, let him henceforward steal no\n  more.\n\n  Secondly, we use the law spiritually, which is done in this manner;\n  that it maketh the transgressions greater, as Saint Paul saith; that\n  is, that it may reveal and discover to people their sins, blindness,\n  misery, and ungodly doings wherein they were conceived and born;\n  namely, that they are ignorant of God, and are his enemies, and\n  therefore have justly deserved death, hell, God's judgments, his\n  everlasting wrath and indignation. Saint Paul, (said Luther),\n  expoundeth such spiritual offices and works of the law with many words.\n\n  Rom. vii.\n\nNothing can be more sound or more philosophic than the contents of these\ntwo paragraphs. They afford a sufficient answer to the pretence of the\nRomanists and Arminians, that by the law St. Paul meant only the\nceremonial law.\n\n\nIb. p. 189.\n\n  And if Moses had not cashiered and put himself out of his office, and\n  had not taken it away with these words, (where he saith, 'The Lord thy\n  God will raise up unto thee another prophet out of thy brethren; Him\n  shall thou hear'. (Deut. xviii.)) who then at any time would or could\n  have believed the Gospel, and forsaken Moses?\n\nIf I could be persuaded that this passage (Deut. xviii. 15-19.)\nprimarily referred to Christ, and that Christ, not Joshua and his\nsuccessors, was the prophet here promised; I must either become a\nUnitarian psilanthrophist, and join Priestley and Belsham,--or abandon\nto the Jews their own Messiah as yet to come, and cling to the religion\nof John and Paul, without further reference to Moses than to Lycurgus,\nSolon and Numa; all of whom in their different spheres no less prepared\nthe way for the coming of the Lord, 'the desire of the nations'.\n\n\nIb. p. 190.\n\n  It is therefore most evident (said Luther), that the law can but only\n  help us to know our sins, and to make us afraid of death. Now sins and\n  death are such things as belong to the world, and which are therein.\n\nBoth in Paul and Luther, (names which I can never separate),--not indeed\npeculiar to these, for it is the same in the Psalms, Ezekiel, and\nthroughout the Scriptures, but which I feel most in Paul and Luther,\n--there is one fearful blank, the wisdom or necessity of which I do not\ndoubt, yet cannot help groping and straining after like one that stares\nin the dark; and this is Death. The law makes us afraid of death. What\nis death?--an unhappy life? Who does not feel the insufficiency of this\nanswer? What analogy does immortal suffering bear to the only death\nwhich is known to us?\n\nSince I wrote the above, God has, I humbly trust, given me a clearer\nlight as to the true nature of the 'death' so often mentioned in the\nScriptures.\n\n\nIb.\n\n  It is (said Luther), a very hard matter: yea, an impossible thing for\n  thy human strength, whosoever thou art (without God's assistance) that\n  (at such a time when Moses setteth upon thee with his law, and\n  fearfully affrighteth thee, accuseth and condemneth thee, threateneth\n  thee with God's wrath and death) thou shouldest as then be of such a\n  mind; namely, as if no law nor sin had ever been at any time:--I say,\n  it is in a manner a thing impossible, that a human creature should\n  carry himself in such a sort, when he is and feeleth himself assaulted\n  with trials and temptations, and when the conscience hath to do with\n  God, as then to think no otherwise, than that from everlasting nothing\n  hath been, but only and alone Christ, altogether grace and deliverance.\n\nYea, verily, Amen and Amen! For this short heroic paragraph contains the\nsum and substance, the heighth and the depth of all true philosophy.\nMost assuredly right difficult it is for us, while we are yet in the\nnarrow chamber of death, with our faces to the dusky falsifying\nlooking-glass that covers the scant end-side of the blind passage from\nfloor to ceiling,--right difficult for us, so wedged between its walls\nthat we cannot turn round, nor have other escape possible but by walking\nbackward, to understand that all we behold or have any memory of having\never beholden, yea, our very selves as seen by us, are but shadows, and\nwhen the forms that we loved vanish, impossible not to feel as if they\nwere real.\n\n\nIb. p. 197.\n\n  Nothing that is good proceedeth out of the works of the law, except\n  grace be present; for what we are forced to do, the same goeth not\n  from the heart, neither is acceptable.\n\nA law supposes a law-giver, and implies an actuator and executor, and\nconsequently rewards and punishments publicly announced, and distinctly\nassigned to the deeds enjoined or forbidden; and correlatively in the\nsubjects of the law, there are supposed, first, assurance of the being,\nthe power, the veracity and seeingness of the law-giver, in whom I here\ncomprise the legislative, judicial and executive functions; and\nsecondly, self-interest, desire, hope and fear. Now from this view, it\nis evident that the deeds or works of the Law are themselves null and\ndead, deriving their whole significance from their attachment or\nalligation to the rewards and punishments, even as this diversely shaped\nand ink colored paper has its value wholly from the words or meanings,\nwhich have been arbitrarily connected therewith; or as a ladder, or\nflight of stairs, of a provision-loft, or treasury. If the architect or\nmaster of the house had chosen to place the store-room or treasury on\nthe ground floor, the ladder or steps would have been useless. The life\nis divided between the rewards and punishments on the one hand, and the\nhope and fear on the other: namely, the active life or excitancy belongs\nto the former, the passive life or excitability to the latter. Call the\nformer the afficients, the latter the affections, the deeds being merely\nthe signs or impresses of the former, as the seal, on the latter as the\nwax. Equally evident is it, that the affections are wholly formed by the\ndeeds, which are themselves but the lifeless unsubstantial shapes of the\nactual forms ('form\u00e6 formantes'), namely, the rewards and punishments.\nNow contrast with this the process of the Gospel. There the affections\nare formed in the first instance, not by any reference to works or\ndeeds, but by an unmerited rescue from death, liberation from slavish\ntask-work; by faith, gratitude, love, and affectionate contemplation of\nthe exceeding goodness and loveliness of the Saviour, Redeemer,\nBenefactor: from the affections flow the deeds, or rather the affections\noverflow in the deeds, and the rewards are but a continuance and\ncontinued increase of the free grace in the state of the soul and in the\ngrowth and gradual perfecting of that state, which are themselves gifts\nof the same free grace, and one with the rewards; for in the kingdom of\nChrist which is the realm of love and inter-community, the joy and grace\nof each regenerated spirit becomes double, and thereby augments the joys\nand the graces of the others, and the joys and graces of all unite in\neach;--Christ, the head, and by his Spirit the bond, or unitive 'copula'\nof all, being the spiritual sun whose entire image is reflected in every\nindividual of the myriads of dew-drops. While under the Law, the all was\nbut an aggregate of subjects, each striving after a reward for himself,\n--not as included in and resulting from the state,--but as the\nstipulated wages of the task-work, as a loaf of bread may be the pay or\nbounty promised for the hewing of wood or the breaking of stones!\n\n\nIb.\n\n  He (said Luther), that will dispute with the Devil, &c.\n\nQueries.\n\nI. Abstractedly from, and independently of, all sensible substances, and\n    the bodies, wills, faculties, and affections of men, has the Devil,\n    or would the Devil have, a personal self-subsistence? Does he, or\n    can he, exist as a conscious individual agent or person? Should the\n    answer to this query be in the negative: then--\n\nII. Do there exist finite and personal beings, whether with composite\n    and decomponible bodies, that is, embodied, or with simple and\n    indecomponible bodies, (which is all that can be meant by\n    disembodied as applied to finite creatures), so eminently wicked, or\n    wicked and mischievous in so peculiar a kind, as to constitute a\n    distinct 'genus' of beings under the name of devils?\n\nIII. Is this second 'hypothesis' compatible with the acts and functions\n    attributed to the Devil in Scripture? O! to have had these three\n    questions put by Melancthon to Luther, and to have heard his reply!\n\n\nIb. p. 200.\n\n  If (said Luther) God should give unto us a strong and an unwavering\n  faith, then we should he proud, yea also, we should at last contemn\n  Him. Again, if he should give us the right knowledge of the law, then\n  we should be dismayed and fainthearted, we should not know which way\n  to wind ourselves.\n\nThe main reason is, because in this instance, the change in the relation\nconstitutes the difference of the things. A. considered as acting 'ab\nextra' on the selfish fears and desires of men is the Law: the same A:\nacting 'ab intra' as a new nature infused by grace, as the mind of\nChrist prompting to all obedience, is the Gospel. Yet what Luther says\nis likewise very true. Could we reduce the great spiritual truths or\nideas of our faith to comprehensible conceptions, or (for the thing\nitself is impossible) fancy we had done so, we should inevitably be\n'proud vain asses.'\n\n\nIb. p. 203.\n\n  And as to know his works and actions, is not yet rightly to know the\n  Gospel, (for thereby we know not as yet that he hath overcome sin\n  death and the Devil); even so likewise, it is not as yet to know the\n  Gospel, when we know such doctrine and commandments, but when the\n  voice soundeth, which saith, Christ is thine own with life, with\n  doctrine, with works, death, resurrection, and with all that he hath,\n  doth and may do.\n\nMost true.\n\n\nIb. p. 205.\n\n  The ancient Fathers said: 'Distingue tempora et concordabis\n  Scripturas'; distinguish the times; then may we easily reconcile the\n  Scriptures together.\n\nYea! and not only so, but we shall reconcile truths, that seem to repeal\nthis or that passage of Scripture, with the Scriptures. For Christ is\nwith his Church even to the end.\n\n\nIb.\n\n  I verily believe, (said Luther) it (the abolition of the Law) vexed to\n  the heart the beloved St. Paul himself before his conversion.\n\nHow dearly Martin Luther loved St. Paul! How dearly would St. Paul have\nloved Martin Luther! And how impossible, that either should not have\ndone so!\n\n\nIb.\n\n  In this case, touching the distinguishing the Law from the Gospel, we\n  must utterly expel all human and natural wisdom, reason, and\n  understanding.\n\nAll reason is above nature. Therefore by reason in Luther, or rather in\nhis translator, you must understand the reasoning faculty:--that is,\nthe logical intellect, or the intellectual understanding. For the\nunderstanding is in all respects a medial and mediate faculty, and has\ntherefore two extremities or poles, the sensual, in which form it is St.\nPaul's [Greek: phr\u00f3naema sark\u00f2s]; and the intellectual pole, or the\nhemisphere (as it were) turned towards the reason. Now the reason ('lux\nidealis seu spiritualis') shines down into the understanding, which\nrecognizes the light, 'id est, lumen a luce spirituali quasi alienigenum\naliquid', which it can only comprehend or describe to itself by\nattributes opposite to its own essential properties. Now these latter\nbeing contingency, and (for though the immediate objects of the\nunderstanding are 'genera et species', still they are particular 'genera\net species') particularity, it distinguishes the formal light ('lumen')\n(not the substantial light, 'lux') of reason by the attributes of the\nnecessary and the universal; and by irradiation of this 'lumen' or\n'shine' the understanding becomes a conclusive or logical faculty. As\nsuch it is [Greek: L\u00f3gos anthr\u00f4pinos].\n\n\nIb. 206.\n\n  When Satan saith in thy heart, God will not pardon thy sins, nor be\n  gracious unto thee, I pray (said Luther) how wilt thou then, as a poor\n  sinner, raise up and comfort thyself, especially when other signs of\n  God's wrath besides do beat upon thee, as sickness, poverty, &c. And\n  that thy heart beginneth to preach and say, Behold, here thou livest\n  in sickness, thou art poor and forsaken of every one, &c.\n\nOh! how true, how affectingly true is this! And when too Satan, the\ntempter, becomes Satan the accuser, saying in thy heart:--\"This sickness\nis the consequence of sin, or sinful infirmity, and thou hast brought\nthyself into a fearful dilemma; thou canst not hope for salvation as\nlong as thou continuest in any sinful practice, and yet thou canst not\nabandon thy daily dose of this or that poison without suicide. For the\nsin of thy soul has become the necessity of thy body, daily tormenting\nthee, without yielding thee any the least pleasurable sensation, but\ngoading thee on by terror without hope. Under such evidence of God's\nwrath how canst thou expect to be saved?\" Well may the heart cry out,\n\"Who shall deliver me from the 'body of this death',--from this death\nthat lives and tyrannizes in my body?\" But the Gospel answers--\"There is\na redemption from the body promised; only cling to Christ. Call on him\ncontinually with all thy heart, and all thy soul, to give thee strength,\nand be strong in thy weakness; and what Christ doth not see good to\nrelieve thee from, suffer in hope. It may be better for thee to be kept\nhumble and in self-abasement. The thorn in the flesh may remain and yet\nthe grace of God through Christ prove sufficient for thee. Only cling to\nChrist, and do thy best. In all love and well-doing gird thyself up to\nimprove and use aright what remains free in thee, and if thou doest\nought aright, say and thankfully believe that Christ hath done it for\nthee.\" O what a miserable despairing wretch should I become, if I\nbelieved the doctrines of Bishop Jeremy Taylor in his Treatise on\nRepentance, or those I heard preached by Dr.----; if I gave up the\nfaith, that the life of Christ would precipitate the remaining dregs of\nsin in the crisis of death, and that I shall rise in purer capacity of\nChrist; blind to be irradiated by his light, empty to be possessed by\nhis fullness, naked of merit to be clothed with his righteousness!\n\n\nIb. p. 207.\n\n  The nobility, the gentry, citizens, and farmers, &c. are now become so\n  haughty and ungodly, that they regard no ministers nor preachers; and\n  (said Luther) if we were not holpen somewhat by great princes and\n  persons, we could not long subsist: therefore Isaiah saith well,\n  'And kings shall be their nurses', &c.\n\nCorpulent nurses too often, that overlay the babe; distempered nurses,\nthat convey poison in their milk!\n\n\nChap. XIII. p. 208.\n\n  Philip Melancthon said to Luther, The opinion of St. Austin of\n  justification (as it seemeth) was more pertinent, fit and convenient\n  when he disputed not, than it was when he used to speak and dispute;\n  for thus he saith, We ought to censure and hold that we are justified\n  by faith, that is by our regeneration, or by being made new creatures.\n  Now if it be so, then we are not justified only by faith, but by all\n  the gifts and virtues of God given unto us. Now what is your opinion\n  Sir? Do you hold that a man is justified by this regeneration, as is\n  St. Austin's opinion?\n\n  Luther answered and said, I hold this, and am certain, that the true\n  meaning of the Gospel and of the Apostle is, that we are justified\n  before God 'gratis', for nothing, only by God's mere mercy, wherewith\n  and by reason whereof, he imputeth righteousness unto us in Christ.\n\nTrue; but is it more than a dispute about words? Is not the regeneration\nlikewise 'gratis', only by God's mere mercy? We, according to the\nnecessity of our imperfect understandings, must divide and distinguish.\nBut surely justification and sanctification are one act of God, and only\ndifferent perspectives of redemption by and through and for Christ. They\nare one and the same plant, justification the root, sanctification the\nflower; and (may I not venture to add?) transubstantiation into Christ\nthe celestial fruit.\n\n\nIb. p. 210-11. Melancthon's sixth reply.\n\n  Sir! you say Paul was justified, that is, was received to everlasting\n  life, only for mercy's sake. Against which, I say, if the piece-meal\n  or partial cause, namely our obedience, followeth not; then we are not\n  saved, according to these words, 'Woe is me if I preach not the\n  Gospel'. 1. Cor. ix.\n\nLuther's answer.\n\n  No piecing or partial cause (said Luther) approacheth thereupto: for\n  faith is powerful continually without ceasing; otherwise, it is no\n  faith. Therefore what the works are, or of what value, the same they\n  are through the honor and power of faith, which undeniably is the sun\n  or sun-beam of this shining.\n\nThis is indeed a difficult question; and one, I am disposed to think,\nwhich can receive its solution only by the idea, or the act and fact of\njustification by faith self-reflected. But, humanly considered, this\nposition of Luther's provokes the mind to ask, is there no receptivity\nof faith, considered as a free gift of God, prerequisite in the\nindividual? Does faith commence by generating the receptivity of itself?\nIf so, there is no difference either in kind or in degree between the\nreceivers and the rejectors of the word, at the moment preceeding this\nreception or rejection; and a stone is a subject as capable of faith as\na man. How can obedience exist, where disobedience was not possible?\nSurely two or three texts from St. Paul, detached from the total\n'organismus' of his reasoning, ought not to out-weigh the plain fact,\nthat the contrary position is implied in, or is an immediate consequent\nof, our Lord's own invitations and assurances. Every where a something\nis attributed to the will. [2]\n\n\nChap. XIII. p. 211.\n\n  To conclude, a faithful person is a new creature, a new tree.\n  Therefore all these speeches, which in the law are usual, belong not\n  to this case; as to say 'A faithful' person must do good works.\n  Neither were it rightly spoken, to say the sun shall shine: a good\n  tree shall bring forth good fruit, &c. For the sun 'shall' not shine,\n  but it doth shine by nature unbidden, it is thereunto created.\n\nThis important paragraph is obscure by the translator's ignorance of the\ntrue import of the German 'soll', which does not answer to our 'shall;'\nbut rather to our 'ought', that is, 'should' do this or that,--is under\nan obligation to do it.\n\n\nIb. p. 213.\n\n  And I, my loving Brentius, to the end I may better understand this\n  case, do use to think in this manner, namely, as if in my heart were\n  no quality or virtue at all, which is called faith, and love, (as the\n  Sophists do speak and dream thereof), but I set all on Christ, and\n  say, my 'formalis justitia', that is, my sure, my constant and\n  complete righteousness (in which is no want nor failing, but is, as\n  before God it ought to be) is Christ my Lord and Saviour.\n\nAye! this, this is indeed to the purpose. In this doctrine my soul can\nfind rest. I hope to be saved by faith, not by my faith, but by the\nfaith of Christ in me.\n\n\nIb. p. 214.\n\n  The Scripture nameth the faithful a people of God's saints. But here\n  one may say; the sins which daily we commit, do offend and anger God;\n  how then can we be holy?\n\n  'Answer'. A mother's love to her child is much stronger than are the\n  excrements and scurf thereof. Even so God's love towards us is far\n  stronger than our filthiness and uncleanness.\n\n  Yea, one may say again, we sin without ceasing, and where sin is,\n  there the holy Spirit is not: therefore we are not holy, because the\n  holy Spirit is not in us, who maketh holy.\n\n  'Answer'. (John xvi. 14.) Now where Christ is, there is the holy\n  Spirit. The text saith plainly, 'The holy Ghost shall glorify me, &c.'\n  Now Christ is in the faithful (although they have and feel sins, do\n  confess the same, and with sorrow of heart do complain thereover);\n  therefore sins do not separate Christ from those that believe.\n\nAll in this page is true, and necessary to be preached. But O! what need\nis there of holy prudence to preach it aright, that is, at right times\nto the right ears! Now this is when the doctrine is necessary and thence\ncomfortable; but where it is not necessary, but only very comfortable,\nin such cases it would be a narcotic poison, killing the soul by\ninfusing a stupor or counterfeit peace of conscience. Where there are no\nsinkings of self-abasement, no griping sense of sin and worthlessness,\nbut perhaps the contrary, reckless confidence and self-valuing for good\nqualities supposed an overbalance for the sins,--there it is not\nnecessary. In short, these are not the truths, that can be preached\n[Greek: euka\u00edr\u00f4s aka\u00edr\u00f4s], _in season and out of season_. In declining\nlife, or at any time in the hour of sincere humiliation, these truths\nmay be applied in reference to past sins collectively; but a Christian\nmust not, a true however infirm Christian will not, cannot, administer\nthem to himself immediately after sinning; least of all immediately\nbefore. We ought fervently to pray thus:--\"Most holy and most merciful\nGod! by the grace of thy holy Spirit make these promises profitable to\nme, to preserve me from despairing of thy forgiveness through Christ my\nSaviour! But O! save me from presumptuously perverting them into a\npillow for a stupified conscience! Give me grace so to contrast my sin\nwith thy transcendant goodness and long-suffering love, as to hate it\nwith an unfeigned hatred for its own exceeding sinfulness.\"\n\n\nIb. p. 219-20.\n\n  Faith is, and consisteth in, a person's understanding, but hope\n  consisteth in the will. * * Faith inditeth, distinguisheth and\n  teacheth, and it is the knowledge and acknowledgment. * * Faith\n  fighteth against error and heresies, it proveth, censureth and judgeth\n  the spirits and doctrines. * * Faith in divinity is the wisdom and\n  providence, and belongeth to the doctrine. * * Faith is the\n  'dialectica', for it is altogether wit and wisdom.\n\nLuther in his Postills discourseth far better and more genially of faith\nthan in these paragraphs. Unfortunately, the Germans have but one word\nfor faith and belief--'Glaube', and what Luther here says, is spoken of\nbelief. Of faith he speaks in the next article but one.\n\n\nIb. p. 226.\n\n  \"That regeneration only maketh God's children.\n\n  \"The article of our justification before God (said Luther) is, as it\n  useth to be with a son which is born an heir of all his father's\n  goods, and cometh not thereunto by deserts.\"\n\nI will here record my experience. Ever when I meet with the doctrine of\nregeneration and faith and free grace simply announced--\"So it\nis!\"--then I believe; my heart leaps forth to welcome it. But as soon as\nan explanation nation or reason is added, such explanations, namely, and\nreasonings as I have any where met with, then my heart leaps back again,\nrecoils, and I exclaim, Nay! Nay! but not so.\n\n25th of September, 1819.\n\n\nIb. p. 227.\n\n  \"Doctor Carlestad (said Luther) argueth thus: True it is that faith\n  justifieth, but faith is a work of the first commandment; therefore it\n  justifieth as a work. Moreover all that the Law commandeth, the same\n  is a work of the Law. Now faith is commanded, therefore faith is a\n  work of the Law. Again, what God will have the same is commanded: God\n  will have faith, therefore faith is commanded.\"\n\n  \"St. Paul (said Luther) speaketh in such sort of the law, that he\n  separateth it from the promise, which is far another thing than the\n  law. The law is terrestrial, but the promise is celestial.\n\n  \"God giveth the law to the end we may thereby be roused up and made\n  pliant; for the commandments do go and proceed against the proud and\n  haughty, which contemn God's gifts; now a gift or present cannot be a\n  commandment.\"\n\n  \"Therefore we must answer according to this rule, 'Verba sunt\n  accipienda secundum subjectam materiam.' * * St. Paul calleth that the\n  work of the law, which is done and acted through the knowledge of the\n  law by a constrained will without the holy Spirit; so that the same is\n  a work of the law, which the law earnestly requireth and strictly will\n  have done; it is not a voluntary work, but a forced work of the rod.\"\n\nAnd wherein did Carlestad and Luther differ? Not at all, or essentially\nand irreconcilably, according as the feeling of Carlestad was. If he\nmeant the particular deed, the latter; if the total act, the agent\nincluded, then the former.\n\n\nChap. XIV. p. 230.\n\n  \"The love towards the neighbour (said Luther) must be like a pure\n  chaste love between bride and bridegroom, where all faults are\n  connived at, covered and borne with, and only the virtues regarded.\"\n\nIn how many little escapes and corner-holes does the sensibility, the\nfineness, (that of which refinement is but a counterfeit, at best but a\nreflex,) the geniality of nature appear in this 'son of thunder!' O for\na Luther in the present age! Why, Charles! [3] with the very handcuffs\nof his prejudices he would knock out the brains (nay, that is\nimpossible, but,) he would split the skulls of our 'Cristo-galli',\ntranslate the word as you like:--French Christians, or coxcombs!\n\n\nIb. p. 231-2.\n\n  \"Let Witzell know, (said Luther) that David's wars and battles, which\n  he fought, were more pleasing to God than the fastings and prayings of\n  the best, of the honestest, and of the holiest monks and friars; much\n  more than the works of our new ridiculous and superstitious friars.\"\n\nA cordial, rich and juicy speech, such as shaped itself into, and lived\nanew in, the Gustavus Adolphuses.\n\n\nChap. XV. p. 233-4.\n\n  \"God most certainly heareth them that pray in faith, and granteth when\n  and how he pleaseth, and knoweth most profitable for them. We must\n  also know, that when our prayers tend to the sanctifying of his name,\n  and to the increase and honor of his kingdom (also that we pray\n  according to his will) then most certainly he heareth. But when we\n  pray contrary to these points, then we are not heard; for God doth\n  nothing against his Name, his kingdom, and his will.\"\n\nThen (saith the understanding, [Greek: T\u00f2 phr\u00f3naema sark\u00f2s]) what doth\nprayer effect? If A--prayer = B., and A + prayer = B, prayer = O. The\nattempt to answer this argument by admitting its invalidity relatively\nto God, but asserting the efficacy of prayer relatively to the pray-er\nor precant himself, is merely staving off the objection a single step.\nFor this effect on the devout soul is produced by an act of God. The\ntrue answer is, prayer is an idea, and 'ens spirituale', out of the\ncognizance of the understanding.\n\nThe spiritual mind receives the answer in the contemplation of the idea,\nlife as 'deitas diffusa'. We can set the life in efficient motion, but\nnot contrary to the form or type. The errors and false theories of great\nmen sometimes, perhaps most often, arise out of true ideas falsified by\ndegenerating into conceptions; or the mind excited to action by an\ninworking idea, the understanding works in the same direction according\nto its kind, and produces a counterfeit, in which the mind rests.\n\nThis I believe to be the case with the scheme of emanation in Plotinus.\nGod is made a first and consequently a comparative intensity, and matter\nthe last; the whole thence finite; and thence its conceivability. But we\nmust admit a gradation of intensities in reality.\n\n\nChap. XVI. p. 247.\n\n  \"When governors and rulers are enemies to God's word, then our duty is\n  to depart, to sell and forsake all we have, to fly from one place to\n  another, as Christ commandeth; we must make and prepare no uproars nor\n  tumults by reason of the Gospel, but we must suffer all things.\"\n\nRight. But then it must be the lawful rulers; those in whom the\nsovereign or supreme power is lodged by the known laws and constitution\nof the country. Where the laws and constitutional liberties of the\nnation are trampled on, the subjects do not lose, and are not in\nconscience bound to forego, their right of resistance, because they are\nChristians, or because it happens to be a matter of religion, in which\ntheir rights are violated. And this was Luther's opinion. Whether, if a\nPopish Czar shall act as our James II. acted, the Russian Greekists\nwould be justified in doing with him what the English Protestants\njustifiably did with regard to James, is a knot which I shall not\nattempt to cut; though I guess the Russians would, by cutting their\nCzar's throat.\n\n\nIb.\n\n  'But no man will do this, except he be so sure of his doctrine and\n  religion, as that, although I myself should play the fool, and should\n  recant and deny this my doctrine and religion (which God forbid), he\n  notwithstanding therefore would not yield, but say, \"If Luther, or an\n  angel from heaven, should teach otherwise, _Let him be accursed_.\"'\n\nWell and nobly said, thou rare black swan! This, this is the Church.\nWhere this is found, there is the Church of Christ, though but twenty in\nthe whole of the congregation; and were twenty such in two hundred\ndifferent places, the Church would be entire in each. Without this no\nChurch.\n\n\nIb. p. 248.\n\n  \"And he sent for one of his chiefest privy councillors, named Lord\n  John _Von Minkwitz_, and said unto him; 'You have heard my father say,\n  (running with him at tilt) that to sit upright on horseback maketh a\n  good tilter. If therefore it be good and laudable in temporal tilting\n  to sit upright; how much more is it now praiseworthy in God's cause to\n  sit, to stand, and to go uprightly and just!'\"\n\nPrincely. So Shakspeare would have made a Prince Elector talk. The\nmetaphor is so grandly in character.\n\n\nChap. XVII. p. 249.\n\n  \"_Signa sunt subinde facta, minora; res autem et facta subinde\n  creverunt_.\"\n\nA valuable remark. As the substance waxed, that is, became more evident,\nthe ceremonial sign waned, till at length in the Eucharist the 'signum'\nunited itself with the 'significatum', and became consubstantial. The\nceremonial sign, namely, the eating the bread and drinking the wine,\nbecame a symbol, that is, a solemn instance and exemplification of the\nclass of mysterious acts, which we are, or as Christians should be,\nperforming daily and hourly in every social duty and recreation. This is\nindeed to re-create the man in and by Christ. Sublimely did the Fathers\ncall the Eucharist the extension of the Incarnation: only I should have\npreferred the perpetuation and application of the Incarnation.\n\n\nIb.\n\n  A bare writing without a seal is of no force.\n\nMetaphors are sorry logic, especially metaphors from human and those too\nconventional usages to the ordinances of eternal wisdom.\n\n\nIb. p. 250.\n\n  Luther said, \"No. A Christian is wholly and altogether sanctified. * *\n  We must take sure hold on Baptism by faith, as then we shall be, yea,\n  already are, sanctified. In this sort David nameth himself holy.\"\n\nA deep thought. Strong meat for men. It must not be offered for milk.\n\n\nChap. XXI. p. 276.\n\n  Then I will declare him openly to the Church, and in this manner I\n  will say: \"Loving friends, I declare unto you, how that N. N. hath\n  been admonished: first, by myself in private, afterwards also by two\n  chaplains, thirdly, by two aldermen and churchwardens, and those of\n  the assembly: yet notwithstanding he will not desist from his sinful\n  kind of life. Wherefore I earnestly desire you to assist and aid me,\n  to kneel down with me, and let us pray against him, and deliver him\n  over to the Devil.\"\n\nLuther did not mean that this should be done all at once; but that a day\nshould be appointed for the congregation to meet for joint consultation,\nand according to the resolutions passed to choose and commission such\nand such persons to wait on the offender, and to exhort, persuade and\nthreaten him in the name of the congregation: then, if after due time\nallowed, this proved fruitless, to kneel down with the minister, &c.\nSurely, were it only feasible, nothing could be more desirable. But\nalas! it is not compatible with a Church national, the congregations of\nwhich are therefore not gathered nor elected, or with a Church\nestablished by law; for law and discipline are mutually destructive of\neach other, being the same as involuntary and voluntary penance.\n\n\nChap. xxii. p. 290.\n\n  Wicliffe and Huss opposed and assaulted the manner of life and\n  conversation in Popedom. But I chiefly do oppose and resist their\n  doctrine; I affirm roundly and plainly that they teach not aright.\n  Thereto am I called. I take the goose by the neck, and set the knife\n  to the throat. When I can maintain that the Pope's doctrine is false,\n  (which I have proved and maintained), then I will easily prove and\n  maintain that their manner of life is evil.\n\nThis is a remark of deep insight: 'verum vere Lutheranum'.\n\n\nIb. p. 291.\n\n  Ambition and pride (said Luther), are the rankest poison in the Church\n  when they are possessed by preachers. Zuinglius thereby was misled,\n  who did what pleased himself * * * He wrote, \"Ye honorable and good\n  princes must pardon me, in that I give you not your titles; for the\n  glass windows are as well illustrious as ye.\"\n\nOne might fancy, in the Vision-of-Mirza style, that all the angry,\ncontemptuous, haughty expressions of good and zealous men, gallant\nstaff-officers in the army of Christ, formed a rick of straw and\nstubble, which at the last day is to be divided into more or fewer\nhaycocks, according to the number of kind and unfeignedly humble and\ncharitable thoughts and speeches that had intervened, and that these\nwere placed in a pile, leap-frog fashion, in the narrow road to the gate\nof Paradise; and burst into flame as the zeal of the individual\napproached,--so that he must leap over and through them. Now I cannot\nhelp thinking, that this dear man of God, heroic Luther, will find more\nopportunities of showing his agility, and reach the gate in a greater\nsweat and with more blisters 'a parte post' than his brother hero,\nZuinglius. I guess that the comments of the latter on the Prophets will\nbe found almost sterile in these tiger-lilies and brimstone flowers of\npolemic rhetoric, compared with the controversy of the former with our\nHenry VIII., his replies to the Pope's Bulls, and the like.\n\nBy the by, the joke of the 'glass windows' is lost in the translation.\nThe German for illustrious is 'durchlauchtig', that is, transparent or\ntranslucent.\n\n\nIb.\n\n  When we leave to God his name, his kingdom and will, then will he also\n  give unto us our daily bread, and will remit our sins, and deliver us\n  from the devil and all evil. Only his honor he will have to himself.\n\nA brief but most excellent comment on the Lord's Prayer.\n\n\nIb. p. 297.\n\n  There was never any that understood the Old Testament so well as St.\n  Paul, except only John the Baptist.\n\nI cannot conjecture what Luther had in his mind when he made this\nexception.\n\n\nChap. XXVII. p. 335.\n\n  I could wish (said Luther) that the Princes and States of the Empire\n  would make an assembly, and hold a council and a union both in\n  doctrine and ceremonies, so that every one might not break in and run\n  on with such insolency and presumption according to his own brains, as\n  already is begun, whereby many good hearts are offended.\n\nStrange heart of man! Would Luther have given up the doctrine of\njustification by faith alone, had the majority of the Council decided in\nfavor of the Arminian scheme? If not, by what right could he expect\nOEcolampadius or Zuinglius to recant their convictions respecting the\nEucharist, or the Baptists theirs on Infant Baptism, to the same\nauthority? In fact, the wish expressed in this passage must be\nconsidered as a mere flying thought shot out by the mood and feeling of\nthe moment, a sort of conversational flying-fish that dropped as soon as\nthe moisture of the fins had evaporated. The paragraph in p. 336, of\nwhat Councils ought to order, should be considered Luther's genuine\nopinion.\n\n\nIb. p. 337.\n\n  The council of Nice, held after the Apostles' time, (said Luther) was\n  the very best and purest; but soon after in the time of the Emperor\n  Constantine, it was weakened by the Arians.\n\nWhat Arius himself meant, I do not know: what the modern Arians teach, I\nutterly condemn; but that the great council of Ariminum was either Arian\nor heretical I could never discover, or descry any essential difference\nbetween its decisions and the Nicene; though I seem to find a serious\ndifference of the pseudo-Athanasian Creed from both. If there be a\ndifference between the Councils of Nicea and Ariminum, it perhaps\nconsists in this;--that the Nicene was the more anxious to assert the\nequal Divinity in the Filial subordination; the Ariminian to maintain\nthe Filial subordination in the equal Divinity. In both there are three\nself-subsistent and only one self-originated:--which is the substance\nof the idea of the Trinity, as faithfully worded as is compatible with\nthe necessary inadequacy of words to the expression of ideas, that is,\nspiritual truths that can only be spiritually discerned. [4]\n\n18th August, 1826.\n\n\nChap. XXVIII. p. 347.\n\n  God's word a Lord of all Lords.\n\nLuther every where identifies the living Word of God with the written\nword, and rages against Bullinger, who contended that the latter is the\nword of God only as far as and for whom it is the vehicle of the former.\nTo this Luther replies: \"My voice, the vehicle of my words, does not\ncease to be my voice, because it is ignorantly or maliciously\nmisunderstood.\" Yea! (might Bullinger have rejoined) the instance were\napplicable and the argument valid, if we were previously assured that\nall and every part of the Old and New Testament is the voice of the\ndivine Word. But, except by the Spirit, whence are we to ascertain this?\nNot from the books themselves; for not one of them makes the pretension\nfor itself, and the two or three texts, which seem to assert it, refer\nonly to the Law and the Prophets, and no where enumerate the books that\nwere given by inspiration: and how obscure the history of the formation\nof the Canon, and how great the difference of opinion respecting its\ndifferent parts, what scholar is ignorant?\n\n\nChap. XXIX. p. 349.\n\n  'Patres, quamquam s\u00e6pe errant, tamen venerandi propter testimonium\n  fidei.'\n\nAlthough I learn from all this chapter, that Luther was no great\nPatrician, (indeed he was better employed), yet I am nearly, if not\nwholly of his mind respecting the works of the Fathers. Those which\nappear to me of any great value are valuable chiefly for those articles\nof Christian Faith which are, as it were, 'ante Christum' JESUM, namely,\nthe Trinity, and the primal Incarnation spoken of by John i, 10. But in\nthe main I should perhaps go even farther than Luther; for I cannot\nconceive any thing more likely than that a young man of strong and\nactive intellect, who has no fears, or suffers no fears of worldly\nprudence to cry, Halt! to him in his career of consequential logic, and\nwho has been 'innutritus et juratus' in the Grotio-Paleyan scheme of\nChristian evidence, and who has been taught by the men and books, which\nhe has been bred up to regard as authority, to consider all inward\nexperiences as fanatical delusions;--I say, I can scarcely conceive such\na young man to make a serious study of the Fathers of the first four or\nfive centuries without becoming either a Romanist or a Deist. Let him\nonly read Petavius and the different Patristic and Ecclesiastico\n-historical tracts of Semler, and have no better philosophy than that of\nLocke, no better theology than that of Arminius and Bishop Jeremy\nTaylor, and I should tremble for his belief. Yet why tremble for a\nbelief which is the very antipode of faith? Better for such a man to\nprecipitate himself on to the utmost goal: for then perhaps he may in\nthe repose of intellectual activity feel the nothingness of his prize,\nor the wretchedness of it; and then perhaps the inward yearning after a\nreligion may make him ask;--\"Have I not mistaken the road at the outset?\nAm I sure that the Reformers, Luther and the rest collectively, were\nfanatics?\"\n\n\nIb. p. 351.\n\n  'Take no care what ye shall eat'. As though that commandment did not\n  hinder the carping and caring for the daily bread.\n\nFor 'caring,' read, 'anxiety!' 'Sit tibi cur\u00e6, non autem solicitudini,\npanis quotidianus'.\n\n\nIb. p. 351.\n\n  Even so it was with Ambrose: he wrote indeed well and purely, was more\n  serious in writing than Austin, who was amiable and mild. * * *\n  Fulgentius is the best poet, and far above Horace both with sentences,\n  fair speeches and good actions; he is well worthy to be ranked and\n  numbered with and among the poets.\n\n'Der Teufel'! Surely the epithets should be reversed. Austin's\nmildness--the 'durus pater infantum'! And the 'super'-Horatian\neffulgence of Master Foolgentius! O Swan! thy critical cygnets are but\ngoslings.\n\nN.B. I have, however, since I wrote the above, heard Mr. J. Hookham\nFrere speak highly of Fulgentius.\n\n\nIb. p. 352.\n\n  For the Fathers were but men, and to speak the truth, their reputes\n  and authorities did undervalue and suppress the books and writings of\n  the sacred Apostles of Christ.\n\nWe doubtless find in the writings of the Fathers of the second century,\nand still more strongly in those of the third, passages concerning the\nScriptures that seem to say the same as we Protestants now do. But then\nwe find the very same phrases used of writings not Apostolic, or with no\nother difference than what the greater name of the authors would\nnaturally produce; just as a Platonist would speak of Speusippus's\nbooks, were they extant, compared with those of later teachers of\nPlatonism;--'He was Plato's nephew-had seen Plato--was his appointed\nsuccessor, &c.' But in inspiration the early Christians, as far as I can\njudge, made no generic difference, let Lardner say what he will. Can he\ndisprove that it was declared heretical by the Church in the second\ncentury to believe the written words of a dead Apostle in opposition to\nthe words of a living Bishop, seeing that the same spirit which guided\nthe Apostles dwells in and guides the Bishops of the Church? This at\nleast is certain, that the later the age of the writer, the stronger the\nexpression of comparative superiority of the Scriptures; the earlier, on\nthe other hand, the more we hear of the 'Symbolum', the 'Regula Fidei',\nthe Creed.\n\n\nChap. XXXII. p. 362.\n\n  The history of the Prophet Jonas is so great that it is almost\n  incredible; yea, it soundeth more strange than any of the poets'\n  fables, and (said Luther) if it stood not in the Bible, I should take\n  it for a lie.\n\nIt is quite wonderful that Luther, who could see so plainly that the\nbook of Judith was an allegoric poem, should have been blind to the book\nof Jonas being an apologue, in which Jonah means the Israelitish nation.\n\n\nIb. p. 364.\n\n  For they entered into the garden about the hour at noon day, and\n  having appetites to eat, she took delight in the apple; then about two\n  of the clock, according to our account, was the fall.\n\nMilton has adopted this notion in the Paradise Lost--not improbably from\nthis book.\n\n\nIb. p. 365.\n\n  David made a Psalm of two and twenty parts, in each of which are eight\n  verses, and yet in all is but one kind of meaning, namely, he will\n  only say, Thy law or word is good.\n\nI have conjectured that the 119th Psalm might have been a form of\nordination, in which a series of candidates made their prayers and\nprofession in the open Temple before they went to the several synagogues\nin the country.\n\n\nIb.\n\n  But (said Luther) I say, he did well and right thereon: for the office\n  of a magistrate is to punish the guilty and wicked malefactors. He\n  made a vow, indeed, not to punish him, but that is to be understood,\n  so long as David lived.\n\nO Luther! Luther! ask your own heart if this is not Jesuit morality.\n\n\nChap. XXXIII. v. 367.\n\n  I believe (said Luther) the words of our Christian belief were in such\n  sort ordained by the Apostles, who were together, and made this sweet\n  'Symbolum' so briefly and comfortable.\n\nIt is difficult not to regret that Luther had so superficial a knowledge\nof Ecclesiastical antiquities: for example, his belief in this fable of\nthe Creed having been a 'picnic' contribution of the twelve Apostles,\neach giving a sentence. Whereas nothing is more certain than that it was\nthe gradual product of three or four centuries.\n\n\nChap. XXXIV. p. 369.\n\n  An angel (said Luther) is a spiritual creature created by God without\n  a body for the service of Christendom, especially in the office of the\n  Church.\n\nWhat did Luther mean by a body? For to me the word seemeth capable of\ntwo senses, universal and special:--first, a form indicating to A. B. C.\n&c., the existence and finiteness of some one other being\n'demonstrative' as 'hic', and 'disjunctive' as 'hic et non ille'; and in\nthis sense God alone can be without body: secondly, that which is not\nmerely 'hic distinctive', but 'divisive'; yea, a product divisible from\nthe producent as a snake from its skin, a precipitate and death of\nliving power; and in this sense the body is proper to mortality, and to\nbe denied of spirits made perfect as well as of the spirits that never\nfell from perfection, and perhaps of those who fell below mortality,\nnamely, the devils.\n\nBut I am inclined to hold that the Devil has no one body, nay, no body\nof his own; but ceaselessly usurps or counterfeits bodies; for he is an\neverlasting liar, yea, the lie which is the colored shadow of the\nsubstance that intercepts the truth.\n\n\nIb. p. 370.\n\n  The devils are in woods, in waters, in wildernesses, and in dark pooly\n  places, ready to hurt and prejudice people, &c.\n\n  \"The angel's like a flea,\n    The devil is a bore;--\"\n  No matter for that! quoth S.T.C.\n    I love him the better therefore.\n\nYes! heroic Swan, I love thee even when thou gabbiest like a goose; for\nthy geese helped to save the Capitol.\n\n\nIb. p. 371.\n\n  I do verily believe (said Luther) that the day of judgment draweth\n  near, and that the angels prepare themselves for the fight and combat,\n  and that within the space of a few hundred years they will strike down\n  both Turk and Pope into the bottomless pit of hell.\n\nYea! two or three more such angels as thyself, Martin Luther, and thy\nprediction would be, or perhaps would now have been, accomplished.\n\n\nChap. XXXV. p. 388.\n\n  Cogitations of the understanding do produce no melancholy, but the\n  cogitations of the will cause sadness; as, when one is grieved at a\n  thing, or when one doth sigh and complain, there are melancholy and\n  sad cogitations, but the understanding is not melancholy.\n\nEven in Luther's lowest imbecilities what gleams of vigorous good sense!\nHad he understood the nature and symptoms of indigestion together with\nthe detail of subjective seeing and hearing, and the existence of\nmid-states of the brain between sleeping and waking, Luther would have\nbeen a greater philosopher; but would he have been so great a hero? I\ndoubt it. Praised be God whose mercy is over all his works; who bringeth\ngood out of evil, and manifesteth his wisdom even in the follies of his\nservants, his strength in their weakness!\n\n\nIb. p. 389.\n\n  Whoso prayeth a Psalm shall be made thoroughly warm.\n\n'Expertus credo'.\n\n19th Aug. 1826.\n\nI have learnt to interpret for myself the imprecating verses of the\nPsalms of my inward and spiritual enemies, the old Adam and all his\ncorrupt menials; and thus I am no longer, as I used to be, stopped or\nscandalized by such passages as vindictive and anti-Christian.\n\n\nIb.\n\n  The Devil (said Luther) oftentimes objected and argued against me the\n  whole cause which, through God's grace, I lead. He objecteth also\n  against Christ. But better it were that the Temple brake in pieces\n  than that Christ should therein remain obscure and hid.\n\nSublime!\n\n\nIb.\n\n  In Job are two chapters concerning 'Behemoth' the whale, that by\n  reason of him no man is in safety. * * These are colored words and\n  figures whereby the Devil is signified and showed.\n\nA slight mistake of brother Martin's. The 'Behemoth' of Job is beyond a\ndoubt neither whale nor devil, but, I think, the hippopotamus; who is\nindeed as ugly as the devil, and will occasionally play the devil among\nthe rice-grounds; but though in this respect a devil of a fellow, yet on\nthe whole he is too honest a monster to be a fellow of devils. 'Vindici\u00e6\nBehemotic\u00e6'.\n\n\nChap. XXXVI. p. 390.\n\n  'Of Witchcraft'.\n\nIt often presses on my mind as a weighty argument in proof of at least a\nnegative inspiration, an especial restraining grace, in the composition\nof the Canonical books, that though the writers individually did (the\ngreater number at least) most probably believe in the objective reality\nof witchcraft, yet no such direct assertions as these of Luther's, which\nwould with the vast majority of Christians have raised it into an\narticle of faith, are to be found in either Testament. That the 'Ob' and\n'Oboth' of Moses are no authorities for this absurd superstition, has\nbeen unanswerably shewn by Webster. [5]\n\n\nChap. XXXVII. p. 398.\n\n  To conclude, (said Luther), I never yet knew a troubled and perplexed\n  man, that was right in his own wits.\n\nA sound observation of great practical utility. Edward Irving should be\naware of this in dealing with conscience-troubled (but in fact\nfancy-vexed) women.\n\n\nIb.\n\n  It was not a thorn in the flesh touching the unchaste love he bore\n  towards Tecla, as the Papists dream.\n\nI should like to know how high this strange legend can be traced. The\nother tradition that St. Paul was subject to epileptic fits, has a less\nlegendary character. The phrase 'thorn in the flesh' is scarcely\nreconcilable with Luther's hypothesis, otherwise than as doubts of the\nobjectivity of his vision, and of his after revelations may have been\nconsequences of the disease, whatever that might be.\n\n\nIb. p. 399.\n\n  Our Lord God doth like a printer, who setteth the letters backwards;\n  we see and feel well his setting, but we shall see the print yonder in\n  the life to come.\n\nA beautiful simile. Add that even in this world the lives, especially\nthe autobiographies, of eminent servants of Christ, are like the\nlooking-glass or mirror, which, reversing the types, renders them\nlegible to us.\n\n\nIb. p. 403.\n\n  'Indignus sum, sed dignus fui--creari a Deo', &c. Although I am\n  unworthy, yet nevertheless 'I have been' worthy, 'in that I am'\n  created of God, &c.\n\nThe translation does not give the true sense of the Latin. It should be\n'was' and 'to be'. The 'dignus fui' has here the sense of 'dignum me\nhabuit Deus'. See Herbert's little poem in the Temple:\n\n  Sweetest Saviour, if my soul\n    Were but worth the having,\n  Quickly should I then control\n    Any thought of waving;\n  But when all my care and pains\n    Cannot give the name of gains\n  To thy wretch so full of stains,\n    What delight or hope remains?\n\n\nIb. p. 404.\n\n  The chiefest physic for that disease (but very hard and difficult it\n  is to be done) is, that they firmly hold such cogitations not to be\n  theirs, but that most sure and certain they come of the Devil.\n\nMore and more I understand the immense difference between the\nFaith-article of 'the Devil' ([Greek: tou Ponaero\u00f9]) and the\nsuperstitious fancy of devils: 'animus objectivus dominationem in'\n[Greek: t\u00f2n Eim\u00ec] 'affectans'; [Greek: o\u00fatos t\u00f2 m\u00e9ga \u00f3rganon Diab\u00f3lou\nhyp\u00e1rchei].\n\n\nChap. XLIV. p. 431.\n\n  I truly advise all those (said Luther) who earnestly do affect the\n  honor of Christ and the Gospel, that they would be enemies to Erasmus\n  Roterodamus, for he is a devaster of religion. Do but read only his\n  dialogue 'De Peregrinatione', where you will see how he derideth and\n  flouteth the whole religion, and at last concludeth out of single\n  abominations, that he rejecteth religion, &c.\n\nReligion here means the vows and habits of the religious or those bound\nto a particular life;--the monks, friars, nuns, in short, the regulars\nin contradistinction from the laity and the secular Clergy.\n\n\nIb. p. 432.\n\n  Erasmus can do nothing but cavil and flout, he cannot confute. If\n  (said Luther) I were a Papist, so could I easily overcome and beat\n  him. For although he flouteth the Pope with his ceremonies, yet he\n  neither hath confuted nor overcome him; no enemy is beaten nor\n  overcome with mocking, jeering, and flouting.\n\nMost true; but it is an excellent pioneer and an excellent 'corps de\nreserve', cavalry for pursuit, and for clearing the field of battle, and\nin the first use Luther was greatly obliged to Erasmus. But such utter\nunlikes cannot but end in dislikes, and so it proved between Erasmus and\nLuther. Erasmus, might the Protestants say, wished no good to the Church\nof Rome, and still less to our party: it was with him 'Rot her and Dam\nus'!\n\n\nChap. XLVIII. p. 442.\n\n  David's example is full of offences, that so holy a man, chosen of\n  God, should fall into such great abominable sins and blasphemies;\n  when as before he was very fortunate and happy, of whom all the\n  bordering kingdoms were afraid, for God was with him.\n\nIf any part of the Old Testament be typical, the whole life and\ncharacter of David, from his birth to his death, are eminently so. And\naccordingly the history of David and his Psalms, which form a most\ninteresting part of his history, occupies as large a portion of the Old\nTestament as all the others. The type is two-fold-now of the Messiah,\nnow of the Church, and of the Church in all its relations, persecuted,\nvictorious, backsliding, penitent. N.B. I do not find David charged with\nany vices, though with heavy crimes. So it is with the Church. Vices\ndestroy its essence.\n\n\nIb.\n\n  The same was a strange kind of offence (said Luther) that the world\n  was offended at him who raised the dead, who made the blind to see,\n  and the deaf to hear, &c.\n\nOur Lord alluded to the verse that immediately follows and completes his\nquotations from Isaiah. [6] I, Jehovah, will come and do this. That he\nimplicitly declared himself the Jehovah, the Word,--this was the\noffence.\n\n\nChap. XLIX. p. 443.\n\n  God wills, may one say, that we should serve him freewillingly, but he\n  that serveth God out of fear of punishment of hell, or out of a hope\n  and love of recompence, the same serveth and honoreth God not freely;\n  therefore such a one serveth God not uprightly nor truly.\n\n  _Answer_. This argument (said Luther) is Stoical, &c.\n\nA truly wise paragraph. Pity it was not expounded. God will accept our\nimperfections, where their face is turned toward him, on the road to the\nglorious liberty of the Gospel.\n\n\nChap. L. p. 446.\n\n  It is the highest grace and gift of God to have an honest, a\n  God-fearing, housewifely consort, &c. But God thrusteth many into the\n  state of matrimony before they be aware and rightly bethink\n  themselves.\n\n  The state of matrimony (said Luther) is the chiefest state in the\n  world after religion, &c.\n\nAlas! alas! this is the misery of it, that so many wed and so few are\nChristianly married! But even in this the analogy of matrimony to the\nreligion of Christ holds good: for even such is the proportion of\nnominal to actual Christians;--all _christened_, how few baptized! But\nin true matrimony it is beautiful to consider, how peculiarly the\nmarriage state harmonizes with the doctrine of justification by free\ngrace through faith alone. The little quarrels, the imperfections on\nboth sides, the occasional frailties, yield to the one thought,--there\nis love at the bottom. If sickness or other sorer calamity visit me, how\nwould the love then blaze forth! The faults are there, but they are not\nimprinted. The prickles, the acrid rind, the bitterness or sourness, are\ntransformed into the ripe fruit, and the foreknowledge of this gives the\nname and virtue of the ripe fruit to the fruit yet green on the bough.\n\n\nIb. p. 447.\n\n  The causers and founders of matrimony are chiefly God's commandments,\n  &c. It is a state instituted by God himself, visited by Christ in\n  person, and presented with a glorious present; for God said, 'It is\n  not good that the man should be alone': therefore the wife should be a\n  help to the husband, to the end that human generations may be\n  increased, and children nurtured to God's honour, and to the profit of\n  people and countries; also to keep our bodies in sanctification.\n\n(Add) and in mutual reverence, our spirits in a state of love and\ntenderness; and our imaginations pure and tranquil.\n\nIn a word, matrimony not only preserveth human generations so that the\nsame remain continually, but it preserveth the generations human.\n\n\nIb. p. 450.\n\n  In the synod at Leipzig the lawyers concluded that secret contractors\n  should be punished with banishment and be disinherited. Whereupon\n  (said Luther) I sent them word that I would not allow thereof, it were\n  too gross a proceeding, &c. But nevertheless I hold it fitting, that\n  those which in such sort do secretly contract themselves, ought\n  sharply to be reproved, yea, also in some measure severely punished.\n\nWhat a sweet union of prudence and kind nature! Scold them sharply, and\nperhaps let them smart a while for their indiscretion and disobedience;\nand then kiss and make it up, remembering that young folks will be young\nfolks, and that love has its own law and logic.\n\n\nChap. LIX. p. 481.\n\n  The presumption and boldness of the sophists and School-divines is a\n  very ungodly thing, which some of the Fathers also approved of and\n  extolled; namely of spiritual significations in the Holy Scripture,\n  whereby she is pitifully tattered and torn in pieces. It is an apish\n  work in such sort to juggle with Holy Scripture: it is no otherwise\n  than if I should discourse of physic in this manner: the fever is a\n  sickness, rhubarb is the physic. The fever signified! the sins\n --rhubarb is Jesus Christ, &c.\n\n  Who seeth not here (said Luther) that such significations are mere\n  juggling tricks? _Even so_ and after the same manner are they deceived\n  that say, Children ought to be baptized again, because they had not\n  faith.\n\nFor the life of me, I cannot find the 'even so' in this sentence. The\nwatchman cries, 'half-past three o'clock.' Even so, and after the same\nmanner, the great Cham of Tartary has a carbuncle on his nose.\n\n\nChap. LX. p. 483.\n\n  George in the Greek tongue, is called a 'builder', that buildeth\n  countries and people with justice and righteousness, &c.\n\nA mistake for a tiller or boor, from 'Bauer', 'bauen'. The latter hath\ntwo senses, to build and to bring into cultivation.\n\n\nChap. LXX. p. 503.\n\n  I am now advertised (said Luther) that a new astrologer is risen, who\n  presumeth to prove that the earth moveth and goeth about, not the\n  firmament, the sun and moon, nor the stars; like as when one who\n  sitteth in a coach or in a ship and is moved, thinketh he sitteth\n  still and resteth, but the earth and the trees go, run, and move\n  themselves. Therefore thus it goeth, when we give up ourselves to our\n  own foolish fancies and conceits. This fool will turn the whole art of\n  astronomy upside-down, but the Scripture sheweth and teacheth him\n  another lesson, when Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not\n  the earth.\n\nThere is a similar, but still more intolerant and contemptuous anathema\nof the Copernican system in Sir Thomas Brown, almost two centuries later\nthan Luther.\n\nThough the problem is of no difficult solution for reflecting minds, yet\nfor the reading many it would be a serviceable work, to bring together\nand exemplify the causes of the extreme and universal credulity that\ncharacterizes sundry periods of history (for example, from A.D. 1400 to\nA.D. 1650): and credulity involves lying and delusion--for by a seeming\nparadox liars are always credulous, though credulous persons are not\nalways liars; although they most often are.\n\nIt would be worth while to make a collection of the judgments of eminent\nmen in their generation respecting the Copernican or Pythagorean scheme.\nOne writer (I forget the name) inveighs against it as Popery, and a\nPopish stratagem to reconcile the minds of men to Transubstantiation and\nthe Mass. For if we may contradict the evidence of our senses in a\nmatter of natural philosophy, 'a fortiori', or much more, may we be\nexpected to do so in a matter of faith.\n\nIn my Noetic, or Doctrine and Discipline of Ideas = 'logice, Organon'--I\npurpose to select some four, five or more instances of the sad effects\nof the absence of ideas in the use of words and in the understanding of\ntruths, in the different departments of life; for example, the word\n'body', in connection with resurrection-men, &c.--and the last\ninstances, will (please God!) be the sad effects on the whole system of\nChristian divinity. I must remember Asgill's book. [7]\n\nReligion necessarily, as to its main and proper doctrines, consists of\nideas, that is, spiritual truths that can only be spiritually discerned,\nand to the expression of which words are necessarily inadequate, and\nmust be used by accommodation. Hence the absolute indispensability of a\nChristian life, with its conflicts and inward experiences, which alone\ncan make a man to answer to an opponent, who charges one doctrine as\ncontradictory to another,--\"Yes! it is a contradiction in terms; but\nnevertheless so it is, and both are true, nay, parts of the same\ntruth.\"--But alas! besides other evils there is this,--that the Gospel\nis preached in fragments, and what the hearer can recollect of the sum\ntotal of these is to be his Christian knowledge and belief. This is a\ngrievous error. First, labour to enlighten the hearer as to the essence\nof the Christian dispensation, the grounding and pervading idea, and\nthen set it forth in its manifold perspective, its various stages and\nmodes of manifestation. In this as in almost all other qualities of a\npreacher of Christ, Luther after Paul and John is the great master. None\nsaw more clearly than he, that the same proposition, which, addressed to\na Christian in his first awakening out of the death of sin was a most\nwholesome, nay, a necessary, truth, would be a most condemnable\nAntinomian falsehood, if addressed to a secure Christian boasting and\ntrusting in 'his' faith--yes, in 'his' own faith, instead of the faith\nof Christ communicated to him.\n\nI cannot utter how dear and precious to me are the contents of pages\n197-199, to line 17, of this work, more particularly the section headed:\n\n  How we ought to carry ourselves towards the Law's accusations.\n\nAdd to these the last two sections of p. 201. [8] the last touching St.\nAustin's opinion [9] especially. Likewise, the first half of p. 202.\n[10] But indeed the whole of the 12th chapter 'Of the Law and the\nGospel' is of inestimable value to a serious and earnest minister of the\nGospel. Here he may learn both the orthodox faith, and a holy prudence\nin the time and manner of preaching the same.\n\nJuly, 1829.\n\n\n\n[Footnote 1: 'Doctoris Martini Lutheri Colloquia Mensalia:' or Dr.\nMartin Luther's Divine Discourses at his Table, &c. Collected first\ntogether by Dr. Antonius Lauterbach, and afterwards disposed into\ncertain common-places by John Aurifaber, Doctor in Divinity. Translated\nby Capt. Henry Bell. 'Folio' London, 1652.]\n\n\n[Footnote 2:  N. B. I should not have written the above note in my\npresent state of light;--not that I find it false, but that it may have\nthe effect of falsehood by not going deep enough. July, 1829.]\n\n\n[Footnote 3: Charles Lamb.--Ed.]\n\n\n[Footnote 4:\n\n  \"Out of the number of 400, there were but 80 Arians at the utmost. The\n  other 320 and more were really orthodox men, induced by artifices to\n  subscribe a Creed which they understood in a good sense, but which,\n  being worded in general terms, was capable of being perverted to a bad\n  one.\"\n\n'Waterland, Vindication', &c., c. vi.--'Ed'.]\n\n\n[Footnote 5: The Displaying of supposed Witchcraft, &c. London. 'folio'.\n1677. 'Ed'.]\n\n\n[Footnote 6: Isaiah xxxv. 4. lxi 1. Ed. Luke iv. 18, 19.]\n\n\n[Footnote 7:\n\n  \"An argument proving that, according to the covenant of eternal life,\n  revealed in the Scriptures, man may be translated from hence, without\n  passing through death, although the human nature of Christ himself\n  could not be thus translated, till he had passed through death.\"\n\nSee 'Table Talk. 2nd Edit'. p. 127. 'Ed'.]\n\n\n[Footnote 8: We must preach the Law (said Luther) for the sakes of the\nevil and wicked, &c.]\n\n\n[Footnote 9: The opinion of St. Austin is (said Luther) that the Law\nwhich through human strength, natural understanding and wisdom is\nfulfilled, justifieth not, &c.]\n\n\n[Footnote 10: Whether we should preach only of God's grace and mercy or\nnot. From \"Philip Melancthon demanded of Luther\"--to \"yet we must press\nthrough, and not suffer ourselves to recoil.\"]\n\n\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\n\nNOTES ON THE LIFE OF ST. TERESA. 1812. [1]\n\nPref. Part I. p. 51. Letter of Father Avila to Mother Teresa de Jesu.\n\n  Persons ought to beseech our Lord not to conduct them by the way of\n  seeing; but that the happy sight of him and of his saints be reserved\n  for heaven; and that, here he would conduct them in the plain, beaten\n  road, &c. * * But if, doing all this, the visions continue, and the\n  soul reaps profit thereby, &c.\n\nIn what other language could a young woman check while she soothed her\nespoused lover, in his too eager demonstrations of his passion? And yet\nthe art of the Roman priests,--to keep up the delusion as serviceable,\nyet keep off those forms of it most liable to detection, by medical\ncommentary!\n\n\nLife, Part I. Chap. IV. p. 15.\n\n  But our Lord began to regale me so much by this way, that he\n  vouchsafed me the favor to give me quiet prayer; and sometimes it came\n  so far as to arrive at union; though I understood neither the one nor\n  the other, nor how much they both deserve to be prized. But I believe\n  it would have been a great deal of happiness for me to have understood\n  them. True it is, that this union rested with me for so short a time,\n  that perhaps it might arrive to be but as of an 'Ave Maria'; yet I\n  remained with so very great effects thereof, that with not being then\n  so much as twenty years old, methought I found the whole world under\n  my feet.\n\n  Dreams, the soul herself forsaking;\n  Fearful raptures; childlike mirth.\n  Silent adorations, making\n  A blessed shadow of this earth!\n\n\nIb. Chap. V. p. 24.\n\n  I received also the blessed Sacrament with many tears; though yet, in\n  my opinion, they were not shed with that sense and grief, for only my\n  having offended God, which might have served to save my soul; if the\n  error into which I was brought by them who told me that some things\n  were not mortal sins, (which afterward I saw plainly that they were)\n  might not somewhat bestead me. *** Methinks, that without doubt my\n  soul might have run a hazard of not being saved, if I had died then.\n\nCan we wonder that some poor hypochondriasts and epileptics have\nbelieved themselves possessed by, or rather to be the Devil himself, and\nso spoke in this imagined character, when this poor afflicted spotless\ninnocent could be so pierced through with fanatic pre-conceptions, as to\ntalk in this manner of her mortal sins, and their probable eternal\npunishment;--and this too, under the most fervent sense of God's love\nand mercy!\n\n\nIb. p. 43.\n\n  True it is, that I am both the most weak, and the most wicked of any\n  living.\n\n\nWhat is the meaning of these words, that occur so often in the works of\ngreat saints? Do they believe them literally? Or is it a specific\nsuspension of the comparing power and the memory, vouchsafed them as a\ngift of grace?--a gift of telling a lie without breach of veracity--a\ngift of humility indemnifying pride.\n\n\nIb. Chap. VIII. p. 44.\n\n  I have not without cause been considering and reflecting upon this\n  life of mine so long, for I discern well enough that nobody will have\n  gust to look upon a thing so very wicked.\n\nAgain! Can this first sentence be other than madness or a lie? For\nobserve, the question is not, whether Teresa was or was not positively\nvery wicked; but whether according to her own scale of virtue she was\nmost and very wicked comparatively. See post Chap. X. p. 57-8.\n\nThat relatively to the command 'Be ye perfect even as your Father in\nHeaven is perfect', and before the eye of his own pure reason, the best\nof men may deem himself mere folly and imperfection, I can easily\nconceive; but this is not the case in question. It is here a comparison\nof one man with all others of whom he has known or heard;--'ergo', a\nmatter of experience; and in this sense it is impossible, without loss\nof memory and judgment on the one hand, or of veracity and simplicity on\nthe other. Besides, of what use is it? To draw off our conscience from\nthe relation between ourselves and the perfect ideal appointed for our\nimitation, to the vain comparison of one individual self with other men!\nWill their sins lessen mine, though they were greater? Does not every\nman stand or fall to his own Maker according to his own being?\n\n\nIb. p. 45.\n\n  I see not what one thing there is of so many as are to be found in the\n  whole world, wherein there is need of a greater courage than to treat\n  of committing treason against a king, and to know that he knows it\n  well, and yet never to go out of his presence. For howsoever it be\n  very true that we are always in the presence of God; yet methinks that\n  they who converse with him in prayer are in his presence after a more\n  particular manner; for they are seeing then that he sees them; whereas\n  others may, perhaps, remain some days in his presence, yet without\n  remembering that he looks upon them.\n\nA very pretty and sweet remark: truth in new feminine beauty!\n\n'In fine'.\n\nHow incomparably educated was Teresa for a mystic saint, a mother of\ntransports and fusions of spirit!\n\n1. A woman;\n\n2. Of rank, and reared delicately;\n\n3. A Spanish lady;\n\n4. With very pious parents and sisters;\n\n5. Accustomed in early childhood to read \"with most believing heart\" all\nthe legends of saints, martyrs, Spanish martyrs, who fought against the\nMoors;\n\n6. In the habit of privately (without the knowledge of the superstitious\nFather) reading books of chivalry to her mother, and then all night to\nherself.\n\n7. Then her Spanish sweet-hearting, doubtless in the true Oroondates\nstyle--and with perfect innocence, as far as appears; and this giving of\naudience to a dying swain through a grated window, on having received a\nlover's messages of flames and despair, with her aversion at fifteen or\nsixteen years of age to shut herself up for ever in a strict nunnery,\nappear to have been those mortal sins, of which she accuses herself,\nadded, perhaps to a few warm fancies of earthly love;\n\n8. A frame of exquisite sensibility by nature, rendered more so by a\nburning fever, which no doubt had some effect upon her brain, as she was\nfrom that time subject to frequent fainting fits and 'deliquia':\n\n9. Frightened at her Uncle's, by reading to him Dante's books of Hell\nand Judgment, she confesses that she at length resolved on nunhood\nbecause she thought it could not be much worse than Purgatory--and that\npurgatory here was a cheap expiation for Hell for ever;\n\n10. Combine these (and I have proceeded no further than the eleventh\npage of her life) and think, how impossible it was, but that such a\ncreature, so innocent, and of an imagination so heated, and so well\npeopled should often mistake the first not painful, and in such a frame,\noften pleasurable approaches to 'deliquium' for divine raptures; and\njoin the instincts of nature acting in the body of a mind unconscious of\nthem, in the keenly sensitive body of a mind so loving and so innocent,\nand what remains to be solved which the stupidity of most and the\nroguery of a few would not simply explain?\n\n11. One source it is almost criminal to have forgotten, and which p. 12.\nof the first Part brought back to my recollection; I mean, the\neffects--so super-sensual that they may easily and most venially pass\nfor supernatural, so very glorious to human nature that, though in truth\nthey are humanity itself in the contradistinguishing sense of that awful\nword, it is yet no wonder that, conscious of the sore weaknesses united\nin one person with this one nobler nature we attribute them to a\ndivinity out of us, (a mistake of the sensuous imagination in its\nmisapplication of space and place, rather than a misnomer of the thing\nitself, for it is verily [Greek: ho the\u00f2s en haemin ho oikeios the\u00f3s],)\nthe effects, I mean, of the moral force after conquest, the state of the\nwhole being after the victorious struggle, in which the will has\npreserved its perfect freedom by a vehement energy of perfect obedience\nto the pure or practical reason, or conscience. Thence flows in upon and\nfills the soul 'that peace which passeth understanding', a state\naffronted and degraded by the name of pleasure, injured and\nmis-represented even by that of happiness, the very corner stone of that\nmorality which cannot even in thought be distinguished from religion,\nand which seems to mean religion as long as the instinctive craving, dim\nand dark though it may be, of the moral sense after this unknown state\n(known only by the bitterness where it is not) shall remain in human\nnature! Under all forms of positive or philosophic religion, it has\ndeveloped itself, too glorious an attribute of man to be confined to any\nname or sect; but which, it is but truth and historical fact to say, is\nmore especially fostered and favoured by Christianity; and its frequent\nappearance even under the most selfish and unchristian forms of\nChristianity is a stronger evidence of the divinity of that religion,\nthan all the miracles of Brahma and Veeshnou could afford, even though\nthey were supported with tenfold the judicial evidence of the Gospel\nmiracles. [2]\n\n\n\n[Footnote 1: The works of the Holy Mother St. Teresa of Jesus Foundress\nof the Reformation of the Discalced Carmelites. Divided into two parts.\nTranslated into English. MDCLXXV. Ed.]\n\n\n\n[Footnote 2: London 1685.]\n\n\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\n\nNOTES ON BURNET'S LIFE OF BISHOP BEDELL. [1]\n\n1810.\n\n\nP. 12.-14.\n\n  Here I must add a passage, concerning which I am in doubt whether it\n  reflected more on the sincerity, or on the understanding of the\n  English Ambassador. The breach between the Pope and the Republic was\n  brought very near a crisis, &c.\n\nThese pages contain a weak and unhandsome attack on Wotton, who\ndoubtless had discovered that the presentation of the Premonition\npreviously to the reconciliation as publicly completed, but after it had\nbeen privately agreed on, between the Court of Rome and the Senate of\nVenice, would embarrass the latter: whereas, delivered as it was, it\nshewed the King's and his minister's zeal for Protestantism, and yet\nsupplied the Venetians with an answer not disrespectful to the king.\nBesides, what is there in Wotton's whole life (a man so disinterested,\nand who retired from all his embassies so poor) to justify the remotest\nsuspicion of his insincerity? What can this word mean less or other than\nthat Sir H. W. was either a crypt-Papist, or had received a bribe from\nthe Romish party? Horrid accusations!--Burnet was notoriously rash and\ncredulous; but I remember no other instance in which his zeal for the\nReformation joined with his credulity has misled him into so gross a\ncalumny. It is not to be believed, that Bedell gave any authority to\nsuch an aspersion of his old and faithful friend and patron, further\nthan that he had related the fact, and that he and the minister differed\nin opinion as to the prudence of the measure recommended. How laxly too\nthe story is narrated! The exact date of the recommendation by Father\nPaul and the divines should have been given;--then the date of the\npublic annunciation of the reconciliation between the Pope and Venetian\nRepublic; and lastly the day on which Wotton did present the book;--for\neven this Burnet leaves uncertain.\n\n\nP. 26.\n\n  It is true he never returned and changed his religion himself, but his\n  son came from Spain into Ireland, when Bedell was promoted to the\n  Bishopric of Kilmore there, and told him, that his father commanded\n  him to thank him for the pains he was at in writing it. He said, it\n  was almost always lying open before him, and that he had heard him\n  say, \"He was resolved to save one.\" And it seems he instructed his son\n  in the true religion, for he declared himself a Protestant on his\n  coming over.\n\nSouthey has given me a bad character of this son of the unhappy convert\nto the Romish Church. He became, it seems, a spy on the Roman Catholics,\navailing himself of his father's character among them, a crime which\nwould indeed render his testimony null and more than null; it would be a\npresumption of the contrary. It is clear from his letters to Bedell that\nthe convert was a very weak man. I owe to him, however, a complete\nconfirmation of my old persuasion concerning Bishop Hall, whom from my\nfirst perusal of his works I have always considered as one of the blots\n(alas! there are too many) of the biography of the Church of England; a\nself-conceited, coarse-minded, persecuting, vulgar priest, and (by way\nof 'anti-climax') one of the first corrupters of and epigrammatizers of\nour English prose style. It is not true, that Sir Thomas Brown was the\nprototype of Dr. Johnson, who imitated him only as far as Sir T. B.\nresembles the majority of his predecessors; that is, in the pedantic\npreference of Latin derivations to Saxon words of the very same force.\nIn the balance and construction of his periods Dr. Johnson has followed\nHall, as any intelligent reader will discover by an attentive comparison.\n\n\nP. 158.\n\n  Yea, will some man say, \"But that which marreth all is the opinion of\n  merit and satisfaction.\" Indeed that is the School doctrine, but the\n  conscience enlightened to know itself, will easily act that part of\n  the Publican, 'who smote his breast, and said, God be merciful to me a\n  sinner'.\n\nAlas! so far from this being the case with ninety nine out of one\nhundred in Spain, Italy, Sicily, and Roman Catholic Germany, it is the\nGospel tenets that are the true School doctrine, that is confined to\nbooks and closets of the learned among them.\n\n\nP. 161.\n\n  And the like may be conceived here, since, especially, the idolatry\n  practised under the obedience of mystical Babylon is rather in false\n  and will-worship of the true God, and rather commended as profitable\n  than enjoined as absolutely necessary, and the corruptions there\n  maintained are rather in a superfluous addition than retraction in any\n  thing necessary to salvation.\n\nThis good man's charity jarring with his love and tender recollections\nof Father Paul, Fulgentio, and the Venetian divines, has led him to a\nfar, far too palliative statement of Roman idolatry. Not what the Pope\nhas yet ventured to thunder forth from his Anti-Sinai, but what he and\nhis satellites, the Regulars, enforce to the preclusion of all true\nworship, in the actual practice, life-long, of an immense majority in\nSpain, Italy, Bavaria, Austria, &c. &c.--this must determine the point.\nWhat they are themselves,--not what they would persuade Protestants is\ntheir essentials or Faith,--this is the main thing.\n\n\nP. 164.\n\n  I answer, under correction of better judgments, they have the ministry\n  of reconciliation by the communion which is given at their Ordination,\n  being the same which our Saviour left in his Church:--'whose sins ye\n  remit, they are remitted, whose sins ye retain, they are retained'.\n\nCould Bishop Bedell believe that the mere will of a priest could have\nany effect on the everlasting weal or woe of a Christian! Even to the\nimmediate disciples and Apostles could the text (if indeed it have\nreference to sins in our sense at all,) mean more than this,--Whenever\nyou discover, by the spirit of knowledge which I will send unto you,\nrepentance and faith, you shall declare remission of sins; and the sins\nshall be remitted;-and where the contrary exists, your declaration of\nexclusion from bliss shall be fulfilled? Did Christ say, that true\nrepentance and actual faith would not save a soul, unless the priest's\nverbal remission was superadded?\n\n\n'In fine.'\n\nIf it were in my power I would have this book printed in a convenient\nform, and distributed through every house, at least, through every\nvillage and parish throughout the kingdom. A volume of thought and of\nmoral feelings, the offspring of thought, crowd upon me, as I review the\ndifferent parts of this admirable man's life and creed. Only compare his\nconduct to James Wadsworth (probably some ancestral relative of my\nhonoured friend, William Wordsworth: for the same name in Yorkshire,\nfrom whence his father came, is pronounced Wadsworth) with that of the\nfar, far too highly rated, Bishop Hall; his letter to Hall tenderly\nblaming his (Hall's) bitterness to an old friend mistaken, and then his\nletter to that friend defending Hall! What a picture of goodness! I\nconfess, in all Ecclesiastical History I have read of no man so\nspotless, though of hundreds in which the biographers have painted them\nas masters of perfection: but the moral tact soon feels the truth.\n\n\n\n[Footnote 1: In one of the volumes of this work used by the Editor for\nascertaining the references, the following note is written by a former\nowner.\n\n  \"October 12, 1788. Begged of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary to take my\n  salvation on herself, and obtain it for Saint Hyacinthe's sake; to\n  whom she has promised to grant any thing, or never to refuse any thing\n  begged for his sake.\"\n\nIt would be very interesting to know how far the feeling expressed in\nthis artless effusion coexisted with a faith in the atonement and\nmediation of the one Lord Jesus Christ.--Ed.]\n\n\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\n\nNOTES ON BAXTER'S LIFE OF HIMSELF.\n\n1820. [1]\n\nAmong the grounds for recommending the perusal of our elder writers,\nHooker--Taylor--Baxter--in short almost any of the folios composed from\nEdward VI. to Charles II. I note:\n\n1. The overcoming the habit of deriving your whole pleasure passively\nfrom the book itself, which can only be effected by excitement of\ncuriosity or of some passion. Force yourself to reflect on what you read\nparagraph by paragraph, and in a short time you will derive your\npleasure, an ample portion of it, at least, from the activity of your\nown mind. All else is picture sunshine.\n\n2. The conquest of party and sectarian prejudices, when you have on the\nsame table before you the works of a Hammond and a Baxter, and reflect\nhow many and momentous their points of agreement, how few and almost\nchildish the differences, which estranged and irritated these good men.\nLet us but imagine what their blessed spirits now feel at the retrospect\nof their earthly frailties, and can we do other than strive to feel as\nthey now feel, not as they once felt? So will it be with the disputes\nbetween good men of the present day; and if you have no other reason to\ndoubt your opponent's goodness than the point in dispute, think of\nBaxter and Hammond, of Milton and Taylor, and let it be no reason at\nall.\n\n3. It will secure you from the idolatry of the present times and\nfashions, and create the noblest kind of imaginative power in your soul,\nthat of living in past ages; wholly devoid of which power, a man can\nneither anticipate the future, nor even live a truly human life, a life\nof reason in the present.\n\n4. In this particular work we may derive a most instructive lesson, that\nin certain points, as of religion in relation to law, the 'medio\ntutissimus ibis' is inapplicable. There is no 'medium' possible; and all\nthe attempts, as those of Baxter, though no more required than \"I\nbelieve in God through Christ,\" prove only the mildness of the\nproposer's temper, but as a rule would be equal to nothing, at least\nexclude only the two or three in a century that make it a matter of\nreligion to declare themselves Atheists, or else be just as fruitful a\nrule for a persecutor as the most complete set of articles that could be\nframed by a Spanish Inquisition.\n\nFor to 'believe,' must mean to believe aright--and 'God' must mean the\ntrue God--and 'Christ' the Christ in the sense and with the attributes\nunderstood by Christians who are truly Christians. An established Church\nwith a Liturgy is a sufficient solution of the problem 'de jure\nmagistratus'. Articles of faith are in this point of view superfluous;\nfor is it not too absurd for a man to hesitate at subscribing his name\nto doctrines which yet in the more awful duty of prayer and profession\nhe dares affirm before his Maker! They are therefore in this sense\nmerely superfluous;--not worth re-enacting, had they ever been done away\nwith;--not worth removing now that they exist.\n\n5. The characteristic contradistinction between the speculative\nreasoners of the age before the Revolution, and those since, is this:\n--the former cultivated metaphysics, without, or neglecting, empirical\npsychology the latter cultivate a mechanical psychology to the neglect\nand contempt of metaphysics. Both therefore are almost equi-distant from\npure philosophy. Hence the belief in ghosts, witches, sensible replies\nto prayer, and the like, in Baxter and in a hundred others. See also\nLuther's Table Talk.\n\n6. The earlier part of this volume is interesting as materials for\nmedical history. The state of medical science in the reign of Charles I.\nwas almost incredibly low.\n\nThe saddest error of the theologians of this age is, [Greek: hos \u00e9moige\ndokei], the disposition to urge the histories of the miraculous actions\nand incidents, in and by which Christ attested his Messiahship to the\nJewish eye-witnesses, in fulfilment of prophecies, which the Jewish\nChurch had previously understood and interpreted as marks of the\nMessiah, before they have shewn what and how excellent the religion\nitself is including the miracles as for us an harmonious part of the\ninternal or self-evidence of the religion. Alas! and even when our\ndivines do proceed to the religion itself as to a something which no man\ncould be expected to receive except by a compulsion of the senses, which\nby force of logic only is propagated from the eye witnesses to the\nreaders of the narratives in 1820--(which logic, namely, that the\nevidence of a miracle is not diminished by lapse of ages, though this\nincludes loss of documents and the like; which logic, I say, whether it\nbe legitimate or not, God forbid that the truth of Christianity should\ndepend on the decision!)--even when our divines do proceed to the\nreligion itself, on what do they chiefly dwell? On the doctrines\npeculiar to the religion? No! these on the contrary are either evaded or\nexplained away into metaphors, or resigned in despair to the next world\nwhere faith is to be swallowed up in certainty.\n\nBut the worst product of this epidemic error is, the fashion of either\ndenying or undervaluing the evidence of a future state and the survival\nof individual consciousness, derived from the conscience, and the holy\ninstinct of the whole human race. Dreadful is this:--for the main force\nof the reasoning by which this scepticism is vindicated consists in\nreducing all legitimate conviction to objective proof: whereas in the\nvery essence of religion and even of morality the evidence, and the\npreparation for its reception, must be subjective;--'Blessed are they\nthat have not seen and yet believe'. And dreadful it appears to me\nespecially, who in the impossibility of not looking forward to\nconsciousness after the dissolution of the body ('corpus phoenomenon',)\nhave through life found it (next to divine grace.) the strongest and\nindeed only efficient support against the still recurring temptation of\nadopting, nay, wishing the truth of Spinoza's notion, that the survival\nof consciousness is the highest prize and consequence of the highest\nvirtue, and that of all below this mark the lot after death is\nself-oblivion and the cessation of individual being. Indeed, how a\nSeparatist or one of any other sect of Calvinists, who confines\nRedemption to the comparatively small number of the elect, can reject\nthis opinion, and yet not run mad at the horrid thought of an\ninnumerable multitude of imperishable self-conscious spirits\neverlastingly excluded from God, is to me inconceivable.\n\nDeeply am I persuaded of Luther's position, that no man can worthily\nestimate, or feel in the depth of his being, the Incarnation and\nCrucifixion of the Son of God who is a stranger to the terror of\nimmortality as ingenerate in man, while it is yet unquelled by the faith\nin God as the Almighty Father.\n\n\nBook I. Part I. p. 2.\n\n  But though my conscience would trouble me when I sinned, yet divers\n  sins I was addicted to, and oft committed against my conscience; which\n  for the warning of others I will confess here to my shame.\n\n  1. I was much addicted when I feared correction to lie, that I might\n  scape.\n\n  2. I was much addicted to the excessive gluttonous eating of apples\n  and pears, &c.\n\n  3. To this end, and to concur with naughty boys that gloried in evil,\n  I have oft gone into other men's orchards, and stolen their fruit,\n  when I had enough at home, &c.\n\nThere is a childlike simplicity in this account of his sins of his\nchildhood which is very pleasing.\n\n\nIb. p. 5, 6.\n\n  And the use that God made of books, above ministers, to the benefit of\n  my soul made me somewhat excessively in love with good books; so that\n  I thought I had never enough, but scraped up as great a treasure of\n  them as I could. * * * It made the world seem to me as a carcase that\n  had neither life nor loveliness; and it destroyed those ambitious\n  desires after literate fame which were the sin of my childhood. * * *\n  And for the mathematics, I was an utter stranger to them, and never\n  could find in my heart to divert any studies that way. But in order to\n  the knowledge of divinity, my inclination was most to logic and\n  metaphysics, with that part of physics which treateth of the soul,\n  contenting myself at first with a slighter study of the rest: and\n  there had my labour and delight.\n\nWhat a picture of myself!\n\n\nIb. p. 22.\n\n  In the storm of this temptation I questioned awhile whether I were\n  indeed a Christian or an Infidel, and whether faith could consist with\n  such doubts as I was conscious of.\n\nOne of the instances of the evils arising from the equivoque between\nfaith and intellectual satisfaction or insight. The root of faith is in\nthe will. Faith is an oak that may be a pollard, and yet live.\n\n\nIb.\n\n  The being and attributes of God were so clear to me, that he was to my\n  intellect what the sun is to my eye, by which I see itself and all\n  things.\n\nEven so with me;--but, whether God was existentially as well as\nessentially intelligent, this was for a long time a sore combat between\nthe speculative and the moral man.\n\n\nIb. p. 23.\n\n  Mere Deism, which is the most plausible competitor with Christianity,\n  is so turned out of almost all the whole world, as if Nature made its\n  own confession, that without a Mediator it cannot come to God.\n\nExcellent.\n\n\nIb.\n\n  All these assistances were at hand before I came to the immediate\n  evidences of credibility in the sacred oracles themselves.\n\nThis is as it should be; that is, the evidence 'a priori', securing the\nrational probability; and then the historical proofs of its reality.\nPity that Baxter's chapters in 'The Saints' Rest' should have been one\nand the earliest occasion of the inversion of this process, the fruit of\nwhich is the Grotio-Paleyan religion, or 'minimum' of faith; the maxim\nbeing, 'quanto minus tanto melius'.\n\n\nIb. p. 24.\n\n  And once all the ignorant rout were raging mad against me for\n  preaching the doctrine of Original Sin to them, and telling them that\n  infants, before regeneration, had so much guilt and corruption as made\n  them loathsome in the eyes of God.\n\nNo wonder;--because the babe would perish without the mother's milk, is\nit therefore loathsome to the mother? Surely the little ones that Christ\nembraced had not been baptized. And yet 'of such is the Kingdom of\nHeaven'.\n\n\nIb. p. 25.\n\n  Some thought that the King should not at all be displeased and\n  provoked, and that they were not bound to do any other justice, or\n  attempt any other reformation but what they could procure the King to\n  be willing to. And these said, when you have displeased and provoked\n  him to the utmost, he will be your King still. * * * The more you\n  offend him, the less you can trust him; and when mutual confidence is\n  gone, a war is beginning. * * * And if you conquer him, what the\n  better are you? He will still be King. You can but force him to an\n  agreement; and how quickly will he have power and advantage to violate\n  that which he is forced to, and to be avenged on you all for the\n  displeasure you have done him! He is ignorant of the advantages of a\n  King that cannot foresee this.\n\nThis paragraph goes to make out a case in justification of the Regicides\nwhich Baxter would have found it difficult to answer. Certainly a more\ncomplete exposure of the inconsistency of Baxter's own party cannot be.\nFor observe, that in case of an agreement with Charles all those\nclasses, which afterwards formed the main strength of the Parliament and\nultimately decided the contest in its favour, would have been\npolitically inert, with little influence and no actual power,--I mean\nthe Yeomanry, and the Citizens of London: while a vast majority of the\nNobles and landed Gentry, who sooner or later must have become the\nmajority in Parliament, went over to the King at once. Add to these the\nwhole systematized force of the High Church Clergy and all the rude\nignorant vulgar in high and low life, who detested every attempt at\nmoral reform,--and it is obvious that the King could not want\nopportunities to retract and undo all that he had conceded under\ncompulsion. But that neither the will was wanting, nor his conscience at\nall in the way, his own advocate Clarendon and others have supplied\ndamning proofs.\n\n\nIb. p. 27.\n\n  And though Parliaments may draw up Bills for repealing laws, yet hath\n  the King his negative voice, and without his consent they cannot do\n  it; which though they acknowledge, yet did they too easily admit of\n  petitions against the Episcopacy and Liturgy, and connived at all the\n  clamors and papers which were against them.\n\nHow so? If they admitted the King's right to deny, they must admit the\nsubject's right to entreat.\n\n\nIb.\n\n  Had they endeavoured the ejection of lay-chancellors, and the reducing\n  of the dioceses to a narrower compass, or the setting up of a\n  subordinate discipline, and only the correcting and reforming of the\n  Liturgy, perhaps it might have been borne more patiently.\n\nDid Baxter find it so himself--and when too he had the formal and\nrecorded promise of Charles II. for it?\n\n\nIb.\n\n  But when the same men (Ussher, Williams, Morton, &c.) saw that greater\n  things were aimed at, and episcopacy itself in danger, or _their\n  grandeur and riches at least_, most of them turned against the\n  Parliament.\n\nThis, and in this place, is unworthy of Baxter. Even he, good man, could\nnot wholly escape the jaundice of party.\n\n\nIb. p. 34.\n\n  They said to this;--that as all the courts of justice do execute their\n  sentences in the King's name, and this by his own law, and therefore\n  by his authority, so much more might his Parliament do.\n\nA very sound argument is here disguised in a false analogy, an\ninapplicable precedent, and a sophistical form. Courts of justice\nadminister the total of the supreme power retrospectively, involved in\nthe name of the most dignified part. But here a part, as a part, acts as\nthe whole, where the whole is absolutely requisite,--that is, in passing\nlaws; and again as B. and C. usurp a power belonging to A. by the\ndetermination of A. B. and C. The only valid argument is, that Charles\nhad by acts of his own ceased to be a lawful King.\n\n\nIb. p. 40.\n\n  And that the authority and person of the King were inviolable, out of\n  the reach of just accusation, judgment, or execution by law; as having\n  no superior, and so no judge.\n\nBut according to Grotius, a king waging war against the lawful\ncopartners of the 'summa potestas' ceases to be their king, and if\nconquered forfeits to them his former share. And surely if Charles had\nbeen victor, he would have taken the Parliament's share to himself. If\nit had been the Parliament, and not a mere faction with the army, that\ntried and beheaded Charles, I do not see how any one could doubt the\nlawfulness of the act, except upon very technical grounds.\n\n\nIb. p. 41.\n\n  For if once legislation, the chief act of government, be denied to any\n  part of government at all, and affirmed to belong to the people as\n  such, who are no governors, all government will hereby be overthrown.\n\nHere Baxter falls short of the subject, and does not see the full\nconsequents of his own prior, most judicious, positions. Legislation in\nits high and most proper sense belongs to God only. A people declares\nthat such and such they hold to be laws, that is, God's will.\n\n\nIb. p. 47.\n\n  In Cornwall Sir Richard Grenvill, having taken many soldiers of the\n  Earl of Essex's army, sentenced about a dozen to be hanged. When they\n  had hanged two or three, the rope broke which should have hanged the\n  next. And they sent for new ropes so oft to hang him, and all of them\n  still broke, that they durst go no further, but saved all the rest.\n\nThe soldiers, doubtless, contrived this from the aversion natural to\nEnglishmen of killing an enemy in cold blood; and because they foresaw\nthat there would be Tit for Tat.\n\n\nIb. p. 59.\n\nIt is easy to see from Baxter's own account, that his party ruined their\nown cause and that of the kingdom by their tenets concerning the right\nand duty of the civil magistrate to use the sword against such as were\nnot of the same religion with themselves.\n\n\nIb. p. 62.\n\n  They seem not to me to have answered satisfactorily to the main\n  argument fetched from the Apostle's own government, with which Saravia\n  had inclined me to some Episcopacy before: though miracles and\n  infallibility were Apostolical temporary privileges, yet Church\n  government is an ordinary thing to be continued. And therefore as the\n  Apostles had successors as they were preachers, I see not but that\n  they must have successors as Church governors.\n\nWas not Peter's sentence against Ananias an act of Church government?\nTherefore though Church government is an ordinary thing in some form or\nother, it does not follow that one particular form is an ordinary thing.\nFor the time being the Apostles, as heads of the Church, did what they\nthought best; but whatever was binding on the Church universal and in\nall times they delivered as commands from Christ. Now no other command\nwas delivered but that all things should conduce to order and\nedification.\n\n\nIb. p. 66.\n\n  And therefore how they could refuse to receive the King, till he\n  consented to take the Covenant, I know not, unless the taking of the\n  Covenant had been a condition on which he was to receive his crown by\n  the laws or fundamental constitutions of the kingdom, which none\n  pretendeth. Nor know I by what power they can add anything to the\n  Coronation Oath or Covenant, which by his ancestors was to be taken,\n  without his own consent.\n\nAnd pray, how and by whom were the Coronation Oaths first imposed? The\nScottish nation in 1650 had the same right to make a bargain with the\nclaimant of their throne as their ancestors had. It is strange that\nBaxter should not have seen that his objections would apply to our\n'Magna Charta'. So he talks of the \"fundamental constitutions,\" just as\nif these had been aboriginal or rather 'sans' origin, and not as indeed\nthey were extorted and bargained for by the people. But throughout it is\nplain that Baxter repeated, but never appropriated, the distinction\nbetween the King as the executive power, and as the individual\nfunctionary. What obligation lay on the Scottish Parliament and Church\nto consult the man Charles Stuart's personal likes and dislikes? The\nOath was to be taken by him as their King. Doubtless, he equally\ndisliked the whole Protestant interest; and if the Tories and Church of\nEngland Jacobites of a later day had recalled James II., would Baxter\nhave thought them culpable for imposing on him an Oath to preserve the\nProtestant Church of England and to inflict severe penalties on his own\nChurch-fellows?\n\n\nIb. p. 71.\n\n  And some men thought it a very hard question, whether they should\n  rather wish the continuance of a usurper that will do good, or the\n  restoration of a rightful governor whose followers will do hurt.\n\nAnd who shall dare unconditionally condemn those who judged the former\nto be the better alternative? Especially those who did not adopt\nBaxter's notion of a 'jus divinum' personal and hereditary in the\nindividual, whose father had broken the compact on which the claim\nrested.\n\n\nIb. p. 75.\n\n  One Mrs. Dyer, a chief person of the Sect, did first bring forth a\n  monster, which had the parts of almost all sorts of living creatures,\n  some parts like man, but most ugly and misplaced, and some like\n  beasts, birds and fishes, having horns, fins and claws; and at the\n  birth of it the bed shook, and the women present fell a vomiting, and\n  were fain to go forth of the room.\n\nThis babe of Mrs. Dyer's is no bad emblem of Richard Baxter's own\ncredulity. It is almost an argument on his side, that nothing he\nbelieved is more strange and inexplicable than his own belief of them.\n\n\nIb. p. 76.\n\n  The third sect were the Ranters. These also made it their business, as\n  the former, to set up the light of nature under the name of Christ in\n  men, and to dishonour and cry down the Church, &c.\n\nBut why does Baxter every where assert the identity of the new light\nwith the light of nature? Or what does he mean exclusively by the\nlatter? The source must be the same in all lights as far as it is light.\n\n\nIb. p. 77.\n\n  And that was the fourth sect, the Quakers; who were but the Ranters\n  turned from horrid profaneness and blasphemy to a life of extreme\n  austerity on the other side.\n\nObserve the _but_.\n\n\nIb.\n\n  Their doctrine is to be seen in Jacob Behmen's books by him that hath\n  nothing else to do, than to bestow a great deal of time to understand\n  him that was not willing to be easily understood, and to know that his\n  bombasted words do signify nothing more than before was easily known\n  by common familiar terms.\n\nThis is not in all its parts true. It is true that the first principles\nof Behmen are to be found in the writings of the Neo-Platonists after\nPlotinus, and (but mixed with gross impieties) in Paracelsus;--but it is\nnot true that they are easily known, and still less so that they are\ncommunicable in common familiar terms. But least of all is it true that\nthere is nothing original in Behmen.\n\n\nIb.\n\n  The chiefest of these in England are Dr. Pordage and his family.\n\nIt is curious that Lessing in the Review, which he, Nicolai, and\nMendelssohn conducted under the form of Letters to a wounded Officer,\njoins the name of Pordage with that of Behmen. Was Pordage's work\ntranslated into German?\n\n\nIb. p. 79.\n\n  Also the Socinians made some increase by the ministry of one Mr.\n  Biddle, sometimes schoolmaster in Gloucester; who wrote against the\n  Godhead of the Holy Ghost, and afterwards of Christ; whose followers\n  inclined much to mere Deism.\n\nFor the Socinians till Biddle retained much of the Christian religion,\nfor example, Redemption by the Cross, and the omnipresence of Christ as\nto this planet even as the Romanists with their Saints. Luther's\nobstinate adherence to the ubiquity of the Body of Christ and his or\nrather its real presence in and with the bread was a sad furtherance to\nthe advocates of Popish idolatry and hierolatry.\n\n\nIb. p. 80.\n\n  Many a time have I been brought very low, and received the sentence of\n  death in myself, when my poor, honest, praying neighbours have met,\n  and upon their fasting and earnest prayers I have been recovered. Once\n  when I had continued weak three weeks, and was unable to go abroad,\n  the very day that they prayed for me, being Good Friday, I recovered,\n  and was able to preach, and administer the Sacrament the next Lord's\n  Day, and was better after it, &c.\n\nStrange that the common manuals of school logic should not have secured\nBaxter from the repeated blunder of 'Cum hoc, ergo, propter hoc'; but\nstill more strange that his piety should not have revolted against\ndegrading prayer into medical quackery.\n\nBefore the Revolution of 1688, metaphysics ruled without experimental\npsychology, and in these curious paragraphs of Baxter we see the effect:\nsince the Revolution experimental psychology without metaphysics has in\nlike manner prevailed, and we now feel the result. In like manner from\nPlotinus to Proclus, that is, from A. D. 250 to A. D. 450, philosophy\nwas set up as a substitute for religion: during the dark ages religion\nsuperseded philosophy, and the consequences are equally instructive. The\ngreat maxim of legislation, intellectual or political, is 'Subordinate,\nnot exclude'. Nature in her ascent leaves nothing behind, but at each\nstep subordinates and glorifies:--mass, crystal, organ, sensation,\nsentience, reflection.\n\n\nIb. p. 82.\n\n  Another time, as I sat in my study, the weight of my greatest folio\n  books brake down three or four of the highest shelves, when I sat\n  close under them, and they fell down every side me, and not one of\n  them hit me, save one upon the arm; whereas the place, the weight, the\n  greatness of the books was such, and my head just under them, that it\n  was a wonder they had not beaten out my brains, &c.\n\n[Greek: M\u00e9ga bibl\u00edon m\u00e9ga kak\u00f3n.]\n\n\nIb. p. 84.\n\n\nFor all the pains that my infirmities ever brought upon me were never\nhalf so grievous an affliction to me, as the unavoidable loss of my\ntime, which they occasioned. I could not bear, through the weakness of\nmy stomach, to rise before seven o'clock in the morning, &c.\n\nAlas! in how many respects does my lot resemble Baxter's; but how much\nless have my bodily evils been; and yet how very much greater an\nimpediment have I suffered them to be! But verily Baxter's labours seem\nmiracles of supporting grace. Ought I not therefore to retract the note\np. 80? I waver.\n\n\nIb. p. 87.\n\n  For my part, I bless God, who gave me even under a Usurper, whom I\n  opposed, such liberty and advantage to preach his Gospel with success,\n  which I cannot have under a King to whom I have sworn and performed\n  true subjection and obedience; yea, which no age since the Gospel came\n  into this land did before possess, as far as I can learn from history.\n  Sure I am that when it became a matter of reputation and honour to be\n  godly, it abundantly furthered the successes of the ministry. Yea, and\n  I shall add this much more for the sake of posterity, that as much as\n  I have said and written against licentiousness in religion, and for\n  the magistrate's power in it, and though I think that land most happy,\n  whose rulers use their authority for Christ as well as for the civil\n  peace; yet in comparison of the rest of the world, I shall think that\n  land happy that hath but bare liberty to be as good as they are\n  willing to be; and if countenance and maintenance be but added to\n  liberty, and tolerated errors and sects be but forced to keep the\n  peace, and not to oppose the substantials of Christianity, I shall not\n  hereafter much fear such toleration, nor despair that truth will bear\n  down adversaries.\n\nWhat a valuable and citable paragraph! Likewise it is a happy instance\nof the force of a cherished prejudice in an honest mind--practically\nyielding to the truth, but yet with a speculative, \"Though I still\nthink, &c.\"\n\n\nIb. p. 128.\n\n  Among truths certain in themselves, all are not equally certain unto\n  me; and even of the mysteries of the Gospel I must needs say, with Mr.\n  Richard Hooker, that whatever some may pretend, the subjective\n  certainty cannot go beyond the objective evidence. * * * Therefore I\n  do more of late than ever discern the necessity of a methodical\n  procedure in maintaining the doctrine of Christianity. * * * My\n  certainty that I am a man is before my certainty that there is a God.\n  * * * My certainty that there is a God is greater than my certainty\n  that he requireth love and holiness of his creature, &c.\n\nThere is a confusion in this paragraph, which asks more than a marginal\nnote to disentangle. Briefly, the process of acquirement is confounded\nwith the order of the truths when acquired. A tinder spark gives light\nto an Argand's lamp: is it therefore more luminous?\n\n\nIb. p. 129.\n\n  And when I have studied hard to understand some abstruse admired book,\n  as 'de Scientia Dei, de Providentia circa malum, de Decretis, de\n  Pr\u00e6determinatione, de Libertate creatur\u00e6', &c. I have but attained the\n  knowledge of human imperfection, and to see that the author is but a\n  man as well as I.\n\nOn these points I have come to a resting place. Let such articles, as\nare either to be recognized as facts, for example, sin or evil having\nits origination in a will; and the reality of a responsible and (in\nwhatever sense freedom is presupposed in responsibility,) of a free will\nin man;--or acknowledged as laws, for example, the unconditional\nbindingness of the practical reason;--or to be freely affirmed as\nnecessary through their moral interest, their indispensableness to our\nspiritual humanity, for example, the personeity, holiness, and moral\ngovernment and providence of God;--let these be vindicated from\nabsurdity, from self-contradiction, and contradiction to the pure\nreason, and restored to simple incomprehensibility. He who seeks for\nmore, knows not what he is talking of; he who will not seek even this is\neither indifferent to the truth of what he professes to believe, or he\nmistakes a general determination not to disbelieve for a positive and\nespecial faith, which is only our faith as far as we can assign a reason\nfor it. O! how impossible it is to move an inch to the right or the left\nin any point of spiritual and moral concernment, without seeing the\ndamage caused by the confusion of reason with the understanding.\n\n\nIb. p. 181.\n\n  My soul is much more afflicted with the thoughts of the miserable\n  world, and more drawn out in desire of their conversion than\n  heretofore. I was wont to look but little further than England in my\n  prayers, as not considering the state of the rest of the world;--or if\n  I prayed for the conversion of the Jews, that was almost all. But now\n  as I better understand the care of the world, and the method of the\n  Lord's Prayer, so there is nothing in the world that lieth so heavy\n  upon my heart, as the thought of the miserable nations of the earth.\n\nI dare not not condemn myself for the languid or dormant state of my\nfeelings respecting the Mohammedan and Heathen nations; yet know not in\nwhat degree to condemn. The less culpable grounds of this languor are,\nfirst, my utter ignorance of God's purposes with respect to the\nHeathens; and second, the strong conviction, I have that the conversion\nof a single province of Christendom to true practical Christianity would\ndo more toward the conversion of Heathendom than an army of\nMissionaries. Romanism and despotic government in the larger part of\nChristendom, and the prevalence of Epicurean principles in the\nremainder;--these do indeed lie heavy on my heart.\n\n\nIb. p. 135.\n\n  Therefore I confess I give but halting credit to most histories that\n  are written, not only against the Albigenses and Waldenses, but\n  against most of the ancient heretics, who have left us none of their\n  own writings, in which they speak for themselves; and I heartily\n  lament that the historical writings of the ancient schismatics and\n  heretics, as they were called, perished, and that partiality suffered\n  them not to survive, that we might have had more light in the Church\n  affairs of those times, and been better able to judge between the\n  Fathers and them.\n\nIt is greatly to the credit of Baxter that he has here anticipated those\nmerits which so long after gave deserved celebrity to the name and\nwritings of Beausobre and Lardner, and still more recently in this\nrespect of Eichhorn, Paulus and other Neologists.\n\n\nIb. p. 136.\n\n  And therefore having myself now written this history of myself,\n  notwithstanding my protestation that I have not in anything wilfully\n  gone against the truth, I expect no more credit from the reader than\n  the self-evidencing light of the matter, with concurrent rational\n  advantages from persons, and things, and other witnesses, shall\n  constrain him to.\n\nI may not unfrequently doubt Baxter's memory, or even his competence, in\nconsequence of his particular modes of thinking; but I could almost as\nsoon doubt the Gospel verity as his veracity.\n\n\nBook I. Part II. p.139.\n\nThe following Book of this Work is interesting and most instructive as\nan instance of Syncretism, and its Epicurean 'clinamen', even when it\nhas been undertaken from the purest and most laudable motives, and from\nimpulses the most Christian, and yet its utter failure in its object,\nthat of tending to a common centre. The experience of eighteen centuries\nseems to prove that there is no practicable 'medium' between a Church\ncomprehensive (which is the only meaning of a Catholic Church visible)\nin which A. in the North or East is allowed to advance officially no\ndoctrine different from what is allowed to B. in the South or West;--and\na co-existence of independent Churches, in none of which any further\nunity is required but that between the minister and his congregation,\nwhile this again is secured by the election and continuance of the\nformer depending wholly on the will of the latter.\n\nPerhaps the best state possible, though not the best possible state, is\nwhere both are found, the one established by maintenance, the other by\npermission; in short that which we now enjoy. In such a state no\nminister of the former can have a right to complain, for it was at his\nown option to have taken the latter; 'et volenti nulla fit injuria'. For\nan individual to demand the freedom of the independent single Church\nwhen he receives \u00a3500 a year for submitting to the necessary\nrestrictions of the Church General, is impudence and Mammonolatry to\nboot.\n\n\nIb. p. 141.\n\n  They (the Erastians) misunderstood and injured their brethren,\n  supposing and affirming them to claim as from God a coercive power\n  over the bodies or purses of men, and so setting up 'imperium in\n  imperio'; whereas all temperate Christians (at least except Papists)\n  confess that the Church hath no power of force, but only to manage\n  God's word unto men's consciences.\n\nBut are not the receivers as bad as the thief? Is it not a poor evasion\nto say:--\"It is true I send you to a dungeon there to rot, because you\ndo not think as I do concerning some point of faith;--but this only as a\ncivil officer. As a divine I only tenderly entreat and persuade you!\"\nCan there be fouler hypocrisy in the Spanish Inquisition than this?\n\n\nIb. p. 142.\n\n  That hereby they (the Diocesan party) altered the ancient species of\n  Presbyters, to whose office the spiritual government of their proper\n  folks as truly belonged, as the power of preaching and worshiping God\n  did.\n\nI could never rightly understand this objection of Richard Baxter's.\nWhat power not possessed by the Rector of a parish, would he have wished\na parochial Bishop to have exerted? What could have been given by the\nLegislature to the latter which might not be given to the former? In\nshort Baxter's plan seems to do away Archbishops--[Greek: koino\u00ec\nep\u00edskopoi]--but for the rest to name our present Rectors and Vicars\nBishops. I cannot see what is gained by his plan. The true difficulty is\nthat Church discipline is attached to an Establishment by this world's\nlaw, not to the form itself established: and his objections from\nparagraph 5 to paragraph 10 relate to particular abuses, not to\nEpiscopacy itself.\n\n\nIb. p. 143.\n\n  But above all I disliked that most of them (the Independents) made the\n  people by majority of votes to be Church governors in\n  excommunications, absolutions, &c., which Christ hath made an act of\n  office; and so they governed their governors and themselves.\n\nIs not this the case with the Houses of Legislature? The members taken\nindividually are subjects; collectively governors.\n\n\nIb. p. 177.\n\n  The extraordinary gifts of the Apostles, and the privilege of being\n  eye and ear witnesses to Christ, were abilities which they had for the\n  infallible discharge of their function, but they were not the ground\n  of their power and authority to govern the Church. * * * 'Potestas\n  clavium' was committed to them only, not to the Seventy.\n\nI wish for a proof, that all the Apostles had any extraordinary gifts\nwhich none of the LXX. had. Nay as an Episcopalian of the Church of\nEngland, I hold it an unsafe and imprudent concession, tending to weaken\nthe governing right of the Bishops. But I fear that as the law and right\nof patronage in England now are, the question had better not be stirred;\nlest it should be found that the true power of the keys is not, as with\nthe Papists, in hands to which it is doubtful whether Christ committed\nthem exclusively; but in hands to which it is certain that Christ did\nnot commit them at all.\n\n\nIb. p. 179.\n\n  It followeth not a mere Bishop may have a multitude of Churches,\n  because an Archbishop may, who hath many Bishops under him.\n\nWhat then does Baxter quarrel about? That our Bishops take a humbler\ntitle than they have a right to claim;--that being in fact Archbishops,\nthey are for the most part content to be styled as one of the brethren!\n\n\nIb. p. 185.\n\n  I say again, No Church, no Christ; for no body, no head; and if no\n  Christ then, there is no Christ now.\n\nBaxter here forgets his own mystical regenerated Church. If he mean\nthis, it is nothing to the argument in question; if not, then he must\nassert the monstrous absurdity of, No unregenerate Church, no Christ.\n\n\nIb. p. 188.\n\n  Or if they would not yield to this at all, we might have communion\n  with them as Christians, without acknowledging them for Pastors.\n\nObserve the inconsistency of Baxter. No Pastor, no Church; no Church, no\nChrist; and yet he will receive them as Christians: much to his honor as\na Christian, but not much to his credit as a logician.\n\n\nIb. p. 189.\n\n  We are agreed that as some discovery of consent on both parts (the\n  pastors and people) is necessary to the being of the members of a\n  political particular Church: so that the most express declaration of\n  that consent is the most plain and satisfactory dealing, and most\n  obliging, and likest to attain the ends.\n\nIn our Churches, especially in good livings, there is such an\noverflowing fullness of consent on the part of the Pastor as supplies\nthat of the people altogether; nay, to nullify their declared dissent.\n\n\nIb. p. 194.\n\n  By the establishment of what is contained in these twelve propositions\n  or articles following, the Churches in these nations may have a holy\n  communion, peace and concord, without any wrong to the consciences or\n  liberties of Presbyterians, Congregational, Episcopal, or any other\n  Christians.\n\nPainfully instructive are these proposals from so wise and peaceable a\ndivine as Baxter. How mighty must be the force of an old prejudice when\nso generally acute a logician was blinded by it to such palpable\ninconsistencies! On what ground of right could a magistrate inflict a\npenalty, whereby to compel a man to hear what he might believe dangerous\nto his soul, on which the right of burning the refractory individual\nmight not be defended as well?\n\n\nIb. p. 198.\n\n  To which ends * * I think that this is all that should be required of\n  any Church or member ordinarily to be professed: In general I do\n  believe all that is contained in the sacred canonical Scriptures, and\n  particularly I believe all explicitly contained in the ancient Creed,\n  &c.\n\nTo a man of sense, but unstudied in the context of human nature, and\nfrom having confined his reading to the writers of the present and the\nlast generation unused to live in former ages, it must seem strange that\nBaxter should not have seen that this test is either all or nothing. And\nthe Creed! Is it certain that the so called Apostles' Creed was more\nthan the mere catechism of the Catechumens? Was it the Baptismal Creed\nof the Eastern or Western Church, especially the former? The only test\nreally necessary, in my opinion, is an established Liturgy.\n\n\nIb. p. 201.\n\n  As reverend Bishop Ussher hath manifested that the Western Creed, now\n  called the Apostles' (wanting two or three clauses that now are in it)\n  was not only before the Nicene Creed, but of much further antiquity,\n  that no beginning of it below the Apostles' days can be found.\n\nRemove these two or three clauses, and doubtless the substance of the\nremainder must have been little short of the Apostolic age. But so is\none at least of the writings of Clement. The great question is: Was this\nthe Baptismal Symbol, the 'Regula Fidei', which it was forbidden to put\nin writing;--or was it not the Christian A. B. C. of the 'Catechumeni'\npreviously to their Baptismal initiation into the higher mysteries, to\nthe 'strong meat' which was not for babes'? [2]\n\n\nIb. p. 203.\n\n  Not so much for my own sake as others; lest it should offend the\n  Parliament, and open the mouths of our adversaries, that we cannot\n  ourselves agree in fundamentals; and lest it prove an occasion for\n  others to sue for a universal toleration.\n\nThat this apprehension so constantly haunted, so powerfully actuated,\neven the mild and really tolerant Baxter, is a strong proof of my old\nopinion,--that the dogma of the right and duty of the civil magistrate\nto restrain and punish religious avowals by him deemed heretical,\nuniversal among the Presbyterians and Parliamentary Churchmen, joined\nwith the persecuting spirit of the Presbyterians,--was the main cause of\nCromwell's despair and consequent unfaithfulness concerning a\nParliamentary Commonwealth.\n\n\nIb. p. 222.\n\n  I tried, when I was last with you, to revive your reason by proposing\n  to you the infallibility of the common senses of all the world; and I\n  could not prevail though you had nothing to answer that was not\n  against common sense. And it is impossible any thing controverted can\n  be brought nearer you, or made plainer than to be brought to your eyes\n  and taste and feeling; and not yours only, but all men's else. Sense\n  goes before faith. Faith is no faith but upon supposition of sense and\n  understanding: if therefore common sense be fallible, faith must needs\n  be so.\n\nThis is one of those two-edged arguments, which not indeed began, but\nbegan to be fashionable, just before and after the Restoration. I was\nhalf converted to Transubstantiation by Tillotson's common senses\nagainst it; seeing clearly that the same grounds 'totidem verbis et\nsyllabis' would serve the Socinian against all the mysteries of\nChristianity. If the Roman Catholics had pretended that the phenomenal\nbread and wine were changed into the phenomenal flesh and blood, this\nobjection would have been legitimate and irresistible; but as it is, it\nis mere sensual babble. The whole of Popery lies in the assumption of a\nChurch, as a numerical unit, infallible in the highest degree, inasmuch\nas both which is Scripture, and what Scripture teaches, is infallible by\nderivation only from an infallible decision of the Church. Fairly\nundermine or blow up this: and all the remaining peculiar tenets of\nRomanism fall with it, or stand by their own right as opinions of\nindividual Doctors.\n\nAn antagonist of a complex bad system,--a system, however,\nnotwithstanding--and such is Popery,--should take heed above all things\nnot to disperse himself. Let him keep to the sticking place. But the\nmajority of our Protestant polemics seem to have taken for granted that\nthey could not attack Romanism in too many places, or on too many\npoints;--forgetting that in some they will be less strong than in\nothers, and that if in any one or two they are repelled from the\nassault, the feeling of this will extend itself over the whole. Besides,\nwhat is the use of alleging thirteen reasons for a witness's not\nappearing in Court, when the first is that the man had died since his\n'subpoena'? It is as if a party employed to root up a tree were to set\none or two at that work, while others were hacking the branches, and\nothers sawing the trunk at different heights from the ground.\n\nN. B. The point of attack suggested above in disputes with the Romanists\nis of special expediency in the present day: because a number of pious\nand reasonable Roman Catholics are not aware of the dependency of their\nother tenets on this of the infallibility of their Church decisions, as\nthey call them, but are themselves shaken and disposed to explain it\naway. This once fixed, the Scriptures rise uppermost, and the man is\nalready a Protestant, rather a genuine Catholic, though his opinions\nshould remain nearer to the Roman than the Reformed Church.\n\n\nIb.\n\n  _But methinks yet I should have hope of reviving your charity. You\n  cannot be a Papist indeed, but you must believe that out of their\n  Church (that is out of the Pope's dominions) there is no salvation;\n  and consequently no justification and charity, or saving grace. And is\n  it possible you can so easily believe your religious father to be in\n  hell; your prudent, pious mother to be void of the love of God, and in\n  a state of damnation, &c._\n\nThis argument 'ad affectum' is beautifully and forcibly stated; but yet\ndefective by the omission of the point;--not for unbelief or misbelief\nof any article of faith, but simply for not being a member of this\nparticular part of the Church of Christ. For it is possible that a\nChristian might agree in all the articles of faith with the Roman\ndoctors against those of the Reformation, and yet if he did not\nacknowledge the Pope as Christ's vicar, and held salvation possible in\nany other Church, he is himself excluded from salvation! Without this\ngreat distinction Lady Ann Lindsey might have replied to Baxter:--\"So\nmight a Pagan orator have said to a convert from Paganism in the first\nages of Christianity; so indeed the advocates of the old religion did\nargue. What! can you bear to believe that Numa, Camillus, Fabricius, the\nScipios, the Catos, that Cicero, Seneca, that Titus and the Antonini,\nare in the flames of Hell, the accursed objects of the divine hatred?\nNow whatever you dare hope of these as heathens, we dare hope of you as\nheretics.\"\n\n\nIb. p. 224.\n\n  _But this is not the worst. You consequently anathematize_ all Papists\n  by your sentence: for heresies by your own sentence cut off men from\n  heaven: but Popery is a bundle of heresies: therefore it cuts off men\n  from heaven. The minor I prove, &c.\n\nThis introduction of syllogistic form in a letter to a young Lady is\nwhimsically characteristic.\n\n\nIb. p. 225.\n\n  You say, the Scripture admits of no private interpretation. But you\n  abuse yourself and the text with a false interpretation of it in these\n  words. An interpretation is called private either as to the subject\n  person, or as to the interpreter. You take the text to speak of the\n  latter, when the context plainly sheweth you that it speaks of the\n  former. The Apostle directing them to understand the prophecies of the\n  Old Testament, gives them this caution;--that none of these Scriptures\n  that are spoken of Christ the public person must be interpreted as\n  spoken of David or other private person only, of whom they were\n  mentioned but as types of Christ, &c.\n\nIt is strange that this sound and irrefragable argument has not been\nenforced by the Church divines in their controversies with the modern\nUnitarians, as Capp, Belsham and others, who refer all the prophetic\ntexts of the Old Testament to historical personages of their time,\nexclusively of all double sense.\n\n\nIb. p. 226.\n\n  As to what you say of Apostles still placed in the Church:--when any\n  shew us an immediate mission by their communion, and by miracles,\n  'tongues', and a spirit of revelation and infallibility prove\n  themselves Apostles, we shall believe them.\n\nThis is another of those two-edged arguments which Baxter and Jeremy\nTaylor imported from Grotius, and which have since become the universal\nfashion among Protestants. I fear, however, that it will do us more hurt\nby exposing a weak part to the learned Infidels than service in our\ncombat with the Romanists. I venture to assert most unequivocally that\nthe New Testament contains not the least proof of the 'linguipotence' of\nthe Apostles, but the clearest proofs of the contrary: and I doubt\nwhether we have even as decisive a victory over the Romanists in our\nMiddletonian, Farmerian, and Douglasian dispute concerning the miracles\nof the first two centuries and their assumed contrast 'in genere' with\nthose of the Apostles and the Apostolic age, as we have in most other of\nour Protestant controversies.\n\nN.B. These opinions of Middleton and his more cautious followers are no\npart of our real Church doctrine. This passion for law Court evidence\nbegan with Grotius.\n\n\nIb. p. 246.\n\n  We conceived there needs no more to be said for justifying the\n  imposition of the ceremonies by law established than what is contained\n  in the beginning--of this Section.... Inasmuch as lawful authority\n  hath already determined the ceremonies in question to be decent and\n  orderly, and to serve to edification: and consequently to be agreeable\n  to the general rules of the Word.\n\nTo a self-convinced and disinterested lover of the Church of England, it\ngives an indescribable horror to observe the frequency, with which the\nPrelatic party after the Restoration appeal to the laws as of equal\nauthority with the express words of Scripture;--as if the laws, by them\nappealed to, were other than the vindictive determinations of their own\nfurious partizans;--as if the same appeals might not have been made by\nBonner and Gardiner under Philip and Mary! Why should I speak of the\ninhuman sophism that, because it is silly in my neighbour to break his\negg at the broad end when the Squire and the Vicar have declared their\npredilection for the narrow end, therefore it is right for the Squire\nand the Vicar to hang and quarter him for his silliness:--for it comes\nto that.\n\n\nIb. p. 248.\n\n  To you it is indifferent before your imposition: and therefore you may\n  without any regret of your own consciences forbear the imposition, or\n  persuade the law makers to forbear it. But to many of those that\n  dissent from you, they are sinful, &c.\n\nBut what is all this, good worthy Baxter, but saying and unsaying? If\nthey are not indifferent, why did you previously concede them to be\nsuch? In short nothing can be more pitiably weak than the conduct of the\nPresbyterian party from the first capture of Charles I. Common sense\nrequired, either a bold denial that the Church had power in ceremonies\nmore than in doctrines, or that the Parliament was the Church, since it\nis the Parliament that enacts all these things;--or if they admitted the\nauthority lawful and the ceremonies only, in their mind, inexpedient,\ngood God! can self-will more plainly put on the cracked mask of tender\nconscience than by refusal of obedience? What intolerable presumption,\nto disqualify as ungodly and reduce to null the majority of the country,\nwho preferred the Liturgy, in order to force the long winded vanities of\nbustling God-orators on those who would fain hear prayers, not spouting!\n\n\nIb. p. 249.\n\n  The great controversies between the hypocrite and the true Christian,\n  whether we should be serious in the practice of the religion which we\n  commonly profess, hath troubled England more than any other;--none\n  being more hated and divided as Puritans than those that will make\n  religion their business, &c.\n\nHad not the Governors had bitter proofs that there are other and more\ncruel vices than swearing and careless living;--and that these were\npredominant chiefly among such as made their religion their business?\n\n\nIb.\n\n  And whereas you speak of opening a gap to Sectaries for private\n  conventicles, and the evil consequents to the state, we only desire\n  you to avoid also the cherishing of ignorance and profaneness, and\n  _suppress all Sectaries_, and spare not, in a way that will not\n  suppress the means of knowledge and godliness.\n\nThe present company, that is, our own dear selves, always excepted.\n\n\nIb. p. 250.\n\n  Otherwise the poor undone Churches of Christ will no more believe you\n  in such professions than we believed that those men intended the\n  King's just power and greatness, who took away his life.\n\nOr who, like Baxter, joined the armies that were showering cannon balls\nand bullets around his inviolable person! Whenever by reading the\nPrelatical writings and histories, I have had an over dose of\nanti-Prelatism in my feelings, I then correct it by dipping into the\nworks of the Presbyterians, and their fellows, and so bring myself to\nmore charitable thoughts respecting the Prelatists, and fully subscribe\nto Milton's assertion, that \"Presbyter was but Old Priest writ large.\"\n\n\nIb. p. 254.\n\n  The apocryphal matter of your lessons in Tobit, Judith, Bel and the\n  Dragon, &c., is scarce agreeable to the word of God.\n\nDoes not Jude refer to an apocryphal book?\n\n\nIb.\n\n  Our experience unresistibly convinceth us that a continued prayer doth\n  more to help most of the people, and carry on their desires, than\n  turning almost every petition into a distinct prayer; and making\n  prefaces and conclusions to be near half the prayers.\n\nThis now is the very point I most admire in our excellent Liturgy. To\nany particular petition offered to the Omniscient, there may be a\nsinking of faith, a sense of its superfluity; but to the lifting up of\nthe soul to the Invisible and there fixing it on his attributes, there\ncan be no scruple.\n\n\nIb. p. 257.\n\n  The not abating of the impositions is the carting off of many hundreds\n  of your brethren out of the ministry, and of many thousand Christians\n  out of your communion; but the abating of the impositions will so\n  offend you as to silence or excommunicate none of you at all. For\n  example, we think it a sin to subscribe, or swear canonical obedience,\n  or use the transient image of the Cross in Baptism, and therefore\n  these must cast us out, &c.\n\nAs long as independent single Churches, or voluntarily synodical were\nforbidden and punishable by penal law, this argument remained\nirrefragable. The imposition of such trifles under such fearful threats\nwas the very bitterness of spiritual pride and vindictiveness;--after\nthe law passed by which things became as they now are, it was a mere\nquestion of expediency for the National Church to determine in relation\nto its own comparative interests. If the Church chose unluckily, the\ninjury has been to itself alone.\n\nIt seems strange that such men as Baxter should not see that the use of\nthe ring, the surplice and the like, are indifferent according to his\nown confession, yea, mere trifles, in comparison with the peace of the\nChurch; but that it is no trifle, that men should refuse obedience to\nlawful authority in matters indifferent, and prefer the sin of schism to\noffending their taste and fancy. The Church did not, upon the whole,\ncontend for a trifle, nor for an indifferent matter, but for a principle\non which all order in society must depend. Still this is true only,\nprovided the Church enacts no ordinances that are not necessary or at\nleast plainly conducive to order or (generally) to the ends for which it\nis a Church. Besides, the point which the King had required them to\nconsider was not what ordinances it was right to obey, but what it was\nexpedient to enact or not to enact.\n\n\nIb. p. 269.\n\n  That the Pastors of the respective parishes may be allowed not only\n  publicly to preach, but personally to catechize or otherwise instruct\n  the several families, admitting none to the Lord's Table that have not\n  personally owned their Baptismal covenant by a credible profession of\n  faith and obedience; and to admonish and exhort the scandalous, in\n  order to their repentance: to hear the witnesses and the accused\n  party, and to appoint fit times and places for these things, and to\n  deny such persons the communion of the Church in the holy Eucharist,\n  that remain impenitent, or that wilfully refuse to come to their\n  Pastors to be instructed, or to answer such probable accusations; and\n  to continue such exclusion of them till they have made a credible\n  profession of repentance, and then to receive them again to the\n  communion of the Church;--provided there be place for due appeals to\n  superior power.\n\nSuppose only such men Pastors as are now most improperly, whether as\nboast or as sneer, called Evangelical, what an insufferable tyranny\nwould this introduce! Who would not rather live in Algiers? This alone\nwould make this minute history of the ecclesiastic factions invaluable,\nthat it must convince all sober lovers of independence and moral\nself-government, how dearly we ought to prize our present Church\nEstablishment with all its faults.\n\n\nIb. p. 272.\n\n  Therefore we humbly crave that your Majesty will here declare, that it\n  is your Majesty's pleasure that none be punished or troubled for not\n  using the Book of Common Prayer, till it be effectually reformed by\n  divines of both persuasions equally deputed thereunto.\n\nThe dispensing power of the Crown not only acknowledged, but earnestly\ninvoked! Cruel as the conduct of Laud and that of Sheldon to the\nDissentients was, yet God's justice stands clear towards them; for they\ndemanded that from others, which they themselves would not grant. They\nwere to be allowed at their own fancies to denounce the ring in\nmarriage, and yet impowered to endungeon, through the magistrate, the\nhonest and peaceable Quaker for rejecting the outward ceremony of water\nin Baptism, as seducing men to take it as a substitute for the spiritual\nreality;--though the Quakers, no less than themselves, appealed to\nScripture authority--the Baptist's own contrast of Christ's with the\nwater Baptism.\n\n\nIb. p. 273.\n\n  We are sure that kneeling in any adoration at all, in any worship, on\n  any Lord's Day in the year, or any week day between Easter and\n  Pentecost, was not only disused, but forbidden by General Councils,\n  &c.--and therefore that kneeling in the act of receiving is a novelty\n  contrary to the decrees and practice of the Church for many hundred\n  years after the Apostles.\n\nWas not this because kneeling was the agreed sign of sorrow and personal\ncontrition, which was not to be introduced into the public worship on\nthe great day and the solemn seasons of the Church's joy and\nthanksgiving? If so, Baxter's appeal to this usage is a gross sophism, a\nmere pun.\n\n\nIb. p. 308.\n\n  Baxter's Exceptions to the Common Prayer Book.\n\n  1. Order requireth that we begin with reverent prayer to God for his\n     acceptance and assistance, which is not done.\n\nEnunciation of God's invitations, and promises in God's own words, as in\nthe Common Prayer Book, much better.\n\n  2. That the Creed and Decalogue containing the faith, in which we\n     profess to assemble for God's worship, and the law which we have\n     broken by our sins, should go before the confession and Absolution;\n     or at least before the praises of the Church; which they do not.\n\nMight have deserved consideration, if the people or the larger number\nconsisted of uninstructed 'catechumeni', or mere candidates for\nChurch-membership. But the object being, not the first teaching of the\nCreed and Decalogue, but the lively reimpressing of the same, it is much\nbetter as it is.\n\n  3. The Confession omitteth not only original sin, but all actual sin\n     as specified by the particular commandments violated, and almost\n     all the aggravations of those sins.... Whereas confession, being\n     the expression of repentance, should be more particular, as\n     repentance itself should be.\n\nGrounded, on one of the grand errors of the whole Dissenting party,\nnamely, the confusion of public common prayer, praise, and instruction,\nwith domestic and even with private devotion. Our Confession is a\nperfect model for Christian communities.\n\n  4. When we have craved help for God's prayers, before we come to them,\n     we abruptly put in the petition for speedy deliverance--('O God,\n     make speed to save us: O Lord make haste to help us',) without any\n     intimation of the danger that we desire deliverance from, and\n     without any other petition conjoined.\n\n  5. It is disorderly in the manner, to sing the Scripture in a plain\n     tune after the manner of reading.\n\n  6. ('The Lord be with you. And with thy spirit',) being petitions\n     for divine assistance, come in abruptly in the midst or near the\n     end of morning prayer: And ('Let us pray'.) is adjoined when we\n     were before in prayer.\n\nMouse-like squeak and nibble.\n\n  7. ('Lord have mercy upon us: Christ have mercy upon us: Lord have\n     mercy upon us'.) seemeth an affected tautology without any special\n     cause or order here; and the Lord's Prayer is annexed that was\n     before recited, and yet the next words are again but a repetition\n     of the aforesaid oft repeated general ('O Lord, shew thy mercy upon\n     us'.)\n\nStill worse. The spirit in which this and similar complaints originated\nhas turned the prayers of Dissenting ministers into irreverent\npreachments, forgetting that tautology in words and thoughts implies no\ntautology in the music of the heart to which the words are, as it were,\nset, and that it is the heart that lifts itself up to God. Our words and\nthoughts are but parts of the enginery which remains with ourselves; and\nlogic, the rustling dry leaves of the lifeless reflex faculty, does not\nmerit even the name of a pulley or lever of devotion.\n\n  8. The prayer for the King ('O Lord, save the King'.) is without any\n     order put between the foresaid petition and another general request\n     only for audience. ('And mercifully hear us when we call upon\n     thee').\n\nA trifle, but just.\n\n  9. The second Collect is intituled ('For Peace'.) and hath not a word\n     in it of petition for peace, but only 'for defence in assaults of\n     enemies', and that we 'may not fear their power'. And the prefaces\n     ('in knowledge of whom standeth', &c. and 'whose service', &c.)\n     have no more evident respect to a petition for peace than to any\n     other. And the prayer itself comes in disorderly, while many\n     prayers or petitions are omitted, which according both to the\n     method of the Lord's Prayer, and the nature of the things, should\n     go before.\n\n  10. The third Collect intituled ('For Grace'.) is disorderly, &c....\n      And thus the main parts of prayer, according to the rule of the\n      Lord's Prayer and our common necessities, are omitted.\n\nNot wholly unfounded: but the objection proceeds on an arbitrary and (I\nthink) false assumption, that the Lord's Prayer was universally\nprescriptive in form and arrangement.\n\n  12. The Litany ... omitteth very many particulars, ... and it is\n      exceeding disorderly, following no just rules of method. Having\n      begged pardon of our sins, and deprecated vengeance, it proceedeth\n      to evil in general, and some few sins in particular, and thence to\n      a more particular enumeration of judgments; and thence to a\n      recitation of the parts of that work of our redemption, and thence\n      to the deprecation of judgments again, and thence to prayers for\n      the King and magistrates, and then for all nations, and then for\n      love and obedience, &c.\n\nThe very points here objected to as faults I should have selected as\nexcellencies. For do not the duties and temptations occur in real life\neven so intermingled? The imperfection of thought much more of language,\nso singly successive, allows no better representation of the close\nneighbourhood, nay the co-inherence of duty in duty, desire in desire.\nEvery want of the heart pointing Godward is a chili agon that touches at\na thousand points. From these remarks I except the last paragraph of s.\n12:\n\n  (As to the prayer for Bishops and Curates and the position of the\n  General Thanksgiving, &c.)\n\nwhich are defects so palpable and so easily removed, that nothing but\nantipathy to the objectors could have retained them.\n\n  13. The like defectiveness and disorder is in the Communion Collects\n  for the day.... There is no more reason why it should be appropriate\n  to that day than another, or rather be a common petition for all days,\n  &c.\n\nI do not see how these supposed improprieties, for want of\nappropriateness to the day, could be avoided without risk of the far\ngreater evil of too great appropriation to particular Saints and days as\nin Popery. I am so far a Puritan that I think nothing would have been\nlost, if Christmas day and Good Friday had been the only week days made\nholy days, and Easter the only Lord's day especially distinguished. I\nshould also have added Whitsunday; but that it has become unmeaning\nsince our Clergy have, as I grieve to think, become generally Arminian,\nand interpreting the descent of the Spirit as the gift of miracles and\nof miraculous infallibility by inspiration have rendered it of course of\nlittle or no application to Christians at present. Yet how can Arminians\npray our Church prayers collectively on any day? Answer. See a 'boa\nconstrictor' with an ox or deer. What they do swallow, proves so\nastounding a dilatability of gullet, that it would be unconscionable\nstrictness to complain of the horns, antlers, or other indigestible\nnon-essentials being suffered to rot off at the confines, [Greek: h\u00e9rkos\nhod\u00f3nt\u00f4n]. But to write seriously on so serious a subject, it is\nmournful to reflect that the influence of the systematic theology then\nin fashion with the anti-Prelatic divines, whether Episcopalians or\nPresbyterians, had quenched all fineness of mind, all flow of heart, all\ngrandeur of imagination in them; while the victorious party, the\nPrelatic Arminians, enriched as they were with all learning and highly\ngifted with taste and judgment, had emptied revelation of all the\ndoctrines that can properly be said to have been revealed, and thus\nequally caused the extinction of the imagination, and quenched the life\nin the light by withholding the appropriate fuel and the supporters of\nthe sacred flame. So that, between both parties, our transcendant\nLiturgy remains like an ancient Greek temple, a monumental proof of the\narchitectural genius of an age long departed, when there were giants in\nthe land.\n\n\nIb. p. 337.\n\n  As I was proceeding, Bishop Morley interrupted me according to his\n  manner, with vehemency crying out * * The Bishop interrupted me again\n  * * I attempted to speak, and still he interrupted me * * Bishop\n  Morley went on, talking louder than I, &c.\n\nThe Bishops appear to have behaved insolently enough. Safe in their\nknowledge of Charles's inclinations, they laughed in their sleeves at\nhis commission. Their best answer would have been to have pressed the\nanti-impositionists with their utter forgetfulness of the possible, nay,\nvery probable differences of opinion between the ministers and their\ncongregations. A vain minister might disgust a sober congregation with\nhis 'extempore' prayers, or his open contempt of their kneeling at the\nSacrament, and the like. Yet by what right if he acts only as an\nindividual? And then what an endless source of disputes and preferences\nof this minister or of that!\n\n\nIb. p. 341.\n\n  The paper offered by Bishop Cosins.\n\n  1. That the question may be put to the managers of the division,\n     Whether there be anything in the doctrine, or discipline, or the\n     Common Prayer, or ceremonies, contrary to the word of God; and if\n     they can make any such appear; let them be satisfied.\n\n  2. If not, let them propose what they desire in point of expediency,\n     and acknowledge it to be no more.\n\nThis was proposed, doubtless, by one of your sensible men; it is so\nplain, so plausible, shallow, 'nihili, nauci, pili, flocci-cal'. Why,\nthe very phrase \"contrary to the word of God\" would take a month to\ndefine, and neither party agree at last. One party says:\n\nThe Church has power from God's word to order all matters of order so as\nshall appear to them to conduce to decency and edification: but\nceremonies respect the orderly performance of divine service: ergo, the\nChurch has power to ordain ceremonies: but the Cross in baptizing is a\nceremony; ergo, the Church has power to prescribe the crossing in\nBaptism. What is rightfully ordered cannot be rightfully withstood:--but\nthe crossing, &c., is rightfully ordered:--'ergo', the crossing cannot\nbe rightfully omitted.\n\nTo this, how easily would the other party reply;\n\n1. That a small number of Bishops could not be called the Church:\n\n2. That no one Church had power or pretence from God's word to prescribe\n   concerning mere matters of outward decency and convenience to other\n   Churches or assemblies of Christian people:\n\n3. That the blending an unnecessary and suspicious, if not\n   superstitious, motion of the hand with a necessary and essential act\n   doth in no wise respect order or propriety:\n\nLastly, that to forbid a man to obey a direct command of God because he\nwill not join with it an admitted mere tradition of men, is contrary to\ncommon sense, no less than to God's word, expressly and by breach of\ncharity, which is the great end and purpose of God's word. Besides;\nmight not the Pope and his shavelings have made the same proposition to\nthe Reformers in the reign of Edward VI., in respect to the greater part\nof the idle superfluities which were rejected by the Reformers, only as\nidle and superfluous, and for that reason contrary to the spirit of the\nGospel, though few, if any, were in the direct teeth of a positive\nprohibition? Above all, an honest policy dictates that the end in view\nbeing fully determined, as here for instance, the preclusion of\ndisturbance and indecorum in Christian assemblies, every addition to\nmeans, already adequate to the securing of that end, tends to frustrate\nthe end, and is therefore evidently excluded from the prerogatives of\nthe Church, (however that word may be interpreted) inasmuch as its power\nis confined to such ceremonies and regulations as conduce to order and\ngeneral edification. In short it grieves me to think that the Heads of\nthe most Apostolical Church in Christendom should have insisted on three\nor four trifles, the abolition of which could have given offence to none\nbut such as from the baleful superstition that alone could attach\nimportance to them effectually, it was charity to offend;-when all the\nrest of Baxter's objections might have been answered so triumphantly.\n\n\nIb. p. 343.\n\n  Answer to the foresaid paper.\n\n  8. That none may be a preacher, that dare not subscribe that there is\n  nothing in the Common Prayer Book, the Book of Ordination, and the 39\n  Articles, that is contrary to the word of God.\n\nI think this might have been left out as well as the other two articles\nmentioned by Baxter. For as by the words \"contrary to the word of God\"\nin Cosins's paper, it was not meant to declare the Common Prayer Book\nfree from all error, the sense must have been, that there is not\nanything in it in such a way or degree contrary to God's word, as to\noblige us to assign sin to those who have overlooked it, or who think\nthe same compatible with God's word, or who, though individually\ndisapproving the particular thing, yet regard that acquiescence as an\nallowed sacrifice of individual opinion to modesty, charity, and zeal\nfor the peace of the Church. For observe that this eighth instance is\nadditional to, and therefore not inclusive of, the preceding seven:\notherwise it must have been placed as the first, or rather as the whole,\nthe seven following being motives and instances in support and\nexplanation of the point.\n\n\nIb. p. 368.\n\nLet me mediate here between Baxter and the Bishops: Baxter had taken for\ngranted that the King had a right to promise a revision of the Liturgy,\nCanons and regiment of the Church, and that the Bishops ought to have\nmet him and his friends as diplomatists on even ground. The Bishops\ncould not with discretion openly avow all they meant; and it would be\nbigotry to deny that the spirit of compromise had no indwelling in their\nfeelings or intents. But nevertheless it is true that they thought more\nin the spirit of the English Constitution than Baxter and his\nfriends.--\"This,\" thought they, \"is the law of the land, 'quam nolumus\nmutari'; and it must be the King with and by the advice of his\nParliament, that can authorize any part of his subjects to take the\nquestion of its repeal into consideration. Under other circumstances a\nKing might bring the Bishops and the Heads of the Romish party together\nto plot against the law of the land. No! we would have no other secret\nCommittees but of Parliamentary appointment. We are but so many\nindividuals. It is in the Legislature that the congregations, the party\nmost interested in this cause, meet collectively by their\nrepresentatives.\"--Lastly, let it not be overlooked, that the root of\nthe bitterness was common to both parties,--namely, the conviction of\nthe vital importance of uniformity;--and this admitted, surely an\nundoubted majority in favor of what is already law must decide whose\nuniformity it is to be.\n\n\nIb. p. 368.\n\n  We must needs believe that when your Majesty took our consent to a\n  Liturgy to be a foundation that would infer our concord, you meant not\n  that we should have no concord but by consenting to this Liturgy\n  without any considerable alteration.\n\nThis is forcible reasoning, but which the Bishops could fairly leave for\nthe King to answer;--the contract tacit or expressed, being between him\nand the anti-Prelatic Presbytero-Episcopalian party, to which neither\nthe Bishops nor the Legislature had acceded or assented. If Baxter and\nCalamy were so little imbued with the spirit of the Constitution as to\nconsider Charles II. as the breath of their nostrils, and this dread\nsovereign Breath in its passage gave a snort or a snuffle, or having led\nthem to expect a snuffle surprised them with a snort, let the reproach\nbe shared between the Breath's fetid conscience and the nostrils'\nnasoductility. The traitors to the liberty of their country who were\nswarming and intriguing for favor at Breda when they should have been at\ntheir post in Parliament or in the Lobby preparing terms and\nconditions!--Had all the ministers that were afterwards ejected and the\nPresbyterian party generally exerted themselves, heart and soul, with\nMonk's soldiers, and in collecting those whom Monk had displaced, and,\ninstead of carrying on treasons against the Government 'de facto' by\nmendicant negociations with Charles, had taken open measures to confer\nthe sceptre on him as the Scotch did,--whose stern and truly loyal\nconduct has been most unjustly condemned,--the schism in the Church\nmight have been prevented and the Revolution of 1688 superseded.\n\nN.B. In the above I speak of the Bishops as men interested in a\nlitigated estate. God forbid, I should seek to justify them as\nChristians.\n\n\nIb. p. 369.\n\n  'Qu\u00e6re'. Whether in the 20th Article these words are not\n  inserted;--'Habet Ecclesia auctoritatem in controversiis fidei'.\n\nStrange, that the evident antithesis between power in respect of\nceremonies, and authority in points of faith, should have been\noverlooked!\n\n\nIb.\n\n  Some have published, That there is a proper sacrifice in the Lord's\n  Supper, to exhibit Christ's death in the 'post-fact', as there was a\n  sacrifice to prefigure it in the Old Law in the 'ante-fact', and\n  therefore that we have a true altar, and not only metaphorically so\n  called.\n\nDoubtless a gross error, yet pardonable, for to errors nearly as gross\nit was opposed.\n\n\nIb.\n\n  Some have maintained that the Lord's Day is kept merely by\n  ecclesiastical constitution, and that the day is changeable.\n\nWhere shall we find the proof of the contrary?--at least, if the\nposition had been worded thus: The moral and spiritual obligation of\nkeeping the Lord's Day is grounded on its manifest necessity, and the\nevidence of its benignant effects in connection with those conditions of\nthe world of which even in Christianized countries there is no reason to\nexpect a change, and is therefore commanded by implication in the New\nTestament, so clearly and by so immediate a consequence, as to be no\nless binding on the conscience than an explicit command. A., having\nlawful authority, expressly commands me to go to London from Bristol.\nThere is at present but one safe road: this therefore is commanded by\nA.; and would be so, even though A. had spoken of another road which at\nthat time was open.\n\n\nIb. p. 370.\n\n  Some have broached out of Socinus a most uncomfortable and desperate\n  doctrine, that late repentance, that is, upon the last bed of\n  sickness, is unfruitful, at least to reconcile the penitent to God.\n\nThis no doubt refers to Jeremy Taylor's work on Repentance, and is but\ntoo faithful a description of its character.\n\n\nIb. p. 373.\n\n  A little after the King was beheaded, Mr. Atkins met this priest in\n  London, and going into a tavern with him, said to him in his familiar\n  way, \"What business have you here? I warrant you come about some\n  roguery or other.\" Whereupon the priest told it him as a great secret,\n  that there were thirty of them here in London, who by instructions\n  from Cardinal Mazarine, did take care of such affairs, and had sat in\n  council, and debated the question, whether the King should be put to\n  death or not;--and that it was carried in the affirmative, and there\n  were but two voices for the negative, which was his own and another's;\n  and that for his part, he could not concur with them, as foreseeing\n  what misery this would bring upon his country. Mr. Atkins stood to\n  the truth of this, but thought it a violation of the laws of\n  friendship to name the man.\n\nRichard Baxter was too thoroughly good for any experience to make him\nworldly wise; else, how could he have been simple enough to suppose,\nthat Mazarine would leave such a question to be voted 'pro' and 'con',\nand decided by thirty emissaries in London! And, how could he have\nreconciled Mazarine's having any share in Charles's death with his own\nmasterly account, pp. 98, 99, 100? Even Cromwell, though he might have\nprevented, could not have effected, the sentence. The regicidal judges\nwere not his creatures. Consult the Life of Colonel Hutchinson upon this.\n\n\nIb. p. 374.\n\n  Since this, Dr. Peter Moulin hath, in his Answer to 'Philanax\n  Anglicus', declared that he is ready to prove, when authority will\n  Call him to it, that the King's death, and the change of the\n  government, was first proposed both to the Sorbonne, and to the Pope\n  with his Conclave, and consented to and concluded for by both.\n\nThe Pope in his Conclave had about the same influence in Charles's fate\nas the Pope's eye in a leg of mutton. The letter intercepted by Cromwell\nwas Charles's death-warrant. Charles knew his power; and Cromwell and\nIreton knew it likewise, and knew that it was the power of a man who was\nwithin a yard's length of a talisman, only not within an arm's length,\nbut which in that state of the public mind, could he but have once\ngrasped it, would have enabled him to blow up Presbyterian and\nIndependent both. If ever a lawless act was defensible on the principle\nof self-preservation, the murder of Charles might be defended. I suspect\nthat the fatal delay in the publication of the 'Icon Basilike' is\nsusceptible of no other satisfactory explanation. In short it is absurd\nto burthen this act on Cromwell and his party, in any special sense. The\nguilt, if guilt it was, was consummated at the gates of Hull; that is,\nthe first moment that Charles was treated as an individual, man against\nman. Whatever right Hampden had to defend his life against the King in\nbattle, Cromwell and Ireton had in yet more imminent danger against the\nKing's plotting. Milton's reasoning on this point is unanswerable: and\nwhat a wretched hand does Baxter make of it!\n\n\nIb. p. 375.\n\n  But if the laws of the land appoint the nobles, as next the King, to\n  assist him in doing right, and withhold him from doing wrong, then be\n  they licensed by man's law, and so not prohibited by God's, to\n  interpose themselves for the safety of equity and innocency, and by\n  all lawful and needful means to procure the Prince to be reformed, but\n  in no case deprived, where the sceptre is inherited! So far Bishop\n  Bilson.\n\nExcellent! O, by all means preserve for him the benefit of his rightful\nheir-loom, the regal sceptre; only lay it about his shoulders, till he\npromises to handle it, as he ought! But what if he breaks his promise\nand your head? or what if he will not promise? How much honester would\nit be to say, that extreme cases are 'ipso nomine' not generalizable,\n--therefore not the subjects of a law, which is the conclusion 'per\ngenus singuli in genere inclusi'. Every extreme case must be judged by\nand for itself under all the peculiar circumstances. Now as these are\nnot foreknowable, the case itself cannot be predeterminable. Harmodius\nand Aristogiton did not justify Brutus and Cassius: but neither do\nBrutus and Cassius criminate Harmodius and Aristogiton. The rule applies\ntill an extreme case occurs; and how can this be proved? I answer, the\nonly proof is success and good event; for these afford the best\npresumption, first, of the extremity, and secondly, of its remediable\nnature--the two elements of its justification. To every individual it is\nforbidden. He who attempts it, therefore, must do so on the presumption\nthat the will of the nation is in his will: whether he is mad or in his\nsenses, the event can alone determine.\n\n\nIb. p. 398.\n\n  The governing power and obligation over the flock is essential to the\n  office of a Pastor or Presbyter as instituted by Christ.\n\nThere is, [Greek: h\u00f4s \u00e9moige dokei], one flaw in Baxter's plea for his\nPresbyterian form of Church government, that he uses a metaphor, which,\ninasmuch as it is but a metaphor, agrees with the thing meant in some\npoints only, as if it were commensurate 'in toto', and virtually\nidentical. Thus, the Presbyter is a shepherd as far as the watchfulness,\ntenderness, and care, are to be the same in both; but it does not follow\nthat the Presbyter has the same sole power and exclusive right of\nguidance; and for this reason,--that his flock are not sheep, but men;\nnot of a natural, generic, or even constant inferiority of judgment; but\nChristians, co-heirs of the promises, and therein of the gifts of the\nHoly Spirit, and of the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. How then\ncan they be excluded from a share in Church Government? The words of\nChrist, if they may be transferred from their immediate application to\nthe Jewish Synagogue, suppose the contrary;--and that highest act of\ngovernment, the election of the officers and ministers of the Church,\nwas confessedly exercised by the congregations including the Presbyters\nand Arch-presbyter or Bishop, in the primitive Church. The question,\ntherefore, is:--Is a national Church, established by law, compatible\nwith Christianity? If so, as Baxter held, the representatives (King,\nLords, and Commons,) are or may be representatives of the whole people\nas Christians as well as civil subjects;--and their voice will then be\nthe voice of the Church, which every individual, as an individual,\nthemselves as individuals, and, 'a fortiori', the officers and\nadministrators appointed by them, are bound to obey at the risk of\nexcommunication, against which there would be no appeal, but to the\nheavenly C\u00e6sar, the Lord and Head of the universal Church. But whether\nas the accredited representatives and plenipotentiaries of the national\nChurch, they can avail themselves of their conjoint but distinct\ncharacter, as temporal legislators, to superadd corporal or civil\npenalties to the spiritual sentence in points peculiar to Christianity,\nas heretical opinions, Church ceremonies, and the like, thus destroying\n'discipline', even as wood is destroyed by combination with fire;--this\nis a new and difficult question, which yet Baxter and the Presbyterian\ndivines, and the Puritans of that age in general, not only answered\naffirmatively, but most zealously, not to say furiously, affirmed with\nanathemas to the assertors of the negative, and spiritual threats to the\nmagistrates neglecting to interpose the temporal sword. In this respect\nthe present Dissenters have the advantage over their earlier\npredecessors; but on the other hand they utterly evacuate the Scriptural\ncommands against schism; take away all sense and significance from the\narticle respecting the Catholic Church; and in consequence degrade the\ndiscipline itself into mere club-regulations or the by-laws of different\nlodges;--that very discipline, the capability of exercising which in its\nown specific nature without superinduction of a destructive and\ntransmutual opposite, is the fairest and firmest support of their cause.\n\n20th October, 1829.\n\n\nIb. p. 401.\n\n  That sententially it must be done by the Pastor or Governor of that\n  particular Church, which the person is to be admitted into, or cast\n  out of.\n\nThis most arbitrary appropriation of the words of Christ, and of the\napostles, John and Paul, by the Clergy to themselves exclusively, is the\n[Greek: pr\u00f4ton pseudos], the fatal error which has practically excluded\nChurch discipline from among Protestants in all free countries. That it\nis retained, and an efficient power, among the Quakers, and only in that\nSect, who act collectively as a Church,--who not only have no proper\nClergy, but will not allow a division of majority and minority, nor a\ntemporary president,--seems to supply an unanswerable confirmation of\nthis my assertion, and a strong presumption for the validity of my\nargument. The Wesleyan Methodists have, I know, a discipline, and the\npower is in their consistory,--a general conclave of priests cardinal\nsince the death of Pope Wesley. But what divisions and secessions this\nhas given rise to; what discontents and heart-burnings it still\noccasions in their labouring inferior ministers, and in the classes, is\nno less notorious, and may authorize a belief that as the Sect\nincreases, it will be less and less effective; nay, that it has\ndecreased; and after all, what is it compared with the discipline of the\nQuakers?--Baxter's inconsistency on this subject would be inexplicable,\ndid we not know his zealotry against Harrington, the Deists and the\nMystics;--so that, like an electrified pith-ball, he is for ever\nattracted towards their tenets concerning the pretended perfecting of\nspiritual sentences by the civil magistrate, but he touches only to fly\noff again. \"Toleration! dainty word for soul-murder! God grant that my\neye may never see a toleration!\" he exclaims in his book against\nHarrington's Oceana.\n\n\nIb. p. 405.\n\n  As for the democratical conceit of them that say that the Parliament\n  hath their governing power, as they are the people's representatives,\n  and so have the members of the convocation, though those represented\n  have no governing power themselves, it is so palpably\n  self-contradicting, that I need not confute it.\n\nSelf-contradicting according to Baxter's sense of the words \"represent\"\nand \"govern.\" But every rational adult has a governing power: namely,\nthat of governing himself.\n\n\nIb. p. 412.\n\n  That though a subject ought to take an oath in the sense of his rulers\n  who impose it, as far as he can understand it; yet a man that taketh\n  an oath from a robber to save his life is not always bound to take it\n  in the imposer's sense, if he take it not against the proper sense of\n  the words.\n\nThis is a point, on which I have never been able to satisfy myself.--The\nonly safe conclusion I have been able to draw, being the folly,\nmischief, and immorality of all oaths but judicial ones,--and those no\nfarther excepted than as they are means of securing a deliberate\nconsciousness of the presence of the Omniscient Judge. The inclination\nof my mind is at this moment, to the principle that an oath may deepen\nthe guilt of an act sinful in itself, but cannot be detached from the\nact; it being understood that a perfectly voluntary and self-imposed\noath is itself a sin. The man who compels me to take an oath by putting\na pistol to my ear has in my mind clearly forfeited all his right to be\ntreated as a moral agent. Nay, it seems to be a sin to act so as to\ninduce him to suppose himself such. Contingent consequences must be\nexcluded; but would, I am persuaded, weigh in favour of annulling on\nprinciple an oath sinfully extorted. But I hate casuistry so utterly,\nthat I could not without great violence to my feelings put the case in\nall its bearings. For example:--it is sinful to enlarge the power of\nwicked agents; but to allow them to have the power of binding the\nconscience of those, whom they have injured, is to enlarge the power,\n&c. Again: no oath can bind to the perpetration of a sin; but to\ntransfer a sum of money from its rightful owner to a villain is a sin,\n&c. and twenty other such. But the robber may kill the next man!\nPossibly: but still more probably, many, who would be robbers if they\ncould obtain their ends without murder, would resist the temptation if\nno extenuations of guilt were contemplated;--and one murder is more\neffective in rousing the public mind to preventive measures, and by the\nhorror it strikes, is made more directly preventive of the tendency,\nthan fifty civil robberies by contract.\n\n\nIb. p. 435.\n\n  That the minister be not bound to read the Liturgy himself, if\n  another, by whomsoever, be procured to do it; so be it he preach not\n  against it.\n\nWonderful, that so good and wise a man as Baxter should not have seen\nthat in this the Church would have given up the best, perhaps the only\nefficient, preservative of her Faith. But for our blessed and truly\nApostolic and Scriptural Liturgy, our churches' pews would long ago have\nbeen filled by Arians and Socinians, as too many of their desks and\npulpits already are.\n\n\nPart III. p. 59.\n\n  As also to make us take such a poor suffering as this for a sign of\n  true grace, instead of faith, hope, love, mortification, and a\n  heavenly mind; and that the loss of one grain of love was worse than a\n  long imprisonment.\n\nHere Baxter confounds his own particular case, which very many would\nhave coveted, with the sufferings of other prisoners on the same\nscore;--sufferings nominally the same, but with few, if any, of Baxter's\nalmost flattering supports.\n\n\nIb. p. 60.\n\n  It would trouble the reader for me to reckon up the many diseases and\n  dangers for these ten years past, in or from which God hath delivered\n  me; though it be my duty not to forget to be thankful. Seven months\n  together I was lame with a strange pain in one foot, twice delivered\n  from a bloody flux; a spurious cataract in my eye, with incessant webs\n  and networks before it, hath continued these eight years, * * * so\n  that I have rarely one hour's or quarter of an hour's ease. Yet\n  through God's mercy I was never one hour melancholy, &c.\n\nThe power of the soul, by its own act of will, is, I admit, great for\nany one occasion or for a definite time, yea, it is marvellous. But of\nsuch exertions and such an even frame of spirit, as Baxter's were, under\nsuch unremitting and almost unheard-of bodily derangements and pains as\nhis, and during so long a life, 1 do not believe a human soul capable,\nunless substantiated and successively potentiated by an especial divine\ngrace.\n\n\nIb. p. 65.\n\n  The reasons why I make no larger a profession necessary than the Creed\n  and Scriptures, are, because if we depart from this old sufficient\n  Catholic rule, we narrow the Church, and depart from the old\n  Catholicism.\n\nWhy then any Creed? This is the difficulty. If you put the Creed as in\nfact, and not by courtesy, Apostolic, and on a parity with Scripture,\nhaving, namely, its authority in itself, and a direct inspiration of the\nframers, inspired 'ad id tempus et ad eam rem', on what ground is this\nto be done, without admitting the binding power of tradition in the very\nsense of the term in which the Church of Rome uses it, and the\nProtestant Churches reject it? That it is the sum total made by\nApostolic contributions, each Apostle casting, as into a helmet, a\nseveral article as his [Greek: symbolon], is the tradition; and this is\nholden as a mere legendary tale by the great majority of learned\ndivines. That it is simply the Creed of the Western Church is affirmed\nby many Protestant divines, and some of these divines of our Church. Its\ncomparative simplicity these divines explain by the freedom from\nheresies enjoyed by the Western Church, when the Eastern Church had been\nlong troubled therewith. Others, again, and not unplausibly, contend\nthat it was the Creed of the Catechumens preparatory to the Baptismal\nprofession of faith, which other was a fuller comment on the union of\nthe Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, into whose name (or power) they\nwere baptised. That the Apostles' Creed received additions after the\nApostolic age, seems almost certain; not to mention the perplexing\ncircumstance that so many of the Latin Fathers, who give almost the\nwords of the Apostolic Creed, declare it forbidden absolutely to write\nor by any material form to transmit the 'Canon Fidei', or 'Symbolum' or\n'Regula Fidei', the Creed [Greek: kat' hexoch\u00e1en], by analogy of which\nthe question whether such a book was Scripture or not, was to be tried.\nWith such doubts how can the Apostles' Creed be preferred to the Nicene\nby a consistent member of the Reformed Catholic Church?\n\n\nIb. p. 67.\n\n  They think while you (the Independents) seem to be for a stricter\n  discipline than others, that your way or usual practice tendeth to\n  extirpate godliness out of the land, by taking a very few that can\n  talk more than the rest, and making them the Church, &c.\n\nHad Baxter had as judicious advisers among his theological, as he had\namong his legal, friends; and had he allowed them equal influence with\nhim; he would not, I suspect, have written this irritating and too\negometical paragraph. But Baxter would have disbelieved a prophet who\nhad foretold that almost the whole orthodoxy of the Non-conformists\nwould he retained and preserved by the Independent congregations in\nEngland, after the Presbyterian had almost without exception become,\nfirst, Arian, then Socinian, and finally Unitarian: that is, the\n'demi-semi-quaver' of Christianity, Arminianism being taken for the\n'semi-breve'.\n\n\nIb. p. 69.\n\n  After this I waited on him (Dr. John Owen) at London again, and he\n  came once to me to my lodgings, when I was in town near him. And he\n  told me that he received my chiding letter and perceived that I\n  suspected his reality in the business; but he was so hearty in it that\n  I should see that he really meant as he spoke, concluding in these\n  words, \"You shall see it, and my practice shall reproach your\n  diffidence\" * * *. About a month after I went to him again, and he had\n  done nothing, but was still hearty for the work. And to be short, I\n  thus waited on him time after time, till my papers had been near a\n  year and a quarter in his hand, and then I advised him to return them\n  to me, which he did, with these words, \"I am still a well-wisher to\n  those mathematics;\"--without any other words about them, or ever\n  giving me any more exception against them. And this was the issue of\n  my third attempt for union with the Independents.\n\nDr. Owen was a man of no ordinary intellect. It would be interesting to\nhave his conduct in this point, seemingly so strange, in some measure\nexplained: The words \"those mathematics\" look like an innuendo, that\nBaxter's scheme of union, by which all the parties opposed to the\nPrelatic Church were to form a rival Church, was, like the mathematics,\ntrue indeed, but true only in the idea, that is, abstracted from the\nsubject matter. Still there appears a very chilling want of\nopen-heartedness on the part of Owen, produced perhaps by the somewhat\noverly and certainly most ungracious resentments of Baxter. It was odd\nat least to propose concord in the tone and on the alleged ground of an\nold grudge.\n\n\nIb.\n\n  I have been twenty-six years convinced that dichotomizing will not do\n  it, but that the divine Trinity in Unity hath expressed itself in the\n  whole frame of nature and morality * * *. But he, Mr. George Lawson,\n  had not hit on the true method of the 'vestigia Trinitatis', &c.\n\nAmong Baxter's philosophical merits, we ought not to overlook, that the\nsubstitution of Trichotomy for the old and still general plan of\nDichotomy in the method and disposition of Logic, which forms so\nprominent and substantial an excellence in Kant's Critique of the Pure\nReason, of the Judgment, and the rest of his works, belongs originally\nto Richard Baxter, a century before Kant;--and this not as a hint, but\nas a fully evolved and systematically applied principle. Nay, more than\nthis:--Baxter grounded it on an absolute idea presupposed in all\nintelligential acts: whereas Kant takes it only as a fact in which he\nseems to anticipate or suspect some yet deeper truth latent, and\nhereafter to be discovered.\n\nOn recollection, however, I am disposed to consider 'this' alone as\nBaxter's peculiar claim, I have not indeed any distinct memory of\nGiordano Bruno's 'Logice Venatrix Veritatis'; but doubtless the\nprinciple of Trichotomy is necessarily involved in the Polar Logic,\nwhich again is the same with the Pythagorean 'Tetractys', that is, the\neternal fountain or source of nature; and this being sacred to\ncontemplations of identity, and prior in order of thought to all\ndivision, is so far from interfering with Trichotomy as the universal\nform of division (more correctly of distinctive distribution in logic)\nthat it implies it. 'Prothesis' being by the very term anterior to\n'Thesis' can be no part of it. Thus in\n\n                         'Prothesis'\n               'Thesis'              'Antithesis'\n                         'Synthesis'\n\nwe have the Tetrad indeed in the intellectual and intuitive\ncontemplation, but a Triad in discursive arrangement, and a Tri-unity in\nresult. [3]\n\n\nIb. p. 144.\n\nSeeing the great difficulties that lie in the way of increasing\ncharities so as to meet the increase of population, or even so as to\nfollow it, and the manifold desirableness of parish Churches, with the\nmaterial dignity that in a right state of Christian order would attach\nto them, as compared with meeting-houses, chapels, and the like--all\nmore or less 'privati juris', I have often felt disposed to wish that\nthe large majestic Church, central to each given parish, might have been\nappropriated to Public Prayer, to the mysteries of Baptism and the\nLord's Supper, and to the 'quasi sacramenta', Marriage, Penance,\nConfirmation, Ordination, and to the continued reading aloud, or\noccasional chanting, of the Scriptures during the intervals of the\ndifferent Services, which ought to be so often performed as to suffice\nsuccessively for the whole population; and that on the other hand the\nchapels and the like should be entirely devoted to teaching and\nexpounding.\n\n\nIb. p. 153.\n\n  And I proved to him that Christianity was proved true many years\n  before any of the New Testament was written, and that so it may be\n  still proved by one that doubted of some words of the Scripture; and\n  therefore the true order is, to try the truth of the Christian\n  religion first, and the perfect verity of the Scriptures afterwards.\n\nWith more than Dominican virulence did Goeze, Head Pastor of the\nLutheran Church at Hamburg, assail the celebrated Lessing for making and\nsupporting the same position as the pious Baxter here advances.\n\nThis controversy with Goeze was in 1778, nearly a hundred years after\nBaxter's writing this.\n\n\nIb. p. 155.\n\n  And within a few days Mr. Barnett riding the circuit was cast by his\n  horse, and died in the very fall. And Sir John Medlicote and his\n  brother, a few weeks after, lay both dead in his house together.\n\nThis interpreting of accidents and coincidences into judgments is a\nbreach of charity and humility, only not universal among all sects and\nparties of this period, and common to the best and gentlest men in all;\nwe should not therefore bring it in charge against any one in\nparticular. But what excuse shall be made for the revival of this\npresumptuous encroachment on the divine prerogative in our days?\n\n\nIb. p. 180.\n\n  Near this time my book called A Key for Catholics, was to be\n  reprinted. In the preface to the first impression I had mentioned with\n  praise the Earl of Lauderdale. * * * I thought best to prefix an\n  epistle to the Duke, in which I said not a word of him but truth. * *\n  * But the indignation that men had against the Duke made some blame\n  me, as keeping up the reputation of one whom multitudes thought very\n  ill of; whereas I owned none of his faults, and did nothing that I\n  could well avoid for the aforesaid reasons. Long after this he\n  professed his kindness to me, and told me I should never want while he\n  was able, and humbly entreated me to accept twenty guineas from him,\n  which I did.\n\nThis would be a curious proof of the slow and imperfect intercourse of\ncommunication between Scotland and London, if Baxter had not been\nparticularly informed of Lauderdale's horrible cruelties to the Scotch\nCovenanters:--and if Baxter did know them, he surely ran into a greater\ninconsistency to avoid the appearance of a less. And the twenty guineas!\nthey must have smelt, I should think, of more than the earthly brimstone\nthat might naturally enough have been expected in gold or silver, from\nhis palm. I would as soon have plucked an ingot from the cleft of the\nDevil's hoof.\n\n  [Greek: Taut' \u00e9legon per\u00edthumos eg\u00f4 g\u00e0r m\u00edsei en \u00eds\u00f4 Laud\u00e9rdalon \u00e9ch\u00f4\n  ka\u00ec kerkoker\u00f4nucha Satan.]\n\n\nIb. p. 181.\n\n  About that time I had finished a book called Catholic Thoughts; in\n  which I undertake to prove that besides things unrevealed, known to\n  none, and ambiguous words, there is no considerable difference between\n  the Arminians and Calvinists, except some very tolerable difference in\n  the point of perseverance.\n\nWhat Arminians? what Calvinists?--It is possible that the guarded\nlanguage and positions of Arminius himself may be interpreted into a\n\"very tolerable\" compatibility with the principles of the milder\nCalvinists, such as Archbishop Leighton, that true Father of the Church\nof Christ. But I more than doubt the possibility of even approximating\nthe principles of Bishop Jeremy Taylor to the fundamental doctrines of\nLeighton, much more to those of Cartwright, Twiss, or Owen.\n\n\nIb. p. 186.\n\n  Bishop Barlow told my friend that got my papers for him, that he could\n  hear of nothing that we judged to be sin, but mere inconveniences.\n  When as above seventeen years ago, we publicly endeavoured to prove\n  the sinfulness even of many of the old impositions.\n\nClearly an undeterminable controversy; inasmuch as there is no\ncentra-definition possible of sin and inconvenience in religion: while\nthe exact point, at which an inconvenience, becoming intolerable, passes\ninto sin, must depend on the state and the degree of light, of the\nindividual consciences to which it appears or becomes intolerable.\nBesides, a thing may not be only indifferent in itself, but may be\ndeclared such by Scripture, and on this indifference the Scripture may\nhave rested a prohibition to Christians to judge each other on the\npoint. If yet a Pope or Archbishop should force this on the consciences\nof others, for example, to eat or not to eat animal food, would he not\nsin in so doing? And does Scripture permit me to subscribe to an\nordinance made in direct contempt of a command of Scripture?\n\nIf it were said,--In all matters indifferent and so not sinful you must\ncomply with lawful authority:--must I not reply, But you have yourself\nremoved the indifferency by your injunction? Look in Popish countries\nfor the hideous consequences of the unnatural doctrine--that the Priest\nmay go to Hell for sinfully commanding, and his parishioners go with him\nfor not obeying that command.\n\n\nIb. p. 191.\n\n  About this time died my dear friend Mr. Thomas Gouge, of whose life\n  you may see a little in Mr. Clark's last book of Lives:--a wonder of\n  sincere industry in works of charity. It would make a volume to recite\n  at large the charity he used to his poor parishioners at Sepulchre's,\n  before he was ejected and silenced for non-conformity, &c.\n\nI cannot express how much it grieves me, that our Clergy should still\nthink it fit and expedient to defend the measures of the High Churchmen\nfrom Laud to Sheldon, and to speak of the ejected ministers, Calamy,\nBaxter, Gouge, Howe, and others, as schismatics, factionists, fanatics,\nor Pharisees:--thus to flatter some half-dozen dead Bishops, wantonly\ndepriving our present Church of the authority of perhaps the largest\ncollective number of learned and zealous, discreet and holy, ministers\nthat one age and one Church was ever blest with; and whose authority in\nevery considerable point is in favor of our Church, and against the\npresent Dissenters from it. And this seems the more impolitic, when it\nmust be clear to every student of the history of these times, that the\nunmanly cruelties inflicted on Baxter and others were, as Bishops Ward,\nStillingfleet, and others saw at the time, part of the Popish scheme of\nthe Cabal, to trick the Bishops and dignified Clergy into rendering\nthemselves and the established Church odious to the public by laws, the\nexecution of which the King, the Duke, Arlington, and the Popish priests\ndirected towards the very last man that the Bishops themselves (the\ngreat majority at least) would have molested.\n\n\nAppendix II. p. 37.\n\n  If I can prove that it hath been the universal practice of the Church\n  'in nudum apertum caput manus imponere', doth it follow that this is\n  essential, and the contrary null?\n\nHow likewise can it be proved that the imposition of hands in Ordination\ndid not stand on the same ground as the imposition of hands in sickness;\nthat is, the miraculous gifts of the first preachers of the Gospel? All\nProtestants admit that the Church retained several forms so originated,\nafter the cessation of the originating powers, which were the substance\nof these forms.\n\n\nIb.\n\n  If you think not only imposition to be essential, but also that\n  nothing else is essential, or that all are true ministers that are\n  ordained by a lawful Bishop per 'manuum impositionem', then do you\n  egregiously 'tibi ipsi imponere'.\n\nBaxter, like most scholastic logicians, had a sneaking affection for\npuns. The cause is,--the necessity of attending to the primary sense of\nwords, that is, the visual image or general relation expressed, and\nwhich remains common to all the after senses, however widely or even\nincongruously differing from each other in other respects. For the same\nreason, schoolmasters are commonly punsters. \"I have indorsed your Bill,\nSir,\" said a pedagogue to a merchant, meaning he had flogged his son\nWilliam.--My old master the Rev. James Bowyer, the 'Hercules furens' of\nthe phlogistic sect, but else an incomparable teacher,--used to\ntranslate, 'Nihil in intellectu quod non prius in sensu',--first\nreciting the Latin words, and observing that they were the fundamental\narticle of the Peripatetic school,--\"You must flog a boy, before you can\nmake him understand;\"--or, \"You must lay it in at the tail before you\ncan get it into the head.\"\n\n\nIb. p. 45.\n\n  Then, that the will must follow the practical intellect whether right\n  or wrong,--that is no precept, but the nature of the soul in its\n  acting, because that the will is 'potentia c\u00e6ca, non nata ad\n  intelligendum, sed ad volendum vel nolendum intellectum'.\n\nThis is the main fault in Baxter's metaphysics, that he so often\nsubstantiates distinctions into dividuous self-subsistents. As\nhere;--for a will not intelligent is no will.\n\n\nAppendix. III. p. 55.\n\n  And for many ages no other ordinarily baptised but infants. If Christ\n  had no Church then, where was his wisdom, his love, and his power?\n  What was become of the glory of his redemption, and his Catholic\n  Church, that was to continue to the end?\n\nBut the Antipoedo-Baptists would deny any such consequences as\napplicable to them, who are to act according to the circumstances, in\nwhich God, who ordains his successive manifestations in due\ncorrespondence with other lights and states of things, has placed them.\nHe does not exclude from the Church of Christ (say they) those whom we\ndo not accept into the communion of our particular Society, any more\nthan the House of Lords excludes Commoners from being Members of\nParliament. And we do this because--we think that such promiscuous\nadmission would prolong an error which would be deadly to us, though not\nto you who interpret the Scriptures otherwise.\n\n\n'In fine.'\n\nThere are two senses in which the words, 'Church of England,' may be\nused;--first, with reference to the idea of the Church as an estate of\nthis Christian Realm, protesting against the Papal usurpation,\ncomprising, first, the interests of a permanent learned class, that is,\nthe Clergy;--secondly, those of the proper, that is, the infirm poor,\nfrom age or sickness;--and thirdly, the adequate proportional\ninstruction of all in all classes by public prayer, recitation of the\nScriptures, by expounding, preaching, catechizing, and schooling, and\nlast, not least, by the example and influence of a pastor and a\nschoolmaster placed as a germ of civilization and cultivation in every\nparish throughout the land. To this idea, the Reformed Church of England\nwith its marriable and married Clergy would have approximated, if the\nrevenues of the Church, as they existed at the death of Henry VII., had\nbeen rightly transferred by his successor;--transferred, I mean, from\nreservoirs, which had by degeneracy on the one hand, and progressive\nimprovement on the other, fallen into ruin, and in which those revenues\nhad stagnated into contagion or uselessness,--transferred from what had\nbecome public evils to their original and inherent purpose of public\nbenefits, instead of being sacrilegiously alienated by a transfer to\nprivate proprietors. That this was impracticable, is historically true;\nbut no less true is it philosophically, that this impracticability,\narising wholly from moral causes, (namely, the loose manners and corrupt\nprinciples of a great majority in all classes during the dynasty of the\nTudors,) does not prevent this wholesale sacrilege, from deserving the\ncharacter of the \"first and deadliest wound inflicted on the\nConstitution of the kingdom; which term, in the body politic, as in\nbodies natural, expresses not only what is and has been evolved, but\nlikewise whatever is potentially contained in the seminal principle of\nthe particular body, and which would in its due time have appeared but\nfor emasculation in its infancy. This, however, is the first sense of\nthe words, Church of England. [4]\n\nThe second is the Church of England as now by law established, and by\npractice of the law actually existing. That in the first sense it is the\nobject of my admiration and the earthly 'ne plus ultra' of my religious\naspirations, it were superfluous to say: but I may be allowed to express\nmy conviction, that on our recurring to the same ends and objects, (the\nrestoration of a national and circulating property in counterpoise of\nindividual possession, disposable and heritable) though in other forms\nand by other means perhaps, the decline or progress of this country\ndepends. In the second sense of the words I can sincerely profess, that\nI love and honour the Church of England, comparatively, beyond any other\nChurch established or unestablished now existing in Christendom; and it\nis wholly in consequence of this deliberate and most affectionate filial\npreference, that I have read this work, and Calamy's historical\nwritings, with so deep and so melancholy an interest. And I dare avow\nthat I cannot but regard as an ignorant bigot every man who (especially\nsince the publicity and authentication of the contents of the Stuart\nPapers, Memoirs and Life of James II. &c.) can place the far later\nfurious High Church compilations and stories of Walker and others in\ncompetition with the veracity and general verity of Baxter and Calamy;\nor can forget that the great body of Non-conformists to whom these great\nand good men belonged, were not dissenters from the established Church\nwillingly, but an orthodox and numerous portion of the Church. Omitting\nthen the wound received by religion generally under Henry VIII., and the\nshameless secularizations clandestinely effected during the reigns of\nElizabeth and the first James, I am disposed to consider the three\nfollowing as the grand evil epochs of our present Church. First, The\nintroduction and after-predominance of Latitudinarianism under the name\nof Arminianism, and the spirit of a conjoint Romanism and Socinianism at\nthe latter half or towards the close of the reign of James I. in the\npersons of Montague, Laud, and their confederates. Second, The ejection\nof the two thousand ministers after the Restoration, with the other\nviolences in which the Churchmen made themselves the dupes of Charles,\nJames, the Jesuits, and the French Court. (See the Stuart Papers\n'passim'). It was this that gave consistence and enduring strength to\nSchism in this country, prevented the pacation of Ireland, and prepared\nfor the separation of America at a far too early period for the true\ninterest of either country. Third, The surrender by the Clergy of the\nright of taxing themselves, and the Jacobitical follies that combined\nwith the former to put it in the power of the Whig party to deprive the\nChurch of her Convocation,--a bitter disgrace and wrong, to which most\nunhappily the people were rendered indifferent by the increasing\ncontrast of the sermons of the Clergy with the Articles and Homilies of\nthe Church itself,--but a wrong nevertheless which already has avenged,\nand will sooner or later be seen to avenge, itself on the State and the\ngoverning classes that continue this boast of a short-sighted policy;\nthe same policy which in our own days would have funded the property of\nthe Church, and, by converting the Clergy into salaried dependents on\nthe Government 'pro tempore', have deprived the Establishment of its\nfairest honor, that of being neither enslaved to the court, nor to the\ncongregations; the same policy, alas! which even now pays and patronizes\na Board of Agriculture to undermine all landed property by a succession\nof false, shallow, and inflammatory libels against tithes.\n\nThese are my weighed sentiments: and fervently desiring, as I do, the\nperpetuity and prosperity of the established Church, zealous for its\nrights and dignity, preferring its forms, believing its Articles of\nFaith, and holding its Book of Common Prayer and its translation of the\nScriptures among my highest privileges as a Christian and an Englishman,\nI trust that I may both entertain and avow these sentiments without\nforfeiting any part of my claim to the name of a faithful member of the\nChurch of England.\n\nJune 1820.\n\n\nN. B. As to Warburton's Alliance of the Church and State, I object to\nthe title (Alliance), and to the matter and mode of the reasoning. But\nthe inter-dependence of the Church and the State appears to me a truth\nof the highest practical importance. Let but the temporal powers protect\nthe subjects in their just rights as subjects merely: and I do not know\nof any one point in which the Church has the right or the necessity to\ncall in the temporal power as its ally for any purpose exclusively\necclesiastic. The right of a firm to dissolve its partnership with any\none partner, breach of contract having been proved, and publicly to\nannounce the same, is common to all men as social beings.\n\nI spoke above of \"Romanism.\" But call it, if you like, Laudism, or\nLambethism in temporalities and ceremonials, and of Socinianism in\ndoctrine, that is, a retaining of the word but a rejecting or\ninterpreting away of the sense and substance of the Scriptural\nMysteries. This spirit has not indeed manifested itself in the article\nof the Trinity, since Waterland gave the deathblow to Arianism, and so\nleft no alternative to the Clergy, but the actual divinity or mere\nhumanity of our Lord; and the latter would be too impudent an avowal for\na public reader of our Church Liturgy: but in the articles of original\nsin, the necessity of regeneration, the necessity of redemption in order\nto the possibility of regeneration, of justification by faith, and of\nprevenient and auxiliary grace,--all I can say with sincerity is, that\nour orthodoxy seems so far in an improving state, that I can hope for\nthe time when Churchmen will use the term Arminianism to express a habit\nof belief opposed not to Calvinism, or the works of Calvin, but to the\nArticles of our own Church, and to the doctrine in which all the first\nReformers agreed.\n\nNote--that by Latitudinarianism, I do not mean the particular tenets of\nthe divines so called, such as Dr. H. More, Cudworth and their compeers,\nrelative to toleration, comprehension, and the general belief that in\nthe greater number of points then most controverted, the pious of all\nparties were far more nearly of the same mind than their own\nimperfections, and the imperfection of language allowed them to see: I\nmean the disposition to explain away the articles of the Church on the\npretext of their inconsistency with right reason;--when in fact it was\nonly an incongruity with a wrong understanding, the faculty which St.\nPaul calls [Greek: phr\u00f3naema sark\u00f2s], the rules of which having been all\nabstracted from objects of sense, (finite in time and space,) are\nlogically applicable to objects of the sense alone. This I have\nelsewhere called the spirit of Socinianism, which may work in many whose\ntenets are anti-Socinian.\n\nLaw is--'conclusio per regulam generis singulorum in genere isto\ninclusorum'. Now the extremes 'et inclusa' are contradictory terms.\nTherefore extreme cases are not capable subjects of law 'a priori', but\nmust proceed on knowledge of the past, and anticipation of the future,\nand the fulfilment of the anticipation is the proof, because the only\npossible determination, of the accuracy of the knowledge. In other words\nthe agents may be condemned or honored according to their intentions,\nand the apparent source of their motives; so we honor Brutus, but the\nextreme case itself is tried by the event.\n\n\n\n[Footnote 1: 'Relliqui\u00e6 Baxterian\u00e6': or Mr. Richard Baxter's Narrative\nof the most memorable passages of his life and times. Published from his\nmanuscript, by Matthew Sylvester.--London, 'folio'. 1699.]\n\n\n[Footnote 2: See Hooker E. P. V. xviii. 3. Vol. II. p. 80. Keble. Ed.]\n\n\n[Footnote 3: See Table Talk, p. 162. 2nd edit. Ed.]\n\n\n\n[Footnote 4: See the Church and State, p. 73, 3rd edit.--Ed.]\n\n\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\n\nNOTES ON LEIGHTON. [1]\n\nSurely if ever work not in the sacred Canon might suggest a belief of\ninspiration,--of something more than human,--this it is. When Mr. Elwyn\nmade this assertion, I took it as the hyperbole of affection: but now I\nsubscribe to it seriously, and bless the hour that introduced me to the\nknowledge of the evangelical, apostolical Archbishop Leighton.\n\nApril 1814.\n\n\nNext to the inspired Scriptures--yea, and as the vibration of that once\nstruck hour remaining on the air, stands Leighton's Commentary on the\n1st Epistle of St. Peter.\n\n\nComment Vol. I. p. 2.\n\n --their redemption and salvation by Christ Jesus; that inheritance of\n  immortality bought by his blood for them, and the evidence and\n  stability of their right and title to it.\n\nBy the blood of Christ I mean this. I contemplate the Christ,\n\n1;--As 'Christus agens', the Jehovah Christ, the Word:\n\n2;--As 'Christus patiens', The God Incarnate.\n\nIn the former he is 'relative ad intellectum humanum, lux lucifica, sol\nintelligibilis: relative ad existentiam humanam, anima animans, calor\nfovens'. In the latter he is 'vita vivificans, principium spiritualis,\nid est, ver\u00e6 reproductionis in vitam veram'. Now this principle, or 'vis\nvit\u00e6 vitam vivificans', considered in 'forma passiva, assimilationem\npatiens', at the same time that it excites the soul to the vital act of\nassimilating--this is the Blood of Christ, really present through faith\nto, and actually partaken by, the faithful. Of this the body is the\ncontinual product, that is, a good life-the merits of Christ acting on\nthe soul, redemptive.\n\n\nIb. pp. 13-15.\n\n  Of their sanctification: 'elect unto obedience', &c.\n\nThat the doctrines asserted in this and the two or three following pages\ncannot be denied or explained away, without removing (as the modern\nUnitarians), or (as the Arminians) unsettling and undermining, the\nfoundations of the Faith, I am fully convinced; and equally so, that\nnothing is gained by the change, the very same logical consequences\nbeing deducible from the tenets of the Church Arminians;--scarcely more\nso, indeed, from those which they still hold in common with Luther,\nZuinglius, Calvin, Knox, and Cranmer and the other Fathers of the\nReformation in England, and which are therefore most unfairly entitled\nCalvinism--than from those which they have attempted to substitute in\ntheir place. Nay, the shock given to the moral sense by these\nconsequences is, to my feelings, aggravated in the Arminian doctrine by\nthe thin yet dishonest disguise. Meantime the consequences appear to me,\nin point of logic, legitimately concluded from the terms of the\npremisses. What shall we say then? Where lies the fault? In the original\ndoctrines expressed in the premisses? God forbid. In the particular\ndeductions, logically considered? But these we have found legitimate.\nWhere then? I answer in deducing any consequences by such a process, and\naccording to such rules. The rules are alien and inapplicable; the\nprocess presumptuous, yea, preposterous. The error, [Greek: to pr\u00f4ton\npseudos], lies in the false assumption of a logical deducibility at all,\nin this instance.\n\nFirst:--because the terms from which the conclusion must be\ndrawn-('termini in majore pr\u00e6missi, a quibus scientialiter et\nscientifice demonstrandum erat') are accommodations and not\nscientific--that is, proper and adequate, not 'per idem', but 'per quam\nmaxime simile', or rather 'quam maxime dissimile':\n\nSecondly;--because the truths in question are transcendant, and have\ntheir evidence, if any, in the ideas themselves, and for the reason; and\ndo not and cannot derive it from the conceptions of the understanding,\nwhich cannot comprehend the truths, but is to be comprehended in and by\nthem, ('John' i. 5.):\n\nLastly, and chiefly;--because these truths, as they do not originate in\nthe intellective faculty of man, so neither are they addressed primarily\nto our intellect; but are substantiated for us by their correspondence\nto the wants, cravings, and interests of the moral being, for which they\nwere given, and without which they would be devoid of all meaning,--'vox\net pr\u00e6terea nihil'. The only conclusions, therefore, that can be drawn\nfrom them, must be such as are implied in the origin and purpose of\ntheir revelation; and the legitimacy of all conclusions must be tried by\ntheir consistency with those moral interests, those spiritual\nnecessities, which are the proper final cause of the truths and of our\nfaith therein. For some of the faithful these truths have, I doubt not,\nan evidence of reason; but for the whole household of faith their\ncertainty is in their working. Now it is this, by which, in all cases,\nwe know and determine existence in the first instance. That which works\nin us or on us exists for us. The shapes and forms that follow the\nworking as its results or products, whether the shapes cognizable by\nsense or the forms distinguished by the intellect, are after all but the\nparticularizations of this working; its proper names, as it were, as\nJohn, James, Peter, in respect of human nature. They are all derived\nfrom the relations in which finite beings stand to each other; and are\ntherefore heterogeneous and, except by accommodation, devoid of meaning\nand purpose when applied to the working in and by which God makes his\nexistence known to us, and (we may presume to say) especially exists for\nthe soul in whom he thus works. On these grounds, therefore, I hold the\ndoctrines of original sin, the redemption therefrom by the Cross of\nChrist, and change of heart as the consequent; without adopting the\nadditions to the doctrines inferred by one set of divines, the modern\nCalvinists, or acknowledging the consequences burdened on the doctrines\nby their antagonists. Nor is this my faith fairly liable to any\ninconvenience, if only it be remembered that it is a spiritual working,\nof which I speak, and a spiritual knowledge,--not through the 'medium'\nof image, the seeking after which is superstition; nor yet by any\nsensation, the watching for which is enthusiasm, and the conceit of its\npresence fanatical distemperature. \"Do the will of the Father, and ye\nshall 'know' it.\"\n\nWe must distinguish the life and the soul; though there is a certain\nsense in which the life may be called the soul; that is, the life is the\nsoul of the body. But the soul is the life of the man, and Christ is the\nlife of the soul. Now the spirit of man, the spirit subsistent, is\ndeeper than both, not only deeper than the body and its life, but deeper\nthan the soul; and the Spirit descendent and supersistent is higher than\nboth. In the regenerated man the height and the depth become one--the\nSpirit communeth with the spirit--and the soul is the 'inter-ens', or\n'ens inter-medium' between the life and the spirit;--the 'participium',\nnot as a compound, however, but as a 'medium indifferens'--in the same\nsense in which heat may be designated as the indifference between light\nand gravity. And what is the Reason?--The spirit in its presence to the\nunderstanding abstractedly from its presence in the will,--nay, in many,\nduring the negation of the latter. The spirit present to man, but not\nappropriated by him, is the reason of man:--the reason in the process of\nits identification with the will is the spirit.\n\n\nIb. pp. 63-4.\n\n  Can we deny that it is unbelief of those things that causeth this\n  neglect and forgetting of them? The discourse, the tongue of men and\n  angels cannot beget divine belief of the happiness to come; only He\n  that gives it, gives faith likewise to apprehend it, and lay hold upon\n  it, and upon our believing to be filled with joy in the hopes of it.\n\n\nMost true, most true!\n\n\nIb. p. 68.\n\n  In spiritual trials that are the sharpest and most fiery of all, when\n  the furnace is within a man, when God doth not only shut up his\n  loving-kindness from its feeling, but seems to shut it up in hot\n  displeasure, when he writes bitter things against it; yet then to\n  depend upon him, and wait for his salvation, this is not only a true,\n  but a strong and very refined faith indeed, and the more he smites,\n  the more to cleave to him. * * * Though I saw, as it were, his hand\n  lifted up to destroy me, yet from that same hand would I expect\n  salvation.\n\nBless God, O my soul, for this sweet and strong comforter! It is the\nhoney in the lion.\n\n\nIb. p. 75.\n\n  This natural men may discourse of, and that very knowingly, and give a\n  kind of natural credit to it as to a history that may be true; but\n  firmly to believe that there is divine truth in all these things, and\n  to have a persuasion of it stronger than of the very things we see\n  with our eyes; such an assent as this is the peculiar work of the\n  Spirit of God, and is certainly saving faith.\n\n'Lord I believe: help thou my unbelief!' My reason acquiesces, and I\nbelieve enough to fear. O, grant me the belief that brings sweet hope!\n\n\nIb. p. 76.\n\n  Faith * * causes the soul to find all that is spoken of him in the\n  word, and his beauty there represented, to be abundantly true, makes\n  it really taste of his sweetness, and by that possesses the heart more\n  strongly with his love, persuading it of the truth of those things,\n  not by reasons and arguments, but by an inexpressible kind of\n  evidence, that they only know that have it.\n\nEither this is true, or religion is not religion; that is, it adds\nnothing to our human reason; 'non religat'. Grant it, grant it me, O\nLord!\n\n\nIb. pp. 104-5.\n\n  This sweet stream of their doctrine did, as the rivers, make its own\n  banks fertile and pleasant as it ran by, and flowed still forward to\n  after ages, and by the confluence of more such prophecies grew greater\n  as it went, till it fell in with the main current of the Gospel in the\n  New Testament, both acted and preached by the great Prophet himself,\n  whom they foretold to come, and recorded by his Apostles and\n  Evangelists, and thus united into one river, clear as crystal. This\n  doctrine of salvation in the Scriptures hath still refreshed the city\n  of God, his Church under the Gospel, and still shall do so, till it\n  empty itself into the ocean of eternity.\n\nIn the whole course of my studies I do not remember to have read so\nbeautiful an allegory as this; so various and detailed, and yet so just\nand natural.\n\n\nIb. p. 121.\n\n  There is a truth in it, that all sin arises from some kind of\n  ignorance * * *. For were the true visage of sin seen at a full light,\n  undressed and unpainted, it were impossible, while it so appeared,\n  that any one soul could be in love with it, but would rather flee from\n  it as hideous and abominable.\n\nThis is the only (defect, shall I say? No, but the only) omission I have\nfelt in this divine Writer--for him we understand by feeling,\nexperimentally--that he doth not notice the horrible tyranny of habit.\nWhat the Archbishop says, is most true of beginners in sin; but this is\nthe foretaste of hell, to see and loathe the deformity of the wedded\nvice, and yet still to embrace and nourish it.\n\n\nIb. p. 122.\n\n  He calls those times wherein Christ was unknown to them, 'the times of\n  their ignorance'. Though the stars shine never so bright, and the moon\n  with them in its full, yet they do not, altogether, make it day: still\n  it is night till the sun appear.\n\nHow beautiful, and yet how simple, and as it were unconscious of its own\nbeauty!\n\n\nIb. p. 124.\n\n  You were running to destruction in the way of sin, and there was a\n  voice, together with the Gospel preaching to your ear, that spake into\n  your heart, and called you back from that path of death to the way of\n  holiness, which is the only way of life. He hath severed you from the\n  mass of the profane world, and picked you out to be jewels for\n  himself.\n\nO, how divine! Surely, nothing less than the Spirit of Christ could have\ninspired such thoughts in such language. Other divines,--Donne and\nJeremy Taylor for instance,--have converted their worldly gifts, and\napplied them to holy ends; but here the gifts themselves seem unearthly.\n\n\nIb. p. 138.\n\n  As in religion, so in the course and practice of men's lives, the\n  stream of sin runs from one age to another, and every age makes it\n  greater, adding somewhat to what it receives, as rivers grow in their\n  course by the accession of brooks that fall into them; and every man\n  when he is born, falls like a drop into this main current of\n  corruption, and so is carried down it, and this by reason of its\n  strength, and his own nature, which willingly dissolves into it, and\n  runs along with it.\n\nIn this single period we have religion, the spirit,--philosophy, the\nsoul,--and poetry, the body and drapery united;--Plato glorified by St.\nPaul; and yet coming as unostentatiously as any speech from an innocent\ngirl of fifteen.\n\n\nIb. p. 158.\n\n  The chief point of obedience is believing; the proper obedience to\n  truth is to give credit to it.\n\nThis is not quite so perspicuous and single-sensed as Archbishop\nLeighton's sentences in general are. This effect is occasioned by the\nomission of the word \"this,\" or \"divine,\" or the truth \"in Christ.\" For\ntruth in the ordinary and scientific sense is received by a spontaneous,\nrather than chosen by a voluntary, act; and the apprehension of the same\n(belief) supposes a position of congruity rather than an act of\nobedience. Far otherwise is it with the truth that is the object of\nChristian faith: and it is this truth of which Leighton is speaking.\nBelief indeed is a living part of this faith; but only as long as it is\na living part. In other words, belief is implied in faith; but faith is\nnot necessarily implied in belief. 'The devils believe.'\n\n\nIb. p. 166.\n\n  Hence learn that true conversion is not so slight a work as we\n  commonly account it. It is not the outward change of some bad customs,\n  which gains the name of a reformed man in the ordinary dialect; it is\n  new birth and being, and elsewhere called 'a new creation. Though it\n  be but a change in qualities', yet it is such a one, and the qualities\n  so far distant from what they before were, &c.\n\nI dare not affirm that this is erroneously said; but it is one of the\ncomparatively few passages that are of service as reminding me that it\nis not the Scripture that I am reading. Not the qualities merely, but\nthe root of the qualities is trans-created. How else could it be a\nbirth,--a creation?\n\n\nIb. p. 170.\n\n  This natural life is compared, even by natural men, to the vainest\n  things, and scarce find they things light enough to express it vain;\n  and as it is here called grass, so they compare the generations of men\n  to the leaves of trees. * * * 'Man that is born of a woman is of few\n  days, and full of trouble. He cometh forth like a flower and is cut\n  down. Job' xiv. 1, 2. Psalm xc. 12; xxxix. 4.\n\nIt is the fashion to decry scholastic distinctions as useless\nsubtleties, or mere phantoms--'entia logica, vel etiam verbalia solum'.\nAnd yet in order to secure a safe and Christian interpretation to these\nand numerous other passages of like phrase and import in the Old\nTestament, it is of highest concernment that we should distinguish the\npersoneity or spirit, as the source and principle of personality, from\nthe person itself as the particular product at any one period, and as\nthat which cannot be evolved or sustained but by the co-agency of the\nsystem and circumstances in which the individuals are placed. In this\nlatter sense it is that 'man' is used in the Psalms, in Job, and\nelsewhere--and the term made synonymous with flesh. That which\nconstitutes the spirit in man, both for others and itself, is the real\nman; and to this the elements and elementary powers contribute its bulk\n([Greek: t\u00f2] 'videri et tangi') wholly, and its phenomenal form in part,\nboth as co-efficients, and as conditions. Now as these are under a law\nof vanity and incessant change,--[Greek: t\u00e0 m\u00e0e \u00f3nta, all' a\u00e8i\ngin\u00f3mena],--so must all be, to the production and continuance of which\nthey are indispensable. On this hangs the doctrine of the resurrection\nof the body, as an essential part of the doctrine of immortality;--on\nthis the Scriptural (and only true and philosophical) sense of the soul,\n'psyche' or life, as resulting from the continual assurgency of the\nspirit through the body;--and on this the begetting of a new life, a\nregenerate soul, by the descent of the divine Spirit on the spirit of\nman. When the spirit by sanctification is fitted for an incorruptible\nbody, then shall it be raised into a world of incorruption, and a\ncelestial body shall burgeon forth thereto, the germ of which had been\nimplanted by the redeeming and creative Word in this world. Truly hath\nit been said of the elect:--They fall asleep in earth, but awake in\nheaven. So St. Paul expressly teaches: and as the passage (1. 'Cor'. xv.\n35--54,) was written for the express purpose of rectifying the notions\nof the converts concerning the Resurrection, all other passages in the\nNew Testament must be interpreted in harmony with it. But John,\nlikewise,--describing the same great event, as subsequent to, and\ncontra-distinguished from, the partial or millennary Resurrection--which\n(whether we are to understand the Apostle symbolically or literally) is\nto take place in the present world,--beholds 'a new earth' and 'a new\nheaven' as antecedent to, or coincident with, the appearance of the New\nJerusalem,--that is, the state of glory, and the resurrection to life\neverlasting. The old earth and its heaven had passed away from the face\nof Him on the throne, at the moment that it gave up the dead. 'Rev'.\nxx.-xxi.\n\n\nIb. pp. 174-5.\n\n  'But the word of the Lord endureth for ever.'\n\n  And with respect to those learned men that apply the text to God, I\n  remember not that this 'abiding for ever' is used to express God's\n  eternity in himself.\n\nNo; nor is it here used for that purpose; but yet I cannot doubt but\nthat either the Word, [Greek: Ho L\u00f3gos en archae], or the Divine\npromises in and through the incarnate Word, with the gracious influences\nproceeding from him, are here meant--and not the written [Greek:\nrh\u00e1emata] or Scriptures.\n\n\nIb. p. 194.\n\n  If any one's head or tongue should grow apace, and all the rest stand\n  at a stay, it would certainly make him a monster; and they are no\n  other that are knowing and discovering Christians, and grow daily in\n  that, but not at all in holiness of heart and life, which is the\n  proper growth of the children of God.\n\nFather in heaven, have mercy on me! Christ, Lamb of God, have mercy on\nme! Save me, Lord, or I perish! Alas! I am perishing.\n\n\nIb. p. 200.\n\n  A well-furnished table may please a man, while he hath health and\n  appetite; but offer it to him in the height of a fever, how unpleasant\n  it would be then! Though never so richly decked, it is then not only\n  useless, but hateful to him. But the kindness and love of God is then\n  as seasonable and refreshing to him, as in health, and possibly more.\n\nTo the regenerate;--but to the conscious sinner a source of terrors\ninsupportable.\n\n\nIb. p. 211.\n\n  These things hold likewise in the other stones of this building,\n  chosen before time: all that should be of this building are\n  fore-ordained in God's purpose, all written in that book beforehand,\n  and then in due time they are chosen, by actual calling, according to\n  that purpose, hewed out and severed by God's own hand from the quarry\n  of corrupt nature;--dead stones in themselves, as the rest, but made\n  living by his bringing them to Christ, and so made truly precious',\n  and accounted precious by him that hath made them so.\n\nThough this is not only true, but a most important truth, it would yet\nhave been well to have obviated the apparent carnal consequences.\n\n\nIb. p. 216.\n\n  All sacrifice is not taken away; but it is changed from the offering\n  of those things formerly in use, to spiritual sacrifices. Now these\n  are every way preferable; they are easier and cheaper to us, and yet\n  more precious and acceptable to God.\n\nStill understand,--to the regenerate. To others, they are not only not\neasy and cheap, but unpurchaseable and impossible too. O God have mercy\nupon me!\n\n\nIb. p. 229.\n\n  Though I be beset on all hands, be accused by the Law, and mine own\n  conscience, and by Satan, and have nothing to answer for myself; yet\n  here I will stay, for I am sure in him there is salvation, and no\n  where else.\n\n\"Here I _will_ stay.\" But alas! the poor sinner has forfeited the powers\nof willing; miserable wishing is all he can command. O, the dreadful\ninjury of an irreligious education! To be taught our prayers, and the\nawful truths of religion, in the same tone in which we are taught the\nLatin Grammar,--and too often inspiring the same sensations of weariness\nand disgust!\n\n\nVol. II. p. 242.\n\n  And thus are reproaches mentioned amongst the sufferings of Christ in\n  the Gospel, and not as the least; the railings and mockings that were\n  darted at him, and fixed to the Cross, are mentioned more than the\n  very nails that fixed him. And ('Heb'. xii. 2,) the 'shame' of the\n  Cross, though he was above it, and despised it, yet that shame added\n  much to the burden of it.\n\nI understand Leighton thus: that though our Lord felt it not as 'shame',\nnor was wounded by the revilings of the people in the way of any\ncorrespondent resentment or sting, which yet we may be without blame,\nyet he suffered from the same as sin, and as an addition to the guilt of\nhis persecutors, which could not but aggravate the burden which he had\ntaken on himself, as being sin in its most devilish form.\n\n\nIb. p. 293.\n\n  This therefore is mainly to be studied, that the seat of humility be\n  the heart. Although it will be seen in the carriage yet as little as\n  it can * * *. And this I would recommend as a safe way: ever let thy\n  thoughts concerning thyself be below what thou utterest; and what thou\n  seest needful or fitting to say to thy own abasement, be not only\n  content (which most are not) to be taken at thy word, and believed to\n  be such by them that hear thee, but be desirous of it; and let that be\n  the end of thy speech, to persuade them, and gain it of them, that\n  they really take thee for as worthless a man as thou dost express\n  thyself.\n\nAlas! this is a most delicate and difficult subject: and the safest way,\nand the only safe general rule is the silence that accompanies the\ninward act of looking at the contrast in all that is of our own doing\nand impulse! So may praises be made their own antidote.\n\n\nVol. III. p. 20. Serm. I.\n\n  'They shall see God'. What this is we cannot tell you, nor can you\n  conceive it: but walk heavenwards in purity, and long to be there,\n  where you shall know what it means: 'for you shall know him as he is'.\n\nWe say; \"Now I see the full meaning, force and beauty of a passage,--we\nsee them through the words.\" Is not Christ the Word--the substantial,\nconsubstantial Word, [Greek: ho \u00f4n eis t\u00f2n k\u00f3lpon tou patr\u00f3s],--not as\nour words, arbitrary; nor even as the words of Nature phenomenal merely?\nIf even through the words a powerful and perspicuous author--(as in the\nnext to inspired Commentary of Archbishop Leighton,--for whom God be\npraised!)--I identify myself with the excellent writer, and his thoughts\nbecome my thoughts: what must not the blessing be to be thus identified\nfirst with the Filial Word, and then with the Father in and through Him?\n\n\nIb. p. 63. Serm. V.\n\n  In this elementary world, light being (as we hear,) the first visible,\n  all things are seen by it, and it by itself. Thus is Christ, among\n  spiritual things, in the elect world of his Church; all things are\n  'made manifest by the light', says the Apostle, 'Eph'. v. 13, speaking\n  of Christ as the following verse doth evidently testify. It is in his\n  word that he shines, and makes it a directing and convincing light, to\n  discover all things that concern his Church and himself, to be known\n  by its own brightness. How impertinent then is that question so much\n  tossed by the Romish Church, \"How know you the Scriptures (say they)\n  to be the word of God, without the testimony of the Church?\" I would\n  ask one of them again, How they can know that it is daylight, except\n  some light a candle to let them see it? They are little versed in\n  Scripture that know not that it is frequently called light; and they\n  are senseless that know not that light is seen and known by itself.\n  'If our Gospel be hid', says the Apostle, 'it is hid to them that\n  perish': the god of this world having blinded their minds against the\n  light of the glorious Gospel, no wonder if such stand in need of a\n  testimony. A blind man knows not that it is light at noon-day, but by\n  report: but to those that have eyes, light is seen by itself.\n\nOn the true test of the Scriptures. Oh! were it not for my manifold\ninfirmities, whereby I am so all unlike the white-robed Leighton, I\ncould almost conceit that my soul had been an emanation from his! So\nmany and so remarkable are the coincidences, and these in parts of his\nworks that I could not have seen--and so uniform the congruity of the\nwhole. As I read, I seem to myself to be only thinking my own thoughts\nover again, now in the same and now in a different order.\n\n\nIb. p. 68.\n\n  The Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews calls him (Christ) [Greek:\n  apa\u00fagasma], 'the brightness of his Father's glory, and the character\n  of his person', (i. 3.) And under these expressions lies that\n  remarkable mystery of the Son's eternal relation to the Father, which\n  is rather humbly to be adored, than boldly to be explained, either by\n  God's perfect understanding of his own essence, or by any other\n  notion.\n\nCertainly not by a transfer of a notion, and this too a notion of a\nfaculty itself but notional and limitary, to the Supreme Reality. But\nthere are ideas which are of higher origin than the notions of the\nunderstanding, and by the irradiation of which the understanding itself\nbecomes a human understanding. Of such 'veritates verific\u00e6' Leighton\nhimself in other words speaks often. Surely, there must have been an\nintelligible propriety in the terms, 'Logos', Word, 'Begotten before all\ncreation',--an adequate idea or 'icon', or the Evangelists and Apostolic\npenmen would not have adopted them. They did not invent the terms; but\ntook them and used them as they were taken and applied by Philo and both\nthe Greek and Oriental sages. Nay, the precise and orthodox, yet\nfrequent, use of these terms by Philo, and by the Jewish authors of that\ntraditional\u00e6 wisdom,--degraded in after times, but which in its purest\nparts existed long before the Christian \u00e6ra,--is the strongest extrinsic\nargument against the Arians, Socinians, and Unitarians, in proof that\nSt. John must have meant to deceive his readers, if he did not use them\nin the known and received sense. To a Materialist indeed, or to those\nwho deny all knowledges not resolvable into notices from the five\nsenses, these terms as applied to spiritual beings must appear\ninexplicable or senseless. But so must spirit. To me, (why do I say to\nme?) to Bull, to Waterland, to Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Athanasius,\nAugustine, the terms, Word and generation, have appeared admirably, yea,\nmost awfully pregnant and appropriate;--but still as the language of\nthose who know that they are placed with their backs to substances--and\nwhich therefore they can name only from the correspondent shadows--yet\nnot (God forbid!) as if the substances were the same as the\nshadows;--which yet Leighton supposed in this his censure,--for if he\ndid not, he then censures himself and a number of his most beautiful\npassages. These, and two or three other sentences,--slips of human\ninfirmity,--are useful in reminding me that Leighton's works are not\ninspired Scripture.\n\n\n'Postscript'.\n\nOn a second consideration of this passage, and a revisal of my marginal\nanimadversion--yet how dare I apply such a word to a passage written by\na minister of Christ so clearly under the especial light of the divine\ngrace as was Archbishop Leighton?--I am inclined to think that Leighton\nconfined his censure to the attempts to \"explain\" the Trinity,--and this\nby \"notions,\"--and not to the assertion of the adorable acts implied in\nthe terms both of the Evangelists and Apostles, and of the Church before\nas well as after Christ's ascension; nor to the assent of the pure\nreason to the truths, and more than assent to, the affirmation of the\nideas.\n\n\nIb. p. 73.\n\nThis fifth Sermon, excellent in parts, is yet on the whole the least\nexcellent of Leighton's works,--and breathes less of either his own\ncharacter as a man, or the character of his religious philosophy. The\nstyle too is in many places below Leighton's ordinary style--in some\nplaces even turbid, operose, and catechrestic;--for example,--\"to\ntrample on smilings with one foot and on frownings with the other.\"\n\n\nIb. p. 77. Serm. VI.\n\nLeighton, I presume, was acquainted with the Hebrew Language, but he\ndoes not appear to have studied it much. His observation on the 'heart',\nas used in the Old Testament, shews that he did not know that the\nancient Hebrews supposed the heart to be the seat of intellect, and\ntherefore used it exactly as we use the head.\n\n\nIb. p. 104. Serm. VII.\n\nThis seventh Sermon is admirable throughout, Leighton throughout. O what\na contrast might be presented by publishing some discourse of some Court\ndivine, (South for instance,) preached under the same state of affairs,\nand printing the two in columns!\n\n\nIb. p. 107. Serm. VIII.\n\n  In all love three things are necessary; some goodness in the object,\n  either true and real, or apparent and seeming to be so; for the soul,\n  be it ever so evil, can affect nothing but which it takes in some way\n  to be good.\n\nThis assertion in these words has been so often made, from Plato's times\nto ours, that even wise men repeat it without perhaps much examination\nwhether it be not equivocal--or rather (I suspect) true only in that\nsense in which it would amount to nothing--nothing to the purpose at\nleast. This is to be regretted--for it is a mischievous equivoque, to\nmake 'good' a synonyme of 'pleasant,' or even the 'genus' of which\npleasure is a 'species'. It is a grievous mistake to say, that bad men\nseek pleasure because it is good. No! like children they call it good\nbecause it is pleasant. Even the useful must derive its meaning from the\ngood, not 'vice versa'.\n\n\nPostscript.\n\nThe lines in p. 107, noted by me, are one of a myriad instances to prove\nhow rash it is to quote single sentences or assertions from the\ncorrectest writers, without collating them with the known system or\nexpress convictions of the author. It would be easy to cite fifty\npassages from Archbishop Leighton's works in direct contradiction to the\nsentence in question--which he had learnt in the schools when a lad, and\nafterwards had heard and met with so often that he was not aware that he\nhad never sifted its real purport. This eighth Sermon is another most\nadmirable discourse.\n\n\nIb. Serm. IX. p. 12.\n\n  The reasonable creature, it is true, hath more liberty in its actions,\n  freely choosing one thing and rejecting another; yet it cannot be\n  denied, that in acting of that liberty, their choice and refusal\n  [A] follow the sway of their nature and condition.\n\n[A] I would fain substitute for 'follow,' the words, 'are most often\ndetermined, and always affected, by.' I do not deny that the will\nfollows the nature; but then the nature itself is a will.\n\n\nIb.\n\n  As the angels and glorified souls, (their nature being perfectly holy\n  and unalterably such,) they cannot sin; they can delight in nothing\n  but obeying and praising that God, in the enjoyment of whom their\n  happiness consisteth.\n\nIf angels be other than spirits made perfect, or, as Leighton writes,\n\"glorified souls,\"--the \"unalterable by nature\" seems to me rashly\nasserted.\n\n\nIb.\n\n  The mind, [Greek: phr\u00f3naema]. Some render it the prudence or wisdom of\n  the flesh. Here you have it, the carnal mind; but the word signifies,\n  indeed, an act of the mind, rather than either the faculty itself, or\n  the habit of prudence in it, so as it discovers what is the frame of\n  both those.\n\nI doubt. [Greek: Phr\u00f3naema] signifies an act: and so far I agree with\nLeighton. But [Greek: phr\u00f3naema sark\u00f2s] is 'the flesh' (that is, the\nnatural man,) in the act or habitude of minding--but those acts, taken\ncollectively, are the faculty--the understanding.\n\nHow often have I found reason to regret, that Leighton had not clearly\nmade out to himself the diversity of reason and the understanding!\n\n\nIb. Serm. XV. p. 196.\n\n  A narrow enthralled heart, fettered with the love of lower things, and\n  cleaving to some particular sins, or but some one, and that secret,\n  may keep foot a while in the way of God's commandments, in some steps\n  of them; but it must give up quickly, is not able to run on to the end\n  of the goal.\n\nOne of the blessed privileges of the spiritual man (and such Leighton\nwas,) is a piercing insight into the diseases of which he himself is\nclear. [Greek: El\u00e9aeson Kyrie!]\n\n\nIb. Serm. XVI. p. 204.\n\n  Know you not that the redeemed of Christ and He are one? They live one\n  life, Christ lives in them, and if 'any man hath not the Spirit of\n  Christ, he is none of his', as the Apostle declares in this chapter.\n  So then this we are plainly to tell you, and consider it; you that\n  will not let go your sins to lay hold on Christ, have as yet no share\n  in him.\n\n  But on the other side: the truth is, that when souls are once set upon\n  this search, they commonly wind the notion too high, and subtilize too\n  much in the dispute, and so entangle and perplex themselves, and drive\n  themselves further off from that comfort that they are seeking after;\n  such measures and marks they set to themselves for their rule and\n  standard; and unless they find those without all controversy in\n  themselves, they will not believe that they have an interest in\n  Christ, and this blessed and safe estate in him.\n\n  To such I would only say, Are you in a willing league with any known\n  sin? &c.\n\nAn admirable antidote for such as, too sober and sincere to pass off\nfeverous sensations for spiritualities, have been perplexed by Wesley's\nassertions--that a certainty of having been elected is an indispensable\nmark of election. Whitfield's ultra-Calvinism is Gospel gentleness and\nPauline sobriety compared with Wesley's Arminianism in the outset of his\ncareer. But the main and most noticeable difference between Leighton and\nthe modern Methodists is to be found in the uniform selfishness of the\nlatter. Not \"Do you wish to love God?\" \"Do you love your neighbour?\" \"Do\nyou think, 'O how dear and lovely must Christ be!'\"--but--\"Are you\ncertain that Christ has saved 'you'; that he died for 'you--you--you\n--yourself'?\" on to the end of the chapter. This is Wesley's doctrine.\n\n\nLecture IX. vol. IV. p. 96.\n\n  For that this was his fixed purpose, Lucretius not only vows, but also\n  boasts of it, and loads him (Epicurus) with ill-advised praises, for\n  endeavouring through the whole course of his philosophy to free the\n  minds of men from all the bonds and ties of religion.\n\nBut surely in this passage 'religio' must be rendered superstition, the\nmost effectual means for the removal of which Epicurus supposed himself\nto have found in the exclusion of the 'gods many and lords many', from\ntheir imagined agency in all the 'ph\u00e6nomena' of nature and the events\nof history, substituting for these the belief in fixed laws, having in\nthemselves their evidence and necessity. On this account, in this\npassage at least, Lucretius praises his master.\n\n\nIb. p. 105.\n\n  They always seemed to me to act a very ridiculous part, who contend,\n  that the effect of the divine decree is absolutely irreconcilable with\n  human liberty; because the natural and necessary liberty of a rational\n  creature is to act or choose from a rational motive, or spontaneously,\n  and of purpose: but who sees not, that, on the supposition of the most\n  absolute decree, this liberty is not taken away, but rather\n  established and confirmed? For the decree is, 'that such an one shall\n  make choice of, or do some particular thing freely. And whoever\n  pretends to deny, that whatever is done or chosen, whether good or\n  indifferent, is so done or chosen, or, at least, may be so, espouses\n  an absurdity.'\n\nI fear, I fear, that this is a sophism not worthy of Archbishop\nLeighton. It seems to me tantamount to saying--\"I force that man to do\nso or so without my forcing him.\" But however that may be, the following\nsentences are more precious than diamonds. They are divine.\n\n\nIb. Lect. XI. p. 113.\n\n  For that this world, compounded of so many and such heterogeneous\n  parts, should proceed, by way of natural and necessary emanation, from\n  that one first, present, and most simple nature, nobody, I imagine,\n  could believe, or in the least suspect * * *. But if he produced all\n  these things freely, * * how much more consistent is it to believe,\n  that this was done in time, than to imagine it was from eternity!\n\nIt is inconceivable how any thing can be created in time; and production\nis incompatible with interspace.\n\n\nIb. Lect. XV. p. 152.\n\n  The Platonists divide the world into two, the sensible and\n  intellectual world * * *. According to this hypothesis, those parables\n  and metaphors, which are often taken from natural things to illustrate\n  such as are divine, will not be similitudes taken entirely at\n  pleasure; but are often, in a great measure, founded in nature, and\n  the things themselves.\n\nI have asserted the same thing, and more fully shown wherein the\ndifference consists of symbolic and metaphorical, in my first Lay\nSermon; and the substantial correspondence of the genuine Platonic\ndoctrine and logic with those of Lord Bacon, in my Essays on Method, in\nthe Friend. [2]\n\n\nIb. Lect. XIX. p. 201.\n\n  Even the philosophers give their testimony to this truth, and their\n  sentiments on the subject are not altogether to be rejected; for they\n  almost unanimously are agreed, that felicity, so far as it can be\n  enjoyed in this life, consists solely, or at least principally, in\n  virtue: but as to their assertion, that this virtue is perfect in a\n  perfect life, it is rather expressing what were to be wished, than\n  describing things as they are.\n\nAnd why are the philosophers to be judged according to a different rule?\nOn what ground can it be asserted that the Stoics believed in the actual\nexistence of their God-like perfection in any individual? or that they\nmeant more than this--\"To no man can the name of the Wise be given in\nits absolute sense, who is not perfect even as his Father in heaven is\nperfect!\"\n\n\nIb. Lect. XXI. p. 225.\n\n  In like manner, if we suppose God to be the first of all beings, we\n  must, unavoidably, therefrom conclude his unity. As to the ineffable\n  Trinity subsisting in this Unity, a mystery discovered only by the\n  Sacred Scriptures, especially in the New Testament, where it is more\n  clearly revealed than in the Old, let others boldly pry into it, if\n  they please, while we receive it with our humble faith, and think it\n  sufficient for us to admire and adore.\n\nBut surely it having been revealed to us, we may venture to say,--that a\npositive unity, so far from excluding, implies plurality, and that the\nGodhead is a fulness, [Greek: plaeroma].\n\n\nIb. Lect. XXIV. p. 245.\n\n  Ask yourselves, therefore, 'what you would be at', and with what\n  dispositions you come to this most sacred table?\n\nIn an age of colloquial idioms, when to write in a loose slang had\nbecome a mark of loyalty, this is the only L'Estrange vulgarism I have\nmet with in Leighton.\n\n\nIb. Exhortation to the Students, p. 252.\n\n  Study to acquire such a philosophy as is not barren and babbling, but\n  solid and true; not such a one as floats upon the surface of endless\n  verbal controversies, but one that enters into the nature of things;\n  for he spoke good sense that said, \"The philosophy of the Greeks was a\n  mere jargon, and noise of words.\"\n\nIf so, then so is all philosophy: for what system is there, the elements\nand outlines of which are not to be found in the Greek schools? Here\nLeighton followed too incautiously the Fathers.\n\n\n\n[Footnote 1: Works of Leighton, 4 vols. 8vo. London 1819. Ed.]\n\n\n[Footnote 2: 'Statesman's Manual', p. 230. 2nd edit. Friend, III. 3d\nedit. Ed.]\n\n\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\n\nNOTES ON SHERLOCK'S VINDICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. [1]\n\n\nSect. I. p. 3.\n\n  Some new philosophers will tell you that the notion of a spirit or an\n  immaterial substance is a contradiction; for by substance they\n  understand nothing but matter, and then an immaterial substance is\n  immaterial matter, that is, matter and no matter, which is a\n  contradiction; but yet this does not prove an immaterial substance to\n  be a contradiction, unless they could first prove that there is no\n  substance but matter; and that they cannot conceive any other\n  substance but matter, does not prove that there is no other.\n\nCertainly not: but if not only they, but Dr. Sherlock himself and all\nmankind, are incapable of attaching any sense to the term substance, but\nthat of matter,--then for us it would be a contradiction, or a\ngroundless assertion. Thus: By 'substance' I do not mean the only notion\nwe can attach to the word; but a somewhat, I know not what, may, for\naught I know, not be contradictory to spirit! Why should we use the\nequivocal word, 'substance' (after all but an 'ens logicum'), instead of\nthe definite term 'self-subsistent?' We are equally conscious of mind,\nand of that which we call 'body;' and the only possible philosophical\nquestions are these three:\n\n1. Are they co-ordinate as agent and re-agent;\n\n2. Or is the one subordinate to the other, as effect to cause, and which\nis the cause or ground, which the effect or product;\n\n3. Or are they co-ordinate, but not inter-dependent, that is, 'per\nharmonium pr\u00e6stabilitam'.\n\n\nIb. p. 4.\n\n  Now so far as we understand the nature of any being, we can certainly\n  tell what is contrary and contradictious to its nature; as that\n  accidents should subsist without 'their subject', &c.\n\nThat accidents should subsist (rather, exist) without a subject, may be\na contradiction, but not that they exist without this or that subject.\nThe words 'their subject' are 'a petitio principii'.\n\n\nIb.\n\n  These and such like are the manifest absurdities and contradictions of\n  Transubstantiation; and we know that they are so, because we know the\n  nature of a body, &c.\n\nIndeed! Were I either Romanist or Unitarian, I should desire no better\nthan the admission of body having an 'esse' not in the 'percipi', and\nreally subsisting, ([Greek: aut\u00f2 t\u00f2 chraema]) as the supporter of its\naccidents. At all events, the Romanist, declaring the accidents to be\nthose ordinarily impressed on the senses ([Greek: t\u00e0 pha\u00ednomena ka\u00ec\na\u00edsthaeta]) by bread and wine, does at the same time declare the flesh\nand blood not to be the [Greek: pha\u00ednomena ka\u00ec a\u00edsthaeta] so called, but\nthe [Greek: no\u00famena ka\u00ec aut\u00e0 t\u00e0 chr\u00e1emata]. There is therefore no\ncontradiction in the terms, however reasonless the doctrine may be, and\nhowever unnecessary the interpretation on which it is pretended. I\nconfess, had I been in Luther's place, I would not have rested so much\nof my quarrel with the Papists on this point; nor can I agree with our\nArminian divines in their ridicule of Transubstantiation. The most\nrational doctrine is perhaps, for some purposes, at least, the 'rem\ncredimus, modum nescimus'; next to that, the doctrine of the\nSacramentaries, that it is 'signum sub rei nomine', as when we call a\nportrait of Caius, Caius. But of all the remainder, Impanation,\nConsubstantiation, and the like, I confess that I should prefer the\nTransubstantiation of the Pontifical doctors.\n\n\nIb. p. 6.\n\n  The proof of this comes to this one point, that we may have sufficient\n  evidence of the being of a thing whose nature we cannot conceive and\n  comprehend: he who will not own this, contradicts the sense and\n  experience of mankind; and he who confesses this, and yet rejects the\n  belief of that which he has good evidence for, merely because he\n  cannot conceive it, is a very absurd and senseless infidel.\n\nHere again, though a zealous believer of the truth asserted, I must\nobject to the Bishop's logic. None but the weakest men have objected to\nthe Tri-unity merely because the 'modus' is above their comprehension:\nfor so is the influence of thought on muscular motion; so is life\nitself; so in short is every first truth of necessity; for to comprehend\na thing, is to know its antecedent and consequent. But they affirm that\nit is against their reason. Besides, there seems an equivocation in the\nuse of 'comprehend' and 'conceive' in the same meaning. When a man tells\nme, that his will can lift his arm, I conceive his meaning; though I do\nnot comprehend the fact, I understand 'him'. But the Socinians say;--We\ndo not understand 'you'. We cannot attach to the word 'God,' more than\nthree possible meanings; either,\n\n1. A person, or self-conscious being;\n\n2. Or a thing;\n\n3. Or a quality, property, or attribute.\n\nIf you take the first, then you admit the contradiction; if either of\nthe latter two, you have not three Persons and one God, but three\nPersons having equal shares in one thing, or three with the same\nattributes, that is, three Gods. Sherlock does not meet this.\n\nLet me repeat the difficulty, if possible, more clearly. The argument of\nthe philosophic Unitarians, as Wissowatius, who, mistaken as they were,\nare not to be confounded with their degenerate successors, the\nPriestleyans and Belshamites, may be thus expressed. By the term, God,\nwe can only conceive you to suppose one or other of three meanings.\n\n1. Either you understand by it a person, in the common sense of an\nintelligent or self-conscious being;--or,\n\n2. a thing with its qualities and properties;--or,\n\n3. certain powers and attributes, comprised under the word nature.\n\nIf we suppose the first, the contradiction is manifest, and you\nyourselves admit it, and therefore forbid us so to interpret your words.\nFor if by God you mean Person, then three Persons and one God, would be\nthe same as three Persons and one Person. If we take the second as your\nmeaning, as an infinite thing is an absurdity, we have three finite\nGods, like Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto, who shared the universe between\nthem. If the latter, we have three Persons with the same attributes;\n--and if a Person with infinite attributes be what we mean by God, then\nwe have either three Gods, or involve the contradiction above mentioned.\nIt is unphilosophic, by admission of all philosophers, they add, to\nmultiply causes beyond the necessity. Now if there are three Persons of\ninfinite and the same attributes, dismiss two, and you lose nothing but\na numerical phantom.\"\n\nThe answer to this must commence by a denial of the premisses 'in toto':\nand this both Bull and Waterland have done most successfully. But I very\nmuch doubt, whether Sherlock on his principles could have evaded the\nUnitarian logic. In fact it is scarcely possible to acquit him\naltogether of a 'quasi-Tritheism'.\n\n\nSect. II. p. 13.\n\n  'For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge\n  every Person by himself to be God and Lord';--\n\n(That is, by especial revelation.)\n\n  'So are we forbidden by the Catholic religion to say, There are three\n  Gods, or three Lords.'\n\nThat is, by the religion contained in, and given in accompaniment with,\nthe universal reason, 'the light that lighteth every man that cometh\ninto the world'.\n\n\nIb. p. 14.\n\n  This Creed (Athanasian) does not pretend to explain how there are\n  three Persons, each of which is God, and yet but One God, (of which\n  more hereafter,) but only asserts the thing, that thus it is, and thus\n  it must be if we believe a Trinity in Unity; which should make all\n  men, who would be thought neither Arians nor Socinians, more cautious\n  how they express the least dislike of the Athanasian Creed, which must\n  either argue, that they condemn it, before they understand it, or that\n  they have some secret dislike to the doctrine of the Trinity.\n\nThe dislike commonly felt is not of the doctrine of the Trinity, but of\nthe positive anathematic assertion of the everlasting perdition of all\nand of each who doubt the same;--an assertion deduced from Scripture\nonly by a train of captious consequences, and equivocations. Thus, A.:\n\"I honour and admire Caius for his great learning.\" B.: \"The knowledge\nof the Sanscrit is an important article in Caius's learning.\" A.: \"I\nhave been often in his company, and have found no reason for believing\nthis.\" B.: \"O! then you deny his learning, are envious, and Caius's\nenemy.\" A.: \"God forbid! I love and admire him. I know him for a\ntranscendant linguist in the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and modern European\nlanguages;--and with or without the Sanscrit, I look up to him, and rely\non his erudition in all cases, in which I am concerned. And it is this\nperfect trust, this unfeigned respect, that is the appointed criterion\nof Caius's friends and disciples, and not their full acquaintance with\neach and all particulars of his superiority.\" Thus without Christ, or in\nany other power but that of Christ, and (subjectively) of faith in\nChrist, no man can be saved; but does it follow, that no man can have\nChristian faith who is ignorant or erroneous as to any one point of\nChristian theology? Will a soul be condemned to everlasting perdition\nfor want of logical 'acumen' in the perception of consequences?--If he\nverily embrace Christ as his Redeemer, and unfeignedly feel in himself\nthe necessity of Redemption, he implicitly holds the Divinity of Christ,\nwhatever from want or defect of logic may be his notion 'explicite'.\n\n\nIb. p. 18.\n\n  'But the whole three Persons are co-eternal, and co-equal'. And yet\n  this we must acknowledge to be true, if we acknowledge all three\n  Persons to be eternal, for in eternity there can be no 'afore, or\n  after other'.\n\nIt must, however, be considered as a serious defect in a Creed, if\nexcluding subordination, without mentioning any particular form, it\ngives no hint of any other form in which it admits it. The only 'minus'\nadmitted by the Athanasian Creed is the inferiority of Christ's Humanity\nto the Divinity generally; but both Scripture and the Nicene Creed teach\na subordination of the Son to the Father, independent of the Incarnation\nof the Son. Now this is not inserted, and therefore the denial in the\nassertion 'none is greater or less than another', is universal, and a\nplain contradiction of Christ speaking of Himself as the co-eternal Son;\n'My Father is greater than I'. Speaking of himself as the co-eternal\nSon, I say;--for how superfluous would it have been, a truism how\nunworthy of our Lord, to have said in effect, that \"a creature is less\nthan God!\" And after all, Creeds assuredly are not to be imposed 'ad\nlibitum'--a new Creed, or at least a new form and choice of articles and\nexpressions, at the pleasure of individuals. Now where is the authority\nof the Athanasian Creed? In what consists its necessity? If it be the\nsame as the Nicene, why not be content with the Nicene? If it differs,\nhow dare we retain both? [2] If the Athanasian does not say more or\ndifferent, but only differs by omission of a necessary article, then to\nimpose it, is as absurd as to force a mutilated copy on one who has\nalready the perfect original. Lastly, it is not enough that an abstract\ncontains nothing which may not by a chain of consequences be deduced\nfrom the books of the Evangelists and Apostles, in order for it to be a\nCreed for the whole Christian Church. For a Creed is or ought to be a\n'syllepsis' of those primary fundamental truths that are, as it were,\nthe starting-post, from which the Christian must commence his\nprogression. The full-grown Christian needs no other Creed than the\nScriptures themselves. Highly valuable is the Nicene Creed; but it has\nits chief value as an historical document, proving that the same texts\nin Scripture received the same interpretation, while the Greek was a\nliving language, as now.\n\n\nSect. III. p. 23.\n\n  If what he says is true: 'He that errs in a question of faith, after\n  having used reasonable diligence to be rightly informed, is in no\n  fault at all'; how comes an atheist, or an infidel, a Turk, or a Jew,\n  to be in any fault? Does our author think that no atheist or infidel,\n  no unbelieving Jew or heathen, ever used reasonable diligence to be\n  rightly informed? * * * If you say, he confines this to such points as\n  have always been controverted in the churches of God, I desire to know\n  a reason why he thus confines it? For does not his reason equally\n  extend to the Christian Faith itself, as to those points which have\n  been controverted in Christian Churches?\n\nAnd the Notary might ask in his turn: \"Do you believe that the\nChristians either of the Greek or of the Western Church will be damned,\naccording as the truth may be respecting the procession of the Holy\nGhost? or that either the Sacramentary or the Lutheran? or again, the\nConsubstantiationist, or the Transubstantiationist? If not, why do you\nstop here? Whence this sudden palsy in the limbs of your charity? Again,\ndoes this eternal damnation of the individual depend on the supposed\nimportance of the article denied? Or on the moral state of the\nindividual, on the inward source of this denial? And lastly, who\nauthorized either you, or the pseudo-Athanasius, to interpret Catholic\nfaith by belief, arising out of the apparent predominance of the grounds\nfor, over those against, the truth of the positions asserted; much more,\nby belief as a mere passive acquiescence of the understanding? Were all\ndamned who died during the period when 'totus fere mundus factus est\nArianus', as one of the Fathers admits? Alas! alas! how long will it be\nere Christians take the plain middle road between intolerance and\nindifference, by adopting the literal sense and Scriptural import of\nheresy, that is, wilful error, or belief originating in some perversion\nof the will; and of heretics, (for such there are, nay, even orthodox\nheretics), that is, men wilfully unconscious of their own wilfulness, in\ntheir limpet-like adhesion to a favourite tenet?\"\n\n\nIb. p. 26.\n\n  All Christians must confess, that there is no other name given under\n  heaven whereby men can be saved, but only the name of Christ.\n\nNow this is a most awful question, on which depends whether Christ was\nmore than Socrates; for to bring God from heaven to reproclaim the Ten\nCommandments, is 'too too' ridiculous. Need I say I incline to Sherlock?\nBut yet I cannot give to faith the meaning he does, though I give it\nall, and more than all, the power. But if that Name, as power, saved the\nJewish Church before they knew the Name, as name, how much more now, if\nonly the will be not guiltily averse? Any miracle does in kind as truly\nbring God from heaven as the Incarnation, which the Socinians wholly\nforget, as in other points. They receive without scruple what they have\nlearned without examination, and then transfer to the first article\nwhich they do look into, all the difficulties that belong equally to the\nformer: as the Simonidean doubts concerning God to the Trinity, and the\nlike.\n\n\nIb. p. 27.\n\nThe Eclectic Neo-Platonists (Sallustius and others,) justified their\nPolytheism on much the same pretext as is in fact involved in the\nlanguage of this page; [Greek: pollo\u00ec m\u00e8n en d\u00e8 mia the\u00f3taeti]. This\nindeed seems to me decisive in favour of Waterland's scheme against this\nof Sherlock's;--namely, that in the latter we find no sufficient reason\nwhy in the nature of things this intermutual consciousness might not be\npossessed by thirty instead of three. It seems a strange confounding\n[Greek: het\u00e9ron gen\u00e9\u00f4n] to answer, \"True; but the latter only happens to\nbe the fact!\"--just as if we were speaking of the number of persons in\nthe Privy Council.\n\n\nIb. p. 28.\n\n  'Notes'. By keeping this faith 'whole and undefiled', must be meant\n  that a man should believe and profess it without adding to it or\n  taking from it. * * * First, for adding. What if an honest plain man,\n  because he is a Christian and a Protestant, should think it necessary\n  to add this article to the Athanasian Creed;--'I believe the Holy\n  Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be a divine, infallible and\n  complete rule both for faith and manners'. I hope no Protestant would\n  think a man damned for such addition; and if so, then this Creed of\n  Athanasius is at least an unnecessary rule of faith.\n\n  'Answer'. That is to say, it is an addition to the Catholic Faith to\n  own the Scriptures to be the rule of faith; as if it were an addition\n  to the laws of England to own the original records of them in the\n  Tower.\n\nThis Notary manages his cause most weakly, and Sherlock 'fibs' him like\na scientific pugilist. But he himself exposes weak parts, as in p. 27.\nThe objection to the Athanasian Creed urged by better men than the\nNotary, yea, by divines not less orthodox than Sherlock himself, is\nthis: not that this Creed adds to the Scriptures, but that it adds to\nthe original 'Symbolum Fidei', the 'Regula', the 'Canon', by which,\naccording to the greater number of the 'ante'-Nicene Fathers, the books\nof the New Testament were themselves tried and determined to be\nScripture. Now this 'Symbolum' was to bring together all that must be\nbelieved, even by the babes in faith, or to what purpose was it made?\nNow, say they, the Nicene Creed is really nothing more than a verbal\nexplication of the common Creed, but the clause in the Athanasian\n('which faith', &c.), however fairly deduced from Scripture, is not\ncontained in the Creed, or selection of certain articles of Faith from\nthe Scriptures, or not at least from those preachings and narrations, of\nwhich the New Testament Scriptures are the repository. Might not a\nPapist plead equally in support of the Creed of Pope Pius: \"The new\narticles are deduced from Scripture; that is, in our opinion, and that\nmost expressly in our Lord's several and solemn addresses to St. Peter.\"\nSo again Sherlock's answer to this paragraph from the Notes is\nevasive,--for it is very possible, nay, it is, and has been the case,\nthat a man may believe in the facts and doctrines contained in the New\nTestament, and yet not believe the Holy Scripture to be either divine,\ninfallible, or complete.\n\n\nSect. IV. p. 50.\n\n  We know not what the substance of an infinite mind is, nor how such\n  substances as have no parts or extension can touch each other, or be\n  thus externally united; but we know the unity of a mind or spirit\n  reaches as far as its self-consciousness does, for that is one spirit,\n  which knows and feels itself, and its own thoughts and motions, and if\n  we mean this by 'circum-incession', three persons thus intimate to\n  each other are numerically one.\n\nThe question still returns; have these three infinite minds, at once\nself-conscious and conscious of each other's consciousness, always the\nvery same thoughts? If so, this mutual consciousness is unmeaning, or\nderivative; and the three do not cease to be three because they are\nthree sames. If not, then there is Tritheism evidently.\n\n\nIb. p. 64.\n\n  St. Paul tells us, 1 Cor. ii. 10. 'That the Spirit searcheth all\n  things, yea the deep things of God'. So that the Holy Spirit knows all\n  that is in God, even his most deep and secret counsels, which is an\n  argument that he is very intimate with him; but this is not all: it is\n  the manner of knowing, which must prove this consciousness of which I\n  speak: and that the Apostle adds in the next verse, that the Spirit of\n  God knows all that is in God, just as the spirit of a man knows all\n  that is in man: that is, not by external revelation or communication\n  of this knowledge, but by self-consciousness, by an internal\n  sensation, which is owing to an essential unity. 'For what man knoweth\n  the things of a man, save the spirit of a man which is in him; even so\n  the things of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of God.'\n\nIt would be interesting, if it were feasible, to point out the epoch at\nwhich the text mode of arguing in polemic controversy became\npredominant; I mean by single texts without any modification by the\ncontext. I suspect that it commenced, or rather that it first became the\nfashion, under the Dort or systematic theologians, and during the so\ncalled Quinquarticular Controversy. This quotation from St. Paul is a\nstriking instance:--for St. Paul is speaking of the holy spirit of which\ntrue spiritual Christians are partakers, and by which or in which those\nChristians are enabled to search all things, even the deep things of\nGod. No person is here spoken of, but reference is made to the\nphilosophic principle, that can only act immediately, that is,\ninterpenetratively, as two globules of quicksilver, and co-adunatively.\nNow, perceiving and knowing were considered as immediate acts relatively\nto the objects perceived and known:--'ergo', the 'principium sciendi'\nmust be one (that is, homogeneous or consubstantial) with the\n'principium essendi quoad objectum cognitum'. In order therefore for a\nman to understand, or even to know of, God, he must have a god-like\nspirit communicated to him, wherewith, as with an inward eye, which is\nboth eye and light, he sees the spiritual truths. Now I have no\nobjection to his calling this spirit a 'person,' if only the term\n'person' be so understood as to permit of its being partaken of by all\nspiritual creatures, as light and the power of vision are partaken of by\nall seeing ones. But it is too evident that Sherlock supposes the\nFather, as Father, to possess a spirit, that is, an intellective\nfaculty, by which he knows the Spirit, that is, the third co-equal\nPerson; and that this Spirit, the Person, has a spirit, that is, an\nintellective faculty, by which he knows the Father; and the 'Logos' in\nlike manner relatively to both. So too, the Father has a 'logos' with\nwhich he distinguishes the 'Logos';--and the 'Logos' has a 'logos', and\nso on: that is to say, there are three several though not severed triune\nGods, each being the same position three times 'realiter positum', as\nthree guineas from the same mint, supposing them to differ no more than\nthey appear to us to differ;--but whether a difference wholly and\nexclusively numerical is a conceivable notion, except under the\npredicament of space and time; whether it be not absurd to affirm it,\nwhere interspace and interval cannot be affirmed without absurdity--this\nis the question; or rather it is no question.\n\n\nIb. p. 68.\n\n  Nor do we divide the substance, but unite these three Persons in one\n  numerical essence: for we know nothing of the unity of the mind, but\n  self-consciousness, as I showed before; and therefore as the\n  self-consciousness of every Person to itself makes them distinct\n  Persons, so the mutual consciousness of all three divine Persons to\n  each other makes them all but one infinite God: as far as\n  consciousness reaches, so far the unity of a spirit extends, for we\n  know no other unity of a mind or spirit, but consciousness.\n\nBut this contradicts the preceding paragraph, in which the Father is\nself-conscious that he is the Father and not the Son, and the Son that\nhe is not the Father, and that the Father is not he. Now how can the\nSon's being conscious that the Father is conscious that he is not the\nSon, constitute a numerical unity? And wherein can such a consciousness\nas that attributed to the Son differ from absolute certainty? Is not God\nconscious of every thought of man;--and would Sherlock allow me to\ndeduce the unity of the divine consciousness with the human? Sherlock's\nis doubtless a very plain and intelligible account of three Gods in the\nmost absolute intimacy with each other, so that they are all as one; but\nby no means of three persons that are one God. I do not wonder that\nWaterland and the other followers of Bull were alarmed.\n\n\nIb. p. 72.\n\n  Even among men it is only knowledge that is power. Human power, and\n  human knowledge, as that signifies a knowledge how to do anything, are\n  commensurate; whatever human skill extends to, human power can effect:\n  nay, every man can do what he knows how to do, if he has proper\n  instruments and materials to do it with.\n\nThis proves that perfect knowledge supposes perfect power: and that they\nare one and the same. \"If he have proper instruments:\"--does not this\nshow that the means are supposed co-present with the knowledge, not the\nsame with it?\n\n\nIb.\n\n  For it is nothing but thought which moves our bodies, and all the\n  members of them, which are the immediate instruments of all human\n  force and power: excepting mechanical motions which do not depend upon\n  our wills, such as the motion of the heart, the circulation of the\n  blood, the concoction of our meat and the like. All voluntary motions\n  are not only directed but caused by thought: and so indeed it must be,\n  or there could be no motion in the world; for matter cannot move\n  itself, and therefore some mind must be the first mover, which makes\n  it very plain, that infinite truth and wisdom is infinite and almighty\n  power.\n\nEven this, though not ill-conceived, is inaccurately expressed.\n\n\nIb. p. 81.\n\n  There is no contradiction that three infinite minds should be\n  absolutely perfect in wisdom, goodness, justice and power; for these\n  are perfections which may be in more than one, as three men may all\n  know the same things, and be equally just and good: but three such\n  minds cannot be absolutely perfect without being mutually conscious to\n  each other, as they are to themselves.\n\nWill any man in his senses affirm, that my knowledge is increased by\nsaying \"all\" three times following? Is it not mere repetition in time?\nIf the Son has thoughts which the Father, as the Father, could not have\nbut for his interpenetration of the Son's consciousness, then I can\nunderstand it; but then these are not three Absolutes, but three modes\nof perfection constituting one Absolute; and by what right Sherlock\ncould call the one Father, more than the other, I cannot see.\n\n\nIb. p. 88.\n\n  And yet if we consider these three divine Persons as containing each\n  other in themselves, and essentially one by a mutual consciousness,\n  this pretended contradiction vanishes: for then the Father is the one\n  true God, because the Father has the Son and the Holy Spirit in\n  himself: and the Son may he called the one true God, because the Son\n  has the Father and the Holy Ghost in himself, &c.\n\nNay, this is to my understanding three Gods, and Sherlock seems to have\nbrought in the material phantom of a thing or substance.\n\n\nIb. p. 97.\n\n  But if these three distinct Persons are not separated, but essentially\n  united unto one, each of them may be God, and all three but one God:\n  for if these three Persons,--each of whom [Greek: monadik\u00f4s], as it is\n  in the Creed, singly by himself, not separately from the other divine\n  Persons, is God and Lord, are essentially united into one, there can\n  be but one God and one Lord; and how each of these persons is God, and\n  all of them but one God, by their mutual consciousness, I have already\n  explained.\n\n--\"That is,--if the three Persons are not three;\"--so might the Arian\nanswer, unless Sherlock had shown the difference of separate and\ndistinct relatively to mind. \"For what other separation can be conceived\nin mind but distinction? Distinction may be joined with imperfection, as\nignorance, or forgetfulness; and so it is in men:--and if this be called\nseparation by a metaphor from bodies, then the conclusion would be that\nin the Supreme Mind there is distinction without imperfection; and then\nthe question is, whence comes plurality of Persons? Can it be conceived\nother than as the result of imperfection, that is, finiteness?\n\n\nIb. p. 98.\n\n  Thus each Divine Person is God, and all of them but the same one God;\n  as I explained it before.\n\nO no! asserted it.\n\n\nIb. p. 98-9.\n\n  This one supreme God is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, a Trinity in\n  Unity, three Persons and one God. Now Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,\n  with all their divine attributes and perfections (excepting their\n  personal properties, which the Schools call the 'modi subsistendi',\n  that one is the Father, the other the Son, and the other the Holy\n  Ghost, which cannot be communicated to each other) are whole and\n  entire in each Person by a mutual consciousness; each feels the other\n  Persons in himself, all their essential wisdom, power, goodness,\n  justice, as he feels himself, and this makes them essentially one, as\n  I have proved at large.\n\n\nWill not the Arian object, \"You admit the 'modus subsistendi' to be a\ndivine perfection, and you affirm that it is incommunicable. Does it not\nfollow therefore, that there are perfections which the All-perfect does\nnot possess?\" This would not apply to Bishop Bull or Waterland.\n\n\nSect. V. p. 102.\n\n  St. Austin in his sixth book of the Trinity takes notice of a common\n  argument used by the orthodox fathers against the Arians, to prove the\n  co-eternity of the Son with the Father, that if the Son be the Wisdom\n  and Power of God, as St. Paul teaches (1 'Cor'. i.) and God was never\n  without his Wisdom and Power, the Son must he co-eternal with the\n  Father. * * * But this acute Father discovers a great inconvenience in\n  this argument, for it forces us to say that the Father is not wise,\n  but by that Wisdom which he begot, not being himself Wisdom as the\n  Father: and then we must consider whether the Son himself, as he is\n  God of God, and Light of Light, may be said to be Wisdom of Wisdom, if\n  God the Father be not Wisdom, but only begets Wisdom.\n\nThe proper answer to Augustine is, that the Son and Holy Ghost are\nnecessary and essential, not contingent: and that 'his' argument has a\nstill greater inconvenience, as shewn in note p. 98.\n\n\nIb. pp. 110-113.\n\n  But what makes St. Gregory dispute thus nicely, and oppose the common\n  and ordinary forms of speech? Did he in good earnest believe that\n  there is but one man in the world? No, no! he acknowledged as many men\n  as we do; a great multitude who had the same human nature, and that\n  every one who had a human nature was an individual man, distinguished\n  and divided from all other individuals of the same nature. What makes\n  him so zealous then against saying, that Peter, James and John are\n  three men? Only this; that he says man is the name of nature, and\n  therefore to say there are three men is the same as to say, there are\n  three human natures of a different kind; for if there are three human\n  natures, they must differ from each other, or they cannot be three;\n  and so you deny Peter, James, and John to be [Greek: homoo\u00fasioi], or\n  of the same nature; and for the same reason we must say that though\n  the Father be God, the Son God, and the Holy Ghost God, yet there are\n  not three Gods, but [Greek: m\u00eda the\u00f3taes], one Godhead and Divinity.\n\nSherlock struggles in vain, in my opinion at least, to clear these\nFathers of egregious logomachy, whatever may have been the soundness of\ntheir faith, spite of the quibbles by which they endeavoured to evince\nits rationality. The very change of the terms is suspicious. \"Yes! we\nmight say three Gods\" (it would be answered,) \"as we say and ought to\nsay three men: for man and humanity, [Greek: \u00e1nthrop\u00f4s] and [Greek:\n\u00e1nthr\u00f4p\u00f3taes] are not the same terms;--so if the Father be God, the Son\nGod, and the Holy Ghost God, there would be three Gods, though not\n[Greek: treis the\u00f3taetes],--that is, three Godheads.\"\n\n\nIb. p. 115-16.\n\n  Gregory Nyssen tells us that [Greek: the\u00f2s] is [Greek: theat\u00e0es] and\n  [Greek: \u00e9phoros], the inspector and governor of the world, that is, it\n  is a name of energy, operation and power; and if this virtue, energy,\n  and operation be the very same in all the Persons of the Trinity,\n  Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, then they are but one God, but one power\n  and energy. * * * The Father does nothing by himself, nor the Son by\n  himself, nor the Holy Ghost by himself; but the whole energy and\n  operation of the Deity relating to creatures begins with the Father,\n  passes to the Son, and from Father and Son to the Holy Spirit; the\n  Holy Spirit does not act anything separately; there are not three\n  distinct operations, as there are three Persons, [Greek: all\u00e0 m\u00eca t\u00ecs\n  g\u00ednetai agathou Boul\u00e1ematos k\u00ednaesis ka\u00ec diak\u00f3smaesis];--but one\n  motion and disposition of the good will, which passes through the\n  whole Trinity from Father to Son, and to the Holy Ghost, and this is\n  done [Greek: achr\u00f3nos ka\u00ec adiar\u00e9t\u00f4s], without any distance of time, or\n  propagating the motion from one to the other, but by one thought, as\n  it is in one numerical mind and spirit, and therefore, though they are\n  three Persons, they are but one numerical power and energy.\n\nBut this is either Tritheism or Sabellianism; it is hard to say which.\nEither the [Greek: Bo\u00falaema] subsists in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost,\nand not merely passes through them, and then there would be three\nnumerical [Greek: Boul\u00e1emata], as well as three numerical Persons:\n'ergo', [Greek: treis theo\u00ec \u00e0e theata\u00ed] (according to Gregory Nyssen's\nshallow and disprovable etymology), which would be Tritheism: or [Greek:\nh\u00e9n ti g\u00ednetai Bo\u00falaema], and then the Son and Holy Ghost are but terms\nof relation, which is Sabellianism. But in fact this Gregory and the\nothers were Tritheists in the mode of their conception, though they did\nnot wish to be so, and refused even to believe themselves such.\n\nGregory Nyssen, Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus and Damascen were charged\nwith \"a kind of Tritheism\" by Petavius and Dr. Cudworth, who, according\nto Sherlock, have \"mistaken their meaning.\" See pp. 106-9, of this\n\"Vindication.\"\n\n\nIb. p. 117.\n\n  For I leave any man to judge, whether this [Greek: m\u00eda k\u00ednaesis\n  Boul\u00e1ematos], this one single motion of will, which is in the same\n  instant in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, can signify anything else but\n  a mutual consciousness, which makes them numerically one, and as\n  intimate to each other, as every man is to himself, as I have already\n  explained it.\n\nIs not God conscious to all my thoughts, though I am not conscious of\nGod's? Would Sherlock endure that I should infer: 'ergo', God is\nnumerically one with me, though I am not numerically one with God? I\nhave never seen, but greatly wish to see, Waterland's controversial\ntracts against Sherlock. Again: according to Sherlock's conception, it\nwould seem to follow that we ought to make a triad of triads, or an\nennead.\n\n1. Father--Son--Holy Ghost.\n2. Son--Father--Holy Ghost.\n3. Holy Ghost--Son--Father.\n\nElse there is an 'x' in the Father which is not in the Son, a 'y' in the\nSon which is not in the Father, and a 'z' in the Holy Ghost which is in\nneither: that is, each by himself is not total God.\n\n\nIb. p. 120.\n\n  But however he might be mistaken in his philosophy, he was not in his\n  divinity; for he asserts a numerical unity of the divine nature, not a\n  mere specific unity, which is nothing but a logical notion, nor a\n  collective unity, which is nothing but a company who are naturally\n  many: but a true subsisting numerical unity of nature; and if the\n  difficulty of explaining this, and his zeal to defend it, forced him\n  upon some unintelligible niceties, to prove that the same numerical\n  human nature too is but one in all men, it is hard to charge him with\n  teaching, that there are three independent and co-ordinate Gods,\n  because we think he has not proved that Peter, James, and John, are\n  but one man. This will make very foul work with the Fathers, if we\n  charge them with all those erroneous conceits about the Trinity, which\n  we can fancy in their inconvenient ways of explaining that venerable\n  mystery, especially when they compare that mysterious unity with any\n  natural unions.\n\nSo that after all this obscuration of the obscure, Sherlock ends by\nfairly throwing up his briefs, and yet calls out, \"Not guilty!\n'Victoria'!\" And what is this but to say: These Fathers did indeed\ninvolve Tritheism in their mode of defending the Tri-personality; but\nthey were not Tritheists:--though it would be far more accurate to say,\nthat they were Tritheists, but not so as to make any practical breach of\nthe Unity;--as if, for instance, Peter, James, and John had three silver\ntickets, by shewing one of which either or all three would have the same\nthing as if they had shewn all three tickets, and 'vice versa', all\nthree tickets could produce no more than each one; each corresponding to\nthe whole.\n\n\nIb.\n\n  I am sure St. Gregory was so far from suspecting that he should be\n  charged with Tritheism upon this account, that he fences against\n  another charge of mixing and confounding the 'Hypostases' or Persons,\n  by denying any difference or diversity of nature, [Greek: h\u00f4s ek tou\n  m\u00e0e d\u00e9chesthai t\u00e0en kat\u00e0 physin diaphor\u00e0n, m\u00edxin tina t\u00f4n hypost\u00e1se\u00f4n\n  ka\u00ec anak\u00faklaesin kataske\u00fazonta], which argues that he thought he had\n  so fully asserted the unity of the divine essence, that some might\n  suspect he had left but one Person, as well as one nature in God.\n\nThis is just what I have said, p. 116. Whether Sabellianism or\nTritheism, I observed is hard to determine. Extremes meet.\n\n\nIb. p. 121.\n\n  Secondly, to this 'homo-ousiotes' the Fathers added a numerical unity\n  of the divine essence. This Petavius has proved at large by numerous\n  testimonies, even from those very Fathers, whom he before accused for\n  making God only collectively one, as three men are one man; such as\n  Gregory Nyssen, St. Cyril, Maximus, Damascen; which is a\n  demonstration, that however 'he might mistake' their explication of\n  it, from the unity of human nature, they were far enough from\n  Tritheism, or one collective God.\n\nThis is most uncandid. Sherlock, even to be consistent with his own\nconfession, \u00a7 1. p. 120, ought to have said, \"However he might mistake\ntheir 'intention', in consequence of their inconvenient and\nunphilosophical explication;\" which mistake, in fact, consisted in\ntaking them at their word.\n\n\nIb.\n\n  Petavius greatly commends Boethius's explication of this mystery,\n  which is the very same he had before condemned in Gregory Nyssen, and\n  those other Fathers.--That Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God,\n  not three Gods: 'hujus conjunctionis ratio est indifferentia': that\n  is, such a sameness of nature as admits of no difference or variety,\n  or an exact 'homo-ousiotes', as he explains it. * * Those make a\n  difference, who augment and diminish, as the Arians do; who\n  distinguish the Trinity into different natures, as well as Persons, of\n  different worth and excellency, and thus divide and multiply the\n  Trinity into a plurality of Gods. 'Principium enim pluralitatis\n  alteritas est. Pr\u00e6ter alteritatem enim nec pluralitas quid sit\n  intelligi potest'.\n\nThen if so, what becomes of the Persons? Have the Persons attributes\ndistinct from their nature;--or does not their common nature constitute\ntheir common attributes? 'Principium enim, &c.'\n\n\nIb. p. 124.\n\n  That the Fathers universally acknowledged that the operation of the\n  whole Trinity, 'ad extra', is but one, Petavius has proved beyond all\n  contradiction; and hence they conclude the unity of the divine nature\n  and essence; for every nature has a virtue and energy of its own; for\n  nature is a principle of action, and if the energy and operation be\n  but one, there can be but one nature; and if there be two distinct and\n  divided operations, if either of them can act alone without the other,\n  there must be two divided natures.\n\nThen it was not the Son but the whole Trinity that was crucified: for\nsurely this was an operation 'ad extra'.\n\n\nIb. p. 126.\n\n  But to do St. Austin right, though he do not name this consciousness,\n  yet he explains this Trinity in Unity by examples of mutual\n  consciousness. I named one of his similitudes before, of the unity of\n  our understanding, memory, and will, 'which' are all conscious to each\n  other; that we remember what we understand and will; we understand\n  what we remember and will; and what we will we remember and\n  understand; and therefore all these three faculties do penetrate and\n  comprehend each other.\n\n'Which'! The 'man' is self-conscious alike when he remembers, wills, and\nunderstands; but in what sense is the generic term \"memory\" conscious to\nthe generic word \"will?\" This is mere nonsense. Are memory,\nunderstanding, and volition persons,--self-subsistents? If not, what are\nthey to the purpose? Who doubts that Jehovah is consciously powerful,\nconsciously wise, consciously good; and that it is the same Jehovah, who\nin being omnipotent, is good and wise; in being wise, omnipotent and\ngood; in being good, is wise and omnipotent? But what has all this to do\nwith a distinction of Persons? Instead of one Tri-unity we might have a\nmille-unity. The fact is, that Sherlock, and (for aught I know) Gregory\nNyssen, had not the clear idea of the Trinity, positively; but only a\nnegative Arianism.\n\n\nIb. p. 127.\n\n  He proceeds to shew that this unity is without all manner of confusion\n  and mixture, * * for the mind that loves, is in the love. * * * And\n  the knowledge of the mind which knows and loves itself, is in the\n  mind, and in its love, because it loves itself, knowing, and knows\n  itself loving: and thus also two are in each, for the mind which knows\n  and loves itself, with its knowledge is in love, and with its love is\n  in knowledge.\n\nThen why do we make tri-personality in unity peculiar to God?\n\nThe doctrine of the Trinity (the foundation of all rational theology, no\nless than the precondition and ground of the rational possibility of the\nChristian Faith, that is, the Incarnation and Redemption), rests\nsecurely on the position,--that in man 'omni actioni pr\u00e6it sua propria\npassio; Deus autem est actus purissimus sine ulla potentialitate'. As\nthe tune produced between the breeze and Eolian harp is not a\nself-subsistent, so neither memory, nor understanding, nor even love in\nman: for he is a passive as well as active being: he is a patible agent.\nBut in God this is not so. Whatever is necessarily of him, (God of God,\nLight of Light), is necessarily all act; therefore necessarily\nself-subsistent, though not necessarily self-originated. This then is\nthe true mystery, because the true unique; that the Son of God has\norigination without passion, that is, without ceasing to be a pure act:\nwhile a created entity is, as far as it is merely creaturely and\ndistinguishable from the Creator, a mere 'passio' or recipient. This\nunicity we strive, not to 'express', for that is impossible; but to\ndesignate, by the nearest, though inadequate, analogy,--'Begotten'.\n\n\nIb. p. 133.\n\n  As for the Holy Ghost, whose nature is represented to be love, I do\n  not indeed find in Scripture that it is any where said, that the Holy\n  Ghost is that mutual love, wherewith Father and Son love each other:\n  but this we know, that there is a mutual love between Father and Son:\n  'the Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his\n  hands'.--John iii. 35. 'And the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him\n  all things that himself doeth'.-John v. 20; and our Saviour himself\n  tells us, 'I love the Father'.--John xiv. 31. And I shewed before,\n  that love is a distinct act, 'and therefore in God must be a person:\n  for there are no accidents nor faculties in God.'\n\nThis most important, nay, fundamental truth, so familiar to the elder\nphilosophy, and so strongly and distinctly enunciated by Philo Jud\u00e6us,\nthe senior and contemporary of the Evangelists, is to our modern divines\ndarkness and a sound.\n\n\nSect. VI. pp. 147-8.\n\n  Yes; you'll say, that there should be three Persons, each of which is\n  God, and yet but one God, is a contradiction: but what principle of\n  natural reason does it contradict?\n\nSurely never did argument vertiginate more! I had just acceded to\nSherlock's exposition of the Trinity, as the Supreme Being, his reflex\nact of self-consciousness and his love, all forming one supreme mind;\nand now he tells me, that each is the whole Supreme Mind, and denies\nthat three, each 'per se' the whole God, are not the same as three Gods!\nI grant that division and separation are terms inapplicable, yet surely\nthree distinct though undivided Gods, are three Gods. That the Father,\nSon, and Holy Ghost, are the one true God, I fully believe; but not\nSherlock's exposition of the doctrine. Nay, I think it would have been\nfar better to have worded the mystery thus:--The Father together with\nhis Son and Spirit, is the one true God.\n\n\"Each 'per se' God.\" This is the [Greek: pr\u00f4ton m\u00e9ga pseudos] of\nSherlock's scheme. Each of the three is whole God, because neither is,\nor can be 'per se'; the Father himself being 'a se', but not 'per se'.\n\n\nIb. p. 149.\n\n  For it is demonstrable that if there be three Persons and one God,\n  each Person must be God, and yet there cannot be three distinct Gods,\n  but one. For if each Person be not God, all three cannot be God,\n  unless the Godhead have Persons in it which are not God.\n\nThree persons having the same nature are three persons;--and if to\npossess without limitation the divine nature, as opposed to the human,\nis what we mean by God, why then three such persons are three Gods, and\nwill bethought so, till Gregory Nyssen can persuade us that John, James,\nand Peter, each possessing the human nature, are not three men. John is\na man, James is a man, and Peter is a man: but they are not three men,\nbut one man!\n\n\nIb. p. 150.\n\n  I affirm, that natural reason is not the rule and measure of\n  expounding Scripture, no more than it is of expounding any other\n  writing. The true and only way to interpret any writing, even the\n  Scriptures themselves, is to examine the use and propriety of words\n  and phrases, the connexion, scope, and design of the text, its\n  allusion to ancient customs and usages, or disputes. For there is no\n  other good reason to be given for any exposition, but that the words\n  signify so, and the circumstances of the place, and the apparent scope\n  of the writer require it.\n\nThis and the following paragraph are excellent. 'O si sic omnia'!\n\n\nIb. p. 153.\n\n  Reconcile men to the doctrine (of the Trinity), and the Scripture is\n  plain without any farther comment. This I have now endeavoured; and I\n  believe our adversaries will talk more sparingly of absurdities and\n  contradictions for the future, and they will lose the best argument\n  they have against the orthodox expositions of Scripture.\n\nGood doctor! you sadly over-rated both your own powers, and the docility\nof your adversaries. If so clear a head and so zealous a Trinitarian as\nDr. Waterland could not digest your exposition, or acquit it of\nTritheism, little hope is there of finding the Unitarians more\npersuadable.\n\n\nIb. p. 154.\n\n  Though Christ be God himself, yet if there be three Persons in the\n  Godhead, the equality and sameness of nature does not destroy the\n  subordination of Persons: a Son is equal to his Father by nature, but\n  inferior to him as his Son: if the Father, as I have explained it, be\n  original mind and wisdom, the Son a personal, subsisting, but reflex\n  image of his Father's wisdom, though their eternal wisdom be equal and\n  the same, yet the original is superior to the image, the Father to the\n  Son.\n\nBut why? We men deem it so, because the image is but a shadow, and not\nequal to the original; but if it were the same in all perfections, how\ncould that, which is exactly the same, be less? Again, God is all\nBeing:--consequently there can nothing be added to the idea, except what\nimplies a negation or diminution of it. If one and the same Being is\nequal to the Father, as touching his Godhead, but inferior as man; then\nit is + 'm-x', which is not = + 'm'. But of two men I may say, that they\nare equal to each other. A. = + courage-wisdom. B. = + wisdom-courage.\nBoth wise and courageous; but A. inferior in wisdom, B. in courage. But\nGod is all-perfect.\n\n\nIb. p. 156.\n\n  So born before all creatures, as [Greek: pr\u00f4t\u00f3tokos] also signifies,\n  'that by him were all things created'.\n\n  'All things were created by him, and for him, and he is before all\n  things', (which is the explication of [Greek: p\u00f4rt\u00f3tokos p\u00e1saes\n  kt\u00edseos], begotten before the whole creation', and therefore no part\n  of the creation himself.)\n\nThis is quite right. Our version should here be corrected. [Greek:\nPr\u00f4to] or [Greek: pr\u00f3taton] is here an intense comparative,--'infinitely\nbefore'.\n\n\nIb. p. 159.\n\n  That he 'being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal\n  with God', &c.--Phil. ii. 8, 9.\n\nI should be inclined to adopt an interpretation of the unusual phrase\n[Greek: h\u00e1rpagmon] somewhat different both from the Socinian and the\nChurch version:--\"who being in the form of God did not 'think equality\nwith God a thing to be seized with violence', but made, &c.\"\n\n\nIb. p. 160.\n\n  Is a mere creature a fit lieutenant or representative of God in\n  personal or prerogative acts of government and power? Must not every\n  being be represented by one of his own kind, a man by a man, an angel\n  by an angel, in such acts as are proper to their natures? and must not\n  God then be represented by one who is God? Is any creature capable of\n  the government of the world? Does not this require infinite wisdom and\n  infinite power? And can God communicate infinite wisdom and infinite\n  power to a creature or a finite nature? That is, can a creature be\n  made a true and essential God?\n\nThis is sound reasoning. It is to be regretted that Sherlock had not\nconfined himself to logical comments on the Scripture, instead of\nattempting metaphysical solutions.\n\n\nIb. pp. 161-3.\n\nI find little or nothing to 'object to' in this exposition, from pp.\n161-163 inclusively, of 'Phil'. ii. 8, 9. And yet I seem to feel, as if\na something that should have been prefixed, and to which all these\nconsiderations would have been excellent seconds, were missing. To\nexplain the Cross by the necessity of sacrificial blood, and the\nsacrificial blood as a type and 'ante'-delegate or pre-substitute of the\nCross, is too like an 'argumentum in circulo'.\n\n\nIb. p. 164.\n\n  And though Christ be the eternal Son of God, and the natural Lord and\n  heir of all things, yet 'God hath' in this 'highly exalted him' and\n  given 'him a name which is above every name, that at' (or in [Greek:\n  en]) 'the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven',\n  &c.--Phil. ii. 9, 10, 11.\n\nNever was a sublime passage more debased than by this rendering of\n[Greek: en] by 'at', instead of 'in';--'at' the 'phenomenon', instead of\n'in' the 'noumenon'. For such is the force of 'nomen', name, in this and\nsimilar passages, namely, 'in vera et substantiali potestate Jesu': that\nis, [Greek: en l\u00f3g\u00f4 ka\u00ec di\u00e0 l\u00f3gou], the true 'noumenon' or 'ens\nintelligibile' of Christ. To bow at hearing the 'cognomen' may become a\nuniversal, but it is still only a non-essential, consequence of the\nformer. But the debasement of the idea is not the worst evil of this\nfalse rendering;--it has afforded the pretext and authority for\nun-Christian intolerance.\n\n\nIb. p. 168.\n\n  'The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the\n  Son'.--John v. 22. Should the Father judge the world he 'must' judge\n  as the maker and sovereign of the world, by the strict rules of\n  righteousness and justice, and then how could any sinner be saved?\n\n(Why? Is mercy incompatible with righteousness? How then can the Son be\nrighteous?)\n\n  But he has committed judgment to the Son, as a mediatory king, who\n  judges by the equity and chancery of the Gospel.\n\nThis article required exposition incomparably more than the simple\ndoctrine of the Trinity, plain and evident 'simplici intuitu', and\nrendered obscure only by diverting the mental vision by terms drawn from\nmatter and multitude. In the Trinity all the 'Hows'? may and should be\nanswered by 'Look'! just as a wise tutor would do in stating the fact of\na double or treble motion, as of a ball rolling north ward on the deck\nof a ship sailing south, while the earth is turning from west to east.\nAnd in like manner, that is, 'per intuitum intellectualem', must all the\nmysteries of faith be contemplated;--they are intelligible 'per se',\nnot discursively and 'per analogiam'. For the truths are unique, and may\nhave shadows and types, but no analogies. At this moment I have no\nintuition, no intellectual diagram, of this article of the commission of\nall judgment to the Son, and therefore a multitude of plausible\nobjections present themselves, which I cannot solve--nor do I expect to\nsolve them till by faith I see the thing itself.--Is not mercy an\nattribute of the Deity, as Deity, and not exclusively of the Person of\nthe Son? And is not the authorizing another to judge by equity and mercy\nthe same as judging so ourselves? If the Father can do the former, why\nnot the latter?\n\n\nIb. p. 171.\n\n  And therefore now it is given him to have life in himself, as the\n  Father hath life in himself, as the original fountain of all life, by\n  whom the Son himself lives: all life is derived from God, either by\n  eternal generation, or procession, or creation; and thus Christ hath\n  life in himself also; to the new creation he is the fountain of life:\n  'he quickeneth whom he will'.\n\nThe truths which hitherto had been metaphysical, then began to be\nhistorical. The Eternal was to be manifested in time. Hence Christ came\nwith signs and wonders; that is, the absolute, or the anterior to cause\nand effect, manifested itself as a 'phenomenon' in time, but with the\npredicates of eternity;--and this is the only possible definition of a\nmiracle 'in re ipsa', and not merely 'ad hominem', or 'ad ignorantiam'.\n\n\nIb. p. 177.\n\n  His next argument consists in applying such things to the divinity of\n  our Saviour as belong to his humanity; 'that he increased in wisdom,\n  &c.:--that he knows not the day of judgment';--which he evidently\n  speaks of himself as man: as all the ancient Fathers confess. In St.\n  Mark it is said, 'But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no,\n  not the angels that are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father'.\n  St. Matthew does not mention the Son: 'Of that day and hour knoweth no\n  man, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only'.\n\nHow much more politic, as well as ingenuous, it had been to have\nacknowledged the difficulty of this text. So far from its being evident,\nthe evidence would be on the Arian side, were it not that so many\nexpress texts determine us to the contrary.\n\n\nIb.\n\n  Which shows that the Son in St. Matthew is included in the [Greek:\n  oude\u00ecs] none, or no man, and therefore concerns him only as a man: for\n  the Father 'includes the whole Trinity', and therefore includes the\n  Son, who seeth whatever his Father doth.\n\nThis is an 'argumentum in circulo', and 'petitio rei sub lite'. Why is\nhe called the Son in 'antithesis' to the Father, if it meant, \"no not\nthe Christ, except in his character of the co-eternal Son, included in\nthe Father?\" If it \"concerned him only as a man,\" why is he placed after\nthe angels? Why called the 'Son' simply, instead of the Son of Man, or\nthe Messiah?\n\n\nIb.\n\n  [Greek: Oude\u00ecs] is not [Greek: oude\u00ecs anthr\u00f4p\u00f4n], but, 'no one': as in\n  John i. 18. 'No one hath seen God at any time'; that is, he is by\n  essence invisible.\n\nThis most difficult text I have not seen explained satisfactorily. I\nhave thought that the [Greek: \u00e1ggeloi] must here be taken in the primary\nsense of the word, namely, as messengers, or missionary Prophets: Of\nthis day knoweth no one, not the messengers or revealers of God's\npurposes now in heaven, no, not the Son, the greatest of Prophets,--that\nis, he in that character promised to declare all that in that character\nit was given to him to know.\n\n\nIb. p. 186.\n\n  When St. Paul calls the Father the One God, he expressly opposes it to\n  the many gods of the heathens. 'For though there be that are called\n  gods, &c. but to us, there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all\n  things; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by\n  him': where the 'one God' and 'one Lord and Mediator' is opposed to\n  the many gods and many lords or mediators which were worshipped by the\n  heathens.\n\nBut surely the 'one Lord' is as much distinguished from the 'one God',\nas both are contradistinguished from the 'gods many and lords many' of\nthe heathens. Besides 'the Father' is not the term used in that age in\ndistinction from the gods that are no gods; but [Greek: Ho ep\u00ec p\u00e1nt\u00f4n\nthe\u00f3s].\n\n\nIb. p. 222.\n\n  'The Word was with God'; that is, it was not yet in the world, or not\n  yet made flesh; but with God.--'John' i. 1. So that to be 'with God',\n  signifies nothing but not to be in the world.\n\n\n_'The Word was with God.'_\n\n  Grotius does say, that this was opposed to the Word's being made\n  flesh, and appearing in the world: but he was far enough from thinking\n  that these words have only a negative sense: * * * for he tells us\n  what the positive sense is, that with God is [Greek: par\u00e0 t\u00f4 patr\u00ed],\n  with the Father, * * and explains it by what Wisdom says, 'Prov'. vii.\n  30. 'Then I was by him, &c.' which he does not think a 'prosopopoeia',\n  but spoken of a subsisting person.\n\nBut even this is scarcely tenable even as Greek. Had this been St.\nJohn's meaning, surely he would have said, [Greek: en the\u00f4], not [Greek:\npr\u00f2s t\u00f2n the\u00f3n], in the nearest proximity that is not confusion. But it\nis strange, that Sherlock should not have seen that Grotius had a\nhankering toward Socinianism, but, like a 'shy cock', and a man of the\nworld, was always ready to unsay what he had said.\n\n\n\n[Footnote 1: A Vindication of the Doctrine of the Holy and ever Blessed\nTrinity and the Incarnation of the Son of God, occasioned by the Brief\nNotes on the Creed of St Athanasius, and the Brief History of the\nUnitarians, or Socinians. and containing an answer to both. By Wm.\nSherlock, London. 8vo. 1690.]\n\n\n[Footnote 2: The third General Council, that at Ephesus in 431, decreed\n\n  \"that it should not be lawful for any man to publish or compose\n  another Faith or Creed than that which was defined by the Nicene\n  Council.\"\n\nEd.]\n\n\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\n\nNOTES ON WATERLAND'S VINDICATION OF CHRIST'S DIVINITY. [1]\n\n\n'In initio'.\n\nIt would be no easy matter to find a tolerably competent individual who\nmore venerates the writings of Waterland than I do, and long have done.\nBut still in how many pages do I not see reason to regret, that the\ntotal idea of the 4=3=1,--of the adorable Tetractys, eternally\nself-manifested in the Triad, Father, Son, and Spirit,--was never in its\ncloudless unity present to him. Hence both he and Bishop Bull too often\ntreat it as a peculiarity of positive religion, which is to be cleared\nof all contradiction to reason, and then, thus negatively qualified, to\nbe actually received by an act of the mere will; 'sit pro ratione\nvoluntas'. Now, on the other hand, I affirm, that the article of the\nTrinity is religion, is reason, and its universal 'formula'; and that\nthere neither is, nor can be, any religion, any reason, but what is, or\nis an expansion of the truth of the Trinity; in short, that all other\npretended religions, pagan or 'pseudo'-Christian (for example,\nSabellian, Arian, Socinian), are in themselves Atheism; though God\nforbid, that I should call or even think the men so denominated\nAtheists. I affirm a heresy often, but never dare denounce the holder a\nheretic.\n\nOn this ground only can it be made comprehensible, how any honest and\ncommonly intelligent man can withstand the proofs and sound logic of\nBull and Waterland, that they failed in the first place to present the\nidea itself of the great doctrine which they so ably advocated. Take my\nself, S.T.C. as a humble instance. I was never so befooled as to think\nthat the author of the fourth Gospel, or that St. Paul, ever taught the\nPriestleyan Psilanthropism, or that Unitarianisn (presumptuously, nay,\nabsurdly so called), was the doctrine of the New Testament generally.\nBut during the sixteen months of my aberration from the Catholic Faith,\nI presumed that the tenets of the divinity of Christ, the Redemption,\nand the like, were irrational, and that what was contradictory to reason\ncould not have been revealed by the Supreme Reason. As soon as I\ndiscovered that these doctrines were not only consistent with reason,\nbut themselves very reason, I returned at once to the literal\ninterpretation of the Scriptures, and to the Faith.\n\nAs to Dr. Samuel Clarke, the fact is, every generation has its one or\nmore over-rated men. Clarke was such in the reign of George I.; Dr.\nJohnson eminently so in that of George III.; Lord Byron being the star\nnow in the ascendant.\n\nIn every religious and moral use of the word, God, taken absolutely,\nthat is, not as a God, or the God, but as God, a relativity, a\ndistinction in kind 'ab omni quod non est Deus', is so essentially\nimplied, that it is a matter of perfect indifference, whether we assert\na world without God, or make God the world. The one is as truly Atheism\nas the other. In fact, for all moral and practical purposes they are the\nsame position differently expressed; for whether I say, God is the\nworld, or the world is God, the inevitable conclusion, the sense and\nimport is, that there is no other God than the world, that is, there is\nno other meaning to the term God. Whatever you may mean by, or choose to\nbelieve of, the world, that and that alone you mean by, and believe of,\nGod. Now I very much question whether in any other sense Atheism, that\nis, speculative Atheism, is possible. For even in the Lucretian, the\ncoarsest and crudest scheme of the Epicurean doctrine, a hylozism, a\npotential life, is clearly implied, as also in the celebrated 'lene\nclinamen' becoming actual. Desperadoes articulating breath into a\nblasphemy of nonsense, to which they themselves attach no connected\nmeaning, and the wickedness of which is alone intelligible, there may\nbe; but a La Place, or a La Grand, would, and with justice, resent and\nrepel the imputation of a belief in chance, or of a denial of law,\norder, and self-balancing life and power in the world. Their error is,\nthat they make them the proper and underived attributes of the world. It\nfollows then, that Pantheism is equivalent to Atheism, and that there is\nno other Atheism actually existing, or speculatively conceivable, but\nPantheism. Now I hold it demonstrable that a consistent Socinianism,\nfollowing its own consequences, must come to Pantheism, and in ungodding\nthe Saviour must deify cats and dogs, fleas and frogs. There is, there\ncan be, no 'medium' between the Catholic Faith of Trinal Unity, and\nAtheism disguised in the self-contradicting term, Pantheism;--for every\nthing God, and no God, are identical positions.\n\n\nQuery I. p. 1.\n\n  'The Word was God'.--John i. 1. 'I am the Lord, and there is none\n  else; there is no God besides me'.--Is. xiv. 5, &c.\n\nIn all these texts the 'was', or 'is', ought to be rendered positively,\nor objectively, and not as a mere connective: 'The Word Is God', and\nsaith, 'I Am the Lord; there is no God besides me', the Supreme Being,\n'Deitas objectiva'. The Father saith, 'I Am in that I am,--Deitas\nsubjectiva'.\n\n\nIb. p. 2.\n\n  Whether all other beings, besides the one Supreme God, be not excluded\n  by the texts of Isaiah (to which many more might be added), and\n  consequently, whether Christ can be God at all, unless He be the same\n  with the Supreme God?\n\n  The sum of your answer to this query is, that the texts cited from\n  Isaiah, are spoken of one Person only, the Person of the Father, &c.\n\nO most unhappy mistranslation of 'Hypostasis' by Person! The Word is\nproperly the only Person.\n\n\nIb. p. 3.\n\n  Now, upon your hypothesis, we must add; that even the Son of God\n  himself, however divine he may be thought, is really no God at all in\n  any just and proper sense. He is no more than a nominal God, and\n  stands excluded with the rest. All worship of him, and reliance upon\n  him, will be idolatry, as much as the worship of angels, or men, or of\n  the gods of the heathen would be. God the Father he is God, and he\n  only, and 'him only shall thou serve'. This I take to be a clear\n  consequence from your principles, and unavoidable.\n\nWaterland's argument is absolutely unanswerable by a worshipper of\nChrist. The modern 'ultra'-Socinian cuts the knot.\n\n\nQuery II. p. 43.\n\n  And therefore he might as justly bear the style and title of 'Lord\n  God, God of Abraham', &c. while he acted in that capacity, as he did\n  that of 'Mediator, Messiah, Son of the Father', &c. after that he\n  condescended to act in another, and to discover his personal relation.\n\nAnd why, then, did not Dr. Waterland,--why did not his great\npredecessor in this glorious controversy, Bishop Bull,--contend for a\nrevisal of our established version of the Bible, but especially of the\nNew Testament? Either the unanimous belief and testimony of the first\nfive or six centuries, grounded on the reiterated declarations of John\nand Paul, and the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, were erroneous,\nor at best doubtful;--and then why not wipe them off; why these\nreferences to them?--or else they were, as I believe, and both Bull and\nWaterland believed, the very truth; and then why continue the\ntranslation of the Hebrew into English at second-hand through the\n'medium' of the Septuagint? Have we not adopted the Hebrew word,\nJehovah,? Is not the [Greek: Kyrios], or Lord, of the LXX. a Greek\nsubstitute, in countless instances, for the Hebrew Jehovah? Why not then\nrestore the original word, and in the Old Testament religiously render\nJehovah by Jehovah, and every text of the New Testament, referring to\nthe Old, by the Hebrew word in the text referred to? Had this been done,\nSocinianism would have been scarcely possible in England.\n\nWhy was not this done?--I will tell you why. Because that great truth,\nin which are contained all treasures of all possible knowledge, was\nstill opaque even to Bull and Waterland;--because the Idea itself--that\n'Idea Idearum', the one substrative truth which is the form, manner, and\ninvolvent of all truths,--was never present to either of them in its\nentireness, unity, and transparency. They most ably vindicated the\ndoctrine of the Trinity, negatively, against the charge of positive\nirrationality. With equal ability they shewed the contradictions, nay,\nthe absurdities, involved in the rejection of the same by a professed\nChristian. They demonstrated the utterly un-Scriptural and\ncontra-Scriptural nature of Arianism, and Sabellianism, and Socinianism.\nBut the self-evidence of the great Truth, as a universal of the\nreason,--as the reason itself--as a light which revealed itself by its\nown essence as light--this they had not had vouchsafed to them.\n\n\nQuery XV. p. 225-6.\n\n  The pretence is, that we equivocate in talking of eternal generation.\n\nAll generation is necessarily [Greek: \u00e1narch\u00f3n ti], without dividuous\nbeginning, and herein contradistinguished from creation.\n\n\nIb. p. 226.\n\n  True, it is not the same with human generation.\n\nNot the same 'eodem modo', certainly; but it is so essentially the same\nthat the generation of the Son of God is the transcendent, which gives\nto human generation its right to be so called. It is in the most proper,\nthat is, the fontal, sense of the term, generation.\n\n\nIb.\n\n  You have not proved that all generation implies beginning; and what is\n  more, cannot.\n\nIt would be difficult to disprove the contrary. Generation with a\nbeginning is not generation, but creation. Hence we may see how\nnecessary it is that in all important controversies we should predefine\nthe terms negatively, that is, exclude and preclude all that is not\nmeant by them; and then the positive meaning, that is, what is meant by\nthem, will be the easy result,--the post-definition, which is at once\nthe real definition and impletion, the circumference and the area.\n\n\nIb. p. 227-8.\n\n  It is a usual thing with many, (moralists may account for it), when\n  they meet with a difficulty which they cannot readily answer,\n  immediately to conclude that the doctrine is false, and to run\n  directly into the opposite persuasion;--not considering that they may\n  meet with much more weighty objections there than before; or that they\n  may have reason sufficient to maintain and believe many things in\n  philosophy and divinity, though they cannot answer every question\n  which may be started, or every difficulty which may be raised against\n  them.\n\nO, if Bull and Waterland had been first philosophers, and then divines,\ninstead of being first, manacled, or say articled clerks of a guild;--if\nthe clear free intuition of the truth had led them to the Article, and\nnot the Article to the defence of it as not having been proved to be\nfalse,--how different would have been the result! Now we feel only the\ninconsistency of Arianism, not the truth of the doctrine attacked.\nArianism is confuted, and in such a manner, that I will not reject the\nCatholic Faith upon the Arian's grounds. It may, I allow, be still true.\nBut that it is true, because the Arians have hitherto failed to prove\nits falsehood, is no logical conclusion. The Unitarian may have better\nluck; or if he fail, the Deist.\n\n\nQuery XVI. p. 234.\n\n  But God's 'thoughts are not our thoughts'.\n\nThat is, as I would interpret the text;--the ideas in and by which God\nreveals himself to man are not the same with, and are not to be judged\nby, the conceptions which the human understanding generalizes from the\nnotices of the senses, common to man and to irrational animals, dogs,\nelephants, beavers, and the like, endowed with the same senses.\nTherefore I regard this paragraph, p. 223-4, as a specimen of admirable\nspecial pleading 'ad hominem' in the Court of eristic Logic; but I\ncondemn it as a wilful resignation or temporary self-deposition of the\nreason. I will not suppose what my reason declares to be no position at\nall, and therefore an impossible sub-position.\n\n\nIb. p. 235.\n\n  Let us keep to the terms we began with; lest by the changing of words\n  we make a change of ideas, and alter the very state of the question.\n\nThis misuse, or rather this 'omnium-gatherum' expansion and consequent\nextenuation of the word, Idea and Ideas, may be regarded as a calamity\ninflicted by Mr. Locke on the reigns of William III. Queen Anne, and the\nfirst two Georges.\n\n\nIb. p. 237.\n\n  Sacrifice was one instance of worship required under the Law; and it\n  is said;--'He that sacrificeth unto any God, save unto the Lord only,\n  he shall be utterly destroyed' (Exod. xxii. 20.) Now suppose any\n  person, considering with himself that only absolute and sovereign\n  sacrifice was appropriated to God by this law, should have gone and\n  sacrificed to other Gods, and have been convicted of it before the\n  judges. The apology he must have made for it, I suppose, must have run\n  thus: \"Gentlemen, though I have sacrificed to other Gods, yet I hope\n  you'll observe, that I did it not absolutely: I meant not any absolute\n  or supreme sacrifice (which is all that the Law forbids), but relative\n  and inferior only. I regulated my intentions with all imaginable care,\n  and my esteem with the most critical exactness. I considered the other\n  Gods, whom I sacrificed to, as inferior only and infinitely so;\n  reserving all sovereign sacrifice to the supreme God of Israel.\" This,\n  or the like apology must, I presume, have brought off the criminal\n  with some applause for his acuteness, if your principles be true.\n  Either you must allow this, or you must be content to say, that not\n  only absolute supreme sacrifice (if there be any sense in that\n  phrase), but all sacrifice was by the Law appropriate to God only, &c.\n  &c.\n\nHow was it possible for an Arian to answer this? But it was impossible;\nand Arianism was extinguished by Waterland, but in order to the increase\nof Socinianism; and this, I doubt not, Waterland foresaw. He was too\nwise a man to suppose that the exposure of the folly and falsehood of\none form of Infidelism would cure or prevent Infidelity. Enough, that he\nmade it more bare-faced--I might say, bare-breeched; for modern\nUnitarianism is verily the 'sans-culotterie' of religion.\n\n\nIb. p. 239.\n\n  You imagine that acts of religious worship are to derive their\n  signification and quality from the intention and meaning of the\n  worshippers: whereas the very reverse of it is the truth.\n\nTruly excellent. Let the Church of England praise God for her Saints--a\nmore glorious Kalendar than Rome can show!\n\n\nIb. p. 251.\n\n  The sum then of the case is this: If the Son could be included as\n  being uncreated, and very God; as Creator, Sustainer, Preserver of all\n  things, and one with the Father; then he might be worshipped upon\n  their (the Ante-Nicene Fathers') principles, but otherwise could not.\n\nEvery where in this invaluable writer I have to regret the absence of\nall distinct idea of the I Am as the proper attribute of the Father; and\nhence, the ignorance of the proper Jehovaism of the Son; and hence, that\nwhile we worship the Son together with the Father, we nevertheless pray\nto the Father only through the Son.\n\n\nQuery XVII.\n\n  And we may never be able perfectly to comprehend the relations of the\n  three persons, 'ad intra', amongst themselves; the ineffable order and\n  economy of the ever-blessed co-eternal Trinity.\n\n\"Comprehend!\" No. For how can any spiritual truth be comprehended? Who\ncan comprehend his own will; or his own personeity, that is, his I-ship\n(Ichheit'); or his own mind, that is, his person; or his own life? But\nwe can distinctly apprehend them. In strictness, the Idea, God, like all\nother ideas rightly so called, and as contradistinguished from\nconception, is not so properly above, as alien from, comprehension. It\nis like smelling a sound.\n\n\nQuery XVIII. p. 269.\n\n  From what hath been observed, it may appear sufficiently that the\n  divine [Greek: L\u00f3gos] was our King and our God long before; that he\n  had the same claim and title to religious worship that the Father\n  himself had--'only not so distinctly revealed'.\n\nHere I differ 'toto orbe' from Waterland, and say with Luther and\nZinzendorf, that before the Baptism of John the 'Logos' alone had been\ndistinctly revealed, and that first in Christ he declared himself a Son,\nnamely, the co-eternal only-begotten Son, and thus revealed the Father.\nIndeed the want of the Idea of the 1=3 could alone have prevented\nWaterland from inferring this from his own query II. and the texts cited\nby him pp. 28-38. The Father cannot be revealed except in and through\nthe Son, his eternal 'exegesis'. The contrary position is an absurdity.\nThe Supreme Will, indeed, the Absolute Good, knoweth himself as the\nFather: but the act of self-affirmation, the I Am in that I Am, is not a\nmanifestation 'ad extra', not an 'exegesis'.\n\n\nIb. p. 274.\n\n  This point being settled, I might allow you that, in some sense,\n  distinct worship commenced with the distinct title of Son or Redeemer:\n  that is, our blessed Lord was then first worshipped, or commanded to\n  be worshipped by us, under that distinct title or character; having\n  before had no other title or character peculiar and proper to himself,\n  but only what was common to the Father and him too.\n\nRather shall I say that the Son and the Spirit, the Word and the Wisdom,\nwere alone worshipped, because alone revealed under the Law. See\nProverbs, i. ii.\n\nThe passage quoted from Bishop Bull is very plausible and very eloquent;\nbut only 'cum multis granis salis sumend'.\n\n\nQuery XIX. p. 279.\n\n  That the Father, whose honour had been sufficiently secured under the\n  Jewish dispensation, and could not but be so under the Christian also,\n  &c.\n\nHere again! This contradiction of Waterland to his own principles is\ncontinually recurring;--yea, and in one place he involves the very\nTritheism, of which he was so victorious an antagonist, namely, that the\nFather is Jehovah, the Son Jehovah, and the Spirit Jehovah;--thus making\nJehovah either a mere synonyme of God--whereas he himself rightly\nrenders it  [Greek: Ho \u00d4n], which St. John every where, and St. Paul no\nless, makes the peculiar name of the Son, [Greek: monogen\u00e0es uhi\u00f2s, ho\n\u00f4n eis t\u00f2n k\u00f3lpon tou patr\u00f3s]--; or he affirms the same absurdity, as if\nhad said: The Father is the Son, and the Son is the Son, and the Holy\nGhost is the Son, and yet there are not three Sons but one Son. N. B.\n[Greek: Ho \u00f2n] is the verbal noun of [Greek: hos esti], not of [Greek:\neg\u00f4 eim\u00ed]. It is strange how little use has been made of that profound\nand most pregnant text, 'John' i. 18!\n\n\nQuery XX. p. 302.\n\n  The [Greek: homoo\u00fasion] itself might have been spared, at least out of\n  the Creeds, had not a fraudulent abuse of good words brought matters\n  to that pass, that the Catholic Faith was in danger of being lost even\n  under Catholic language.\n\nMost assuredly the very 'disputable' rendering of [Greek: homoousion] by\nconsubstantial, or of one substance with, not only might have been\nspared, but should have been superseded. Why not--as is felt to be for\nthe interest of science in all the physical sciences--retain the same\nterm in all languages? Why not 'usia' and homo\u00fcsial, as well as\n'hypostasis', hypostatic, homogeneous, heterogeneous, and the like;--or\nas Baptism, Eucharist, Liturgy, Epiphany and the rest?\n\n\nQuery XXI. p. 303.\n\n  The Doctor's insinuating from the 300 texts, which style the Father\n  God absolutely, or the one God, that the Son is not strictly and\n  essentially God, not one God with the Father, is a strained and remote\n  inference of his own.\n\nWaterland has weakened his argument by seeming to admit that in all\nthese 300 texts the Father, 'distinctive', is meant.\n\n\nIb. p. 316-17.\n\n  The simplicity of God is another mystery. * * When we come to inquire\n  whether all extension, or all plurality, diversity, composition of\n  substance and accident, and the like, be consistent with it, then it\n  is we discover how confused and inadequate our ideas are. * * To this\n  head belongs that perplexing question (beset with difficulties on all\n  sides), whether the divine substance be extended or no.\n\nSurely, the far larger part of these assumed difficulties rests on a\nmisapplication either of the senses to the sense, or of the sense to the\nunderstanding, or of the understanding to the reason;--in short, on an\nasking for images where only theorems can be, or requiring theorems for\nthoughts, that is, conceptions or notions, or lastly, conceptions for\nideas.\n\n\nQuery XXIII. p. 351.\n\n  But taking advantage of the ambiguity of the word 'hypostasis',\n  sometimes used to signify substance, and sometimes person, you\n  contrive a fallacy.\n\nAnd why did not Waterland lift up his voice against this mischievous\nabuse of the term 'hypostasis', and the perversion of its Latin\nrendering, 'substantia' as being equivalent to [Greek: ous\u00eda]? Why\n[Greek: ous\u00eda] should not have been rendered by 'essentia', I cannot\nconceive. 'Est' seems a contraction of 'esset', and 'ens' of 'essens':\n[Greek: \u00f4n, ousa, ous\u00eda] = 'essens, essentis, essentia'.\n\n\nIb. p. 354.\n\n  Let me desire you not to give so great a loose to your fancy in divine\n  things: you seem to consider every thing under the notion of extension\n  and sensible images.\n\nVery true. The whole delusion of the Anti-Trinitarians arises out of\nthis, that they apply the property of imaginable matter--in which A. is,\nthat is, can only be imagined, by exclusion of B. as the universal\npredicate of all substantial being.\n\n\nIb. p. 357.\n\n  And our English Unitarians * * have been still refining upon the\n  Socinian scheme, * * and have brought it still nearer to Sabellianism.\n\nThe Sabellian and the Unitarian seem to differ only in this;--that what\nthe Sabellian calls union with, the Unitarian calls full inspiration by,\nthe Divinity.\n\n\nIb. p. 359.\n\n  It is obvious, at first sight, that the true Arian or Semi-Arian\n  scheme (which you would be thought to come up to at least) can never\n  tolerably support itself without taking in the Catholic principle of a\n  human soul to join with the Word.\n\nHere comes one of the consequences of the Cartesian Dualism: as if\n[Greek: s\u00e0rx], the living body, could be or exist without a soul, or a\nhuman living body without a human soul! [Greek: S\u00e0rx] is not Greek for\ncarrion, nor [Greek: s\u00f4ma] for carcase.\n\n\nQuery XXIV. p. 371.\n\n  Necessary existence is an essential character, and belongs equally to\n  Father and Son.\n\nSubsistent in themselves are Father, Son and Spirit: the Father only has\norigin in himself.\n\n\nQuery XXVI. p. 412.\n\n  The words [Greek: ouch h\u00f4s gen\u00f3menon] he construes thus: \"not as\n  eternally generated,\" as if he had read [Greek: genn\u00f4menon], supplying\n  [Greek: a\u00efd\u00ed\u00f4s] by imagination. The sense and meaning of the word\n  [Greek: gen\u00f3menon], signifying made, or created, is so fixed and\n  certain in this author, &c.\n\nThis is but one of fifty instances in which the true Englishing of\n[Greek: gen\u00f3menos, eg\u00e9neto], &c. would have prevented all mistake. It is\nnot 'made', but 'became'. Thus here:--begotten eternally, and not as one\nthat became; that is, as not having been before. The only-begotten Son\nnever 'became'; but all things 'became' through him.\n\n\nIb. 412.\n\n  'Et nos etiam Sermoni atque Rationi, itemque Virtuti, per qu\u00e6 omnia\n  molitum Deum ediximus, propriam substantiam Spiritum inscribimus; cui\n  et Sermo insit pr\u00e6nuntianti, et Ratio adsit disponenti, et Virtus\n  perficienti. Hunc ex Deo prolatum didicimus, et prolatione generatum,\n  et idcirco Filium Dei et Deum dictum ex unitate substanti\u00e6'.--Tertull.\n  Apol. c. 21.\n\nHow strange and crude the realism of the Christian Faith appears in\nTertullian's rugged Latin!\n\n\nIb. p. 414.\n\n  He represents Tertullian as making the Son, in his highest capacity,\n  ignorant of the day of judgment.\n\nOf the true sense of the text, Mark xiii. 32., I still remain in doubt;\nbut, though as zealous and stedfast a Homo\u00fcsian as Bull and Waterland\nthemselves, I am inclined to understand it of the Son in his highest\ncapacity; but I would avoid the inferiorizing consequences by a stricter\nrendering of the [Greek: ei m\u00e0e ho Pat\u00e1er]. The [Greek: monon] of St.\nMatthew xxiv. 36. is here omitted. I think Waterland's a very\nunsatisfying solution of this text.\n\n\nIb. p. 415.\n\n  'Exclamans quod se Deus reliquisset, &c. Habes ipsum exclamantem in\n  passione, Deus meus, Deus meus, ut quid me dereliquisti? Sed h\u00e6c vox\n  carnis et anim\u00e6, id est, hominis; nec Sermonis, nec Spiritus',\n  &c.--Tertull. Adv. Prax. c. 26. c. 30.\n\nThe ignorance of the Fathers, and, Origen excepted, of the Ante-Nicene\nFathers in particular, in all that respects Hebrew learning and the New\nTestament references to the Old Testament, is shown in this so early\nfantastic misinterpretation grounded on the fact of our Lord's\nreminding, and as it were giving out aloud to John and Mary the\ntwenty-second Psalm, the prediction of his present sufferings and after\nglory. But the entire passage in Tertullian, though no proof of his\nArianism, is full of proofs of his want of insight into the true sense\nof the Scripture texts. Indeed without detracting from the inestimable\nservices of the Fathers from Tertullian to Augustine respecting the\nfundamental article of the Christian Faith, yet commencing from the\nfifth century, I dare claim for the Reformed Church of England the\nhonorable name of [Greek: archaspist\u00e0es] of Trinitarianism, and the\nforemost rank among the Churches, Roman or Protestant: the learned\nRomanist divines themselves admit this, and make a merit of the\nreluctance with which they nevertheless admit it, in respect of Bishop\nBull. [2]\n\n\nIb. p. 421.\n\n  It seems to me that if there be not reasons of conscience obliging a\n  good man to speak out, there are always reasons of prudence which\n  should make a wise man hold his tongue.\n\nTrue, and as happily expressed. To this, however, the honest\nAnti-Trinitarian must come at last: \"Well, well, I admit that John and\nPaul thought differently; but this remains my opinion.\"\n\n\nQuery XXVII. p. 427.\n\n  [Greek: Ton alaethin\u00f2n ka\u00ec \u00f3nt\u00f4s \u00f3nta The\u00f2n, t\u00f2n tou Christou pat\u00e9ra].\n --Athanas. Cont. Gent.\n\n  The just and literal rendering of the passage is this: 'The true God\n  who in reality is such, namely, the Father of Christ.'\n\nThe passage admits of a somewhat different interpretation from this of\nWaterland's, and of equal, if not greater, force against the Arian\nnotion: namely, taking [Greek: t\u00f2n \u00f3nt\u00f4s \u00f3nta] distinctively from\n[Greek: ho \u00f4n]--the 'Ens omnis entitatis, etiam su\u00e6', that is, the I Am\nthe Father, in distinction from the 'Ens Supremum', the Son. It cannot,\nhowever, be denied that in changing the 'formula' of the 'Tetractys'\ninto the 'Trias', by merging the 'Prothesis' in the 'Thesis', the\nIdentity in the Ipseity, the Christian Fathers subjected their\nexposition to many inconveniences.\n\n\nIb. p. 432.\n\n  [Greek: Ouch ho poiaet\u00e0es t\u00f4n h\u00f3l\u00f4n \u00e9stai The\u00f2s ho t\u00f4 M\u00f4sei eip\u00f4n\n  aut\u00f2n einai The\u00f2n Abra\u00e0m, ka\u00ec The\u00f2n Isa\u00e0k, ka\u00ec The\u00f2n Iak\u00f4b].--Justin\n  Mart. Dial. p. 180.\n\n  The meaning is, that that divine Person, who called himself God, and\n  was God, was not the Person of the Father, whose ordinary character is\n  that of maker of all things, but another divine Person, namely, God\n  the Son. * * It was Justin's business to shew that there was a divine\n  Person, one who was God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and was not the\n  Father; and therefore there were two divine Persons.\n\nAt all events, it was a very incautious expression on the part of\nJustin, though his meaning was, doubtless, that which Waterland gives.\nThe same most improper, or at best, most inconvenient because equivocal\nphrase, has been, as I think, interpolated into our Apostles' Creed.\n\n\nIb. p. 436.\n\n  [Greek: Taeroito d' \u00e0n, h\u00f4s ho em\u00f2s l\u00f3gos, ehis m\u00e8n The\u00f2s, eis h\u00e8n\n  a\u00edtion ka\u00ec Ghiou ka\u00ec Pne\u00famatos anapherom\u00e9n\u00f4n. k.t.l.]--Greg. Naz.\n  Orat. 29.\n\n  We may, as I conceive, preserve (the doctrine of) one God, by\n  referring both the Son and Holy Ghost to one cause, &c.\n\nAnother instance of the inconvenience of the Trias compared with the\nTetractys.\n\n\n\n[Footnote 1: A Vindication of Christ's Divinity: being a defence of some\nqueries relating to Dr. Clarke's scheme of the Holy Trinity, &c. By\nDaniel Waterland. 2nd edit. Cambridge, 1719. Ed.]\n\n\n[Footnote 2:\n\n  'Y sino ah\u00ed est\u00e1 el Doctor Jorge Bull Profesor de Teolog\u00eda, y\n  Presbitero de la Iglesia Anglicana, que muri\u00f3 Obispo de San David el\n  a\u00f1o de 1716, cuyas obras teologico--escolasticas, en folio, nada deben\n  \u00e1 las mas alambicadas que se han estampado en Salamanca y en Coimbra;\n  y como los puntos que por la mayor parte trat\u00f3 en ellas son sobre los\n  misterios capitales de nuestra Santa F\u00e9, conviene \u00e1 saber, sobre el\n  misterio de la Trinidad, y sobre el de la Divinidad de Cristo, en los\n  cuales su Pseudaiglesia Anglicana no se desvia de la Catolica, en\n  verdad, que los manej\u00f3 con tanto nervio y con tanta delicadeza, que\n  los teologos ortodojos mas escolastizados, como si dij\u00e9ramos\n  electrizados, hacen grande estimacion de dichas obras. Y aun en los\n  dos Tratados que escribi\u00f3 acerca de la Justification, que es punto mas\n  resvaladizo, en los principios que abraz\u00f3, no se separ\u00f3 de los\n  teologos Catolicos; pero en algunas consecuencias que infirio, ya di\u00f3\n  bastantemente \u00e1 entender la mala leche que habia mamado.'\n\nFray. Gerundio. ii. 7. Ed.]\n\n\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\n\nNOTES ON WATERLAND'S IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY TRINITY.[1]\n\n\nChap. I. p. 18.\n\n  It is the property of the Divine Being to be unsearchable; and if he\n  were not so, he would not be divine. Must we therefore reject the most\n  certain truths concerning the Deity, only because they are\n  incomprehensible, &c.?\n\nIt is strange that so sound, so admirable a logician as Waterland,\nshould have thought 'unsearchable' and 'incomprehensible' synonymous, or\nat least equivalent terms:--and this, though St. Paul hath made it the\nprivilege of the full-grown Christian, 'to search out the deep things of\nGod himself'.\n\n\nChap. IV. p. 111.\n\n  'The delivering over unto Satan' seems to have been a form of\n  excommunication, declaring the person reduced to the state of a\n  heathen; and in the Apostolical age it was accompanied with\n  supernatural or miraculous effects upon the bodies of the persons so\n  delivered.\n\nUnless the passage, ('Acts' v. 1-11.) be an authority, I must doubt the\ntruth of this assertion, as tending to destroy the essential\nspirituality of Christian motives, and, in my judgment, as\nirreconcilable with our Lord's declaration, that his kingdom was 'not of\nthis world'. Let me be once convinced that St. Paul, with the elders of\nan Apostolic Church, knowingly and intentionally appended a palsy or a\nconsumption to the sentence of excommunication, and I shall be obliged\nto reconsider my old opinion as to the anti-Christian principle of the\nRomish Inquisition.\n\n\nIb. p. 114.\n\n  'A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition,\n  reject; knowing that he that is such, is subverted, and sinneth, being\n  condemned of himself'.--Tit. iii. 10, 11.\n\nThis text would be among my minor arguments for doubting the Paulinity\nof the Epistle to Titus. It seems to me to breathe the spirit of a later\nage, and a more established Church power.\n\n\nIb.\n\n  Not every one that mistakes in judgment, though in matters of great\n  importance, in points fundamental, but he that openly espouses such\n  fundamental error. * * Dr. Whitby adds to the definition, the\n  espousing it out of disgust, pride, envy, or some worldly principle,\n  and against his conscience.\n\nWhitby went too far; Waterland not far enough. Every schismatic is not\nnecessarily a heretic; but every heretic is virtually a schismatic. As\nto the meaning of [Greek: autokat\u00e1kritos], Waterland surely makes too\nmuch of a very plain matter. What was the sentence passed on a heretic?\nA public declaration that he was no longer a member of--that is, of one\nfaith with--the Church. This the man himself, after two public notices,\nadmits and involves in the very act of persisting. However confident as\nto the truth of the doctrine he has set up, he cannot, after two public\nadmonitions, be ignorant that it is a doctrine contrary to the articles\nof his communion with the Church that has admitted him; and in regard of\nhis alienation from that communion, he is necessarily [Greek:\nautokat\u00e1kritos],--though in his pride of heart he might say with the man\nof old, \"And I banish you.\"\n\n\nIb. p. 123.\n\n --as soon as the miraculous gifts, or gift of discerning spirits,\n  ceased.\n\nNo one point in the New Testament perplexes me so much as these (so\ncalled) miraculous gifts. I feel a moral repugnance to the reduction of\nthem to natural and acquired talents, ennobled and made energic by the\nlife and convergency of faith;--and yet on no other scheme can I\nreconcile them with the idea of Christianity, or the particular\nsupposed, with the general known, facts. But, thank God! it is a\nquestion which does not in the least degree affect our faith or\npractice. I mean, if God permit, to go through the Middletonian\ncontroversy, as soon as I can procure the loan of the books, or have\nhealth enough to become a reader in the British Museum.\n\n\nIb. p. 126.\n\n  And what if, after all, spiritual censures (for of such only I am\n  speaking,) should happen to fall upon such a person, he may be in some\n  measure hurt in his reputation by it, and that is all. And possibly\n  hereupon his errors, before invincible through ignorance, may be\n  removed by wholesome instruction and admonition, and so he is\n  befriended in it, &c.\n\nWaterland is quite in the right so far;--but the penal laws, the\ntemporal inflictions--would he have called for the repeal of these?\nMilton saw this subject with a mastering eye,--saw that the awful power\nof excommunication was degraded and weakened even to impotence by any\nthe least connection with the law of the State.\n\n\nIb. p. 127.\n\n  --who are hereby forbidden to receive such heretics into their houses,\n  or to pay them so much as common civilities. This precept of the\n  Apostle may he further illustrated by his own practice, recorded by\n  Irenaeus, who had the information at second-hand from Polycarp, a\n  disciple of St. John's, that St. John, once meeting with Cerinthus at\n  the bath, retired instantly without bathing, for fear lest the bath\n  should fall by reason of Cerinthus being there, the enemy to truth.\n\nPsha! The 'bidding him God speed',--[Greek: l\u00e9g\u00f4n aut\u00f4 cha\u00edrein],--(2\n'John', 11,) is a spirituality, not a mere civility. If St. John knew or\nsuspected that Cerinthus had a cutaneous disease, there would have been\nsome sense in the refusal, or rather, as I correct myself, some\nprobability of truth in this gossip of Irenaeus.\n\n\nIb. p. 128.\n\n  They corrupted the faith of Christ, and in effect subverted the\n  Gospel. That was enough to render them detestable in the eyes of all\n  men who sincerely loved and valued sound faith.\n\nO, no, no, not 'them!' 'Error quidem, non tamen homo errans,\nabominandus': or, to pun a little, 'abhominandus'. Be bold in denouncing\nthe heresy, but slow and timorous in denouncing the erring brother as a\nheretic. The unmistakable passions of a factionary and a schismatic, the\nostentatious display, the ambition and dishonest arts of a sect-founder,\nmust be superinduced on the false doctrine, before the heresy makes the\nman a heretic.\n\n\nIb. p. 129.\n\n  --the doctrine of the Nicolaitans.\n\nWere the Nicolaitans a sect, properly so called? The word is the Greek\nrendering of 'the children of Balaam;' that is, men of grossly immoral\nand disorderly lives.\n\n\nIb. p. 130.\n\n  For if he who 'shall break one of the least moral commandments, and\n  shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven',\n  (Mat. v. 19,) it must be a very dangerous experiment, &c.\n\nA sad misinterpretation of our Lord's words, which from the context most\nevidently had no reference to any moral, that is, universal commandment\nas such, but to the national institutions of the Jewish state, as long\nas that state should be in existence; that is to say, until 'the Heaven'\nor the Government, and 'the Earth' or the People or the Governed, as one\n'corpus politicum', or nation, had 'passed away'. Till that time,--which\nwas fulfilled under Titus, and more thoroughly under Hadrian,--no Jew\nwas relieved from his duties as a citizen and subject by his having\nbecome a Christian. The text, together with the command implied in the\nmiracle of the tribute-money in the fish's mouth, might be fairly and\npowerfully adduced against the Quakers, in respect of their refusal to\npay their tithes, or whatever tax they please to consider as having an\nun-Christian destination. But are they excluded from the kingdom of\nheaven, that is, the Christian Church? No;--but they must be regarded\nas weak and injudicious members of it.\n\n\nChap. V. p. 140.\n\n  Accordingly it may be observed, how the unbelievers caress and\n  compliment those complying gentlemen who meet them half way, while\n  they are perpetually inveighing against the stiff divines, as they\n  call them, whom they can make no advantage of.\n\nLessing, an honest and frank-hearted Infidel, expresses the same\nsentiment. As long as a German Protestant divine keeps himself stiff and\nstedfast to the Augsburg Confession, to the full Creed of Melancthon, he\nis impregnable, and may bid defiance to sceptic and philosopher. But let\nhim quit the citadel, and the Cossacs are upon him.\n\n\nIb. p. 187.\n\n  And therefore it is infallibly certain, as Mr. Chillingworth well\n  argues with respect to Christianity in general, that we ought firmly\n  to believe it; because wisdom and reason require that we should\n  believe those things which are by many degrees more credible and\n  probable than the contrary.\n\nYes, where there are but two positions, one of which must be true. When\nA. is presented to my mind with probability=5, and B. with\nprobability=15, I must think that B. is three times more probable than\nA. And yet it is very possible that a C. may be found which will\nsupersede both.\n\n\nChap. VI. p. 230.\n\n  The Creed of Jerusalem, preserved by Cyril, (the most ancient perhaps\n  of any now extant,) is very express for the divinity of God the Son,\n  in these words: \"And in our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son\n  of God; true God, begotten of the Father before all ages, by whom all\n  things were made\" * *. [Greek: Ka\u00ec eis hen\u00e0 Kyrion Iaesoun Christ\u00f2n,\n  t\u00f2n uhi\u00f2n tou Theou monogenae, t\u00f2n ek tou patr\u00f2s gennaeth\u00e9nta, The\u00f2n\n  alaethin\u00f2n, pr\u00f2 p\u00e1nt\u00f4n t\u00f4n ai\u00f4n\u00f4n, di' ohu t\u00e0 p\u00e1nta eg\u00e9neto].\n\nI regard this, both from its antiquity and from the peculiar character\nof the Church of Jerusalem, so far removed from the influence of the\nPythagoreo-Platonic sects of Paganism, as the most important and\nconvincing mere fact of evidence in the Trinitarian controversy.\n\n\nIb. p. 233.\n\n  --true Son of the Father, 'invisible' of invisible, &c.\n\nHow is this reconcilable with 'John' i. 18--('no one hath seen God at\nany time: the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he\nhath declared him',--) or with the 'express image', asserted above.\n'Invisible,' I suppose, must be taken in the narrowest sense, that is,\nto bodily eyes. But then the one 'invisible' would not mean the same as\nthe other.\n\n\nIb. p. 236.\n\n  'Symbola certe Ecclesi\u00e6 ex ipso Ecclesi\u00e6 sensu, non ex h\u00e6reticorum\n  cerebello, exponenda sunt'.--Bull. Judic. Eccl. v.\n\nThe truth of a Creed must be tried by the Holy Scriptures; but the sense\nof the Creed by the known sentiments and inferred intention of its\ncompilers.\n\n\nIb. p. 238.\n\n  The very name of Father, applied in the Creed to the first Person,\n  intimates the relation he bears to a Son, &c.\n\nNo doubt: but the most probable solution of the apparent want of\ndistinctness of explication on this article, in my humble judgment,\nis--that the so-called Apostles' Creed was at first the preparatory\nconfession of the catechumens, the admission-ticket, as it were\n('symbolum ad Baptismum'), at the gate of the Church, and gradually\naugmented as heresies started up. The latest of these seems to have\nconsisted in the doubt respecting the entire death of Jesus on the\nCross, as distinguished from suspended animation. Hence in the fifth or\nsixth century the clause--\"and he descended into Hades,\" was\ninserted;--that is, the indissoluble principle of the man Jesus, was\nseparated from, and left, the dissoluble, and subsisted apart in\n'Scheol', or the abode of separated souls;--but really meaning no more\nthan 'vere mortuus est'. Jesus was taken from the Cross dead in the very\nsame sense in which the Baptist was dead after his beheading.\n\nNevertheless, well adapted as this Creed was to its purposes, I cannot\nbut regret the high place and precedence which by means of its title,\nand the fable to which that title gave rise, it has usurped. It has, as\nit appears to me, indirectly favoured Arianism and Socinianism.\n\n\nIb. p. 250.\n\n  That St. John wrote his Gospel with a view to confute Cerinthus, among\n  other false teachers, is attested first by Iren\u00e6us, who was a\n  disciple of Polycarp, and who flourished within less than a century of\n  St. John's time.\n\nI have little trust and no faith in the gossip and hearsay-anecdotes of\nthe early Fathers, Iren\u00e6us not excepted. \"Within less than a century of\nSt. John's time.\" Alas! a century in the paucity of writers and of men\nof education in the age succeeding the Apostolic, must be reckoned more\nthan equal to five centuries since the use of printing. Suppose,\nhowever, the truth of the Iren\u00e6an tradition;--that the Creed of\nCerinthus was what Iren\u00e6us states it to have been; and that John, at the\ninstance of the Asiatic Bishops, wrote his Gospel as an antidote to the\nCerinthian heresy;--does there not thence arise, in his utter silence,\nan almost overwhelming argument against the Apostolicity of the\n'Christop\u00e6dia', both that prefixed to Luke, and that concorporated with\nMatthew?\n\n\nIb. p. 257.\n\n  'In him was life, and the life was the light of men'. The same Word\n  was life, the [Greek: logos and z\u00f4\u00e1e], both one. There was no occasion\n  therefore for subtilly distinguishing the Word and Life into two Sons,\n  as some did.\n\nI will not deny the possibility of this interpretation. It may be,--nay,\nit is,--fairly deducible from the words of the great Evangelist: but I\ncannot help thinking that, taken as the primary intention, it degrades\nthis most divine chapter, which unites in itself the three characters of\nsublime, profound, and pregnant, and alloys its universality by a\nmixture of time and accident.\n\n\nIb.\n\n  'And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness cometh not upon\n  it.' So I render the verse, conformable to the rendering of the same\n  Greek verb, [Greek: katalamb\u00e1n\u00f4], by our translators in another place\n  of this same Gospel. The Apostle, as I conceive, in this 5th verse of\n  his 1st chapter, alludes to the prevailing error of the Gentiles, &c.\n\nO sad, sad! How must the philosopher have been eclipsed by the shadow of\nantiquarian erudition, in order that a mind like Waterland's could have\nsacrificed the profound universal import of 'comprehend' to an allusion\nto a worthless dream of heretical nonsense, the mushroom of the day! Had\nWaterland ever thought of the relation of his own understanding to his\nreason? But alas! the identification of these two diversities--of how\nmany errors has it been ground and occasion!\n\n\nIb. p. 259.\n\n  'And the Word was made flesh'--became personally united with the man\n  Jesus; 'and dwelt among us',--resided constantly in the human nature\n  so assumed.\n\nWaterland himself did but dimly see the awful import of [Greek: eg\u00e9neto\ns\u00e0rx],--the mystery of the alien ground--and the truth, that as the\nground such must be the life. He caused himself to 'become flesh', and\ntherein assumed a mortal life into his own person and unity, in order\nhimself to transubstantiate the corruptible into the incorruptible.\n\nWaterland's anxiety to show the anti-heretical force of St. John's\nGospel and Epistles, has caused him to overlook their Catholicity--their\napplicability to all countries and all times--their truth, independently\nof all temporary accidents and errors;--which Catholicity alone it is\nthat constitutes their claim to Canonicity, that is, to be Canonical\ninspired writings.\n\n\nIb. p. 266.\n\n  Hereupon therefore the Apostle, in defence of Christ's real humanity,\n  says, 'This is he that came by water and blood'.\n\n'Water and blood,' that is 'serum' and 'crassamentum', mean simply\n'blood,' the blood of the animal or carnal life, which, saith Moses, 'is\nthe life'. Hence 'flesh' is often taken as, and indeed is a form of, the\nblood,--blood formed or organized. Thus 'blood' often includes 'flesh,'\nand 'flesh' includes 'blood.' 'Flesh and blood' is equivalent to blood\nin its twofold form, or rather as formed and formless. 'Water and blood'\nhas, therefore, two meanings in St. John, but which 'in idem\ncoincidunt':\n\n1. true animal human blood, and no celestial ichor or phantom:\n\n2. the whole sentiently vital body, fixed or flowing, the pipe and the\nstream.\n\nFor the ancients, and especially the Jews, had no distinct apprehension\nof the use or action of the nerves: in the Old Testament 'heart' is used\nas we use 'head.' 'The fool hath said in his heart'--is in English: \"the\nworthless fellow ('vaurien') hath taken it into his head,\" &c.\n\n\nIb. p. 268.\n\n  The Apostle having said that the Spirit is truth, or essential truth,\n  (which was giving him a title common to God the Father and to Christ,)\n  &c.\n\nIs it clear that the distinct 'hypostasis' of the Holy Spirit, in the\nsame sense as the only-begotten Son is hypostatically distinguished from\nthe Father, was a truth that formed an immediate object or intention of\nSt. John? That it is a truth implied in, and fairly deducible from, many\ntexts, both in his Gospel and Epistles, I do not, indeed I cannot,\ndoubt;--but only whether this article of our faith he was commissioned\nto declare explicitly?\n\nIt grieves me to think that such giant 'archaspist\u00e6' of the Catholic\nFaith, as Bull and Waterland, should have clung to the intruded gloss (1\n'John' v. 7), which, in the opulence and continuity of the evidences, as\ndisplayed by their own master-minds, would have been superfluous, had it\nnot been worse than superfluous, that is, senseless in itself, and\ninterruptive of the profound sense of the Apostle.\n\n\nIb. p. 272.\n\n  He is come, come in the flesh, and not merely to reside for a time, or\n  occasionally, and to fly off again, but to abide and dwell with man,\n  clothed with humanity.\n\nIncautiously worded at best. Compare our Lord's own declaration to his\ndisciples, that he had dwelt a brief while 'with' or 'among' them, in\norder to dwell 'in' them permanently.\n\n\nIb. p. 286.\n\n  It is very observable, that the Ebionites rejected three of the\n  Gospels, receiving only St. Matthew's (or what they called so), and\n  that curtailed. They rejected likewise all St. Paul's writings,\n  reproaching him as an apostate. How unlikely is it that Justin should\n  own such reprobates as those were for fellow-Christians!\n\nI dare avow my belief--or rather I dare not withhold my avowal--that\nboth Bull and Waterland are here hunting on the trail of an old blunder\nor figment, concocted by the gross ignorance of the Gentile Christians\nand their Fathers in all that respected Hebrew literature and the\nPalestine Christians. I persist in the belief that, though a refuse of\nthe persecuted and from neglect degenerating Jew-Christians may have\nsunk into the mean and carnal notions of their unconverted brethren\nrespecting the Messiah, no proper sect of Ebionites ever existed, but\nthose to whom St. Paul travelled with the contributions of the churches,\nnor any such man as Ebion; unless indeed it was St. Barnabas, who in his\nhumility may have so named himself, while soliciting relief for the\ndistressed Palestine Christians;--\"I am Barnabas the beggar.\" But I will\ngo further, and confess my belief that the (so-called) Ebionites of the\nfirst and second centuries, who rejected the 'Christop\u00e6dia', and whose\nGospel commenced with the baptism by John, were orthodox Apostolic\nChristians, who received Christ as the Lord, that is, as Jehovah\n'manifested in the flesh'. As to their rejection of the other Gospels\nand of Paul's writings, I might ask:--\"Could they read them?\" But the\nwhole notion seems to rest on an anachronical misconception of the\n'Evangelia'. Every great mother Church, at first, had its own Gospel.\n\n\nIb. p. 288.\n\n  To say nothing here of the truer reading (\"men of your nation\"), there\n  is no consequence in the argument. The Ebionites were Christians in a\n  large sense, men of Christian profession, nominal Christians, as\n  Justin allowed the worst of heretics to be. And this is all he could\n  mean by allowing the Ebionites to be Christians.\n\nI agree with Bull in holding [Greek: ap\u00f2 tou hymet\u00e9rou g\u00e9nous] the most\nprobable reading in the passage cited from Justin, and am by no means\nconvinced that the celebrated passage in Josephus is an interpolation.\nBut I do not believe that such men, as are here described, ever\nprofessed themselves Christians, or were, or could have been, baptized.\n\n\nIb. p. 292.\n\n  Le Clerc would appear to doubt, whether the persons pointed to in\n  Justin really denied Christ's divine nature or no. It is as plain as\n  possible that they did.\n\nLe Clerc is no favourite of mine, and Waterland is a prime favourite.\nNevertheless, in this instance, I too doubt with Le Clerc, and more than\ndoubt.\n\n\nIb. p. 338.\n\n  [Greek: Ph\u00fasei d\u00e8 taes phthoras prosgenom\u00e9naes, anagkaion aen h\u00f3ti\n  s\u00f4sai Boul\u00f3menos \u00e1e t\u00e0en phthoropoi\u00f2n ous\u00edan aphan\u00edsas touto d\u00e8 ouk\n  aen het\u00e9r\u00f4s gen\u00e9sthai ei m\u00e1eper hae kat\u00e0 ph\u00fasin z\u00f4\u00e0e prosepl\u00e1kae t\u00f4\n  t\u00e0en phthor\u00e0n dexam\u00e9n\u00f4, aphanizousa m\u00e8n t\u00e0en phthor\u00e0n, athanat\u00f2n d\u00e8\n  tou loipou t\u00f2 dexamenon diataerousa. k.t.l.]--Just. M.\n\n  Here Justin asserts that it was necessary for essential life, or life\n  by nature, to be united with human nature, in order to save it.\n\nWaterland has not mastered the full force of [Greek: h\u00e0e kat\u00e0 ph\u00fasin\nz\u00f4\u00e1e]. If indeed he had taken in the full force of the whole of this\ninvaluable fragment, he would never have complimented the following\nextract from Iren\u00e6us, as saying the same thing \"in fuller and stronger\nwords.\" Compared with the fragment from Justin, it is but the flat\ncommon-place logic of analogy, so common in the early Fathers.\n\n\nIb. p. 340.\n\n  'Qui nude tantum hominem eum dicunt ex Joseph generatum * * moriuntur.'\n\n'Non nude hominem'--not a mere man do I hold Jesus to have been and to\nbe; but a perfect man and, by personal union with the Logos, perfect\nGod. That his having an earthly father might be requisite to his being a\nperfect man I can readily suppose; but why the having an earthly father\nshould be more incompatible with his perfect divinity, than his having\nan earthly mother, I cannot comprehend. All that John and Paul believed,\nGod forbid that I should not!\n\n\nChap. VII. p. 389.\n\n  It is a sufficient reason for not receiving either them ('Arian\n  doctrines'), or the interpretations brought to support them, that the\n  ancients, in the best and purest times, either knew nothing of them,\n  or if they did, condemned them.\n\nAs excellent means of raising a presumption in the mind of the falsehood\nof Arianism and Socinianism, and thus of preparing the mind for a docile\nreception of the great idea itself--I admit and value the testimonies\nfrom the writings of the early Fathers. But alas! the increasing\ndimness, ending in the final want of the idea of this all-truths-\nincluding truth of the Tetractys eternally manifested in the Triad;\n--this, this is the ground and cause of all the main heresies from\nSemi-Arianism, recalled by Dr. Samuel Clarke, to the last setting ray of\ndeparting faith in the necessitarian Psilanthropism of Dr. Priestley.\n\n\nIb. p. 41-2, &c.\n\nI cannot but think that Waterland's defence of the Fathers in these\npages against Barbeyrac, is below his great powers and characteristic\nvigour of judgment. It is enough that they, the Fathers of the first\nthree centuries, were the lights of their age, and worthy of all\nreverence for their good gifts. But it appears to me impossible to deny\ntheir credulity; their ignorance, with one or two exceptions, in the\ninterpretation of the Old Testament; or their hardihood in asserting the\ntruth of whatever they thought it for the interest of the Church, and\nfor the good of souls, to have believed as true. A whale swallowed\nJonah; but a believer in all the assertions and narrations of Tertullian\nand Iren\u00e6us would be more wonder-working than Jonah; for such a one must\nhave swallowed whales.\n\n\n\n[Footnote 1: The Importance of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity\nasserted, in reply to some late pamphlets. 2nd edit. Lond. 1734.]\n\n\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\n\nNOTES ON SKELTON.[1]\n\n1825.\n\n\nBurdy's Life of Skelton, p. 22.\n\n  She lived until she was a hundred and five. The omission of his\n  prayers on the morning it happened, he supposed ever after to be the\n  cause of this unhappy accident. So early was his mind impressed with a\n  lively sense of religious duty.\n\nIn anecdotes of this kind, and in the instances of eminently good men,\nit is that my head and heart have their most obstinate falls out. The\nquestion is:--To what extent the undoubted subjective truth may\nlegitimately influence our judgment as to the possibility of the\nobjective.\n\n\nIb. p. 67.\n\n  The Bishop then gave him the living of Pettigo in a wild part of the\n  county of Donegal, having made many removals on purpose to put him in\n  that savage place, among mountains, rocks, and heath, * * *. When he\n  got this living he had been eighteen years curate of Monaghan, and two\n  of Newtown-Butler, during which time he saw, as he told me, many\n  illiterate boys put over his head, and highly preferred in the Church\n  without having served a cure.\n\nThough I have heard of one or two exceptions stated in proof that\nnepotism is not yet extinct among our Prelates, yet it is impossible to\ncompare the present condition of the Church, and the disposal of its\ndignities and emoluments with the facts recorded in this Life, without\nan honest exultation.\n\n\nIb. p. 106.\n\n  He once declared to me that he would resign his living, if the\n  Athanasian Creed were removed from the Prayer Book; and I am sure he\n  would have done so.\n\nSurely there was more zeal than wisdom in this declaration. Does the\nAthanasian or rather the 'pseudo'-Athanasian Creed differ from the\nNicene, or not? If not, it must be dispensable at least, if not\nsuperfluous. If it does differ, which of the two am I to follow;--the\nprofession of an anonymous individual, or the solemn decision of upwards\nof three hundred Bishops convened from all parts of the Christian world?\n\n\nVol. I. p. 177-180.\n\nNo problem more difficult or of more delicate treatment than the\n'criteria' of miracles; yet none on which young divines are fonder of\ndisplaying their gifts. Nor is this the worst. Their charity too often\ngoes to wreck from the error of identifying the faith in Christ with the\narguments by which they think it is to be supported. But surely if two\nbelievers meet at the same goal of faith, it is a very secondary\nquestion whether they travelled thither by the same road of argument. In\nthis and other passages of Skelton, I recognize and reverence a vigorous\nand robust intellect; but I complain of a turbidness in his reasoning, a\nhuddle in his sequence, and here and there a semblance of arguing in a\ncircle--from the miracle to the doctrine, and from the doctrine to the\nmiracle. Add to this a too little advertency to the distinction between\nthe evidence of a miracle for A, an eye-witness, and for B, for whom it\nis the relation of a miracle by an asserted eye-witness; and again\nbetween B, and X, Y, Z, for whom it is a fact of history. The result of\nmy own meditations is, that the evidence of the Gospel, taken as a\ntotal, is as great for the Christians of the nineteenth century, as for\nthose of the Apostolic age. I should not be startled if I were told it\nwas greater. But it does not follow, that this equally holds good of\neach component part. An evidence of the most cogent clearness, unknown\nto the primitive Christians, may compensate for the evanescence of some\nevidence, which they enjoyed. Evidences comparatively dim have waxed\ninto noon-day splendour; and the comparative wane of others, once\neffulgent, is more than indemnified by the 'synopsis' [Greek: tou\np\u00e1ntos], which we enjoy, and by the standing miracle of a Christendom\ncommensurate and almost synonymous with the civilized world. I make this\nremark for the purpose of warning the divinity student against the\ndisposition to overstrain particular proofs, or rest the credibility of\nthe Gospel too exclusively on some one favourite point. I confess, that\nI cannot peruse page 179 without fancying that I am reading some Romish\nDoctor's work, dated from a community where miracles are the ordinary\nnews of the day.\n\nP. S. By the by, the Rev. Philip Skelton is of the true Irish breed;\nthat is, a brave fellow, but a bit of a bully. \"Arrah, by St. Pathrick!\nbut I shall make cold mutton of you, Misther Arian.\"\n\n\nIb. p. 182.\n\n  If in this he appears to deal fairly by us, proving such things as\n  admit of it, by reason; and such as do not, by the authority of his\n  miracles, &c.\n\nAre 'we' likely to have miracles performed or pretended before our eyes?\nIf not, what may all this mean? If Skelton takes for granted the\nveracity of the Evangelists, and the precise verity of the Gospels, the\ntruth and genuineness of the miracles is included:--and if not, what\ndoes he prove? The exact accordance of the miracles related with the\nideal of a true miracle in the reason, does indeed furnish an argument\nfor the probable truth of the relation. But this does not seem to be\nSkelton's intention.\n\n\nIb. p. 185.\n\n  But to remedy this evil, as far as the nature of the thing will\n  permit, a genuine record of the true religion must be kept up, that\n  its articles may not be in danger of total corruption in such a sink\n  of opinions.\n\nAnything rather than seek a remedy in that which Scripture itself\ndeclares the only one. Alas! these bewilderments (the Romanists urge)\nhave taken place especially through and by the misuse of the Scriptures.\nWhatever God has given, we ought to think necessary;--the Scriptures,\nthe Church, the Spirit. Why disjoin them?\n\n\nIb. p. 186.\n\n  Now a perpetual miracle, considered as the evidence of any thing, is\n  nonsense; because were it at first ever so apparently contrary to the\n  known course of nature, it must in time be taken for the natural\n  effect of some unknown cause, as all physical 'ph\u00e6nomena', if far\n  enough traced, always are; and consequently must fall into a level, as\n  to a capacity of proving any thing, with the most ordinary appearances\n  of nature, which, though all of them miracles, as to the primary cause\n  of their production, can never be applied to the proof of an\n  inspiration, because ordinary and common.\n\nI doubt this, though I have no doubt that it would be pernicious. The\nyearly blossoming of Aaron's rod is against Skelton, who confounds\nsingle facts with classes of 'ph\u00e6nomena', and he draws his conclusion\nfrom an arbitrary and, as seems to me, senseless definition of a\nmiracle.\n\n\nIb. p. 214. End of Discourse II.\n\nSkelton appears to have confounded two errors very different in kind and\nin magnitude;--that of the Infidel, against whom his arguments are with\nfew exceptions irrefragable; and that of the Christian, who, sincerely\nbelieving the Law, the Prophecies, the miracles and the doctrines, all\nin short which in the Scriptures themselves is declared to have been\nrevealed, does not attribute the same immediate divinity to all and\nevery part of the remainder. It would doubtless be more Christian-like\nto substitute the views expressed in the next Discourse (III.); but\nstill the latter error is not as the former.\n\n\nIb. p. 234.\n\n  But why should not the conclusion be given up, since it is possible\n  Christ may have had two natures in him, so as to have been less than\n  the Father in respect to the one, and equal to him in respect to the\n  other.\n\nI understand these words ('My Father is greater than I') of the\ndivinity--and of the Filial subordination, which does not in the least\nencroach on the equality necessary to the unity of Father, Son, and\nSpirit. Bishop Bull does the same. See too Skelton's own remarks in\nDiscourse V. p. 265.\n\n\nIb. p. 251.\n\n  This was necessary, because their Law was ordained by angels.\n\nNow this is an instance of what I cannot help regarding as a\nsuperstitious excess of reverence for single texts. We know that long\nbefore the Epistle to the Hebrews was written, the Alexandrian Church,\nwhich by its intercourse with Greek philosophers, chiefly Platonists,\nhad become ashamed of the humanities of the Hebrew Scriptures, in\ndefiance of those Scriptures had pretended, that it was not the Supreme\nBeing who gave the Law in person to Moses, but some of his angels. The\nauthor of the Epistle to the Hebrews, arguing 'ad homines', avails\nhimself of this, in order to prove that on their own grounds the Mosaic\nwas of dignity inferior to the Christian dispensation. To get rid of\nthis no-difficulty in a single verse or two in the Epistles, Skelton\nthrows an insurmountable difficulty on the whole Mosaic history.\n\n\nIb. p. 265.\n\n  Therefore, he saith, 'I' (as a man) 'can of myself do nothing'.\n\nEven of this text I do not see the necessity of Skelton's parenthesis\n(as a man). Nay it appears to me (I confess) to turn a sublime and most\ninstructive truth into a truism. \"But if not as the Son of God,\ntherefore 'a fortiori' not as the Son of man, and more especially, as\nsuch, in all that refers to the redemption of mankind.\"\n\n\nIb. p. 267.\n\n  To this glory Christ, as God, was entitled from all eternity; but did\n  not acquire a right to it as man, till he had paid the purchase by his\n  blood.\n\nI too hold this for a most important truth; but yet could wish it to\nhave been somewhat differently expressed; as thus:--\"but did not acquire\nit as man till the means had been provided and perfected by his blood.\"\n\n\nIb. p. 268.\n\n  If Christ in one place, ('John' xiv. 28,) says, 'My Father is greater\n  than I'; he must be understood of his relation to the Father as his\n  Son, born of a woman.\n\nI do not see the necessity of this: does not Christ say, 'My Father and\nI will come and we will dwell in you?' Nay, I dare confidently affirm\nthat in no one passage of St. John's Gospel is our Lord declared in any\nspecial sense the Son of the First Person of the Trinity in reference to\nhis birth from a woman. And remember it is from St. John's Gospel that\nthe words are cited. So too the answer to Philip ought to be interpreted\nby ch. i. 18. of the same Gospel.\n\n\nIb. p. 276.\n\nI confess I do not agree with Skelton's interpretation of any of these\ntexts entirely. Because I hold the Nicene Faith, and revere the doctrine\nof the Trinity as the fundamental article of Christianity, I apply to\nChrist as the Second Person, almost all the texts which Skelton explains\nof his humanity. At all events 1 consider 'the first-born of every\ncreature' as a false version of the words, which (as the argument and\nfollowing verse prove) should be rendered 'begotten before', (or rather\n'superlatively before'), 'all that was created or made; for by him' they\nwere made.\n\n\nIb.\n\n  'Of that day, and that hour knoweth no man, no not the angels which\n  are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.'\n\nI cannot explain myself here; but I have long thought that our Saviour\nmeant in these words [Greek: ain\u00edttein t\u00e0en th\u00e9otaeta ahutou]--and that\nlike the problem proposed by him to the Scribes, they were intended to\nprepare the minds of the disciples for this awful mystery--[Greek: ei\nm\u00e0e ho pat\u00e1er]--\"unless, or if not, as the Father knows it;\" while in\nSt. Matthew the equivalent sense is given by the omission of the [Greek:\noud' ho uh\u00edos], and its inclusion in the Father. 'As the Father knoweth\nme, so know I the Father'.\n\nIt would have been against the general rule of Scripture prophecies, and\nthe intention of the revelation in Christ, that the first Christians\nshould have been so influenced in their measures and particular actions,\nas they could not but have been by a particular foreknowledge of the\nexpress and precise time at which Jerusalem was to be destroyed. To\nreconcile them to this uncertainty, our Lord first teaches them to\nconsider this destruction the close of one great epoch, or [Greek:\nai\u00f4n], as the type of the final close of the whole world of time, that\nis, of all temporal things; and then reasons with them thus:--\"Wonder\nnot that I should leave you ignorant of the former, when even the\nhighest order of heavenly intelligences know not the latter, [Greek:\noud' ho uh\u00edos, ei m\u00e0e ho pat\u00e1er]; nor should I myself, but that the\nFather knows it, all whose will is essentially known to me as the\nEternal Son. But even to me it is not revealably communicated.\" Such\nseems to me the true sense of this controverted passage in Mark, and\nthat it is borne out by many parallel texts in St. John, and that the\ncorrespondent text in Matthew, which omits the [Greek: oud' ho hu\u00edos],\nconveys the same sense in equivalent terms, the word [Greek: emou]\nincluding the Son in the [Greek: pat\u00e0er m\u00f3nos]. For to his only-begotten\nSon before all time the Father showeth all things.\n\n\nIb. p. 279.\n\n  But whether we can reconcile these words to our belief of Christ's\n  prescience and divinity, or not, matters little to the debate about\n  his divinity itself; since we can so fully prove it by innumerable\n  passages of Scripture, too direct, express, and positive, to be\n  balanced by one obscure passage, from 'whence the Arian is to draw the\n  consequence himself, which may possibly be wrong'.\n\nVery good.\n\n\nIb. p. 280.\n\n  'We know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an\n  understanding that we may know him that is true; and we are in him\n  that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and\n  eternal life.'--l John v. 20. The whole connection evidently shows the\n  words to be spoken of Christ.\n\nThat the words comprehend Christ is most evident. All that can be fairly\nconcluded from 1 Cor. viii. 6, is this:--that the Apostles, Paul and\nJohn, speak of the Father as including and comprehending the Son and the\nHoly Ghost, as his Word and his Spirit; but of these as inferring or\nsupposing the Father, not comprehending him. Whenever, therefore,\nrespecting the Godhead itself, containing both deity and dominion, the\nterm God is distinctively used, it is applied to the Father, and Lord to\nthe Son.\n\n\nIb. p. 281.\n\n  But, farther, it is objected that Christ cannot be God, since God\n  calls him 'his servant' more than once, particularly 'Isaiah' xlii. 1.\n\nThe Prophets often speak of the anti-type, or person typified, in\nlanguage appropriate to, and suggested by, the type itself. So, perhaps,\nin this passage, if, as I suppose, Hezekiah was the type immediately\npresent to Isaiah's imagination. However, Skelton's answer is quite\nsufficient.\n\n\nIb. p. 287.\n\n  Hence it appears, that in the passage objected, (1 'Cor'. xv. 24, &c.)\n  Christ is spoken of purely as that Man whom 'God had highly exalted,\n  and to whom he had given a name which is above every name, that at the\n  name of Jesus every knee should bow.' (Phil. ii. 9, 10.)\n\nI must confess that this exposition does not quite satisfy me. I cannot\nhelp thinking that something more and deeper was meant by the Apostle;\nand this must be sought for in the mystery of the Trinity itself, 'in\nwhich' (mystery) 'all treasures of knowledge are hidden'.\n\n\nIb. p. 318.\n\n  Hence, perhaps, may be best explained what St. Peter says in the\n  second Epistle, after pleading a miracle. 'We have also a more sure\n  word of prophecy, whereunto you do well that you take heed.'\n\nI believe that St. Peter neither said it, nor meant this; but that\n[Greek: Bebai\u00f3teron] follows 'the prophetic word'. We have also the word\nof prophecy more firm;--that is; we have, in addition to the evidence of\nthe miracles themselves, this further confirmation, that they are the\nfulfilment of known prophecies.\n\n\nIb. p. 327.\n\n  Agreeable to these passages of the Prophet, St. Peter tells us ('Acts'\n  x. 38), 'God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and\n  power'.\n\nI have often to complain that too little attention is paid by\ncommentators to the history and particular period in which certain\nspeeches were delivered, or words written. Could St. Peter with\npropriety have introduced the truth to a prejudiced audience with its\ndeepest mysteries? Must he not have begun with the most evident facts?\n\n\nIb. Disc. VIII.\n\n  The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity vindicated.\n\nWere I a Clergyman, the paragraphs from p. 366 to p. 370, both\ninclusive, of this Discourse should form the conclusion of my Sermon on\nTrinity Sunday,--whether I preached at St. James's, or in a country\nvillage.\n\n\nIb. pp. 374-378.\n\nAs a reason why we should doubt our own judgment, it is quite fair to\nremind the objector, that the same difficulty occurs in the scheme of\nGod's ordinary providence. But that a difficulty in a supposed article\nof revealed truth is solved by the occurrence of the same or of an\nequivalent difficulty in the common course of human affairs--this I find\nit hard to conceive. How was the religious, as distinguished from the\nmoral, sense first awakened? What made the human soul feel the necessity\nof a faith in God, but the apparent incongruity of certain dispensations\nin this world with the idea of God, with the law written in the heart?\nIs not the reconciling of these facts or 'ph\u00e6nomena' with the divine\nattributes, one of the purposes of a revealed religion? But even this is\nnot a full statement of the defect complained of in this solution. A\ndifficulty which may be only apparent (like that other of the prosperity\nof the wicked) is solved by the declaration of its reality! A difficulty\ngrounded on the fact of temporal and outward privations and sufferings,\nis solved by being infinitely increased, that is, by the assertion of\nthe same principle on the determination of our inward and everlasting\nweal and woe. That there is nothing in the Christian Faith or in the\nCanonical Scriptures, when rightly interpreted, that requires such an\nargument, or sanctions the recourse to it, I believe myself to have\nproved in the Aids to Reflection. For observe that \"to solve\" has a\nscientific, and again a religious sense, and that in the latter, a\ndifficulty is satisfactorily solved, as soon as its insolvibility for\nthe human mind is proved and accounted for.\n\n\nIb. (Disc. XIV. pp. 500-502.)\n\n  Christianity proved by Miracles.\n\nI cannot see and never could, the purpose, or 'cui bono', of this\nreasoning. To whom is it addressed? To a man who denies a God, or that\nGod can reveal his will to mankind? If such a man be not below talking\nto, he must first be convinced of his miserable blindness respecting\nthese truths; for these are clearly presupposed in every proof of\nmiracles generally.\n\nAgain, does he admit the authenticity of the Gospels, and the veracity\nof the Evangelists? Does he credit the facts there related, and as\nrelated? If not, these points must be proved; for these are clearly\npresupposed in all reasoning on the particular miracles of the Christian\ndispensation. If he does, can he deny that many acts of Christ were\nwonderful;--that reanimating a dead body in which putrefaction had\nalready commenced,--and feeding four thousand men with a few loaves and\nfishes, so that the fragments left greatly exceeded the original total\nquantity,--were wonderful events? Should such a man, 'compos mentis',\nexist, (which I more than doubt,) what could a wise man do but\nstare--and leave him? Christ wrought many wonderful works, implying\nadmirable power, and directed to the most merciful and beneficent ends;\nand these acts were such signs of his divine mission, as rendered\ninattention or obstinate averseness to the truths and doctrines which he\npromulgated, inexcusable, and indeed on any hypothesis but that of\nimmoral dispositions and prejudices, utterly inconceivable. In what\nrespect, I pray, can this statement be strengthened by any reasoning\nabout the nature and distinctive essence of miracles 'in abstracto'?\nWhat purpose can be answered by any pretended definition of a miracle?\nIf I met with a disputatious word-catcher, or logomachist, who sought to\njustify his unbelief on this ground, I should not hesitate to\nsay--\"Never mind whether it is a miracle or no. Call it what you\nwill;--but do you believe the fact? Do you believe that Christ did by\nforce of his will and word multiply instantaneously twelve loaves and a\nfew small fishes, into sufficient food for a hungering multitude of four\nthousand men and women?\" When I meet with, or from credible authority\nhear of, a man who believes this fact, and yet thinks it no sign of\nChrist's mission; when I can even conceive of a man in his right senses\nwho, believing all the facts and events related in the New Testament,\nand as there related, does yet remain a Deist, I may think it time to\nenter into a disquisition respecting the right definition of a miracle;\nand meantime, I humbly trust that believing with my whole heart and soul\nin the wonderful works of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, I shall not\nforfeit my title of Christian, though I should not subscribe to this or\nthat divine's right definition of his 'idea' of a miracle; which word is\nwith me no 'idea' at all, but a general term; the common surname, as it\nwere, of the wonderful works wrought by the messengers of God to man in\nthe Patriarchal, Mosaic, and Christian dispensations.\n\nIt is to these notions and general definitions, far more than to the\nfacts themselves, that the arguments of Infidels apply; and from which\nthey derive their plausibility. Nor is this all. The Infidel imitates\nthe divine, and adopts the same mode of arguing, namely, by this\nsubstantiation of mere general or collective terms. For instance, Hume's\nargument (stated, by the by, before he was born, and far more forcibly,\nby Dr. South, who places it in the mouth of Thomas,) [2]--reduce it to\nthe particular facts in question, and its whole speciousness vanishes. I\nam speaking of the particular facts and actions of the Gospel; of those,\nand those only. Now that I should be deceived, or the eye-witnesses have\nbeen deceived, under all the circumstances of those miracles, with all\nantecedents, accompaniments, and consequents, is quite as contrary to,\nthat is, unparalleled in my experience, as the return to life of a dead\nman.\n\nSo again in the second paragraph of page 502, [3] the position is true\nor false according to the definition of a miracle. In the narrower sense\nof the term, miracle,--that is, a consequent presented to the outward\nsenses without an adequate antecedent, ejusdem generis,--it is not only\nfalse but detractory from the Christian religion. It is a main, nay, an\nindispensable evidence; but it is not the only, no, nor if comparison be\nat all allowable, the highest and most efficient; unless, indeed, the\nterm evidence is itself confined to grounds of conviction offered to the\nsenses, but then the position is a mere truism.\n\nThere is yet another way of reasoning, which I utterly dislike; namely,\nby putting imaginary cases of imaginary miracles, as Paley has done. \"If\na dozen different individuals, all men of known sense and integrity,\nshould each independently of the other pledge their everlasting weal on\nthe truth, that they saw a man beheaded and quartered, and that on a\ncertain person's prayer or bidding, the quarters reunited, and then a\nnew head grew on and from out of the stump of the neck: and should the\nman himself assure you of the same, shew you the junctures, and identify\nhimself to you by some indelible mark, with which you had been\npreviously acquainted,--could you withstand this evidence?\" What could a\njudicious man reply but--\"When such an event takes place, I will tell\nyou; but what has this to do with the reasons for our belief in the\ntruth of the written records of the Old and New Testament? Why do you\nfly off from the facts to a gigantic fiction,--when the possibility of\nthe 'If' with respect to a much less startling narration is the point in\ndispute between us?\"\n\nSuch and so peculiar, and to an honest mind so unmistakeable, is the\ncharacter of veracity and simplicity on the very countenance, as it\nwere, of the Gospel, that every remove of the inquirer's attention from\nthe facts themselves is a remove of his conversion. It is your business\nto keep him from wandering, not to set him the example.\n\nNever, surely, was there a more unequal writer than Skelton;--in the\ndiscourses on the Trinity, the compeer of Bull and Waterland; and yet\nthe writer of these pages, 500-501! Natural magic! a stroke of art! for\nexample, converting the Nile into blood! And then his definition of a\nmiracle. Suspension of the laws of nature! suspension--laws--nature!\nBless me! a chapter would be required for the explanation of each\nseveral word of this definition, and little less than omniscience for\nits application in any one instance. An effect presented to the senses\nwithout any adequate antecedent, 'ejusdem generis', is a miracle in the\nphilosophic sense. Thus: the corporeal ponderable hand and arm raised\nwith no other known causative antecedent, but a thought, a pure act of\nan immaterial essentially invisible imponderable will, is a miracle for\na reflecting mind. Add the words, 'pr\u00e6ter experientiam': and we have the\ndefinition of a miracle in the popular, practical, and appropriated\nsense.\n\n\nVol. III.\n\nThat all our thoughts and views respecting our Faith should be\nconsistent with each other, and with the attributes of God, is most\nhighly desirable: but when the great diversities of men's\nunderstandings, and the unavoidable influence of circumstances on the\nmind, are considered, we may hope from the Divine mercy, that the\nagreement in the result will suffice; and that he who sincerely and\nefficiently believes that Christ left the glory which he had with the\nFather before all worlds, to become man and die for our salvation,--that\nby him we may, and by him alone we can, be saved,--will be held a true\nbeliever,--whether he interprets the words 'sacrifice,' 'purchase,'\n'bargain,' 'satisfaction,' of the creditor by full payment of the\n'debt,' and the like as proper and literal expressions of the redeeming\nact and the cause of our salvation, as Skelton seems to have done;--or\n(as I do) as figurative language truly designating the effects and\nconsequences of this adorable act and process.\n\n\nIb. p. 393.\n\n  But were the prospect of a better parish, in case of greater\n  diligence, set before him by his Bishop, on the music of such a\n  promise, like one bit by a 'tarantula', we should probably soon see\n  him in motion, and serving God, (O shameful!) for the sake of Mammon,\n  as if his torpid body had been animated anew by a returning soul.\n\nWithout any high-flying in Christian morality, I cannot keep shrinking\nfrom the wish here expressed; at all events, I cannot sympathize with,\nor participate in, the expectation of \"an infinite advancement\" from men\nso motived.\n\n\nIb. p. 394.\n\n  Yet excommunication, the inherent discipline of the Church, which it\n  exercised under persecution, which it is still permitted to exercise\n  under the present establishment.\n\nRarely I suspect, without exposing the Clergyman to the risk of an\naction for damages, or some abuse. There are few subjects that more need\ninvestigation, yet require more vigour and soundness of judgment to be\nrightly handled, than this of Christian discipline in a Church\nestablished by law. It is indeed a most difficult and delicate problem,\nand supplied Baxter with a most plausible and to me the only perplexing\nof his numerous objections to our Ecclesiastical Constitution. On the\nother hand, I saw clearly that he was requiring an impossibility; and\nthat his argument carried on to its proper consequences concluded\nagainst all Church Establishment, not more against the National Church\nof which he complained, than the one of his own clipping and shaping\nwhich he would have substituted; consequently, every proof (and I saw\nmany and satisfactory proofs) of the moral and political necessity of an\nEstablished Church, was at the same time a pledge that a deeper insight\nwould detect some flaw in the reasoning of the Disciplinarians. For if\nA. be right and requisite, B., which is incompatible with A., cannot be\nrightly required. And this it was, that first led me to the distinction\nbetween the 'Ecclesia' and an 'Enclesia', concerning which see my Essay\non Establishment and Dissent, in which I have met the objection to my\nposition, that Christian discipline is incompatible with a Church\nestablished by law, from the fact of the discipline of the Church of\nScotland. [4] Who denies that it is in the power of a legislature to\npunish certain offences by ignominy, and to make the clergy magistrates\nin reference to these? The question is, whether it is wise or expedient,\nwhich it may be, or rather may have been, in Scotland, and the contrary\nin England? Wise or unwise, this is not discipline, not Christian\ndiscipline, enforced only by spiritual motives, enacted by spiritual\nauthority, and submitted to for conscience' sake.\n\n\nIb. p. 446.\n\n  Be this as it may, the foreknowledge and the decree were both eternal.\n  Here now it is a clear point that the moral actions of all accountable\n  agents were, with certainty, fore-known, and their doom unalterably\n  fixed, long before any one of them existed.\n\nStrange that so great a man as Skelton should first affirm eternity of\nboth, yet in the next sentence talk of \"long before.\" These Reflections\n[5] are excellent, but here Skelton offends against his own canons. I\nshould feel no reluctance, moral or speculative, in accepting the\napparent necessity of both propositions, as a sufficient reason for\nbelieving both; and the transcendancy of the subject as a sufficient\nsolution of their apparent incompatibility. But yet I think that another\nview of the subject, not less congruous with universal reason and more\nagreeable to the light of reason in the human understanding, might be\ndefended, without detracting from any perfection of the Divine Being.\nNay, I think that Skelton needed but one step more to have seen it.\n\n\nIb. p. 478.\n\n\n'In fine.'\n\nTo what purpose were these Reflections, taken as a whole, written? I\ncannot answer. To dissuade men from reasoning on a subject beyond our\nfaculties? Then why all this reasoning?\n\n\nVol. IV. p. 28. Deism Revealed.\n\n\n  'Shepherd'. Were you ever at Constantinople, Sir?\n\n  'Dechaine'. Never.\n\n  'Shep.' Yet I believe you have no more doubt there is such a city,\n          than that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two\n          right ones.\n\n  'Temp.' I am sure 1 have not.\n\n  'Dech.' Nor I; but what then?\n\n  'Shep.' Pray, Mr. Dechaine, did you see Julius C\u00e6sar assassinated in\n          the   Capitol?\n\n  'Dech.' A pretty question! No indeed, Sir.\n\n  'Shep.' Have you any doubts about the truth of what is told us by the\n          historians concerning that memorable transaction?\n\n  'Dech.' Not the least.\n\n  'Shep.' Pray, is it either self-evident or demonstrable to you, at\n          this time and place, that there is any such city as\n          Constantinople, or that there ever was such a man as C\u00e6sar?\n\n  'Dech.' By no means.\n\n  'Shep.' And you have all you know concerning the being of either the\n          city, or the man, merely from the report of others, who had it\n          from others, and so on, through many links of tradition?\n\n  'Dech.' I have.\n\n  'Shep.' You see then, that there are certain cases, in which the\n          evidence of things not seen nor either sensibly or\n          demonstrably perceived, can justly challenge so entire an\n          assent, that he who should pretend to refuse it in the fullest\n          measure of acquiescence, would be deservedly esteemed the most\n          stupid or perverse of mankind.\n\nThat there is a sophism here, every one must feel in the very fact of\nbeing 'non-plus'd' without being convinced. The sophism consists in the\ninstance being 'haud ejusdem generis' ([Greek: \u00e9legchos metab\u00e1se\u00f4s eis\n\u00e1llo g\u00e9nos]); and what the allogeneity is between the assurance of the\nbeing of Madrid or Constantinople, and the belief of the fact of the\nresurrection of Christ, I have shown elsewhere. The universal belief of\nthe 'tyrannicidium' of Julius C\u00e6sar is doubtless a fairer instance, but\nthe whole mode of argument is unsound and unsatisfying. Why run off from\nthe fact in question, or the class at least to which it belongs? The\nvictory can be but accidental--a victory obtained by the unguarded\nlogic, or want of logical foresight of the antagonist, who needs only\nnarrow his positions to narrations of facts and events, in our judgment\nof which we are not aided by the analogy of previous and succeeding\nexperience, to deprive you of the opportunity of skirmishing thus on No\nMan's land. But this is Skelton's ruling passion, sometimes his\nstrength--too often his weakness. He must force the reader to believe:\nor rather he has an antagonist, a wilful infidel or heretic always and\nexclusively before his imagination; or if he thinks of the reader at\nall, it is as of a partizan enjoying every hard thump, and smashing\n'fister' he gives the adversary, whom Skelton hates too cordially to\nendure to obtain any thing from him with his own liking. No! It must be\nagainst his will, and in spite of it. No thanks to him--the dog could\nnot help himself! How much more effectual would he have found it to have\ncommenced by placing himself in a state of sympathy with the supposed\nsceptic or unbeliever;--to have stated to him his own feelings, and the\nreal grounds on which they rested;--to have shown himself the difference\nbetween the historical facts which the sceptic takes for granted and\nbelieves spontaneously, as it were,--and those, which are to be the\nsubject of discussion; and this brings the question at once to the\nproof. And here, after all, lies the strength of Skelton's reasoning,\nwhich would have worked far more powerfully, had it come first and\nsingle, and with the whole attention directed towards it.\n\n\nIb. p. 35.\n\n  'Templeton.' Surely the resurrection of Christ, or any other man,\n               cannot be a thing impossible with God. It is neither\n               above his power, nor, when employed for a sufficient\n               purpose, inconsistent with his majesty, wisdom, and\n               goodness.\n\nThis is the ever open and vulnerable part of Deism. The Deist, as a\nDeist, believes, 'implicite' at least, so many and stupendous miracles\nas to render his disbelief of lesser miracles, simply because they are\nmiraculous, gross inconsistencies. To have the battle fairly fought out,\nSpinoza, or a Bhuddist, or a Burmese Gymnosoph, should be challenged.\nThen, I am deeply persuaded, would the truth appear in full evidence,\nthat no Christ, no God,--and, conversely, if the Father, then the Son. I\ncan never too often repeat, that revealed religion is a pleonasm.\n--Religion is revelation, and revelation the only religion.\n\n\nIb. p. 37.\n\n  'Shep.' Those believers, whose faith is to rely on the truth of the\n          Christian history, rest their assent on a written report made\n          by eye-witnesses; which report the various Churches and sects,\n          jealous of one another, took care to preserve genuine and\n          uncorrupted, at least in all material points, and all the\n          religious writers in every age since have amply attested.\n\nA divine of the present day who shall undertake the demonstration of the\ntruth of Christianity by external evidences, or historically, must not\ncontent himself with assuming or asserting this. He must either prove\nit; or prove that such proof is not necessary. I myself should be quite\nsatisfied if I proved the former position in respect to the fourth\nGospel, and showed that the evidence of the other three was equivalent\nto a record by an eye-witness: which would not be at all inconsistent\nwith my contending at the same time for the authenticity of the first\nGospel, or rather for the Catholic interpretation of the title-words\n[Greek: Kat\u00e0 Matthaion], as the more probable opinion, which a sound\ndivine will neither abandon nor overload, neither place it in the\nfoundation, nor on the other hand suffer it to be extruded from the\nwall. Believe me, there is great, very great, danger in these broad\nunqualified assertions that Skelton deals in. Even though the balance of\nevidence should be on his side, yet the inquirer will be unfavourably\naffected by the numerous doubts and difficulties which an acquaintance\nwith the more modern works of Biblical criticism will pour upon him, and\nfor which his mind is wholly unprepared. To meet with a far weaker\nevidence than we had taken it for granted we were to find, gives the\nsame shake to the mind, that missing a stair gives to the body.\n\n\nIb. p. 243.\n\n  'Temp.' You, Mr. Dechaine, seem to forget that God is just; and you,\n          Mr. Shepherd, that he is merciful\n\n  'Dech.' I insist, that, as God is merciful, he will forgive.\n\n  'Shep.' And I insist, that, as he is just, he will punish.\n\n  'Temp.' Pray Mr. Dechaine, are you able, upon the Deistical scheme to\n          rid yourself of this difficulty?\n\n  'Dech.' I see no difficulty in it at all. God gives us laws only for\n          our good, and will never suffer those laws to become a snare\n          to us, and the occasion of our eternal misery.\n\nHere is the 'cardo'! The man of sense asserts that it is necessary for\nthe good of all, that a code of laws should exist, while yet it is\nimpossible that all should at all times be obeyed by each person: but\nwhat is impossible cannot be required. Nevertheless, it may be required\nthat no 'iota' of any one of these laws should be wilfully and\ndeliberately transgressed, nor is there any one for the transgression of\nwhich the transgressor must not hold himself punishable. \"And yet\" (says\nour man of sense,) \"what may not be said of any one point, or any one\nmoment, cannot be denied of the collective agency of a whole life, or\nany considerable section of it. Here we find ourselves constrained by\nour best feelings to praise or condemn, to reward or punish, according\nas a great predominance of acts of obedience or disobedience, and a\ncontinued love of the better, or the lusting after the worst, manifests\nthe maxim ('regula maxima'), the radical will and proper character of\nthe individual. So parents judge of their children; so schoolmasters of\ntheir scholars; so friends of friends, and even so will God judge his\ncreatures, if we are to trust in our common sense, or believe the\nrepeated declarations in the Old Testament.\" And now I should be glad to\nhear any satisfactory 'sensible' reply to this, or any answer that does\nnot fly higher than 'sense' can follow, and pierce into \"the thick\nclouds\" of decried metaphysics! For no fair reply can be imagined, but\none which would find the root of the moral evil, the true [Greek:\nponaer\u00f3n], in this very impossibility.\n\n\nIb. p. 249.\n\n  'Cunningham.' But how does all this discourse about sacrifices and the\n                natural light show that your faith does not ascribe\n                injustice to God in putting an innocent person to death\n                for the transgressions of the guilty?\n\n  'Shep.' Was Christ innocent?\n\n  'Cunn.' 'He was without sin.'\n\n  'Shep.' And he was put to death by the appointment and\n          predetermination of God?\n\n  'Cunn.' The Jews put him to death.\n\n  'Shep.' Do not evade the question. Was he not 'the Lamb slain from the\n          foundation of the world'? Was he not 'so delivered by the\n          determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, that the Jews,\n          having taken him, by wicked hands crucified and slew him?'\n\n  'Cunn'. And what then?\n\n  'Shep'. Nothing; but that you are to answer, as well as I, for saying\n          that God predetermined the death of this only innocent person.\n\nI am less pleased with this volume than with any of the preceding. Ask\nyour own heart and conscience whether (for instance,) they are satisfied\nwith this defence 'duri per durius': or whether frightening a modest\nquery into silence by perverting it into an accusation of the Almighty,\nby virtue of a conclusion borrowed from the Calvinistic theory of\nPredestination, is not more in the spirit of Job's comforters, than\nbecomes a minister of the Apostolic Church of England and Ireland? Such\narguments are but edge-tools at the safest, but more often they may\nrather be likened to the two-edged blade of Parysatis's knife, the one\nof which was poisoned. Leave them to Calvin, or those who dare\nappropriate Calvin's words, that \"God's absolute will is the only rule\nof his justice;\"--thus dividing the divine attributes. Yet Calvin\nhimself distinguishes the hidden from the revealed God, even as the\nGreek Fathers distinguished the [Greek: th\u00e9laema Theou], the absolute\nground of all being, from the [Greek: Boul\u00e0e tou Theou], as the cause\nand disposing providence of all existence.\n\nBut I disapprove of the plan and spirit of this work, (Deism Revealed.)\nThe cold-hearted, worldly-minded, cunning Deist, or the coarse sensual\nInfidel, is of all men the least likely to be converted; and the\nconscientious, inquiring, though misled and perplexed, Sceptic will\nthrow aside a book at once, as not applicable to his case, which treats\nevery doubt as a crime, and supposes that there is no doubt at all\npossible but in a bad heart and from wicked wishes. Compare this with\nSt. Paul's language concerning the Jews.\n\nSo again, pp. 225, &c. of this volume. Do not the plainest intuitions of\nour moral and rational being confirm the positions here attributed to\nthe Deist, Dechaine? Are they not the same by which Melancthon\nde-Calvinized, at least de-Augustinized, the heroic Luther;--those\nwhich constitute one of the only two essential differences between the\nAugsburg Confession and the Calvinistic Articles of Faith? And can\nanything be more flittery and special-pleading than Skelton's\nobjections? And again, p. 507, \"and that prayer which he (Tindal) is\nreported to have used a little before his death, 'If there is a God, I\ndesire he may have mercy on me;'\"--was it Christian-like to publish and\ncirculate a blind report--so improbable and disgusting, as to demand the\nstrongest and most unsuspicious testimony for its reception?\n\n\nIb. p. 268.\n\n  'Shep'. Pray, Mr. Dechaine, if a person, whom you knew to be an honest\n          and clear-sighted man, should solemnly assure you he saw a\n          dead man restored to life, what would you think of his\n          testimony?\n\n  'Dech'. As I could not possibly have as strong an assurance of his\n          honesty, clear-sightedness, and penetration, as of the great\n          improbability of the fact, I should not believe him.\n\n  'Shep'. Well; it is true he might be deceived himself, or intend to\n          impose on you. But in case ten such persons should all, at\n          different times, confirm the same report, how would this\n          affect you?\n\nThere is one inconvenience, not to say danger, in this argument of Mr.\nShepherd's; namely, that of its not standing in the same force, when it\ncomes to be repeated in the particular miraculous facts in support of\nwhich it is adduced.\n\n\nIb. p. 281.\n\n  No other ancient book can be so well proved to have been the work of\n  the author it is now ascribed to, as every book of the New Testament\n  can be proved to have been written by him whose name it hath all along\n  borne.\n\nThis is true to the full extent that the defence of the divinity of our\nreligion needs, or perhaps permits, and I see no advantage gained by\nasserting more. I must lose all power of distinction, before I can\naffirm that the genuineness of the first Gospel,--that in its present\nform it was written by Matthew, or is a literal translation of a Gospel\nwritten by him,--rests on as strong external evidence as Luke's, or on\nas strong internal evidence as St. John's. Sufficient that the evidence\ngreatly preponderates in its favor.\n\n\n\n[Footnote 1: The complete Works of the late Rev. Philip Skelton, Rector\nof Fintona. 6. vols. 8vo. London, 1824. 'Ed.']\n\n\n[Footnote 2: See South's Works, vol. iii. p. 500. Clarendon edit. 1823\n--Ed.]\n\n\n[Footnote 3: But it will be proper to observe, that it strikes directly\nat the very root of Revelation, which cannot possibly give any other\nevidence of itself, as the dictate of God, but what must be drawn from\nmiracles, wrought to prove the divine mission of those who publish it to\nthe world.]\n\n\n[Footnote 4: The Editor is not aware of the existence of the Essay here\nmentioned. But see for the distinction of the 'Ecclesia' and 'Enclesia',\nthe Church and State, 3rd edit.--Ed.]\n\n\n[Footnote 5: On Predestination, as far as p. 445.]\n\n\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\n\nNOTES ON ANDREW FULLER'S CALVINISTIC AND SOCINIAN SYSTEMS EXAMINED AND\nCOMPARED. [1] 1807.\n\n\nLetter III. p. 38.\n\n  They (the Jews) did not deny that to be God's own Son was to be equal\n  with the Father, nor did they allege that such an equality would\n  destroy the divine unity: a thought of this kind never seems to have\n  occurred to their minds.\n\nIn so truly excellent a book as this is, I regret that this position\nshould rest on an assertion. The equality of Christ would not, indeed,\ndestroy the unity of God the Father, considered as one Person: but,\nunless we presume the Jews in question acquainted with the great truth\nof the Tri-unity, we must admit that it would be considered as implying\nDitheism. Now that some among the Jews had made very near approaches,\nthough blended with errors, to the doctrine taught in John, c. i., we\ncan prove from the writings of Philo;--and the Socinians can never prove\nthat these Jews did not know at least of the doctrine of their schools\nconcerning the only-begotten Word--[Greek: L\u00f3gos monogen\u00e1es],--not as\nan attribute, much less as an abstraction or personification--but as a\ndistinct 'Hypostasis' [Greek: symphysik\u00e1e]:-and hence it might be shown\nthat their offence was that the carpenter's son, the Galilean, should\ncall himself the [Greek: The\u00f2s phaner\u00f3s]. This might have been rendered\nmore than probable by the concluding sentence of Christ's answer to the\ndisciples of John;--'and blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended\nin me' (Luke vii. 23.); which appears to have no adequate or even\ntolerable meaning, unless in reference to the passage in Isaiah, (lxi.\n1, 2.) prophesying that Jehovah himself would come among them, and do\nthe things which our Saviour states himself to have done. Thus, too, I\nregret that the answer of our Lord, (John x. 34-36.) being one of the\nimagined strong-holds of the Socinians, should not have been more fully\ncleared up. I doubt not that Fuller's is a true interpretation; and that\nno other is consistent with our Lord's various other declarations. But\nthe words in and by themselves admit a more plausible misinterpretation\nthan is elsewhere the case of Socinian displanations. In short, I think\nboth passages would have been better deferred to a further part of the\nwork.\n\nLet me add that a mighty and comparatively new argument against the\nSocinians may be most unanswerably deduced from this reply of our\nLord's, even were it considered as a mere 'argumentum ad homines':\n--namely, that it was not his Messiahship that so offended the Jews, but\nhis Sonship; otherwise, our Saviour's language would have neither force,\nmotive, or object. \"Even were I no more than the Messiah, in your\nmeanest conceptions of that character, yet after what I have done before\nyour eyes, nothing but malignant hearts could have prevented you from\nadopting a milder interpretation of my words, when in your own\nScriptures there exists a precedent that so much more than merely\njustifies me.\" And this I believe to be the meaning of the words as\nintended to be understood by the Jews in question; though, doubtless,\nFuller's sense exists 'implicite'. No candid person would ever call it\nan evasion, to prove the injustice and malignity of an accuser even from\nhis own grounds:--\"You charge me falsely; but even were your charge\ntrue, namely, that I am a mere man, and yet call myself the Son of God,\nstill it would not follow that I have been guilty of blasphemy.\" But as\nunderstood by the modern Unicists, it would verily, verily, be an\nevasive ambiguity, most unworthy of Christian belief concerning his\nSaviour. Common charity would have demanded of him to have said:--\"I am\na mere man: I do not pretend to be more; but I used the words in analogy\nto the words, 'Ye are as Gods'; and I have a right to do so: for though\na mere man, I am the great Prophet and Messenger which Moses promised\nyou.\"\n\n\nLetter V. p. 72.\n\n  If Dr. Priestley had formed his estimate of human virtue by that great\n  standard which requires love to God with all the heart, soul, mind,\n  and strength, and our neighbour as ourselves,--instead of representing\n  men by nature as having \"more virtue than vice,\"--he must have\n  acknowledged with the Scripture, that 'the whole world lieth in\n  wickedness--that every thought and imagination of their heart is only\n  evil continually'--and that 'there is none of them that doeth good, no\n  not one'.\n\nTo this the Unicists would answer, that by 'the whole world' is meant\nall the worldly-minded;--no matter in how direct opposition to half a\nscore other texts! \"One text at a time!\" sufficient for the day is the\nevil thereof!--and in this way they go on pulling out hair by hair from\nthe horse's tail, (say rather, dreaming that they do so,) and then\nconclude with a shout that the horse never had a tail! For why? This\nhair is not a tail, nor that, nor the third, and so on to the very last;\nand how can all do what none of all does?--Ridiculous as this is, it is\na fair image of Socinian logic. Thank God, their plucking out is a mere\nfancy;--and the sole miserable reality is the bare rump which they call\ntheir religion;--but that is the ape's own growth.\n\n\nIb. p. 77.\n\n  First, that all punishments are designed for the good of the whole,\n  and less or corrective punishments for the good of the offender, is\n  admitted. * * God never inflicts punishment for the sake of punishing.\n\nThis is not, [Greek: h\u00f4s \u00e9moige dokei], sufficiently guarded. That all\npunishments work for the good of the whole, and that the good of the\nwhole is included in God's design, I admit: but that this is the sole\ncause, and the sole justification of divine punishment, I cannot, I dare\nnot, concede;--because I should thus deny the essential evil of guilt,\nand its inherent incompatibility with the presence of a Being of\ninfinite holiness. Now, exclusion from God implies the sum and utmost of\npunishment; and this would follow from the very essence of guilt and\nholiness, independently of example, consequence, or circumstance.\n\n\nLetter VI. p. 90.\n\n  (The systems compared as to their tendency to promote morality in\n  general.)\n\nI have hitherto made no objection to, no remark on, any one part of this\nLetter; for I object to the whole--not as Calvinism, but--as what Calvin\nwould have recoiled from. How was it that so good and shrewd a man as\nAndrew Fuller should not have seen, that the difference between a\nCalvinist and a Priestleyan Materialist-Necessitarian consists in\nthis:--The former not only believes a will, but that it is equivalent to\nthe 'ego ipse', to the actual self, in every moral agent; though he\nbelieves that in human nature it is an enslaved, because a corrupt,\nwill. In denying free will to the unregenerated he no more denies will,\nthan in asserting the poor negroes in the West Indies to be slaves I\ndeny them to be men. Now the latter, the Priestleyan, uses the word\nwill,--not for any real, distinct, correspondent power, but,--for the\nmere result and aggregate of fibres, motions, and sensations; in short,\nit is a mere generic term with him, just as when we say, the main\ncurrent in a river.\n\nNow by not adverting to this, and alas! misled by Jonathan Edwards's\nbook, Fuller has hidden from himself and his readers the damnable nature\nof the doctrine--not of necessity (for that in its highest sense is\nidentical with perfect freedom; they are definitions each of the other);\nbut--of extraneous compulsion. O! even this is not adequate to the\nmonstrosity of the thought. A denial of all agency;--or an assertion of\na world of agents that never act, but are always acted upon, and yet\nwithout any one being that acts;--this is the hybrid of Death and Sin,\nwhich throughout this letter is treated so amicably! Another fearful\nmistake, and which is the ground of the former, lies in conceding to the\nMaterialist, 'explicite et implicite', that the [Greek: no\u00famenon], the\n'intelligibile', the 'ipseitas super sensibilis', of guilt is in time,\nand of time, and, consequently, a mechanism of cause and effect;--in\nother words, in confounding the [Greek: phain\u00f3mena, t\u00e0 rh\u00e9onta, t\u00e0 m\u00e0e\n\u00f3nt\u00f4s \u00f3nta],--all which belong to time, and cannot be even thought of\nexcept as effects necessarily predetermined by the precedent causes,\n(themselves in their turn effects of other causes),--with the\ntranssensual ground or actual power.\n\nAfter such admissions, no other possible defence can be made for\nCalvinism or any other 'ism' than the wretched recrimination: \"Why,\nyours, Dr. Priestley, is just as bad!\"--Yea, and no wonder:--for in\nessentials both are the same. But there was no reason for Fuller's\nmeddling with the subject at all,--metaphysically, I mean.\n\n\nIb. p. 95.\n\n  If the unconditionality of election render it unfriendly to virtue, it\n  must be upon the supposition of that view of things, \"which attributes\n  more to God, and less to man,\" having such ascendancy; which is the\n  very reverse of what Dr. Priestley elsewhere teaches, and that in the\n  same performance.\n\nBut in both systems, as Fuller has erroneously stated his own, man is\nannihilated. There is neither more nor less; it is all God; all, all are\nbut 'Deus infinite modificatus':--in brief, both systems are not\nSpinosism, for no other reason than that the logic and logical\nconsequency of 10 Fullers + 10 X 10 Dr. Priestleys, piled on each other,\nwould not reach the calf of Spinoza's leg. Both systems of necessity\nlead to Spinosism, nay, to all the horrible consequences attributed to\nit by Spinoza's enemies. O, why did Andrew Fuller quit the high vantage\nground of notorious facts, plain durable common sense, and express\nScripture, to delve in the dark in order to countermine mines under a\nspot, on which he had no business to have wall, tent, temple, or even\nstanding-ground!\n\n\n\n[Footnote 1: The Calvinistic and Socinian Systems examined and compared,\nas to their moral tendency; in a series of Letters addressed to the\nfriends of vital and practical religion; especially those amongst\nProtestant Dissenters. By Andrew Fuller. Market Harborough. 1793.]\n\n\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\n\nNOTES ON WHITAKER'S ORIGIN OF ARIANISM DISCLOSED. [1] 1810.\n\n\nChap. I. 4. p. 30.\n\n  'Making himself equal with God'.\n\nWhoever reads the four verses (John v. 16-19,) attentively, judging of\nthe meaning of each part by the context, must needs, I think, see that\nthe [Greek: \u00edson heaut\u00f2n poi\u00f4n t\u00f2n The\u00f4] (18) refers,--not to the\n[Greek: pater\u00e1 \u00eddion \u00e9lege t\u00f2n The\u00f2n], (18) or the [Greek: ho pat\u00e1er\nmou] (17), but--to the [Greek: erg\u00e1zetai, kag\u00f4 erg\u00e1zomai] (17). The 19th\nverse, which is directly called Jesus' reply, takes no notice whatever\nof the [Greek: ho pat\u00e1er mou] (17), but consists wholly of a\njustification of the [Greek: kag\u00f4 erg\u00e1zomai].\n\n1803.\n\n\nThe above was written many years ago. I still think the remark\nplausible, though I should not now express myself so positively. I\nimagined the Jews to mean: \"he has evidently used the words [Greek: ho\npat\u00e1er mou]--not in the sense in which all good men may use them,\nbut--in a literal sense, because by the words that followed, [Greek:\nerg\u00e1zetai, kag\u00f4 erg\u00e1zomai], he makes himself equal to God.\" To justify\nthese words seemed to me to be the purport of Christ's reply.\n\n\nChap. II. 1. p. 34.\n\n  [Greek: (Phil\u00f4n)--per\u00ec m\u00e8n oun t\u00e0 theia ka\u00ec p\u00e1tria math\u00e1emata, p\u00f3son\n  te ka\u00ec pael\u00edkon eisen\u00e1enektai p\u00f3non, \u00e9rg\u00f4 pasi daelos ka\u00ec per\u00ec t\u00e0\n  phil\u00f3sopha d\u00e8 ka\u00ec eleuth\u00e9ria taes \u00e9x\u00f4then paide\u00edas oi\u00f3s tis aen, oud\u00e8n\n  dei l\u00e9gein h\u00f3ti ka\u00ec m\u00e1lista t\u00e0en kat\u00e0 Pl\u00e1t\u00f4na ka\u00ec Pythag\u00f3ran ezael\u00f4k\u00f4s\n  ag\u00f4g\u00e0en, di\u00e9negken \u00e1pantas to\u00f9s kath' heaut\u00f2n, historeitai].\n\n  Euseb. Hist. II. 4.\n\n  Philo's acquaintance with the doctrines of the heathens was known only\n  by historical report to Eusebius; while the writings of Philo\n  displayed his knowledge in the religion of the Jews.\n\nStrange comment. Might I not, after having spoken of Dun Scotus's works,\nsay;--\"he is reported to have surpassed all his contemporaries in\nsubtlety of logic:\"--yet still mean no other works than those before\nmentioned? Are not Philo's works full of, crowded with, Platonic and\nPythagorean philosophy? Eusebius knew from his works that he was a great\nPlatonic scholar; but that he was greater than any other man of his age,\nhe could only learn from report or history. That Virgil is a great poet\nI know from his poems; but that he was the greatest of the Augustan age,\nI must learn from Quinctilian and others.\n\n\nIb. p. 35.\n\nPhilo and the author of the Wisdom of Solomon,--(or rather, perhaps,\nauthors; for the first ten chapters form a complete work of\nthemselves,)--were both Cabalistico-Platonizing Jews of Alexandria. As\nfar as, being such, they must agree, so far they do agree; and as widely\nas such men could differ, do they differ. Not only the style of the\nWisdom of Solomon is generically different from Philo's,--so much so\nthat I should deem it a free translation from a Hebrew original,--but\nalso in all the 'minuti\u00e6' of traditional history and dogma it\ncontradicts Philo. Philo attributes the creation of man to angels; and\nthey infused the evil principle through their own imperfections. In the\nBook of Wisdom, God created man spotless, and the Devil tempting him\noccasioned the Fall. So the whole account of the plagues of Egypt\ndiffers as widely as possible, even to absolute contradiction. The\norigin of idolatry is explained altogether differently by Philo, and by\nthe Book of Wisdom. In short, so unsupported is the tradition that many\nhave supposed an elder Philo as the author. That the second and third\nchapters allude to Christ is a groundless hypothesis. The 'just man' is\ncalled 'the son of God', Jehovah, [Greek: pais Kyri\u00f3n];--but Christ's\nspecific title which was deemed blasphemous by the Jews, was 'Ben\nElohim', [Greek: uhi\u00f2s tou Theou];--and the fancy that Philo was a\nChristian in heart, but dared not openly profess himself such, is too\nabsurd. Why no traces in his latest work, or those of his middle age?\nWhy not the least variation in his religious or philosophical creeds in\nhis latter works, written long after the resurrection, from those\ncomposed by him before, or a few years after, Christ's birth? Some of\nPhilo's earlier works must have been written when our Lord was in his\ninfancy, or at least boyhood.\n\nIn short, just take all those passages of Philo which most closely\nresemble others in the Wisdom of Solomon, and contain the same or nearly\nthe same thoughts, and write them in opposite columns, and no doubt will\nremain that Philo was not the composer of the Book of Wisdom. Philo\nsubtle, and with long involved periods knit together by logical\nconnectives: the Book of Wisdom sententious, full of parallelisms,\nassertory and Hebraistic throughout. It was either composed by a man who\ntried to Hebraize the Greek, or, if a translator, by one who tried to\nGreecise the Hebraisms of his original--not to disguise or hide\nthem--but only so as to prevent them from repelling or misleading the\nGreek reader. The different use of the Greek particles in the Wisdom of\nSolomon, and in the works of Philo, is sufficient to confute the\nhypothesis of Philo being the author. As little could it have been\nwritten by a Christian. For it could not have been a Christian of\nPalestine, from the overflowing Alexandrine Platonism;--nor a Christian\nat all; for it contradicts the doctrine of the resurrection of the body,\nand in no wise connects any redemptory or sacrificial virtue with the\ndeath of his 'just man';--denies original sin in the Christian sense,\nand explains the vice and virtue of mankind by the actions of the souls\nof men in a state of pre-existence. No signs or miracles are referred to\nin the account of 'the just man'; and that it was intended as a\ngeneralization is evident from the change of the singular into the\nplural number in the third chapter.\n\nThe result is, in my judgment, that this Book was composed by an unknown\nJew of Alexandria, either sometime before, or at the same time with,\nChrist. I do not think St. Paul's parallel passages amount to any proof\nof quotation or allusion;--they contain the common doctrine of the\nspiritualized Judaism in the Cabala;--and yet the work could scarcely\nhave been written long before Christ, or it would certainly have been\nquoted or mentioned by Philo, and most probably by Josephus. And this,\ntoo, is an answer to the splendid and well-supported hypothesis of its\nbeing a translation from a Chaldaic original, composed by Jerubbabel.\nThe variations of the Syriac translation,--which are so easily\nexplained by translating the passage into the Chaldaic, when the cause\nof the mistake in the Greek or of the variation in the Syriac, is seen\nat once,--are certainly startling; but they are too free; and how could\nthe Fathers, Jerome for example, remain ignorant of the existence of\nthis Chaldaic original? My own opinion is, as I said before, that the\nBook was written in Greek by an Alexandrian Jew, who had formed his\nstyle on that of the LXX., and was led still further to an imitation of\nthe Old Testament manner by the nature of his fiction, and as a dramatic\npropriety, and yet deviated from it partly on account of the very\nremoteness of his Platonic conceptions from the simplicity and poverty\nof the Hebrew; and partly because of the wordy rhetoric epidemic in\nAlexandria: and that it was written before the death, if not the birth,\nof Christ, I am induced to believe, because I do not think it probable\nthat a book composed by a Jew, who had confessed Christ after the\nresurrection, would so soon have been received by the Christians, and so\nearly placed in the very next rank to works of full inspiration.\n\nTaken, therefore, as a work 'ante', or at least 'extra, Christum', it is\nmost valuable as ascertaining the opinions of the learned Jews on many\nsubjects, and the general belief concerning immortality, and a day of\njudgment. On this ground Whitaker might have erected a most formidable\nbattery, that would have played on the very camp and battle-array of the\nSocinians, that is, of those who consider Christ only as a teacher of\nimportant truths.\n\nIn referring to the Cabala, I am not ignorant of the date of the oldest\nRabbinical writings which contain or refer to this philosophy, but I\ncoincide with Eichorn, and very many before Eichorn, that the\nfoundations of the Cabala were laid and well known long before Christ,\nthough not all the fanciful superstructure. I am persuaded that new\nlight might be thrown on the Apocalypse by a careful study of the Book\nSohar, and of whatever else there may be of that kind. The introduction\n(i. 4,) is clearly Cabala:--the [Greek: ho \u00f4n, ka\u00ec ho aen, ka\u00ec ho\nerch\u00f3menos]= 3, and the 'seven spirits' = 10 'Sephiroth', constituting\ntogether the 'Adam Kadmon', the second Adam of St. Paul, the incarnate\none in the Messiah.\n\nWere it not for the silence of Philo and Josephus, which I am unable to\nexplain if the Wisdom of Solomon was written so long before Christ, I\nmight perhaps incline to believe it composed shortly after, if not\nduring, the persecution of the Jews in Egypt under Ptolemy Philopator.\nThis hypothesis would give a particular point to the bitter exposure of\nidolatry, to the comparison between the sufferings of the Jews, and\nthose of idolatrous nations, to the long rehearsal and rhetorical\ndeclaration of the plagues of Egypt, and to the reward of 'the just man'\nafter a death of martyrdom; and would besides help to explain the\nputting together of the first ten chapters, and the fragment contained\nin the remaining chapters. They were works written at the same time, and\nby the same author: nay, I do not think it absurd to suppose, that the\nchapters after the tenth were annexed by the writer himself, as a long\nexplanatory appendix; or, possibly, if they were once a separate work,\nthese nine concluding chapters were parts of a book composed during the\npersecution in Egypt, the introduction and termination of which, being\npersonal and of local application, were afterwards omitted or expunged\nin order not to give offence to the other Egyptians,--perhaps, to spare\nthe shame of such Jews as had apostatized through fear, and in general\nnot to revive heart-burnings. In modern language I should call these\nchapters in their present state a Note on c. x. 15-19.\n\nOn a reperusal of this Book, I rather believe that these latter chapters\nnever formed part of any other work, but were composed as a sort of long\nexplanatory Postscript, with particular bearing on certain existing\ncircumstances, to which this part of the Jewish history was especially\napplicable. Nay, I begin to find the silence of Philo and Josephus less\ninexplicable, and to imagine that I discover the solution of this\nproblem in the very title of the Book. No one expects to find any but\nworks of authenticity enumerated in these writers; but to this a work,\ncalling itself the Wisdom of Solomon, both being a fiction and never\nmeant to pass for anything else, could make no pretensions. To have\napproximated it to the Holy Books of the nation would have injured the\ndignity of the Jewish Canon, and brought suspicion on the genuine works\nof Solomon, while it would have exposed to a charge of forgery a\ncomposition which was in itself only an innocent dramatic monologue. N.\nB. This hypothesis possesses all the advantages, and involves none of\nthe absurdity of that which would attribute the 'Ecclesiasticus' to the\ninfamous Jason, the High Priest. More than one commentator, I find, has\nsuspected that the Wisdom of Solomon and the second book of Maccabees\nwere by the same author. I think this nothing.\n\n\nIb. p. 36.\n\n  Philo throws out a number of declarations, that shew his own and the\n  Jewish belief in a secondary sort of God, a God subordinate in origin\n  to the Father of all, yet most intimately united with him, and sharing\n  his most unquestionable honours.\n\nThe belief of the Alexandrian Jews who had acquired Greek philosophy, no\ndoubt;--but of the Palestine Jews?\n\n\nIb. 2. p. 48.\n\n  St. John also is witnessed by a heathen (Amelius,) and by one who put\n  him down for a barbarian, to have represented the Logos as \"the Maker\n  of all things,\" as \"with 'God',\" and as \"God.\" And St. John is\n  attested to have declared this, \"not even as shaded over, but on the\n  contrary as placed in full view.\"\n\nStranger still. Whitaker could scarcely have read the Greek. Amelius\nsays, that these truths, if stripped of their allegorical dress,\n([Greek: metapephrasm\u00e9na ek taes tou Barb\u00e1rou theolog\u00edas]) would be\nplain;--that is, that John in an allegory, as of one particular man, had\nshadowed out the creation of all things by the Logos, and the after\nunion of the Logos with human nature,--that is, with all men. That this\nis his meaning, consult Plotinus.\n\n\nIb. 9. p. 107.\n\n  \"Seest thou not,\" adds Philo, in the same spirit of subtilizing being\n  into power, and dividing the Logos into two.\n\nWho that had even rested but in the porch of the Alexandrian philosophy,\nwould not rather say, 'of substantiating powers and attributes into\nbeing?' What is the whole system from Philo to Plotinus, and thence to\nProclus inclusively, but one fanciful process of hypostasizing logical\nconceptions and generic terms? In Proclus it is Logolatry run mad.\n\n\nChap. III. 1. p. 131-2.\n\n  Such would be the evidence for that divinity, to accompany the Book of\n  Wisdom, if we considered it to be as old as Solomon, or only as the\n  Son of Sirach. But I consider it to be much later than either, and\n  actually a work of Philo's. * * The language is very similar to\n  Philo's; flowing, lively and happy.\n\nHow is it possible to have read the short Hebraistic sentences of the\nBook of Wisdom, and the long involved periods that characterize the\nstyle of all Philo's known writings, and yet attribute both to one\nwriter? But indeed I know no instance of assertions made so audaciously,\nor of passages misrepresented and even mistranslated so grossly, as in\nthis work of Whitaker. His system is absolute naked Tritheism.\n\n\nIb.\n\n  The righteous man is shadowed out by the author with a plain reference\n  to our Saviour himself. \"'Let us lie in wait for the righteous',\" &c.\n\nHow then could Philo have remained a Jew?\n\n\nIb. 2. p. 195.\n\n  In all effects that are voluntary, the cause must be prior to the\n  effect, as the father is to the son in human generation. But in all\n  that are necessary, the effect must be coeval with the cause; as the\n  stream is with the fountain, and light with the sun. Had the sun been\n  eternal in its duration, light would have been co-eternal with it.\n\nA just remark; but it cuts two ways. For these necessary effects are not\nreally but only logically different or distinct from the cause:--the\nrays of the sun are only the sun diffused, and the whole rests on the\nsensitive form of material space. Take away the notion of material\nspace, and the whole distinction perishes.\n\n\nChap. IV. 1. p. 266.\n\n  Justin accordingly sets himself to shew, that in the beginning, before\n  all creatures, God generated a certain rational power out of himself.\n\nIs it not monstrous that the Jews having, according to Whitaker, fully\nbelieved a Trinity, one and all, but half a century or less before\nTrypho, Justin should never refer to this general faith, never reproach\nTrypho with the present opposition to it as a heresy from their own\nforefathers, even those who rejected Christ, or rather Jesus as\nChrist?--But no!--not a single objection ever strikes Mr. Whitaker, or\nappears worthy of an answer. The stupidest become authentic--the most\nfantastic abstractions of the Alexandrine dreamers substantial\nrealities! I confess this book has satisfied me how little erudition\nwill gain a man now-a-days the reputation of vast learning, if it be\nonly accompanied with dash and insolence. It seems to me impossible,\nthat Whitaker can have written well on the subject of Mary, Queen of\nScots, his powers of judgment being apparently so abject. For instance,\nhe says that the grossest moral improbability is swept away by positive\nevidence:--as if positive evidence (that is, the belief I am to yield to\nA. or B.) were not itself grounded on moral probabilities. Upon my word\nWhitaker would have been a choice judge for Charles II. and Titus Oates.\n\n\nIb. p. 267.\n\n  Justin therefore proceeds to demonstrate it, (the pre-existence of\n  Christ,) asserting Joshua to have given only a temporary inheritance\n  to the Jews, &c.\n\nA precious beginning of a precious demonstration! It is well for me that\nmy faith in the Trinity is already well grounded by the Scriptures, by\nBishop Bull, and the best parts of Plotinus, or this man would certainly\nhave made me either a Socinian or a Deist.\n\n\nIb. 2. p. 270.\n\n  The general mode of commencing and concluding the Epistles of St.\n  Paul, is a prayer of supplication for the parties, to whom they were\n  addressed; in which he says, 'Grace to you and peace from God our\n  Father, and'--from whom besides?--'the Lord Jesus Christ'; in which\n  our Saviour is at times invoked alone, as 'the Grace of our Lord Jesus\n  Christ be with you all'; and is even 'invoked' the first at times as,\n  'the Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the\n  communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all'; shews us plainly, &c.\n\nInvoked! Surely a pious wish is not an invocation. \"May good angels\nattend you!\" is no invocation or worship of angels. The essence of\nreligions adoration consists in the attributing, by an act of prayer or\npraise, a necessary presence to an object--which not being\ndistinguishable, if the object be sensuously present, we may safely\ndefine adoration as an acknowledgement of the actual and necessary\npresence of an intelligent being not present to our senses. \"May lucky\nstars shoot influence on you!\" would be a very foolish superstition,\n--but to say in earnest! \"O ye stars, I pray to you, shoot influences on\nme,\" would be idolatry. Christ was visually present to Stephen; his\ninvocation therefore was not perforce an act of religious adoration, an\nacknowledgment of Christ's deity.\n\n\n\n[Footnote 1: The Origin of Arianism Disclosed. By John Whitaker, B.D.\nLondon, 1791.]\n\n\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\n\nNOTES ON OXLEE ON THE TRINITY AND INCARNATION. [1] 1827\n\nStrange--yet from the date of the book of the Celestial Hierarchies of\nthe pretended Dionysius the Areopagite to that of its translation by\nJoannes Scotus Erigena, the contemporary of Alfred, and from Scotus to\nthe Rev. John Oxlee in 1815, not unfrequent--delusion of mistaking\nPantheism, disguised in a fancy dress of pious phrases, for a more\nspiritual and philosophic form of Christian Faith! Nay, stranger\nstill:--to imagine with Scotus and Mr. Oxlee that in a scheme which more\ndirectly than even the grosser species of Atheism, precludes all moral\nresponsibility and subverts all essential difference of right and wrong,\nthey have found the means of proving and explaining, \"the Christian\ndoctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation,\" that is, the great and only\nsufficient antidotes of the right faith against this insidious poison.\nFor Pantheism--trick it up as you will--is but a painted Atheism. A mask\nof perverted Scriptures may hide its ugly face, but cannot change a\nsingle feature.\n\n\nIntroduction, p. 4.\n\n  In the infancy of the Christian Church, and immediately after the\n  general dispersion which necessarily followed the sacking of Jerusalem\n  and Bither, the Greek and Latin Fathers had the fairest opportunity of\n  disputing with the Jews, and of evincing the truth of the Gospel\n  dispensation; but unfortunately for the success of so noble a design,\n  they were totally ignorant of the Hebrew Scriptures, and so wanted in\n  every argument that stamp of authority, which was equally necessary to\n  sanction the principles of Christianity, and to command the respect of\n  their Jewish antagonists. For the confirmation of this remark I may\n  appeal to the Fathers themselves, but especially to Barnabas, Justin,\n  and Iren\u00e6us, who in their several attempts at Hebrew learning betray\n  such portentous signs of ignorance and stupidity, that we are covered\n  with shame at the sight of their criticisms.\n\nMr. Oxlee would be delighted in reading Jacob Rhenferd's Disquisition on\nthe Ebionites and other supposed heretics among the Jewish Christians.\nAnd I cannot help thinking that Rhenferd, who has so ably anticipated\nMr. Oxlee on this point, and in Jortin's best manner displayed the gross\nignorance of the Gentile Fathers in all matters relating to Hebrew\nlearning, and the ludicrous yet mischievous results thereof, has formed\na juster though very much lower opinion of these Fathers, with a few\nexceptions, than Mr. Oxlee. I confess that till the light of the\ntwofoldness of the Christian Church dawned on my mind, the study of the\nhistory and literature of the Church during the first three or four\ncenturies infected me with a spirit of doubt and disgust which required\na frequent recurrence to the writings of John and Paul to preserve me\nwhole in the Faith.\n\n\nProp. I. ch. i. p. 16.\n\n  The truth of the doctrine is vehemently insisted on, in a variety of\n  places, by the great R. Moses ben Maimon; who founds upon it the unity\n  of the Godhead, and ranks it among the fundamental articles of the\n  Jewish religion. Thus in his celebrated Letter to the Jews of\n  Marseilles he observes, &c.\n\nBut what is obtained by quotations from Maimonides more than from\nAlexander Hales, or any other Schoolman of the same age? The metaphysics\nof the learned Jew are derived from the same source, namely, Aristotle;\nand his object was the same, as that of the Christian Schoolmen, namely,\nto systematize the religion he professed on the form and in the\nprinciples of the Aristotelian philosophy.\n\nBy the by, it is a serious defect in Mr. Oxlee's work, that he does not\ngive the age of the writers whom he cites. He cannot have expected all\nhis readers to be as learned as himself.\n\n\nIb. ch. iii. p. 26.\n\nMr. Oxlee seems too much inclined to identify the Rabbinical\ninterpretations of Scripture texts with their true sense; when in\nreality the Rabbis themselves not seldom used those interpretations as a\nconvenient and popular mode of conveying their own philosophic opinions.\nNeither have I been able to admire the logic so general among the\ndivines of both Churches, according to which if one, two, or perhaps\nthree sentences in any one of the Canonical books appear to declare a\ngiven doctrine, all assertions of a different character must have been\nmeant to be taken metaphorically.\n\n\nIb. p. 26-7.\n\n  The Prophet Isaiah, too, clearly inculcates the spirituality of the\n  Godhead in the following declaration: 'But Egypt is man, and not God:\n  and their horses flesh, and not spirit'. (c. xxxi. 3.) * * *. In the\n  former member the Prophet declares that Egypt was man, and not God;\n  and then in terms of strict opposition enforces the sentiment by\n  adding, that their cavalry was flesh, and not spirit; which is just as\n  if he had said: 'But Egypt, which has horses in war, is only a man,\n  that is, flesh, and not God, who is spirit'.\n\nAssuredly this is a false interpretation, and utterly unpoetical. It is\neven doubtful whether [Hebrew: unable to transliterate. txt Ed.]\n('ruach') in this place means 'spirit' in contradistinction to 'matter'\nat all, and not rather air or wind. At all events, the poetic decorum,\nthe proportion, and the antithetic parallelism, demand a somewhat as\nmuch below God, as the horse is below man. The opposition of 'flesh' and\n'spirit' in the Gospel of St. John, who thought in Hebrew, though he\nwrote in Greek, favours our common version,--'flesh and not spirit':\nbut the place in which this passage stands, namely, in one of the first\nforty chapters of Isaiah, and therefore written long before the\nCaptivity, together with the majestic simplicity characteristic of\nIsaiah's name gives perhaps a greater probability to the other: 'Egypt\nis man, and not God; and her horses flesh, and not wind'. If Mr. Oxlee\nrenders the fourth verse of Psalm civ.--'He maketh spirits his\nmessengers', (for our version--'He maketh his angels spirits'--is\nwithout a violent inversion senseless), this is a case in point for the\nuse of the word, 'spirits', in the sense of incorporeal beings. (Mr.\nOxlee will hardly, I apprehend, attribute the opinion of some later\nRabbis, that God alone and exclusively is a Spirit, to the Sacred\nWriters, easy as it would be to quote a score of texts in proof of the\ncontrary.) I, however, cannot doubt that the true rendering of the\nabove-mentioned verse in the Psalms is;--'He maketh the winds his angels\nor messengers, and the lightnings his ministrant servants'.\n\nAs to Mr. Oxlee's 'abstract intelligences,' I cannot but think\n'abstract' for 'pure,' and even pure intelligences for incorporeal, a\nlax use of terms. With regard to the point in question, the truth seems\nto be this. The ancient Hebrews certainly distinguished the principle or\nground of life, understanding, and will from ponderable, visible,\nmatter. The former they considered and called 'spirit', and believed it\nto be an emission from the Almighty Father of Spirits: the latter they\ncalled 'body'; and in this sense they doubtless believed in the\nexistence of incorporeal beings. But that they had any notion of\nimmaterial beings in the sense of Des Cartes, is contrary to all we know\nof them, and of every other people in the same degree of cultivation.\nAir, fire, light, express the degrees of ascending refinement. In the\ninfancy of thought the life, soul, mind, are supposed to be air--'anima,\nanimus', that is, [Greek: \u00e1nemos], spiritus, [Greek: pneuma]. In the\nchildhood, they are fire, 'mens ignea, ignicula', and God himself\n[Greek: pur noer\u00f2n, pur ae\u00edz\u00f4on]. Lastly, in the youth of thought, they\nare refined into light; and that light is capable of subsisting in a\nlatent state, the experience of the stricken flint, of lightning from\nthe clouds, and the like, served to prove, or at least, it supplied a\npopular answer to the objection;--\"If the soul be light, why is it not\nvisible?\" That the purest light is invisible to our gross sense, and\nthat visible light is a compound of light and shadow, were answers of a\nlater and more refined period. Observe, however, that the Hebrew\nLegislator precluded all unfit applications of the materializing fancy\nby forbidding the people to 'imagine' at all concerning God. For the ear\nalone, to the exclusion of all other bodily sense, was he to be\ndesignated, that is, by the Name. All else was for the mind--by power,\ntruth, wisdom, holiness, mercy.\n\n\nProp. II. ch. ii. p. 36.\n\nI fear I must surrender my hope that Mr. Oxlee was an exception to the\nrule, that the study of Rabbinical literature either finds a man\n'whimmy', or makes him so. If neither the demands of poetic taste, nor\nthe peculiar character of oracles, were of avail, yet morality and piety\nmight seem enough to convince any one that this vision of Micaiah, (2\n'Chron'. c. xviii. 18, &c.) was the poetic form, the veil, of the\nProphet's meaning. And a most sublime meaning it was. Mr. Oxlee should\nrecollect that the forms and personages of visions are all and always\nsymbolical.\n\n\nIb. pp. 39-40.\n\n  It will not avail us much, however, to have established their\n  incorporeity or spirituality, if what R. Moses affirms be true * * *.\n  This impious paradox * *. Swayed, however, by the authority of so\n  great a man, even R. David Kimchi has dilapsed into the same error,\n  &c.\n\nTo what purpose then are the crude metaphysics of these later Rabbis\nbrought forward, differing as they do in no other respect from the\ntheological 'dicta' of the Schoolmen, but that they are written in a\nsort of Hebrew. I am far from denying that an interpreter of the\nScriptures may derive important aids from the Jewish commentators: Aben\nEzra, (about 1150) especially, was a truly great man. But of this I am\ncertain, that he only will be benefited who can look down upon their\nworks, whilst studying them;--that is, he must thoroughly understand\ntheir weaknesses, superstitions, and rabid appetite for the marvellous\nand the monstrous; and then read them as an enlightened chemist of the\npresent day would read the writings of the old alchemists, or as a\nLinn\u00e6us might peruse the works of Pliny and Aldrovandus. If he can do\nthis, well;--if not, he will line his skull with cobwebs.\n\n\nIb. pp. 40, 41.\n\n  But how, I would ask, is this position to be defended? Surely not by\n  contradicting almost every part of the inspired volumes, in which such\n  frequent mention occurs of different and distinct angels appearing to\n  the Patriarchs and Prophets, sometimes in groups, and sometimes in\n  limited numbers * *. It is, indeed, so wholly repugnant to the general\n  tenor of the Sacred Writings, and so abhorrent from the piety of both\n  Jew and Christian, that the learned author himself, either forgetting\n  what he had before advanced, or else postponing his philosophy to his\n  religion, has absolutely maintained the contrary in his explication of\n  the Cherubim, &c.\n\nI am so far from agreeing with Mr. Oxlee on these points, that I not\nonly doubt whether before the Captivity any fair proof of the existence\nof Angels, in the present sense, can be produced from the inspired\nScriptures,--but think also that a strong argument for the divinity of\nChrist, and for his presence to the Patriarchs and under the Law, rests\non the contrary, namely, that the Seraphim were images no less\nsymbolical than the Cherubim. Surely it is not presuming too much of a\nClergyman of the Church of England to expect that he would measure the\nimportance of a theological tenet by its bearings on our moral and\nspiritual duties, by its practical tendencies. What is it to us whether\nAngels are the spirits of just men made perfect, or a distinct class of\nmoral and rational creatures? Augustine has well and wisely observed\nthat reason recognizes only three essential kinds;--God, man, beast. Try\nas long as you will, you can never make an Angel anything but a man with\nwings on his shoulders.\n\n\nIb. ch. III. p. 58.\n\n  But this deficiency in the Mosaic account of the creation is amply\n  supplied by early tradition, which inculcates not only that the angels\n  were created, but that they were created, either on the second day,\n  according to R. Jochanan, or on the fifth, according to R. Chanania.\n\nInspired Scripture amply supplied by the Talmudic and Rabbinical\ntraditions!--This from a Clergyman of the Church of England!\n\nI am, I confess, greatly disappointed. I had expected, I scarce know\nwhy, to have had some light thrown on the existence of the Cabala in its\npresent form, from Ezekiel to Paul and John. But Mr. Oxlee takes it as\nhe finds it, and gravely ascribes this patch-work of corrupt Platonism\nor Plotinism, with Chaldean, Persian, and Judaic fables and fancies, to\nthe Jewish Doctors, as an original, profound, and pious philosophy in\nits fountain-head! The indispensable requisite not only to a profitable\nbut even to a safe study of the Cabala is a familiar knowledge of the\ndocimastic philosophy, that is, a philosophy, which has for its object\nthe trial and testing of the weights and measures themselves, the first\nprinciples, definitions, postulates, axioms of logic and metaphysics.\nBut this is in no other way possible but by our enumeration of the\nmental faculties, and an investigation of the constitution, function,\nlimits, and applicability 'ad quas res', of each. The application to\nthis subject of the rules and forms of the understanding, or discursive\nlogic, or even of the intuitions of the reason itself, if reason be\nassumed as the first and highest, has Pantheism for its necessary\nresult. But this the Cabalists did: and consequently the Cabalistic\ntheosophy is Pantheistic, and Pantheism, in whatever drapery of pious\nphrases disguised, is (where it forms the whole of a system) Atheism,\nand precludes moral responsibility, and the essential difference of\nright and wrong. One of the two contra-distinctions of the Hebrew\nRevelation is the doctrine of positive creation. This, if not the only,\nis the easiest and surest criterion between the idea of God and the\nnotion of a 'mens agitans molem'. But this the Cabalists evaded by their\ndouble meaning of the term, 'nothing', namely as nought = 0, and as no\n'thing'; and by their use of the term, as designating God. Thus in words\nand to the ear they taught that the world was made out of nothing; but\nin fact they meant and inculcated, that the world was God himself\nexpanded. It is not, therefore, half a dozen passages respecting the\nfirst three 'proprietates'[2] in the Sephiroth, that will lead a wise\nman to expect the true doctrine of the Trinity in the Cabalistic scheme:\nfor he knows that the scholastic value, the theological necessity, of\nthis doctrine consists in its exhibiting an idea of God, which rescues\nour faith from both extremes, Cabalo-Pantheism, and Anthropomorphism. It\nis, I say, to prevent the necessity of the Cabalistic inferences that\nthe full and distinct developement of the doctrine of the Trinity\nbecomes necessary in every scheme of dogmatic theology. If the first\nthree 'proprietates' are God, so are the next seven, and so are all ten.\nGod according to the Cabalists is all in each and one in all. I do not\nsay that there is not a great deal of truth in this; but I say that it\nis not, as the Cabalists represent it, the whole truth. Spinoza himself\ndescribes his own philosophy as in substance the same with that of the\nancient Hebrew Doctors, the Cabalists--only unswathed from the Biblical\ndress.\n\n\nIb. p. 61.\n\n  Similar to this is the declaration of R. Moses ben Maimon. \"For that\n  influence, which flows from the Deity to the actual production of\n  abstract intelligences flows also from the intelligences to their\n  production from each other in succession,\" &c.\n\nHow much trouble would Mr. Oxlee have saved himself, had he in sober\nearnest asked his own mind, what he meant by emanation; and whether he\ncould attach any intelligible meaning to the term at all as applied to\nspirit.\n\n\nIb. p. 65.\n\n  Thus having, by variety of proofs, demonstrated the fecundity of the\n  Godhead, in that all spiritualities, of whatever gradation, have\n  originated essentially and substantially from it, like streams from\n  their fountain; I avail myself of this as another sound argument, that\n  in the sameness of the divine essence subsists a plurality of Persons.\n\nA plurality with a vengeance! Why, this is the very scoff of a late\nUnitarian writer,--only that he inverts the order. Mr. Oxlee proves ten\ntrillions of trillions in the Deity, in order to deduce 'a fortiori' the\nrationality of three: the Unitarian from the Three pretends to deduce\nthe equal rationality of as many thousands.\n\n\nIb. p. 66.\n\n  So, if without detriment to piety great things may be compared with\n  small, I would contend, that every intelligency, descending by way of\n  emanation or impartition from the Godhead, must needs be a personality\n  of that Godhead, from which it has descended, only so vastly unequal\n  to it in personal perfection, that it can form no part of its proper\n  existency.\n\nIs not this to all intents and purposes ascribing partibility to God?\nIndeed it is the necessary consequence of the emanation\nscheme?--Unequal!--Aye, various 'wicked' personalities of the\nGodhead?--How does this rhyme?--Even as a metaphor, emanation is an\nill-chosen term; for it applies only to fluids. 'Ramenta', unravellings,\nthreads, would be more germane.\n\n\n\n[Footnote 1: The Christian Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation\nconsidered and maintained on the principles of Judaism. By the Rev. John\nOxlee. London, 1815.]\n\n\n[Footnote 2: That is, Intelligence or the Crown, Knowledge, Wisdom. Ed.]\n\n\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\n\nNOTES ON A BARRISTER'S HINTS ON EVANGELICAL PREACHING. 1810. [1]\n\n\n  For only that man understands in deed\n    Who well remembers what he well can do;\n  The faith lives only where the faith doth breed\n    Obedience to the works it binds us to.\n  And as the Life of Wisdom hath exprest--\n  'If this ye know, then do it and be blest'.\n\n  LORD BROOK.\n\n\n'In initio'.\n\nThere is one misconception running through the whole of this Pamphlet,\nthe rock on which, and the quarry out of which, the whole reasoning, is\nbuilt;--an error therefore which will not indeed destroy its efficacy as\na [Greek: m\u00edsaetron] or anti-philtre to inflame the scorn of the enemies\nof Methodism, but which must utterly incapacitate it for the better\npurpose of convincing the consciences or allaying the fanaticism of the\nMethodists themselves; this is the uniform and gross mis-statement of\nthe one great point in dispute, by which the Methodists are represented\nas holding the compatibility of an impure life with a saving faith:\nwhereas they only assert that the works of righteousness are the\nconsequence, not the price, of Redemption, a gift included in the great\ngift of salvation;--and therefore not of merit but of imputation through\nthe free love of the Saviour.\n\n\nPart I. p. 49.\n\n  It is enough, it seems, that all the disorderly classes of mankind,\n  prompted as they are by their worst passions to trample on the public\n  welfare, should 'know' that they are, what every one else is convinced\n  they are, the pests of society, and the evil is remedied. They are not\n  to be exhorted to honesty, sobriety, or the observance of any laws,\n  human or divine--they must not even be entreated to do their best.\n  \"Just as 'absurd' would it be,\" we are told, \"in a physician to send\n  away his patient, when labouring under some desperate disease, with a\n  recommendation to do his utmost towards his own cure, and then to come\n  to him to finish it, as it is in the minister of the 'Gospel' to\n  propose to the sinner 'to do his best', by way of healing the disease\n  of the soul--and then to come to the Lord Jesus to perfect his\n  recovery. The 'only' previous qualification is to 'know' our misery,\n  and the remedy is prepared.\" See Dr. Hawker's Works, vol. vi. p. 117.\n\nFor \"know,\" let the Barrister substitute \"feel;\" that is, we know it as\nwe know our life; and then ask himself whether the production of such a\nstate of mind in a sinner would or would not be of greater promise as to\nhis reformation than the repetition of the Ten Commandments with\nparaphrases on the same.--But why not both? The Barrister is at least as\nwrong in the undervaluing of the one as the pseudo-Evangelists in the\nexclusion of the other.\n\n\nIb. p. 51.\n\n  Whatever these new Evangelists may teach to the contrary, the present\n  state of public morals and of public happiness would assume a very\n  different appearance if the thieves, swindlers, and highway robbers,\n  would 'do their best' towards maintaining themselves by honest labour,\n  instead of perpetually planning new systems of fraud, and new schemes\n  of depredation.\n\nThat is, if these thieves had a different will--not a mere wish, however\nanxious:--for this wish \"the libertine\" doubtless has, as described in\np. 50,--but an effective will. Well, and who doubts this? The point in\ndispute is, as to the means of producing this reformation in the will;\nwhich, whatever the Barrister may think, Christ at least thought so\ndifficult as to speak of it, not once or twice, but uniformly, as little\nless than miraculous, as tantamount to a re-creation. This Barrister may\nbe likened to an ignorant but well-meaning Galenist, who writing against\nsome infamous quack, who lived by puffing and vending pills of mercurial\nsublimate for all cases of a certain description, should have no\nstronger argument than to extol 'sarsaparilla', and 'lignum vit\u00e6', or\n'senna' in contempt of all mercurial preparations.\n\n\nIb. p. 56.\n\n  Not for the revenues of an Archbishop would he exhort them to a duty\n  'unknown in Scripture', of adding their five talents to the five they\n  have received, &c.\n\nAll this is mere calumny and wilful misstatement of the tenets of\nWesley, who never doubted that we are bound to improve our 'talents',\nor, on the other hand, that we are equally bound, having done so, to be\nequally thankful to the Giver of all things for the power and the will\nby which we improved the talents, as for the original capital which is\nthe object of the improvement. The question is not whether Christ will\nsay, 'Well done thou good and faithful servant', &c.;--but whether the\nservant is to say it of himself. Now Christ has delivered as positive a\nprecept against our doing this as the promise can be that he will impute\nit to us, if we do not impute it to our own merits.\n\n\nIb. p. 60.\n\n  The complaints of the profligacy of servants of every class, and of\n  the depravity of the times are in every body's hearing:--and these\n  Evangelical tutors--the dear Mr. Lovegoods of the day--deserve the\n  best attention of the public for thus instructing the ignorant\n  multitude, who are always ready enough to neglect their moral duties,\n  to despise and insult those by whom they are taught.\n\nAll this is no better than infamous slander, unless the Barrister can\nprove that these depraved servants and thieves are Methodists, or have\nbeen wicked in proportion as they were proselyted to Methodism. O folly!\nThis is indeed to secure the triumph of these enthusiasts.\n\n\nIb.\n\n  It must afford him (Rowland Hill) great consolation, amidst the\n  increasing immorality * * * that when their village Curate exhorts\n  them, if they have 'faith' in the doctrine of a world to come, to add\n  to it those 'good works' in which the sum and substance of religion\n  consist, he has led them to ridicule him, as 'chopping a\n  new-fashioned' logic.\n\nThat this is either false or nugatory, see proved in The Friend.\n\n\nIb. p. 68.\n\n  Tom Payne himself never laboured harder to root all virtue out of\n  society.--Mandeville nor Voltaire never even laboured so much.\n\nIndeed!\n\n\nIb.\n\n  They were content with declaring their disbelief of a future state.\n\nIn what part of their works? Can any wise man read Mandeville's Fable of\nthe Bees, and not see that it is a keen satire on the inconsistency of\nChristians, and so intended.\n\n\nIb. p. 71.\n\n  When the populace shall be once brought to a conviction that the\n  Gospel, as they are told, has neither terms nor conditions * * *, that\n  no sins can be too great, no life too impure, 'no offences too many or\n  too aggravated', to disqualify the perpetrators of them for\n  --salvation, &c.\n\nMerely insert the words \"sincere repentance and amendment of heart and\nlife, and therefore for\" salvation,--and is not this truth, and Gospel\ntruth? And is it not the meaning of the preacher? Did any Methodist ever\nteach that salvation may be attained without sanctification? This\nBarrister for ever forgets that the whole point in dispute is not\nconcerning the possibility of an immoral Christian being saved, which\nthe Methodist would deny as strenuously as himself, and perhaps give an\nausterer sense to the word immoral; but whether morality, or as the\nMethodists would call it, sanctification, be the price which we pay for\nthe purchase of our salvation with our own money, or a part of the same\nfree gift. God knows, I am no advocate for Methodism; but for fair\nstatement I am, and most zealously--even for the love of logic, putting\nhonesty out of sight.\n\n\nIb. p. 72.\n\n  \"In every age,\" says the moral divine (Blair), \"the practice has\n  prevailed of substituting certain appearances of piety in the place of\n  the great 'duties' of humanity and mercy,\" &c.\n\nWill the Barrister rest the decision of the controversy on a comparison\nof the lives of the Methodists and non-Methodists? Unless he knows that\ntheir \"morality has declined, as their piety has become more ardent,\" is\nnot his quotation mere labouring--nay, absolute pioneering--for the\ntriumphal chariot of his enemies?\n\n\nIb. pp. 75-79.\n\n  It is but fair to select a specimen of Evangelical preaching\nfrom one of its most celebrated and popular champions * *.\n\n  He will preface it with the solemn and woful communication of the\n  Evangelist John, in order to show how exactly they accord, how clearly\n  the doctrines of the one are deduced from the Revelation of the other,\n  and how justly, therefore, it assumes the exclusive title of\n  evangelical. 'And I saw the dead * * * and the dead were judged out of\n  those things which were written in the books, according to their\n  works. And the sea gave up the dead * * and they were judged every man\n  according to his works'. Rev. xx. 12, 13. Let us recall to mind the\n  urgent caution conveyed in the writings of Paul * * 'Be not deceived;\n  God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also\n  reap'. And let us further add * * the confirmation * * of the Saviour\n  himself:--'When the Son of Man shall come in his glory, * * * but the\n  righteous into life eternal'. Matt. xxv. 31, 'ad finem'. Let us now\n  attend to the Evangelical preacher, (Toplady). \"The Religion of Jesus\n  Christ stands eminently distinguished, and essentially differenced,\n  from every other religion that was ever proposed to human reception,\n  by this remarkable peculiarity; that, look abroad in the world, and\n  you will find that every religion, 'except one', puts you upon 'doing\n  something', in order to recommend yourself to God. A Mahometan * * A\n  Papist * * * It is only the religion of Jesus Christ that runs counter\n  to all the rest, by affirming--that we are 'saved' and called with a\n  holy calling, 'not' according to our works, but according to the\n  Father's own purpose and grace, which was 'not' sold to us 'on certain\n  conditions to be fulfilled by ourselves', but was given us in Christ\n  before the world began.\" Toplady's Works: Sermon on James ii. 18.\n\n'Si sic omnia'! All this is just and forcible; and surely nothing can be\neasier than to confute the Methodist by shewing that his very\n'no-doing', when he comes to explain it, is not only an act, a work, but\neven a very severe and perseverant energy of the will. He is therefore\nto be arraigned of nonsense and abuse of words rather than of immoral\ndoctrines.\n\n\nIb. p. 84.\n\n  The sacred volume of Holy Writ declares that 'true' (pure?) 'religion\n  and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the\n  fatherless and widow in their affliction, and to keep himself\n  unspotted from the world'. James i. 27\n\nThis is now at least, whatever might have been the meaning of the word\n'religion' in the time of the Translators, a false version. St. James is\nspeaking of persons eminently zealous in those public or private acts of\nworship, which we call divine service, [Greek: thraeske\u00eda]. It should be\nrendered, 'True worship', &c. The passage is a fine burst of rhetoric,\nand not a mere truism; just as when we say;--\"A cheerful heart is a\nperpetual thanksgiving, and a state of love and resignation the truest\nutterance of the Lord's Prayer.\" St. James opposes Christianity to the\noutward signs and ceremonial observances of the Jewish and Pagan\nreligions. But these are the only sure signs, these are the most\nsignificant ceremonial observances by which your Christianity is to be\nmade known,--'to visit the fatherless', &c. True religion does not\nconsist 'quoad essentiam' in these acts, but in that habitual state of\nthe whole moral being, which manifests itself by these acts--and which\nacts are to the religion of Christ that which ablutions, sacrifices and\nTemple-going were to the Mosaic religion, namely, its genuine [Greek:\nthraeske\u00eda]. That which was the religion of Moses is the ceremonial or\ncult of the religion of Christ. Moses commanded all good works, even\nthose stated by St. James, as the means of temporal felicity; and this\nwas the Mosaic religion; and to these he added a multitude of symbolical\nobservances; and these formed the Mosaic cult, ('cultus religionis',\n[Greek: thraeske\u00eda]). Christ commands holiness out of perfect love, that\nis, Christian religion; and adds to this no other ceremony or symbol\nthan a pure life and active beneficence; which (says St. James) are the\n'true cult'. [2]\n\n\nIb. p. 86.\n\n  There is no one whose writings are better calculated to do good, (than\n  those of Paley) by inculcating the essential duties of common life,\n  and the sound truths of practical Christianity.\n\nIndeed! Paley's whole system is reducible to this one precept:--\"Obey\nGod, and benefit your neighbour, because you love yourself above all.\"\nChrist has himself comprised his system in--\"Love your neighbour as\nyourself, and God above all.\" These \"sound truths of practical\nChristianity\" consist in a total subversion, not only of Christianity,\nbut of all morality;--the very words virtue and vice being but lazy\nsynonymes of prudence and miscalculation,--and which ought to be\nexpunged from our vocabularies, together with Abraxas and Abracadabra,\nas charms abused by superstitious or mystic enthusiasts.\n\n\nIb. p. 94.\n\n  Eventually the whole direction of the popular mind, in the affairs of\n  religion, will be gained into the hands of a set of ignorant fanatics\n  of such low origin and vulgar habits as can only serve to degrade\n  religion in the eyes of those to whom its influence is most wanted.\n  Will such persons venerate or respect it in the hands of a sect\n  composed in the far greater part of bigotted, coarse, illiterate, and\n  low-bred enthusiasts? Men who have abandoned their lawful callings, in\n  which by industry they might have been useful members of society, to\n  take upon themselves concerns the most sacred, with which nothing but\n  their vanity and their ignorance could have excited them to meddle.\n\nIt is not the buffoonery of the reverend joker of the Edinburgh Review;\nnot the convulsed grin of mortification which, sprawling prostrate in\nthe dirt from \"the whiff and wind\" of the masterly disquisition in the\nQuarterly Review, the itinerant preacher would pass oft' for the broad\ngrin of triumph; no, nor even the over-valued distinction of miracles,\n--which will prevent him from seeing and shewing the equal applicability\nof all this to the Apostles and primitive Christians. We know that\nTrajan, Pliny, Tacitus, the Antonines, Celsus, Lucian and the\nlike,--much more the ten thousand philosophers and joke-smiths of\nRome,--did both feel and apply all this to the Galilean Sect; and\nyet--'Vicisti, O Galil\u00e6e'!\n\n\nIb. p. 95.\n\n  They never fail to refer to the proud Pharisee, whom they term\n  self-'righteous'; and thus, having greatly misrepresented his\n  character, they proceed to declaim on the arrogance of founding any\n  expectation of reward from the performance of our 'moral\n  duties':--whereas the plain truth is that the Pharisee was 'not\n  righteous', but merely arrogated to himself that character; he had\n  neglected all the 'moral duties' of life.\n\nWho told the Barrister this? Not the Gospel, I am sure.\n\nThe Evangelical has only to translate these sentences into the true\nstatement of his opinions, in order to baffle this angry and impotent\nattack; the self-righteousness of all who expect to claim salvation on\nthe plea of their own personal merit. \"Pay to A. B. at sight--value\nreceived by me.\"--To Messrs. Stone and Co. Bankers, Heaven-Gate. It is a\nshort step from this to the Popish. \"Pay to A. B. 'or order'.\" Once\nassume merits, and I defy you to keep out supererogation and the old\n'Monte di Piet\u00e0'.\n\n\nIb. p. 97.\n\n  --and from thence occasion is taken to defame all those who strive to\n  prepare themselves, during this their state of trial, for that\n  judgment which they must undergo at that day, when they will receive\n  either reward or punishment, according as they shall be found to have\n  'merited' the one, or 'deserved' the other.\n\nCan the Barrister have read the New Testament? Or does he know it only\nby quotations?\n\n\nIb.\n\n  --a swarm of new Evangelists who are every where teaching the people\n  that no reliance is to be placed on holiness of life as a ground of\n  future acceptance.\n\nI am weary of repeating that this is false. It is only denied that mere\nacts, not proceeding from faith, are or can be holiness. As surely\n(would the Methodist say) as the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son, so\nsurely does sanctification from redemption, and not vice versa,--much\nless from self-sanctifiedness, that ostrich with its head in the sand,\nand the plucked rump of its merits staring on the divine [Greek: \u00c1tae]\n'venatrix'!\n\n\nIb. p. 102.\n\n  'He that doeth righteousness is righteous'. Since then it is plain\n  that each must 'himself' be righteous, if he be so at all, what do\n  they mean who thus inveigh against 'self'-righteousness, since Christ\n  himself declares there is no other?\n\nHere again the whole dispute lies in the word \"himself.\" In the outward\nand visible sense both parties agree; but the Methodist calls it \"the\nwill in us,\" given by grace; the Barrister calls it \"our own will,\" or\n\"we ourselves.\" But why does not the Barrister reserve a part of his\nwrath for Dr. Priestley, according to whom a villain has superior claims\non the divine justice as an innocent martyr to the grand machinery of\nProvidence;--for Dr. Priestley, who turns the whole dictionary of human\nnature into verbs impersonal with a perpetual 'subauditur' of 'Deus' for\ntheir common nominative case;--which said 'Deus', however, is but\nanother 'automaton', self-worked indeed, but yet worked, not properly\nworking, for he admits no more freedom or will to God than to man? The\nLutheran leaves the free will whining with a broken back in the ditch;\nand Dr. Priestley puts the poor animal out of his misery!--But\nseriously, is it fair or even decent to appeal to the Legislature\nagainst the Methodists for holding the doctrine of the Atonement? Do we\nnot pray by Act of Parliament twenty times every Sunday 'through the\nonly merits of Jesus Christ'? Is it not the very nose which (of flesh or\nwax) this very Legislature insists on as an indispensable qualification\nfor every Christian face? Is not the lack thereof a felonious deformity,\nyea, the grimmest feature of the 'lues confirmata' of statute heresy?\nWhat says the reverend critic to this? Will he not rise in wrath against\nthe Barrister,--he the Pamphagus of Homilitic, Liturgic, and Articular\northodoxy,--the Garagantua, whose ravenous maw leaves not a single word,\nsyllable, letter, no, not one 'iota' unswallowed, if we are to believe\nhis own recent and voluntary manifesto? [3] What says he to this\nBarrister, and his Hints to the Legislature?\n\n\nIb. p. 105.\n\n  If the new faith be the only true one, let us embrace it; but let not\n  those who vend these 'new articles' expect that we should choose them\n  with our eyes shut.\n\nLet any man read the Homilies of the Church of England, and if he does\nnot call this either blunt impudence or blank ignorance, I will plead\nguilty to both! New articles!! Would to Heaven some of them at least\nwere! Why, Wesley himself was scandalized at Luther's Commentary on the\nEpistle to the Galatians, and cried off from the Moravians (the\nstrictest Lutherans) on that account.\n\n\nIb. p. 114.\n\n  The catalogue of authors, which this Rev. Gentleman has pleased to\n  specify and recommend, begins with Homer, Hesiod, the Argonautics,\n  \u00c6schylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Pindar, Theognis, Herodotus,\n  Thucydides, Xenophon, Polybius, Diodorus Siculus. * * *. 'This\n  catalogue,' says he, 'might be considerably extended, but I study\n  brevity. It is only necessary for me to add that the recommendation of\n  these books is not to be considered as expressive of my approbation of\n  every particular sentiment they contain.' It would indeed be grievous\n  injustice if this writer's reputation should be injured by the\n  occasional unsoundness of opinion in writers whom it is more than\n  probable he may never have read, and for whose sentiments he ought no\n  more to be made answerable than the compiler of Lackington's\n  Catalogue, from which it is not unlikely that his own was abridged.\n\nVery good.\n\n\nIb. p. 115-16.\n\n  These high-strained pretenders to godliness, who deny the power of the\n  sinner to help himself, take good care always to attribute his 'saving\n  change' to the blessed effect of some sermon preached by some one or\n  other of 'their' Evangelical fraternity. They always hold 'themselves'\n  up to the multitude as the instruments producing all those marvellous\n  conversions which they relate. No instance is recorded in their\n  Saints' Calendar of any sinner resolving, in consequence of a\n  reflective and serious perusal of the Scriptures, to lead a new life.\n  No instance of a daily perusal of the Bible producing a daily progress\n  in virtuous habits. No, the 'Gospel' has no such effect.--It is\n  always the 'Gospel Preacher' who works the miracle, &c.\n\nExcellent and just. In this way are the Methodists to be attacked:--even\nas the Papists were by Baxter, not from their doctrines, but from their\npractices, and the spirit of their Sect. There is a fine passage in Lord\nBacon concerning a heresy of manner being not less pernicious than\nheresy of matter.\n\n\nIb. p. 118.\n\n  But their Saints, who would stop their ears if you should mention with\n  admiration the name of a Garrick or a Siddons;--who think it a sin to\n  support such an 'infamous profession' as that through the medium of\n  which a Milton, a Johnson, an Addison, and a Young have laboured to\n  mend the heart, &c.\n\nWhoo! See Milton's Preface to the Samson Agonistes.\n\n\nIb. p. 133.\n\n  In the Evangelical Magazine is the following article: \"At----in\n  Yorkshire, after a handsome collection (for the Missionary Society) a\n  poor man, whose wages are about 28s. per week, brought a donation of\n  20 guineas. Our friends hesitated to receive it * * when he answered *\n  *--'Before I knew the grace of our Lord I was a poor drunkard: I never\n  could save a shilling. My family were in beggary and rags; but since\n  it has pleased God to renew me by his grace, we have been industrious\n  and frugal: we have not spent many idle shillings; and we have been\n  enabled to put something into the Bank; and this I freely offer to the\n  blessed cause of our Lord and Saviour.' This is the second donation of\n  this same poor man to the same amount!\" Whatever these Evangelists may\n  think of such conduct, they ought to be ashamed of thus basely taking\n  advantage of this poor ignorant enthusiast, &c.\n\nIs it possible to read this affecting story without finding in it a\ncomplete answer to the charge of demoralizing the lower classes? Does\nthe Barrister really think, that this generous and grateful enthusiast\nis as likely to be unprovided and poverty-stricken in his old age, as he\nwas prior to his conversion? Except indeed that at that time his old age\nwas as improbable as his distresses were certain if he did live so long.\nThis is singing 'Io P\u00e6an'! for the enemy with a vengeance.\n\n\nPart II. p. 14.\n\n  It behoved him (Dr. Hawker in his Letter to the Barrister) to show in\n  what manner a covenant can exist without terms or conditions.\n\nAccording to the Methodists there is a condition,--that of faith in the\npower and promise of Christ, and the virtue of the Cross. And were it\notherwise, the objection is scarcely appropriate except at the Old\nBailey, or in the Court of King's Bench. The Barrister might have framed\na second law-syllogism, as acute as his former. The laws of England\nallow no binding covenant in a transfer of goods or chattels without\nvalue received. But there can be no value received by God:--'Ergo',\nthere can be no covenant between God and man. And if Jehovah should be\nas courteous as the House of Commons, and acknowledge the jurisdiction\nof the Courts at Westminster, the pleading might hold perhaps, and the\nPentateuch be quashed after an argument before the judges. Besides, how\nchildish to puff up the empty bladder of an old metaphysical foot-ball\non the 'modus operandi interior' of Justification into a shew of\npractical substance; as if it were no less solid than a cannon ball!\nWhy, drive it with all the vehemence that five toes can exert, it would\nnot kill a louse on the head of Methodism. Repentance, godly sorrow,\nabhorrence of sin as sin, and not merely dread from forecast of the\nconsequences, these the Arminian would call means of obtaining\nsalvation, while the Methodist (more philosophically perhaps) names them\nsigns of the work of free grace commencing and the dawning of the sun of\nredemption. And pray where is the practical difference?\n\n\nIb. p. 26.\n\n  Jesus answered him thus--'Verily, I say unto you, unless a man be born\n  of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of\n  God'.--The true sense of which is obviously this:--Except a man be\n  initiated into my religion by Baptism, (which 'at that time' was\n  always 'preceded by a confession of faith') and unless he manifest his\n  sincere reception of it, by leading that upright and 'spiritual' life\n  which it enjoins, 'he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven', or be a\n  partaker of that happiness which it belongs to me to confer on those\n  who believe in my name and keep my sayings.\n\nUpon my faith as a Christian, if no more is meant by being born again\nthan this, the speaker must have had the strongest taste in metaphors of\nany teacher in verse or prose on record, Jacob Behmen himself not\nexcepted. The very Alchemists lag behind. Pity, however, that our\nBarrister has not shown us how this plain and obvious business of\nBaptism agrees with ver. 8. of the same chapter: 'The wind bloweth where\nit listeth', &c. Now if this does not express a visitation of the mind\nby a somewhat not in the own power or fore-thought of the mind itself,\nwhat are words meant for?\n\n\nIb. p. 29.\n\n  The true meaning of being 'born again', in the sense in which our\n  Saviour uses the phrase, implies nothing more or less, in plain terms,\n  than this:--to repent; to lead for the future a religious life instead\n  of a life of disobedience; to believe the Holy Scriptures, and to pray\n  for grace and assistance to persevere in our obedience to the end. All\n  this any man of common sense might explain in a few words.\n\nPray, then, (for I will take the Barrister's own commentary,) what does\nthe man of common sense mean by grace? If he will explain grace in any\nother way than as the circumstances 'ab extra' (which would be mere\nmockery and in direct contradiction to a score of texts), and yet\nwithout mystery, I will undertake for Dr. Hawker and Co. to make the new\nbirth itself as plain as a pikestaff, or a whale's foal, or Sarah\nRobarts's rabbits.\n\n\nIb. p. 30.\n\n  So that they go on in their sin waiting for a new birth, &c.\n\n\"So that they go on in their sin!\"--Who would not suppose it notorious\nthat every Methodist meeting-house was a cage of Newgate larks making up\ntheir minds to die game?\n\n\nIb.\n\n  The following account is extracted from the Methodist Magazine for\n  1798: \"The Lord astonished 'Sarah Roberts' with his mercy, by 'setting\n  her at liberty, while employed' in the necessary business of 'washing'\n  for her family, &c.\n\nN. B. Not the famous rabbit-woman.--She was Robarts.\n\n\nIb. p. 31.\n\n  A washerwoman has 'all her sins blotted out' in the twinkling of an\n  eye, and while reeking with suds is received in the family of the\n  Redeemer's kingdom. Surely this is a most abominable profanation of\n  all that is serious, &c.\n\nAnd where pray is the absurdity of this? Has Christ declared any\nantipathy to washerwomen, or the Holy Ghost to warm suds? Why does not\nthe Barrister try his hand at the \"abominable profanation,\" in a story\nof a certain woman with an issue of blood who was made free by touching\nthe hem of a garment, without the previous knowledge of the wearer?\n\n  'Rode, caper, vitem: tamen hinc cum stabis ad aras, In tua quod fundi\n  cornua possit, erit'.\n\n\nIb. p. 32.\n\n  The leading design of John the Baptist * * was * this:--to prepare the\n  minds of men for the reception of that pure system of moral truth\n  which the Saviour, by divine authority, was speedily to inculcate, and\n  of those sublime doctrines of a resurrection and a future judgment,\n  which, as powerful motives to the practice of holiness, he was soon to\n  reveal.\n\nWhat then? Did not John the Baptist himself teach a pure system of moral\ntruth? Was John so much more ignorant than Paul before his conversion,\nand the whole Jewish nation, except a few rich freethinkers, as to be\nignorant of the \"sublime doctrines of a resurrection and a future\njudgment?\" This, I well know, is the strong-hold of Socinianism; but\nsurely one single unprejudiced perusal of the New Testament,--not to\nsuppose an acquaintance with Kidder or Lightfoot--would blow it down,\nlike a house of cards!\n\n\nIb. p. 33.\n\n --their faiths in the efficacy of their own rites, and creeds, and\n  ceremonies, and their whole train of 'substitutions' for 'moral duty',\n  was so entire, and in their opinion was such a 'saving faith', that\n  they could not at all interpret any language that seemed to dispute\n  their value, or deny their importance.\n\nPoor strange Jews! They had, doubtless, what Darwin would call a\nspecific 'paralysis' of the auditory nerves to the writings of their own\nProphets, which yet were read Sabbath after Sabbath in their public\nSynagogues. For neither John nor Christ himself ever did, or indeed\ncould, speak in language more contemptuous of the folly of considering\nrites as substitutions for moral duty, or in severer words denounce the\nblasphemy of such an opinion. Why need I refer to Isaiah or Micah?\n\n\nIb. p. 34.\n\n  Thus it was that this moral preacher explained and enforced the duty\n  of repentance, and thus it was that he prepared the way for the\n  greatest and best of teachers, &c.\n\nWell then, if all this was but a preparation for the doctrines of\nChrist, those doctrines themselves must surely have been something\ndifferent, and more difficult? Oh no! John's preparation consisted in a\ncomplete rehearsal of the 'Drama didacticum', which Christ and the\nApostles were to exhibit to a full audience!--Nay, prithee, good\nBarrister! do not be too rash in charging the Methodists with a\nmonstrous burlesque of the Gospel!\n\n\nIb. p. 37.\n\n  --the logic of the new Evangelists will convince him that it is a\n  contradiction in terms even to 'suppose' himself 'capable of doing any\n  thing' to help 'or bringing any thing to recommend himself to the\n  Divine favour'.\n\nNow, suppose the wisdom of these endless attacks on an old abstruse\nmetaphysical notion to be allowed, yet why in the name of common candour\ndoes not the Barrister ring the same 'tocsin' against his friend Dr.\nPriestley's scheme of Necessity;--or against his idolized Paley, who\nexplained the will as a sensation, produced by the action of the\nintellect on the muscles, and the intellect itself as a catenation of\nideas, and ideas as configurations of the organized brain? Would not\nevery syllable apply, yea, and more strongly, more indisputably? And\nwould his fellow-sectaries thank him, or admit the consequences? Or has\nany late Socinian divine discovered, that Do as ye would be done unto,\nis an interpolated precept?\n\n\nIb. p. 39.\n\n  \"Even repentance and faith,\" (says Dr. Hawker,) \"those most essential\n  qualifications of the mind, for the participation and enjoyment of the\n  blessings of the Gospel, (and which all real disciples of the Lord\n  Jesus cannot but possess,) are 'never supposed as a condition which\n  the sinner performs to entitle him to mercy', but merely as evidences\n  that he is brought and has obtained mercy. 'They cannot be the\n  conditions' of obtaining salvation.\"\n\nOught not this single quotation to have satisfied the Barrister, that no\npractical difference is deducible from these doctrines? \"Essential\nqualifications,\" says the Methodist:--\"terms and conditions,\" says the\nspiritual higgler. But if a man begins to reflect on his past life, is\nhe to withstand the inclination? God forbid! exclaim both. If he feels a\ncommencing shame and sorrow, is he to check the feeling? God forbid! cry\nboth in one breath! But should not remembrancers be thrown in the way of\nsinners, and the voice of warning sound through every street and every\nwilderness? Doubtless, quoth the Rationalist. We do it, we do it, shout\nthe Methodists. In every corner of every lane, in the high road, and in\nthe waste, we send forth the voice--Come to Christ, and repent, and be\ncleansed! Aye, quoth the Rationalist, but I say Repent, and become\nclean, and go to Christ--Now is not Mr. Rationalist as great a bigot as\nthe Methodists, as he is, 'me judice', a worse psychologist?\n\n\nPart II. p. 40.\n\n  The former authorities on this subject I had quoted from the Gospel\n  according to St. Luke: that Gospel most positively and most solemnly\n  declares the 'repentance' of sinners to be the 'condition' on which\n  'alone' salvation can be obtained. But the doctors of the new divinity\n  'deny' this: they tell us distinctly 'it cannot' be. For the future,\n  the Gospel according to Calvin must be received as the truth. Sinners\n  will certainly prefer it as the more comfortable of the two beyond all\n  comparison.\n\nMercy! but only to read Calvin's account of that repentance, without\nwhich there is no sign of election, and to call it \"the more comfortable\nof the two?\" The very term by which the German New-Birthites express it\nis enough to give one goose-flesh--'das Herzknirschen'--the very heart\ncrashed between the teeth of a lock-jaw'd agony!\n\n\nIb.\n\n  What is 'faith'? Is it not a conviction produced in the mind by\n  adequate testimony?\n\nNo! that is not the meaning of faith in the Gospel, nor indeed anywhere\nelse. Were it so, the stronger the testimony, the more adequate the\nfaith. Yet who says, I have faith in the existence of George II., as his\npresent Majesty's antecessor and grandfather?--If testimony, then\nevidence too;--and who has faith that the two sides of all triangles are\ngreater than the third? In truth, faith, even in common language, always\nimplies some effort, something of evidence which is not universally\nadequate or communicable at will to others. \"Well! to be sure he has\nbehaved badly hitherto, but I have faith in him.\" If it were otherwise,\nhow could it be imputed as righteousness? Can morality exist without\nchoice;--nay, strengthen in proportion as it becomes more independent of\nthe will? \"A very meritorious man! he has faith in every proposition of\nEuclid, which he understands.\"\n\n\nIb. p. 41.\n\n  \"I could as easily create a world (says Dr. Hawker) as create either\n  faith or repentance in my own heart.\" Surely this is a most monstrous\n  confession. What! is not the Christian religion a 'revealed' religion,\n  and have we not the most miraculous attestation of its truth?\n\nJust look at the answer of Christ himself to Nicodemus, 'John' iii. 2,\n3. Nicodemus professed a full belief in Christ's divine mission. Why? It\nwas attested by his miracles. What answered Christ? \"Well said, O\nbeliever?\" No, not a word of this; but the proof of the folly of such a\nsupposition. 'Verily, verily, I say unto thee; except a man be born\nagain, he cannot see the kingdom of God',--that is, he cannot have faith\nin me.\n\n\nIb. p. 42.\n\n  How can this evangelical preacher declaim on the necessity of\n  seriously searching into the truth of revelation, for the purpose\n  either of producing or confirming our belief of it, when he has\n  already pronounced it to be just as possible to arrive at conviction\n  as to create a world?\n\nDid Dr. Hawker say that it was impossible to produce an assent to the\nhistoric credibility of the facts related in the Gospel? Did he say that\nit was impossible to become a Socinian by the weighing of outward\nevidences? No! but Dr. Hawker says,--and I say,--that this is not,\ncannot be, what Christ means by faith, which, to the misfortune of the\nSocinians, he always demands as the condition of a miracle, instead of\nlooking forward to it as the natural effect of a miracle. How came it\nthat Peter saw miracles countless, and yet was without faith till the\nHoly Ghost descended on him? Besides, miracles may or may not be\nadequate evidence for Socinianism; but how could miracles prove the\ndoctrine of Redemption, or the divinity of Christ? But this is the creed\nof the Church of England.\n\nIt is wearisome to be under the necessity, or at least the constant\ntemptation, of attacking Socinianism, in reviewing a work professedly\nwritten against Methodism. Surely such a work ought to treat of those\npoints of doctrine and practice, which are peculiar to Methodism. But to\npublish a 'diatribe' against the substance of the Articles and Catechism\nof the English Church, nay, of the whole Christian world, excepting the\nSocinians, and to call it \"Hints concerning the dangerous and abominable\nabsurdities of Methodism,\" is too bad.\n\n\nIb. p. 43.\n\n  But this Calvinistic Evangelist tells us, by way of accounting for the\n  utter impossibility of producing in himself either faith or\n  repentance, that both are of divine origin, and like the light, and\n  the rain, and the dew of heaven, which tarrieth not for man, neither\n  waiteth for the sons of men, are from above, and come down from the\n  Father of lights, from whom alone cometh every good and perfect gift!\n\nIs the Barrister--are the Socinian divines--inspired, or infallibly sure\nthat it is a crime for a Christian to understand the words of Christ in\ntheir plain and literal sense, when a Socinian chooses to give his\nparaphrase,--often, too, as strongly remote from the words, as the old\nspiritual paraphrases on the Song of Solomon?\n\n\nIb. p. 46.\n\n  According to that Gospel which hath hitherto been the pillar of the\n  Christian world, we are taught that whosoever endeavours to the best\n  of his ability to reform his manners, and amend his life, will have\n  pardon and acceptance.\n\nAs interpreted by whom? By the Socini, or the Barrister?--Or by Origen,\nChrysostom, Jerome, the Gregories, Eusebius, Athanasius?--By Thomas\nAquinas, Bernard, Thomas-a-Kempis?--By Luther, Melancthon, Zuinglius,\nCalvin?--By the Reformers and martyrs of the English Church?--By\nCartwright and the learned Puritans?--By Knox?--By George Fox?--With\nregard to this point, that mere external evidence is inadequate to the\nproduction of a saving faith, and in the majority of other opinions, all\nthese agree with Wesley. So they all understood the Gospel. But it is\nnot so! 'Ergo', the Barrister is infallible.\n\n\nIb. p. 47.\n\n  'When the wicked man turneth away from the wickedness which he hath\n  committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his\n  soul alive'. This gracious declaration the old moral divines of our\n  Church have placed in the front of its Liturgy.\n\nIn the name of patience, over and over again, who has ever denied this?\nThe question is, by what power, his own, or by the free grace of God\nthrough Christ, the wicked man is enabled to turn from his wickedness.\nAnd again and again I ask:--Were not these \"old moral divines\" the\nauthors and compilers of the Homilies? If the Barrister does not know\nthis, he is an ignorant man; if knowing it, he has yet never examined\nthe Homilies, he is an unjust man; but if he have, he is a slanderer and\na sycophant.\n\nIs it not intolerable to take up three bulky pamphlets against a recent\nSect, denounced as most dangerous, and which we all know to be most\npowerful and of rapid increase, and to find little more than a weak\ndeclamatory abuse of certain metaphysical dogmas concerning free will,\nor free will forfeited, 'de libero vel servo arbitrio'--of grace,\npredestination, and the like;--dogmas on which, according to Milton, God\nand the Logos conversed, as soon as man was in existence, they in\nheaven, and Adam in paradise, and the devils in hell;--dogmas common to\nall religions, and to all ages and sects of the Christian\nreligion;--concerning which Brahmin disputes with Brahmin, Mahometan\nwith Mahometan, and Priestley with Price;--and all this to be laid on\nthe shoulders of the Methodists collectively: though it is a notorious\nfact, that a radical difference on this abstruse subject is the ground\nof the schism between the Whitfieldite and Wesleyan Methodists; and that\nthe latter coincide in opinion with Erasmus and Arminius, by which\nlatter name they distinguish themselves; and the former with Luther,\nCalvin, and their great guide, St. Augustine? This I say is\nintolerable,--yea, a crime against sense, candour, and white paper.\n\n\nIb. p. 50.\n\n  \"For so very peculiarly directed to the sinner, and to him only (says\n  the evangelical preacher) is the blessed Gospel of the Lord Jesus,\n  that unless you are a sinner, you are not interested in its saving\n  truths.\"\n\nDoes not Christ himself say the same in the plainest and most\nunmistakable words? 'I come not to call the righteous, but sinners to\nrepentance. They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are\nsick'. Can he, who has no share in the danger, be interested in the\nsaving? Pleased from benevolence he may be; but interested he cannot be.\n'Estne aliquid inter salvum et salutem; inter liberum et libertatem?\nSalus est pereuntis, vel saltem periditantis: redemptio, quasi pons\ndivinus, inter servum et libertatem,--amissam, ideoque optatam'.\n\n\nIb. p. 52.\n\n  It was reserved for these days of 'new discovery' to announce to\n  mankind that, unless they are sinners, they are excluded from the\n  promised blessings of the Gospel.\n\nMerely read 'that unless they are sick they are precluded from the\noffered remedies of the Gospel;' and is not this the dictate of common\nsense, as well as of Methodism? But does not Methodism cry aloud that\nall men are sick--sick to the very heart? 'If we say we are without sin,\nwe deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us'. This shallow-pated\nBarrister makes me downright piggish, and without the stratagem of that\nfamed philosopher in pig-nature almost drives me into the Charon's hoy\nof Methodism by his rude and stupid tail-hauling me back from it.\n\n\nIb. p. 53.\n\n  I can assure these gentlemen that I regard with a reverence as pure\n  and awful as can enter into the human mind, that blood which was shed\n  upon the Cross.\n\nThat is, in the Barrister's creed, that mysterious flint, which with the\nsubordinate aids of mutton, barley, salt, turnips, and potherbs, makes\nmost wonderful fine flint broth. Suppose Christ had never shed his\nblood, yet if he had worked his miracles, raised Lazarus, and taught the\nsame doctrines, would not the result have been the same?--Or if Christ\nhad never appeared on earth, yet did not Daniel work miracles as\nstupendous, which surely must give all the authority to his doctrines\nthat miracles can give? And did he not announce by the Holy Spirit the\nresurrection to judgment, of glory or of punishment?\n\n\nIb. p. 54.\n\n  Let them not attempt to escape it by quoting a few disconnected\n  phrases in the Epistles, but let them adhere solely and steadfastly to\n  that Gospel of which they affect to be the exclusive preachers.\n\nAnd whence has the Barrister learnt that the Epistles are not equally\nbinding on Christians as the four Gospels? Surely, of St. Paul's at\nleast, the authenticity is incomparably clearer than that of the first\nthree Gospels; and if he give up, as doubtless he does, the plenary\ninspiration of the Gospels, the personal authority of the writers of all\nthe Epistles is greater than two at least of the four Evangelists.\nSecondly, the Gospel of John and all the Epistles were purposely written\nto teach the Christian Faith; whereas the first three Gospels are as\nevidently intended only as 'memorabilia' of the history of the Christian\nRevelation, as far as the process of Redemption was carried on in the\nlife, death, and resurrection of the divine Founder. This is the blank,\nbrazen, blushless, or only brass-blushing, impudence of an Old Bailey\nBarrister, attempting to browbeat out of Court the better and more\nauthentic half of the witnesses against him. If I wished to understand\nthe laws of England, shall I consult Hume or Blackstone--him who has\nwritten his volumes expressly as comments on those laws, or the\nhistorian who mentions them only as far as the laws were connected with\nthe events and characters which he relates or describes? Nay, it is far\nworse than this; far Christ himself repeatedly defers the publication of\nhis doctrines till after his death, and gives the reason too, that till\nhe had sent the Holy Ghost, his disciples were not capable of\ncomprehending them. Does he not attribute to an immediate influence of\nespecial inspiration even Peter's acknowledgment of his Filiation to\nGod, or Messiahship?--Was it from the Gospels that Paul learned to know\nChrist?--Was the Church sixty years without the awful truths taught\nexclusively in John's Gospel?\n\n\nPart III. p. 5.\n\n  The 'nostrum' of the mountebank will he preferred to the prescription\n  of the regular practitioner. Why is this? Because there is something\n  in the authoritative arrogance of the pretender, by which ignorance is\n  overawed.\n\nThis is something; and true as far as it goes; that is, however, but a\nvery little way. The great power of both spiritual and physical\nmountebanks rests on that irremovable property of human nature, in force\nof which indefinite instincts and sufferings find no echo, no\nresting-place, in the definite and comprehensible. Ignorance\nunnecessarily enlarges the sphere of these: but a sphere there\nis,--facts of mind and cravings of the soul there are,--in which the\nwisest man seeks help from the indefinite, because it is nearer and more\nlike the infinite, of which he is made the image:--for even we are\ninfinite, even in our finiteness infinite, as the Father in his\ninfinity. In many caterpillars there is a large empty space in the head,\nthe destined room for the pushing forth of the 'antenn\u00e6' of its next\nstate of being.\n\n\nIb. p. 12.\n\n  But the anti-moralists aver * * that they are quoted unfairly;--that\n  although they disavow, it is true, the necessity, and deny the value,\n  of practical morality and personal holiness, and declare them to be\n  totally irrelevant to our future salvation, yet that * * I might have\n  found occasional recommendations of moral duty which I have neglected\n  to notice.\n\nThe same 'crambe bis decies cocta' of one self-same charge grounded on\none gross and stupid misconception and mis-statement: and to which there\nneeds no other answer than this simple fact. Let the Barrister name any\none gross offence against the moral law, for which he would shun a man's\nacquaintance, and for that same vice the Methodist would inevitably be\nexcluded publicly from their society; and I am inclined to think that a\nfair list of the Barrister's friends and acquaintances would prove that\nthe Calvinistic Methodists are the austerer and more watchful censors of\nthe two. If this be the truth, as it notoriously is, what but the\ncataract of stupidity uncouched, or the thickest film of bigot-slime,\ncan prevent a man from seeing that this tenet of justification by faith\nalone is exclusively a matter between the Calvinist's own heart and his\nMaker, who alone knows the true source of his words and actions; but\nthat to his neighbours and fellow-creedsmen, his spotless life and good\nworks are demanded, not, indeed, as the prime efficient causes of his\nsalvation, but as the necessary and only possible signs of that faith,\nwhich is the means of that salvation of which Christ's free grace is the\ncause, and the sanctifying Spirit the perfecter. But I fall into the\nsame fault I am arraigning, by so often exposing and confuting the same\nblunder, which has no claim even at its first enunciation to the\ncompliment of a philosophical answer. But why, in the name of common\nsense, all this endless whoop and hubbub against the Calvinistic\nMethodists? I had understood that the Arminian Methodists, or Wesleyans,\nare the more numerous body by far. Has there been any union lately? Have\nthe followers of Wesley abjured the doctrines of their founder on this\nhead?\n\n\nIb. p. 16.\n\n  We are told by our new spiritual teachers, that reason is not to be\n  applied to the inquiry into the truth or falsehood of their doctrines;\n  they are spiritually discerned, and carnal reason has no concern with\n  them.\n\nEven under this aversion to reason, as applied to religious grounds, a\nvery important truth lurks: and the mistake (a very dangerous one I\nadmit,) lies in the confounding two very different faculties of the mind\nunder one and the same name;--the pure reason or 'vis scientifica'; and\nthe discourse, or prudential power, the proper objects of which are the\n'ph\u00e6nomena' of sensuous experience. The greatest loss which modern\nphilosophy has through wilful scorn sustained, is the grand distinction\nof the ancient philosophers between the [Greek: no\u00famena], and [Greek:\nphain\u00f3mena]. This gives the true sense of Pliny--'venerare Deos' (that\nis, their statues, and the like,) 'et numina Deorum', that is, those\nspiritual influences which are represented by the images and persons of\nApollo, Minerva, and the rest.\n\n\nIb. p. 17.\n\n  Religion has for its object the moral care and the moral cultivation\n  of man. Its beauty is not to be sought in the regions of mystery, or\n  in the flights of abstraction.\n\nWhat ignorance! Is there a single moral precept of the Gospels not to be\nfound in the Old Testament? Not one. A new edition of White's\n'Diatessaron', with a running comment the Hebrew, Greek, and Roman\nwriters before Christ, and those after him who, it is morally certain,\ndrew no aids from the New Testament, is a grand 'desideratum'; and if\nanything could open the eyes of Socinians, this would do it.\n\n\nIb. p. 24.\n\n  The masculine strength and moral firmness which once distinguished the\n  great mass of the British people is daily fading away. Methodism with\n  all its cant, &c.\n\nWell! but in God's name can Methodism be at once the effect and the\ncause of this loss of masculine strength and moral firmness?--Did\nWhitfield and Wesley blow them out at the first puff--these grand\nvirtues of masculine strength and moral firmness? Admire, I pray you,\nthe happy antithesis. Yet \"feminine\" would be an improvement, as then\nthe sense too would be antithetic. However, the sound is sufficient, and\nmodern rhetoric possesses the virtue of economy.\n\n\nIb. p. 27.\n\n  So with the Tinker; I would give him the care of kettles, but I would\n  not give him 'the cure of souls'. So long as he attended to the\n  management and mending of his pots and pans, I would wish success to\n  his ministry: but when he came to declare 'himself' a \"chosen vessel,\"\n  and demand permission to take the souls of the people into his holy\n  keeping, I should think that, instead of a 'licence', it would be more\n  humane and more prudent to give him a passport to St. Luke's. Depend\n  upon it, such men were never sent by Providence to rule or to regulate\n  mankind.\n\nWhoo! Bounteous Providence that always looks at the body clothes and the\nparents' equipage before it picks out the proper soul for the baby! Ho!\nthe Duchess of Manchester is in labour:--quick, Raphael, or Uriel, bring\na soul out of the Numa bin, a young Lycurgus. Or the Archbishop's\nlady:--ho! a soul from the Chrysostom or Athanasian locker.--But poor\nMoll Crispin is in the throes with twins:--well! there are plenty of\ncobblers' and tinkers' souls in the hold--John Bunyan!! Why, thou\nmiserable Barrister, it would take an angel an eternity to tinker thee\ninto a skull of half his capacity!\n\n\nIb. p. 30, 31.\n\n  \"A 'truly' awakened conscience,\" (these anti-moral editors of the\n  Pilgrim's Progress assure us,) \"can never find relief from the law:\n  (that is, the 'moral law'.) The more he looks for peace 'this way, his\n  guilt', like a heavy burden, becomes more intolerable; when he becomes\n  'dead' to the 'law',--as to 'any dependence upon it for\n  salvation',--by the body of Christ, and married to him, who was raised\n  from the dead, then, and not till then, his heart is set at liberty,\n  to run the way of God's commandments.\"\n\n  Here we are taught that the 'conscience' can never find relief from\n  obedience to the law of the Gospel.\n\nFalse. We are told by Bunyan and his editors that the conscience can\nnever find relief for its disobedience to the Law in the Law\nitself;--and this is as true of the moral as of the Mosaic Law. I am not\ndefending Calvinism or Bunyan's theology; but if victory, not truth,\nwere my object, I could desire no easier task than to defend it against\nour doughty Barrister. Well, but I repent--that is, regret it!--Yes! and\nso you doubtless regret the loss of an eye or arm:--will that make it\ngrow again?--Think you this nonsense as applied to morality? Be it so!\nBut yet nonsense most tremendously suited to human nature it is, as the\nBarrister may find in the arguments of the Pagan philosophers against\nChristianity, who attributed a large portion of its success to its\nholding out an expiation, which no other religion did. Read but that\nmost affecting and instructive anecdote selected from the Hindostan\nMissionary Account by the Quarterly Review. [4] Again let me say I am\nnot giving my own opinion on this very difficult point; but of one thing\nI am convinced, that the 'I am sorry for it, that's enough'--men mean\nnothing but regret when they talk of repentance, and have consciences\neither so pure or so callous, as not to know what a direful and strange\nthing remorse is, and how absolutely a fact 'sui generis'! I have often\nremarked, and it cannot be too often remarked (vain as this may sound),\nthat this essential heterogeneity of regret and remorse is of itself a\nsufficient and the best proof of free will and reason, the co-existence\nof which in man we call conscience, and on this rests the whole\nsuperstructure of human religion--God, immortality, guilt, judgment,\nredemption. Whether another and different superstructure may be raised\non the same foundation, or whether the same edifice is susceptible of\nimportant alteration, is another question. But such is the edifice at\npresent, and this its foundation: and the Barrister might as rationally\nexpect to blow up Windsor Castle by discharging a popgun in one of its\ncellars, as hope to demolish Calvinism by such arguments as his.\n\n\nIb. p. 35, 36.\n\n  \"And behold a certain lawyer stood up and tempted him, saying, Master,\n  what shall I do 'to inherit eternal life'?\"\n\n  \"He said unto him, 'What is written in the law? How readest thou?'\"\n\n  \"And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy\n  heart, with all thy soul, and with 'all thy strength', and with all\n  thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.\"\n\n  \"And he said unto him, Thou 'hast answered right. This do, and thou\n  shall live.'\"\n\n  Luke x. 25-28.\n\nSo would Bunyan, and so would Calvin have preached;--would both of them\nin the name of Christ have made this assurance to the Barrister--'This\ndo, and thou shalt live.' But what if he has not done it, but the very\ncontrary? And what if the Querist should be a staunch disciple of Dr.\nPaley: and hold himself \"morally obliged\" not to hate or injure his\nfellow-man, not because he is compelled by conscience to see the\nexceeding sinfulness of sin, and to abhor sin as sin, even as he eschews\npain as pain,--no, not even because God has forbidden it;--but\nultimately because the great Legislator is able and has threatened to\nput him to unspeakable torture if he disobeys, and to give him all kind\nof pleasure if he does not? [5] Why, verily, in this case, I do foresee\nthat both the Tinker and the Divine would wax warm, and rebuke the said\nQuerist for vile hypocrisy, and a most nefarious abuse of God's good\ngift, intelligible language. What! do you call this 'loving the Lord\nyour God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your\nstrength, and all your mind,--and your neighbour as yourself'? Whereas\nin truth you love nothing, not even your own soul; but only set a\nsuperlative value on whatever will gratify your selfish lust of\nenjoyment, and insure you from hell-fire at a thousand times the true\nvalue of the dirty property. If you have the impudence to persevere in\nmis-naming this \"love,\" supply any one instance in which you use the\nword in this sense? If your son did not spit in your face, because he\nbelieved that you would disinherit him if he did, and this were his main\nmoral obligation, would you allow that your son loved you--and with all\nhis heart, and mind, and strength, and soul?--Shame! Shame!\n\nNow the power of loving God, of willing good as good, (not of desiring\nthe agreeable, and of preferring a larger though distant delight to an\ninfinitely smaller immediate qualification, which is mere selfish\nprudence,) Bunyan considers supernatural, and seeks its source in the\nfree grace of the Creator through Christ the Redeemer:--this the Kantean\nalso avers to be supersensual indeed, but not supernatural, but in the\noriginal and essence of human nature, and forming its grand and awful\ncharacteristic. Hence he calls it 'die Menschheit'--the principle of\nhumanity;--but yet no less than Calvin or the Tinker declares it a\nprinciple most mysterious, the undoubted object of religious awe, a\nperpetual witness of that God, whose image ([Greek: eik\u00f4n]) it is; a\nprinciple utterly incomprehensible by the discursive intellect;--and\nmoreover teaches us, that the surest plan for stifling and paralyzing\nthis divine birth in the soul (a phrase of Plato's as well as of the\nTinker's) is by attempting to evoke it by, or to substitute for it, the\nhopes and fears, the motives and calculations, of prudence; which is an\nexcellent and in truth indispensable servant, but considered as master\nand primate of the moral diocese precludes the possibility of virtue (in\nBunyan's phrase, holiness of spirit) by introducing legality; which is\nno cant phrase of Methodism, but of authenticated standing in the ethics\nof the profoundest philosophers--even those who rejected Christianity,\nas a miraculous event, and revelation itself as far as anything\nsupernatural is implied in it. I must not mention Plato, I suppose,--he\nwas a mystic; nor Zeno,--he and his were visionaries:--but Aristotle,\nthe cold and dry Aristotle, has in a very remarkable passage in his\nlesser tract of Ethics asserted the same thing; and called it \"a divine\nprinciple, lying deeper than those things which can be explained or\nenunciated discursively.\"\n\n\nIb. p. 45, 46.\n\n  Sure I am that no father of a family that can at all estimate the\n  importance of keeping from the infant mind whatever might raise impure\n  ideas or excite improper inquiries will ever commend the Pilgrim's\n  Progress to their perusal.\n\nAnd in the same spirit and for the same cogent reasons that the holy\nmonk Lewis prohibited the Bible in all decent families;--or if they must\nhave something of that kind, would propose in preference Tirante the\nWhite! O how I abhor this abominable heart-haunting impurity in the\nenvelope of modesty! Merciful Heaven! is it not a direct consequence\nfrom this system, that we all purchase our existence at the price of our\nmother's purity of mind? See what Milton has written on this subject in\nthe passage quoted in the Friend in the essays on the communication of\ntruth. [6]\n\n\nIb. p. 47.\n\n  Let us ask whether the female mind is likely to be trained to purity\n  by studying this manual of piety, and by expressing its devotional\n  desires after the following example. \"Mercy being a _young_ and\n  _breeding_ woman _longed_ for something,\" &c.\n\nOut upon the fellow! I could find it in my heart to suspect him of any\nvice that the worst of men could commit!\n\n\nIb. pp. 55, 56.\n\n  'As by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the\n  obedience of one shall many be made righteous'. The interpretation of\n  this text is simply this:--As by following the fatal example of one\n  man's disobedience many were made sinners; so by that pattern of\n  perfect obedience which Christ has set before us shall many be made\n  righteous.\n\nWhat may not be explained thus? And into what may not any thing be thus\nexplained? It comes out little better than nonsense in any other than\nthe literal sense. For let any man of sincere mind and without any\nsystem to support look round on all his Christian neighbours, and will\nhe say or will they say that the origin of their well-doing was an\nattempt to imitate what they all believe to be inimitable, Christ's\nperfection in virtue, his absolute sinlessness? No--but yet perhaps some\nparticular virtues; for instance, his patriotism in weeping over\nJerusalem, his active benevolence in curing the sick and preaching to\nthe poor, his divine forgiveness in praying for his enemies?--I grant\nall this. But then how is this peculiar to Christ? Is it not the effect\nof all illustrious examples, of those probably most which we last read\nof, or which made the deepest impression on our feelings? Were there no\ngood men before Christ, as there were no bad men before Adam? Is it not\na notorious fact that those who most frequently refer to Christ's\nconduct for their own actions, are those who believe him the incarnate\nDeity--consequently, the best possible guide, but in no strict sense an\nexample;--while those who regard him as a mere man, the chief of the\nJewish Prophets, both in the pulpit and from the press ground their\nmoral persuasions chiefly on arguments drawn from the propriety and\nseemliness--or the contrary--of the action itself, or from the will of\nGod known by the light of reason? To make St. Paul prophesy that all\nChristians will owe their holiness to their exclusive and conscious\nimitation of Christ's actions, is to make St. Paul a false prophet;--and\nwhat in such case becomes of the boasted influence of miracles? Even as\nfalse would it be to ascribe the vices of the Chinese, or even our own,\nto the influence of Adam's bad example. As well might we say of a poor\nscrofulous innocent: \"See the effect of the bad example of his father on\nhim!\" I blame no man for disbelieving, or for opposing with might and\nmain, the dogma of Original Sin; but I confess that I neither respect\nthe understanding nor have confidence in the sincerity of him, who\ndeclares that he has carefully read the writings of St. Paul, and finds\nin them no consequence attributed to the fall of Adam but that of his\nbad example, and none to the Cross of Christ but the good example of\ndying a martyr to a good cause. I would undertake from the writings of\nthe later English Socinians to collect paraphrases on the New Testament\ntexts that could only be paralleled by the spiritual paraphrase on\nSolomon's Song to be found in the recent volume of \"A Dictionary of the\nHoly Bible, by John Brown, Minister of the Gospel at Haddington:\" third\nedition, in the Article, Song.\n\n\nIb. p. 63, 64.\n\n  Call forth the robber from his cavern, and the midnight murderer from\n  his den; summon the seducer from his couch, and beckon the adulterer\n  from his embrace; cite the swindler to appear; assemble from every\n  quarter all the various miscreants whose vices deprave, and whose\n  villainies distress, mankind; and when they are thus thronged round in\n  a circle, assure them--not that there is a God that judgeth the\n  earth--not that punishment in the great day of retribution will await\n  their crimes, &c. &c.--Let every sinner in the throng be told that\n  they will stand 'justified' before God; that the 'righteousness' of\n  'Christ' will be imputed to 'them', &c.\n\nWell, do so.--Nay, nay! it has been done; the effect has been tried; and\nslander itself cannot deny that the effect has been the conversion of\nthousands of those very sinners whom the Barrister's fancy thus\nconvokes. O shallow man! not to see that here lies the main strength of\nthe cause he is attacking; that, to repeat my former illustration, he\ndraws the attention to patients in that worst state of disease which\nperhaps alone requires and justifies the use of the white pill, as a\nmode of exposing the frantic quack who vends it promiscuously! He fixes\non the empiric's cures to prove his murders!--not to forget what ought\nto conclude every paragraph in answer to the Barrister's Hints; \"and\nwere the case as alleged, what does this prove against the present\nMethodists as Methodists?\" Is not the tenet of imputed righteousness the\nfaith of all the Scotch Clergy, who are not false to their declarations\nat their public assumption of the ministry? Till within the last sixty\nor seventy years, was not the tenet preached Sunday after Sunday in\nevery nook of Scotland; and has the Barrister heard that the morals of\nthe Scotch peasants and artizans have been improved within the last\nthirty or forty years, since the exceptions have become more and more\ncommon?--Was it by want of strict morals that the Puritans were\ndistinguished to their disadvantage from the rest of Englishmen during\nthe reigns of Elizabeth, James I. Charles I. and II.? And that very\nperiod, which the Barrister affirms to have been distinguished by the\nmoral vigor of the great mass of Britons,--was it not likewise the\nperiod when this very doctrine was preached by the Clergy fifty times\nfor once that it is heard from the same pulpits in the present and\npreceding generation? Never, never can the Methodists be successfully\nassailed, if not honestly, and never honestly or with any chance of\nsuccess, except as Methodists;--for their practices, their alarming\ntheocracy, their stupid, mad, and mad-driving superstitions. These are\ntheir property 'in peculio'; their doctrines are those of the Church of\nEngland, with no other difference than that in the Church Liturgy, and\nArticles, and Homilies, Calvinism and Lutheranism are joined like the\ntwo hands of the Union Fire Office:-the Methodists have unclasped them,\nand one is Whitfield and the other Wesley.\n\n\nIb. p. 75.\n\n  \"For the same reason that a book written in bad language should never\n  be put into the hands of a child that speaks correctly, a book\n  exhibiting instances of vice should never be given to a child that\n  thinks and acts properly.\" (Practical Education. By Maria and R.L.\n  Edgeworth.)\n\nHow mortifying that one is never lucky enough to meet with any of these\n'virtuosissimos', fifteen or twenty years of age. But perhaps they are\nsuch rare jewels, that they are always kept in cotton! The Kilcrops! I\nwould not exchange the heart, which I myself had when a boy, while\nreading the life of Colonel Jack, or the Newgate Calendar, for a\nwaggon-load of these brilliants.\n\n\nIb. p. 78.\n\n  \"When a man turns his back on this world, and is in good earnest\n  resolved for everlasting life, his carnal friends, and ungodly\n  neighbours, will pursue him with hue and cry; but death is at his\n  heels, and he cannot stop short of the city of Refuge.\" (Notes to the\n  Pilgrim's Progress by Hawker, Burder, &c.) This representation of the\n  state of real Christians is as mischievous as it is false.\n\nYet Christ's assertion on this head is positive, and universal; and I\nbelieve it from my inmost soul, and am convinced that it is just as true\nA.D. 1810, as A.D. 33.\n\n\nIb. p. 82.\n\n  The spirit with which all their merciless treatment is to be borne is\n  next pointed out. * * \"'Patient bearing of injuries' is true Christian\n  fortitude, and will always be more effectual to 'disarm our enemies',\n  and to bring others to the knowledge of the truth, than all\n  'arguments' whatever.\"\n\nIs this Barrister a Christian of any sort or sect, and is he not\nashamed, if not afraid, to ridicule such passages as these? If they are\nnot true, the four Gospels are false.\n\n\nIb. p. 86.\n\n  It is impossible to give them credit for integrity when we behold the\n  obstinacy and the artifice with which they defend their system against\n  the strongest argument, and against the clearest evidence.\n\nModest gentleman! I wonder he finds time to write bulky pamphlets: for\nsurely modesty, like his, must secure success and clientage at the bar.\nDoubtless he means his own arguments, the evidence he himself has\nadduced:--I say doubtless, for what are these pamphlets but a long\nseries of attacks on the doctrines of the strict Lutherans and\nCalvinists, (for the doctrines he attacks are common to both,) and if he\nknew stronger arguments, clearer evidence, he would certainly have given\nthem;--and then what obstinate rogues must our Bishops be, to have\nsuffered these Hints to pass into a third edition, and yet not have\nbrought a bill into Parliament for a new set of Articles? I have not\nheard that they have even the grace to intend it.\n\n\nIb. p. 88.\n\n  On this subject I will quote the just and striking observations of an\n  excellent modern writer. \"In whatever village,\" says he, \"the fanatics\n  get a footing, drunkenness and swearing,--sins which, being more\n  exposed to the eye of the world, would be ruinous to their great\n  pretensions to superior sanctity--will, perhaps, be found to decline;\n  but I am convinced, from personal observation, that every species of\n  fraud and falsehood--sins which are not so readily detected, but which\n  seem more closely connected with worldly advantage--will be found\n  invariably to increase.\" (Religion without Cant; by R. Fellowes, A.M.\n  of St. Mary's Hall, Oxford.)\n\nIn answer to this let me make a \"very just observation,\" by some other\nman of my opinion, to be hereafter quoted \"from an excellent modern\nwriter;\"--and it is this, that from the birth of Christ to the present\nhour, no sect or body of men were zealous in the reformation of manners\nin society, without having been charged with the same vices in the same\nwords. When I hate a man, and see nothing bad in him, what remains\npossible but to accuse him of crimes which I cannot see, and which\ncannot be disproved, because they cannot be proved? Surely, if Christian\ncharity did not preclude these charges, the shame of convicted parrotry\nought to prevent a man from repeating and republishing them. The very\nsame thoughts, almost the words, are to be found of the early\nChristians; of the poor Quakers; of the Republicans; of the first\nReformers.--Why need I say this? Does not every one know, that a jovial\npot-companion can never believe a water-drinker not to be a sneaking\ncheating knave who is afraid of his thoughts; that every libertine\nswears that those who pretend to be chaste, either have their mistress\nin secret, or far worse, and so on?\n\n\nIb. p. 89.\n\n  The same religious abstinence from all appearance of recreation on the\n  Lord's day; and the same neglect of the weightier matters of the moral\n  law, in the course of the week, &c.\n\nThis sentence thus smuggled in at the bottom of the chest ought not to\npass unnoticed; for the whole force of the former depends on it. It is a\ntrue trick, and deserves reprobation.\n\n\nIb. p. 97.\n\n  Note. It was procured, Mr. Collyer informs us, by the merit of his\n  \"Lectures on Scripture facts.\" It should have been \"Lectures on\n  'Scriptural' Facts.\" What should we think of the grammarian, who,\n  instead of 'Historical', should present us with \"Lectures on 'History'\n  Facts?\"\n\nBut Law Tracts? And is not 'Scripture' as often used semi-adjectively?\n\n\nIb. p. 98.\n\n  \"Do you really believe,\" says Dr. Hawker, \"that, because man by his\n  apostacy hath lost his power and ability to obey, God hath lost his\n  right to command? Put the case that you were called upon, as a\n  barrister, to recover a debt due from one man to another, and you knew\n  the debtor had not the ability to pay the 'creditor', would you tell\n  your client that his debtor was under no legal or moral obligation to\n  pay what he had no power to do? And would you tell him that the very\n  expectation of his just right 'was as foolish as it was tyrannical'?\"\n  * * * I will give my reply to these questions distinctly and without\n  hesitation. * * * Suppose A. to have lent B. a thousand pounds, as a\n  capital to commence trade, and that, when he purchased his stock to\n  this amount, and lodged it in his warehouse, a fire were to break out\n  in the next dwelling, and, extending itself to 'his' warehouse, were\n  to consume the whole of his property, and reduce him to a state of\n  utter ruin. If A., my client, were to ask my opinion as to his right\n  to recover from B., I should tell him that this his right would exist\n  should B. ever be in a condition to repay the sum borrowed; * * * but\n  that to attempt to recover a thousand pounds from a man thus reduced\n  by accident to utter ruin, and who had not a shilling left in the\n  world, would be 'as foolish as it was tyrannical'.\n\n  But this is rank sophistry. The question is:--Does a thief (and a\n  fraudulent debtor is no better) acquire a claim to impunity by not\n  possessing the power of restoring the goods? Every moral act derives\n  its character (says a Schoolman with an unusual combination of\n  profundity with quaintness) 'aut voluntate originis aut origine\n  voluntatis'. Now the very essence of guilt, its dire and\n  incommunicable character, consists in its tendency to destroy the free\n  will;--but when thus destroyed, are the habits of vice thenceforward\n  innocent? Does the law excuse the murder because the perpetrator was\n  drunk? Dr. Hawker put his objection laxly and weakly enough; but a\n  manly opponent would have been ashamed to seize an hour's victory from\n  what a move of the pen would render impregnable.\n\n\nIb. p. 102, 3.\n\n  When at this solemn tribunal the sinner shall be called upon to answer\n  for the transgression of those 'moral' laws, on obedience to which\n  salvation was made to depend, will it be sufficient that he declares\n  himself to have been taught to believe that the Gospel 'had neither\n  terms nor conditions', and that his salvation was secured by a\n  covenant which procured him pardon and peace, 'from all eternity': a\n  covenant, the effects of which no folly or 'after-act whatever' could\n  possibly destroy?--Who could anticipate the sentence of condemnation,\n  and not weep in agony over the deluded victim of ignorance and\n  misfortune who was thus taught a doctrine so fatally false?\n\nWhat then! God is represented as a tyrant when he claims the penalty of\ndisobedience from the servant, who has wilfully incapacitated himself\nfor obeying,--and yet just and merciful in condemning to indefinite\nmisery a poor \"deluded victim of ignorance and imposture,\" even though\nthe Barrister, spite of his antipathy to Methodists, would \"weep in\nagony\" over him! But before the Barrister draws bills of imagination on\nhis tender feelings, would it not have been as well to adduce some last\ndying speech and confession, in which the culprit attributed his\ncrimes--not to Sabbath-breaking and loose company,--but to\nsermon-hearing on the 'modus operandi' of the divine goodness in the\nwork of redemption? How the Ebenezerites would stare to find the\nSocinians and themselves in one flock on the sheep-side of the\njudgment-seat,--and their cousins, and fellow Methodists, the\nTabernaclers, all caprifled--goats every man:--and why? They held, that\nrepentance is in the power of every man, with the aid of grace; while\nthe goats held that without grace no man is able even to repent. A.\nmakes grace the cause, and B. makes it only a necessary auxiliary. And\ndoes the Socinian extricate himself a whit more clearly? Without a due\nconcurrence of circumstances no mind can improve itself into a state\nsusceptible of spiritual happiness: and is not the disposition and\npre-arrangement of circumstances as dependent on the divine will as\nthose spiritual influences which the Methodist holds to be meant by the\nword grace? Will not the Socinian find it as difficult to reconcile with\nmercy and justice the condemnation to hell-fire of poor wretches born\nand bred in the thieves' nests of St. Giles, as the Methodists the\ncondemnation of those who have been less favoured by grace? I have one\nother question to ask, though it should have been asked before. Suppose\nChrist taught nothing more than a future state of retribution and the\nnecessity and sufficiency of good morals, how are we to explain his\nforbidding these truths to be taught to any but Jews till after his\nresurrection? Did the Jews reject those doctrines? Except perhaps a\nhandful of rich men, called Sadducees, they all believed them, and would\nhave died a thousand deaths rather than have renounced their faith.\nBesides, what is there in doctrines common to the creed of all\nreligions, and enforced by all the schools of philosophy, except the\nEpicurean, which should have prevented their being taught to all at the\nsame time? I perceive, that this difficulty does not press on Socinians\nexclusively: but yet it presses on them with far greater force than on\nothers. For they make Christianity a mere philosophy, the same in\nsubstance with the Stoical, only purer from errors and accompanied with\nclearer evidence:--while others think of it as part of a covenant made\nup with Abraham, the fulfilment of which was in good faith to be first\noffered to his posterity. I ask this only because the Barrister\nprofesses to find every thing in the four Gospels so plain and easy.\n\n\nIb. p. 106.\n\n  The Reformers by whom those articles were framed were educated in the\n  Church of Rome, and opposed themselves rather to the perversion of its\n  power than the errors of its doctrine.\n\nAn outrageous blunder.\n\n\nIb. p. 107.\n\n  Lord Bacon was the first who dedicated his profound and penetrating\n  genius to the cultivation of sound philosophy, &c.\n\nThis very same Lord Bacon has given us his 'Confessio Fidei' at great\nlength, with full particularity. Now I will answer for the Methodists'\nunhesitating assent and consent to it; but would the Barrister subscribe\nit?\n\n\nIb. p. 108.\n\n  We look back to that era of our history when superstition threw her\n  victim on the pile, and bigotry tied the martyr to his stake:--but we\n  take our eyes from the retrospect and turn them in thankful admiration\n  to that Being who has opened the minds of many, and is daily opening\n  the minds of more amongst us to the reception of these most important\n  of all truths, that there is no true faith but in practical goodness,\n  and that the worst of errors is the error of the 'life'.\n\n  Such is the conviction of the most enlightened of our Clergy: the\n  conviction, I trust, of the far greater part * * *. They deem it\n  better to inculcate the moral duties of Christianity in the pure\n  simplicity and clearness with which they are revealed, than to go\n  aside in search of 'doctrinal mysteries'. For as mysteries cannot be\n  made manifest, they, of course, cannot be understood; and that which\n  cannot be understood cannot be believed, and can, consequently, make\n  no part of any system of faith: since no one, till he understands a\n  doctrine, can tell whether it be true or false; till then, therefore,\n  he can have no faith in it, for no one can rationally affirm that he\n  believes that doctrine to be true which he does not know to be so; and\n  he cannot know it to be true if he does not understand it. In the\n  religion of a true Christian, therefore, there can be nothing\n  unintelligible; and if the preachers of that religion do not make\n  mysteries, they will never find any.\n\nWho? the Bishops, or the dignified Clergy? Have they at length exploded\nall \"doctrinal mysteries?\" Was Horsley \"the one red leaf, the last of\nits clan,\" that held the doctrines of the Trinity, the corruption of the\nhuman Will, and the Redemption by the Cross of Christ? Verily, this is\nthe most impudent attempt to impose a naked Socinianism on the public,\nas the general religion of the nation, admitted by all but a dunghill of\nmushroom fanatics, that ever insulted common sense or common modesty!\nAnd will \"the far greater part\" of the English Clergy remain silent\nunder so atrocious a libel as is contained in this page? Do they indeed\nsolemnly pray to their Maker weekly, before God and man, in the words of\na Liturgy, which, they know, \"cannot be believed?\" For heaven's sake, my\ndear Southey, do quote this page and compare it with the introduction to\nand petitions of the Liturgy, and with the Collects on the Advent, &c.\n\n\nIb. p. 110.\n\n  We shall discover upon an attentive examination of the subject, that\n  all those laws which lay the basis of our constitutional liberties,\n  are no other than the rules of religion transcribed into the judicial\n  system, and enforced by the sanction of civil authority.\n\nWhat! Compare these laws, first, with Tacitus's account of the\nconstitutional laws of our German ancestors, Pagans; and then with the\nPandects and 'Novell\u00e6' of the most Christian Justinian, aided by all his\nBishops. Observe, the Barrister is asserting a fact of the historical\norigination of our laws,--and not what no man would deny, that as far as\nthey are humane and just, they coincide with the precepts of the Gospel.\nNo, they were \"transcribed.\"\n\n\nIb. p. 113.\n\n  Where a man holds a certain system of doctrines, the State is bound to\n  tolerate, though it may not approve, them; but when he demands a\n  'license to teach' this system to the rest of the community, he\n  demands that which ought not to be granted incautiously and without\n  grave consideration. This discretionary power is delegated in trust\n  for the common good, &c.\n\nAll this, dear Southey, I leave to the lash of your indignation. It\nwould be oppression to do--what the Legislature could not do if it\nwould--prevent a man's thoughts; but if he speaks them aloud, and asks\neither for instruction and confutation, if he be in error, or assent and\nhonor, if he be in the right, then it is no oppression to throw him into\na dungeon! But the Barrister would only withhold a license! Nonsense.\nWhat if he preaches and publishes without it, will the Legislature\ndungeon him or not? If not, what use is either the granting or the\nwithholding? And this too from a Socinian, who by this very book has, I\nbelieve, made himself obnoxious to imprisonment and the pillory--and\nagainst men, whose opinions are authorized by the most solemn acts of\nParliament, and recorded in a Book, of which there must be one, by law,\nin every parish, and of which there is in fact one in almost every house\nand hovel!\n\n\nPart IV. p. 1.\n\n  The religion of genuine Christianity is a revelation so distinct and\n  specific in its design, and so clear and intelligible in its rules,\n  that a man of philosophic and retired thought is apt to wonder by what\n  means the endless systems of error and hostility which divide the\n  world were ever introduced into it.\n\nWhat means this hollow cant--this fifty times warmed-up bubble and\nsqueak? That such parts are intelligible as the Barrister understands?\nThat such parts as it possesses in common with all systems of religion\nand morality are plain and obvious? In other words that ABC are so\nlegible that they are legible to every one that has learnt to read? If\nthe Barrister mean other or more than this, if he really mean the whole\nreligion and revelation of Christ, even as it is found in the original\nrecords, the Gospels and Epistles, he escapes from the silliness of a\ntruism by throwing himself into the arms of a broad brazenfaced untruth.\nWhat! Is the sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel so distinct and specific\nin its design, that any modest man can wonder that the best and most\nlearned men of every age since Christ have deemed it mysterious? Are the\nmany passages concerning the Devil and demoniacs so very easy? Has this\nwriter himself thrown the least light on, or himself received one ray of\nlight from, the meaning of the word Faith;--or the reason of Christ's\nparamount declarations respecting its omnific power, its absolutely\nindispensable necessity? If the word mean only what the Barrister\nsupposes, a persuasion that in the present state of our knowledge the\nevidences for the historical truth of the miracles of the Gospel\noutweigh the arguments of the Sceptics, will he condescend to give us\nsuch a comment on the assertion, that had we but a grain of mustard seed\nof it, we might control all material nature, without making Christ\nhimself the most extravagant hyperbolist that ever mis-used language?\nBut it is impossible to make that man blush, who can seriously call the\nwords of Christ as recorded by St. John, plain, easy, common sense, out\nof which prejudice, artifice, and selfish interest alone can compose any\ndifficulty. The Barrister has just as much right to call his religion\nChristianity, as to call flour and water plum pudding:--yet we all admit\nthat in plum pudding both flour and water do exist.\n\n\nIb. p. 7.\n\n  Socinus can have no claim upon my veneration: I have never concerned\n  myself with what he believed nor with what he taught &c.\n\n  The Scripture is my authority, and on no other authority will I ever,\n  knowingly, lay the foundation of my faith.\n\nUtterly untrue. It is not the Scripture, but such passages of Scripture\nas appear to him to accord with his Procrustean bed of so called reason,\nand a forcing of the blankest contradictions into the same meaning, by\nexplanations to which I defy him to furnish one single analogy as\nallowed by mankind with regard to any other writings but the Old and New\nTestament. It is a gross and impudent delusion to call a Book his\nauthority, which he receives only so far as it is an echo of his own\nconvictions. I defy him to adduce one single article of his whole faith,\n(creed rather) which he really derives from the Scripture. Even the\narguments for the Resurrection are and must be extraneous: for the very\nproofs of the facts are (as every 'tyro' in theology must know) the\nproofs of the authenticity of the Books in which they are contained.\nThis question I would press upon him:--Suppose we possessed the Fathers\nonly with the Ecclesiastical and Pagan historians, and that not a page\nremained of the New Testament,--what article of his creed would it\nalter?\n\n\nIb. p. 10.\n\n  If the creed of Calvinistic Methodism is really more productive of\n  conversions than the religion of Christianity, let them openly and at\n  once say so.\n\nBut Calvinistic Methodism? Why Calvinistic Methodism? Not one in a\nhundred of the Methodists are Calvinists. Not to mention the impudence\nof this crow in his abuse of black feathers! Is it worse in a Methodist\nto oppose Socinianism to Christianity, that is, to the doctrines of\nWesley or even Whitfield, which are the same as those of all the\nReformed Churches of Christendom, and differ only wherein the most\ncelebrated divines of the same churches have differed with each\nother,--than for the Barrister to oppose Methodism to Christianity (his\nChristianity)--that is, to Socinianism, which in every peculiar doctrine\nof Christianity differs from all divines of all Churches of all ages?\nFor the one tenet in which the Calvinist differs from the majority of\nChristians, are there not ten in which the Socinian differs from all? To\nwhat purpose then this windy declamation about John Calvin? How many\nMethodists, does the Barrister think, ever saw, much less read, a work\nof Calvin's? If he scorns the name of Socinus as his authority, and\nappeals to Scripture, do not the Methodists the same? When do they refer\nto Calvin? In what work do they quote him? This page is therefore mere\ndust in the eyes of the public. And his abuse of Calvin displays only\nhis own vulgar ignorance both of the man, and of his writings. For he\nseems not to know that the humane Melancthon, and not only he, but\nalmost every Church, Lutheran or Reformed, throughout Europe, sent\nletters to Geneva, extolling the execution of Servetus, and returning\ntheir thanks. Yet it was a murder not the less: Yes! a damned murder:\nbut the guilt of it is not peculiar to Calvin, but common to all the\ntheologians of that age; and, 'Nota bene,' Mr. Barrister, the Socini not\nexcepted, who were prepared to inflict the very same punishment on F.\nDavidi for denying the adorability of Christ. If to wish, will, resolve,\nand attempt to realize, be morally to commit, an action, then must\nSocinus and Calvin hunt in the same collar. But, O mercy! if every human\nbeing were to be held up to detestation, who in that age would have\nthought it his duty to have passed sentence 'de comburendo heretico' on\na man, who had publicly styled the Trinity \"a Cerberus,\" and \"a\nthree-headed monster of hell,\" what would the history of the Reformation\nbe but a list of criminals? With what face indeed can we congratulate\nourselves on being born in a more enlightened age, if we so bitterly\nabuse not the practice but the agents? Do we not admit by this very\nphrase \"enlightened,\" that we owe our exemption to our intellectual\nadvantages, not primarily to our moral superiority? It will be time\nenough to boast, when to our own tolerance we have added their zeal,\nlearning, and indefatigable industry. [7]\n\n\nIb. p. 13, 14.\n\n  If religion consists in listening to long prayers, and attending long\n  sermons, in keeping up an outside appearance of devotion, and\n  interlarding the most common discourse with phrases of Gospel\n  usage:--if this is religion, then are the disciples of Methodism pious\n  beyond compare. But in real humility of heart, in mildness of temper,\n  in liberality of mind, in purity of thought, in openness and\n  uprightness of conduct in private life, in those practical virtues\n  which are the vital substance of Christianity,--in these are they\n  superior? No. Public observation is against the fact, and the\n  conclusion to which such observation leads is rarely incorrect. * *\n  The very name of the sect carries with it an impression of meanness\n  and hypocrisy. Scarce an individual that has had any dealings with\n  those belonging to it, but has good cause to remember it from some\n  circumstance of low deception or of shuffling fraud. Its very members\n  trust each other with caution and reluctance. The more wealthy among\n  them are drained and dried by the leeches that perpetually fasten upon\n  them. The leaders, ignorant and bigoted--I speak of them collectively\n  --present us with no counter-qualities that can conciliate respect.\n  They have all the craft of monks without their courtesy, and all the\n  subtlety of Jesuits without their learning.\n\nIn the whole 'Bibliotlieca theologica' I remember no instance of calumny\nso gross, so impudent, so unchristian. Even as a single robber, I mean\nhe who robs one man, gets hanged, while the robber of a million is a\ngreat man, so it seems to be with calumny. This worthy Barrister will be\nextolled for this audacious slander of thousands, for which, if applied\nto any one individual, he would be in danger of the pillory. This\nparagraph should be quoted: for were the charge true, it is nevertheless\nimpossible that the Barrister should know it to be true. He positively\nasserts as a truth known to him what it is impossible he should\nknow:--he is therefore doubly a slanderer; for first, the charge is a\ngross calumny; and were it otherwise, he would still be a slanderer, for\nhe could have no proof, no ground for such a charge.\n\n\nIb. p. 15.\n\nAmidst all this spirit of research we find nothing--comparatively\nnothing--of improvement in that science of all others the most important\nin its influence * * *. Religion, except from the emancipating energy of\na few superior minds, which have dared to snap asunder the cords which\nbound them to the rock of error * * * has been suffered to remain in its\nprinciples and in its doctrines, just what it was when the craft of\nCatholic superstition first corrupted its simplicity. So, so. Here it\ncomes out at last! It is not the Methodists; no; it is all and each of\nall Europe, Infidels and Socinians excepted! O impudence! And then the\nexquisite self-conceit of the blunderer!\n\n\nIb. p. 29.\n\n  --If of 'different denominations', how were they thus conciliated to a\n  society of this ominous nature, from which they must themselves of\n  necessity be excluded by that indispensable condition of admittance,\n  \"'a union' of religious sentiment in the 'great doctrines':\" which\n  very want of union it is that creates these 'different denominations'?\n\nNo, Barrister! they mean that men of different denominations may yet all\nbelieve in the corruption of the human will, the redemption by Christ,\nthe divinity of Christ as consubstantial with the Father, the necessity\nof the Holy Spirit, or grace (meaning more than the disposition of\ncircumstances), and the necessity of faith in Christ superadded to a\nbelief of his actions and doctrines,--and yet differ in many other\npoints. The points enumerated are called the great points, because all\nChristians agree in them excepting the Arians and Socinians, who for\nthat reason are not deemed Christians by the rest. The Roman Catholic,\nthe Lutheran, the Calvinist, the Arminian, the Greek, with all their\nsub-divisions, do yet all accord in these articles:--the booksellers\nmight have said, all who repeat the Nicene Creed. N. B. I do not\napprove, or defend, nay, I dislike, these \"United Theological\nBooksellers\": but this utter Barrister is their best friend by attacking\nthem so as to secure to them victory, and all the advantages of being\nknown to have been wickedly slandered;--the best shield a faulty cause\ncan protend against the javelin of fair opposition.\n\n\nIb. p. 56.\n\n  Our Saviour never in any single instance reprobated the exercise of\n  reason: on the contrary, he reprehends severely those who did not\n  exercise it. Carnal reason is not a phrase to be found in his Gospel;\n  he appealed to the understanding in all he said, and in all he taught.\n  He never required 'faith' in his disciples, without first furnishing\n  sufficient 'evidence' to justify it. He reasoned thus: If I have done\n  what no 'human power' could do, you must admit that my power is 'from\n  above', &c.\n\nGood heavens! did he not uniformly require faith as the condition of\nobtaining the \"evidence,\" as this Barrister calls it--that is, the\nmiracle? What a shameless perversion of the fact! He never did reason\nthus. In one instance only, and then upbraiding the base sensuality of\nthe Jews, he said: \"If ye are so base as not to believe what I say from\nthe moral evidence in your own consciences, yet pay some attention to it\neven for my works' sake.\" And this, an 'argumentum ad hominem,' a bitter\nreproach (just as if a great chemist should say;--Though you do not care\nfor my science, or the important truths it presents, yet, even as an\namusement superior to that of your jugglers to whom you willingly crowd,\npay some attention to me)--this is to be set up against twenty plain\ntexts and the whole spirit of the whole Gospel! Besides, Christ could\nnot reason so; for he knew that the Jews admitted both natural and\ndemoniacal miracles, and their faith in the latter he never attacked;\nthough by an 'argumentum ad hominem' (for it is no argument in itself)\nhe denied its applicability to his own works. If Christ had reasoned so,\nwhy did not the Barrister quote his words, instead of putting imaginary\nwords in his mouth?\n\n\nIb. 60, 61.\n\n  Religion is a system of 'revealed' truth; and to affirm of any\n  revealed truth, that we 'cannot understand' it, is, in effect, either\n  to deny that it has been revealed, or--which is the same thing--to\n  admit that it has been revealed in vain.\n\nIt is too worthless! I cannot go on. Merciful God! hast thou not\nrevealed to us the being of a conscience, and of reason, and of\nwill;--and does this Barrister tell us, that he \"understands\" them? Let\nhim know that he does not even understand the very word understanding.\nHe does not seem to be aware of the school-boy distinction between the\n[Greek: h\u00f3ti esti] and the [Greek: di\u00f3ti]? But to all these silly\nobjections religion must for ever remain exposed as long as the word\nRevelation is applied to any thing that can be 'bona fide' given to the\nmind 'ab extra', through the senses of eye, ear, or touch. No! all\nrevelation is and must be 'ab intra'; the external 'ph\u00e6nomena' can only\nawake, recall evidence, but never reveal. This is capable of strict\ndemonstration.\n\nAfterwards the Barrister quotes from Thomas Watson respecting things\nabove comprehension in the study of nature: \"in these cases, the 'fact'\nis evident, the cause lies in obscurity, deeply removed from all the\nknowledge and penetration of man.\" Then what can we believe respecting\nthese causes? And if we can believe nothing respecting them, what\nbecomes of them as arguments in support of the proposition that we\nought, in religion, to believe what we cannot understand?\n\nAre there not facts in religion, the causes and constitution of which\nare mysteries?\n\n\n\n[Footnote 1: Hints to the Public and the Legislature on the nature and\neffect of Evangelical Preaching. By a Barrister. Fourth Edition, 1808.]\n\n\n[Footnote 2: See Aids to Reflection, p. 14, 4th edition.--Ed.]\n\n\n[Footnote 3: Quart. Review, vol. ii. p. 187.--Ed.]\n\n\n[Footnote 4: See vol. i., p. 217.--Ed.]\n\n\n[Footnote 5:\n\n  \"And from this account of obligation it follows, that we can he\n  obliged to nothing but what we ourselves are to gain or lose something\n  by; for nothing else can be a violent motive to us. As we should not\n  be obliged to obey the laws, or the magistrate, unless rewards or\n  punishments, pleasure or pain, somehow or other depended upon our\n  obedience; so neither should we, without the same reason, be obliged\n  to do what is right, to practise virtue, or to obey the commands of\n  God.\"\n\n'Paley's Moral and Polit. Philosophy', B. II. c. 2.\n\n  \"The difference, and the only difference, ('between prudence and\n  duty',) is this; that in the one case we consider what we shall gain\n  or lose in the present world; in the other case, we consider also what\n  we shall gain or lose in the world to come.\"\n\nIb. c. 3.--Ed.]\n\n\n[Footnote 6: Friend, Vol. I. Essays X. and XI. 3rd edition--Ed.]\n\n\n[Footnote 7: See Table Talk, pp. 282 and 304. 2d edit.--Ed.]\n\n\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\n\nNOTES ON DAVISON'S DISCOURSES ON PROPHECY. 1825. [1]\n\n\nDisc. IV. Pt. I. p. 140.\n\n  As to systems of religion alien from Christianity, if any of them have\n  taught the doctrine of eternal life, the reward of obedience, as a\n  dogma of belief, that doctrine is not their boast, but their burden\n  and difficulty; inasmuch as they could never defend it. They could\n  never justify it on independent grounds of deduction, nor produce\n  their warrant and authority to teach it. In such precarious and\n  unauthenticated principles it may pass for a conjecture, or pious\n  fraud, or a splendid phantom: it cannot wear the dignity of truth.\n\nAh, why did not Mr. Davison adhere to the manly, the glorious, strain of\nthinking from p. 134 ('Since Prophecy', &c.) to p. 139. ('that mercy')\nof this discourse? A fact is no subject of scientific demonstration\nspeculatively: we can only bring analogies, and these Heraclitus,\nSocrates, Plato, and others did bring; but their main argument remains\nto this day the main argument--namely, that none but a wicked man dares\ndoubt it. When it is not in the light of promise, it is in the law of\nfear, at all times a part of the conscience, and presupposed in all\nspiritual conviction.\n\n\nIb. p. 160.\n\n  Some indeed have sought the 'star' and the 'sceptre' of Balaam's\n  prophecy, where they cannot well be found, in the reign of David; for\n  though a sceptre might be there, the star properly is not.\n\nSurely this is a very weak reason. A far better is, I think, suggested\nby the words, 'I shall see him--I shall behold him';--which in no\nintelligible sense could be true of Balaam relatively to David.\n\n\nIb. p. 162.\n\n  The Israelites could not endure the voice and fire of Mount Sinai.\n  They asked an intermediate messenger between God and them, who should\n  temper the awfulness of his voice, and impart to them his will in a\n  milder way.\n\n'Deut'. xviii. 15. Is the following argument worthy our consideration?\nIf, as the learned Eichhorn, Paulus of Jena, and others of their school,\nhave asserted, Moses waited forty days for a tempest, and then, by the\nassistance of the natural magic he had learned in the temple of Isis,\n'initiated' the law, all our experience and knowledge of the way in\nwhich large bodies of men are affected would lead us to suppose that the\nHebrew people would have been keenly excited, interested, and elevated\nby a spectacle so grand and so flattering to their national pride. But\nif the voices and appearances were indeed divine and supernatural, well\nmust we assume that there was a distinctive, though verbally\ninexpressible, terror and disproportion to the mind, the senses, the\nwhole 'organismus' of the human beholders and hearers, which might both\naccount for, and even in the sight of God justify, the trembling prayer\nwhich deprecated a repetition.\n\n\nIb. p. 164.\n\n  To justify its application to Christ, the resemblance between him and\n  Moses has often been deduced at large, and drawn into a variety of\n  particulars, among which several points have been taken minute and\n  precarious, or having so little of dignity or clearness of\n  representation in them, that it would be wise to discard them from the\n  prophetic evidence.\n\nWith our present knowledge we are both enabled and disposed thus to\nevolve the full contents of the word 'like'; but I cannot help thinking\nthat the contemporaries of Moses (if not otherwise orally instructed,)\nmust have understood it in the first and historical sense, at least, of\nJoshua.\n\n\nIb. p. 168.\n\n  A distinguished commentator on the laws of Moses, Michaelis,\n  vindicates their temporal sanctions on the ground of the Mosaic Code\n  being of the nature of a civil system, to the statutes of which the\n  rewards of a future state would be incongruous and unsuitable.\n\nI never read either of Michaelis's Works, but the same view came before\nme whenever I reflected on the Mosaic Code. Who expects in realities of\nany kind the sharp outline and exclusive character of scientific\nclassification? It is the predominance of the characterizing constituent\nthat gives the name and class. Do not even our own statute laws, though\nco-existing with a separate religious Code, contain many 'formul\u00e6' of\nwords which have no sense but for the conscience? Davison's stress on\nthe word 'covet', in the tenth commandment, is, I think, beyond what so\nancient a Code warrants;--and for the other instances, Michaelis would\nremind him that the Mosaic constitution was a strict theocracy, and that\nJehovah, the God of all, was their 'king'. I do not know the particular\nmode in which Michaelis propounds and supports this position; but the\nposition itself, as I have presented it to my own mind, seems to me\namong the strongest proofs of the divine origin of the Law, and an\nessential in the harmony of the total scheme of Revelation.\n\n\nDisc. IV. Pt. II. p. 180.\n\n  But the first law meets him on his own terms; it stood upon a present\n  retribution; the execution of its sentence is matter of history, and\n  the argument resulting from it is to be answered, before the question\n  is carried to another world.\n\nThis is rendered a very powerful argument by the consideration, that\nthough so vast a mind as that of Moses, though perhaps even a Lycurgus,\nmight have distinctly foreseen the ruin and captivity of the Hebrew\npeople as a necessary result of the loss of nationality, and the\nabandonment of the law and religion which were their only point of\nunion, their centre of gravity,--yet no human intellect could have\nforeseen the perpetuity of such a people as a distinct race under all\nthe aggravated curses of the law weighing on them; or that the obstinacy\nof their adherence to their dividuating institutes in persecution,\ndispersion, and shame, should be in direct proportion to the wantonness\nof their apostasy from the same in union and prosperity.\n\n\nDisc. V. Pt. II. p. 234.\n\n  Except under the dictate of a constraining inspiration, it is not easy\n  to conceive how the master of such a work, at the time when he had\n  brought it to perfection, and beheld it in its lustre, the labour of\n  so much opulent magnificence and curious art, and designed to be\n  'exceeding magnifical, of fame, and of glory throughout all\n  countries', should be occupied with the prospect of its utter ruin and\n  dilapidation, and that too under the 'opprobrium' of God's vindictive\n  judgment upon it, nor to imagine how that strain of sinister prophecy,\n  that forebodes of malediction, should be ascribed to him, if he had no\n  such vision revealed.\n\nHere I think Mr. Davison should have crushed the objection of the\nInfidel grounded on Solomon's subsequent idolatrous impieties. The\nInfidel argues, that these are not conceivable of a man distinctly\nconscious of a prior and supernatural inspiration, accompanied with\nsupernatural manifestations of the divine presence.\n\n\nDisc. VI. Pt. I. p. 283.\n\n  In order to evade this conclusion, nothing is left but to deny that\n  Isaiah, or any person of his age, wrote the book ascribed to him.\n\nThis too is my conclusion, but (if I do not delude myself) from more\nevident, though not perhaps more certain, premisses. The age of the\nCyrus prophecies is the great object of attack by Eichhorn and his\ncompilers; and I dare not say, that in a controversy with these men\nDavison's arguments would appear sufficient. But this was not the\nintended subject of these Discourses.\n\n\nDisc. VI. Pt. II. p. 289.\n\n  But how does he express that promise? In the images of the\n  resurrection and an immortal state. Consequently, there is implied in\n  the delineation of the lower subject the truth of the greater.\n\nThis reminds me of a remark, I have elsewhere made respecting the\nexpediency of separating the arguments addressed to, and valid for, a\nbeliever, from the proofs and vindications of Scripture intended to form\nthe belief, or to convict the Infidel.\n\n\nDisc. VI. Pt. IV. p. 325.\n\n  When Cyrus became master of Babylon, the prophecies of Isaiah were\n  shewn or communicated to him, wherein were described his victory, and\n  the use he was appointed to make of it in the restoration of the\n  Hebrew people. ('Ezra' i. 1, 2.)\n\nThis I had been taught to regard as one of Josephus's legends; but upon\nthis passage who would not infer that it had Ezra for its\nauthority,--who yet does not expressly say that even the prophecy of the\nfar later Jeremiah was known or made known to Cyrus, who (Ezra tells us)\nfulfilled it? If Ezra had meant the prediction of Isaiah by the words,\n'he hath charged me', &c., why should he not have referred to it\ntogether with, or even instead of, Jeremiah? Is it not more probable\nthat a living prophet had delivered the charge to Cyrus? See 'Ezra' vi.\n14.--Again, Davison makes Cyrus speak like a Christian, by omitting the\naffix 'of Heaven to the Lord God' in the original. Cyrus speaks as a\nCyrus might be supposed to do,--namely, of a most powerful but yet\nnational deity, of a God, not of God. I have seen in so many instances\nthe injurious effect of weak or overstrained arguments in defence of\nreligion, that I am perhaps more jealous than I need be in the choice of\nevidences. I can never think myself the worse Christian for any opinion\nI may have formed, respecting the price of this or that argument, of\nthis or that divine, in support of the truth. For every one that I\nreject, I could supply two, and these [Greek: an\u00e9kdota].\n\n\nIb. p. 336.\n\n  Meanwhile this long repose and obscurity of Zerubbabel's family, and\n  of the whole house of David, during so many generations prior to the\n  Gospel, was one of the preparations made whereby to manifest more\n  distinctly the proper glory of it, in the birth of the Messiah.\n\nIn whichever way I take this, whether addressed to a believer for the\npurpose of enlightening, or to an inquirer for the purpose of\nestablishing, his faith in prophecy, this argument appears to me equally\nperplexing and obscure. It seems, 'prima facie', almost tantamount to a\nright of inferring the fulfilment of a prophecy in B., which it does not\nmention, from its entire failure and falsification in A., which, and\nwhich alone, it does mention.\n\n\nIb. p. 370.\n\n  'Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and\n  dreadful day of the Lord.'\n\nAlmost every page of this volume makes me feel my own ignorance\nrespecting the interpretation of the language of the Hebrew Prophets,\nand the want of the one idea which would supply the key. Suppose an\nInfidel to ask me, how the Jews were to ascertain that John the Baptist\nwas Elijah the Prophet;--am I to assert the pre-existence of John's\npersonal identity as Elijah? If not, why Elijah rather than any other\nProphet? One answer is obvious enough, that the contemporaries of John\nheld Elijah as the common representative of the Prophets; but did\nMalachi do so?\n\n\nIb. p. 373.\n\nI cannot conceive a more beautiful synopsis of a work on the Prophecies\nof the Old Testament, than is given in this Recapitulation. Would that\nits truth had been equally well substantiated! That it can be, that it\nwill be, I have the liveliest faith;--and that Mr. Davison has\ncontributed as much as we ought to expect, and more than any\ncontemporary divine, I acknowledge, and honor him accordingly. But much,\nvery much, remains to be done, before these three pages merit the name\nof a Recapitulation.\n\n\nDisc. VII. p. 375.\n\nIf I needed proof of the immense importance of the doctrine of Ideas,\nand how little it is understood, the following discourse would supply\nit.\n\nThe whole discussion on Prescience and Freewill, with exception of the\npage or two borrowed from Skelton, displays an unacquaintance with the\ndeeper philosophy, and a helplessness in the management of the\nparticular question, which I know not how to reconcile with the\nsteadiness and clearness of insight evinced in the earlier Discourses. I\nneither do nor ever could see any other difficulty on the subject, than\nwhat is contained and anticipated in the idea of eternity.\n\nBy Ideas I mean intuitions not sensuous, which can be expressed only by\ncontradictory conceptions, or, to speak more accurately, are in\nthemselves necessarily both inexpressible and inconceivable, but are\nsuggested by two contradictory positions. This is the essential\ncharacter of all ideas, consequently of eternity, in which the\nattributes of omniscience and omnipotence are included. Now prescience\nand freewill are in fact nothing more than the two contradictory\npositions by which the human understanding struggles to express\nsuccessively the idea of eternity. Not eternity in the negative sense as\nthe mere absence of succession, much less eternity in the senseless\nsense of an infinite time; but eternity,--the Eternal; as Deity, as God.\nOur theologians forget that the objection applies equally to the\npossibility of the divine will; but if they reply that prescience\napplied to an eternal, 'Entis absoluti tota et simultanea fruitio', is\nbut an anthropomorphism, or term of accommodation, the same answer\nserves in respect of the human will; for the epithet human does not\nenter into the syllogism. As to contingency, whence did Mr. Davison\nlearn that it is a necessary accompaniment of freedom, or of free\naction? My philosophy teaches me the very contrary.\n\n\nIb. p. 392.\n\n  He contends, without reserve, that the free actions of men are not\n  within the divine prescience; resting his doctrine partly on the\n  assumption that there are no strict and absolute predictions in\n  Scripture of those actions in which men are represented as free and\n  responsible; and partly on the abstract reason, that such actions are\n  in their nature impossible to be certainly foreknown.\n\nI utterly deny contingency except in relation to the limited and\nimperfect knowledge of man. But the misery is, that men write about\nfreewill without a single meditation on will absolutely; on the idea\n[Greek: katt' exoch\u00e0en] without any idea; and so bewilder themselves in\nthe jungle of alien conceptions; and to understand the truth they\noverlay their reason.\n\n\nDisc. VIII. p. 416.\n\nIt would not be easy to calculate the good which a man like Mr. Davison\nmight effect, under God, by a work on the Messianic Prophecies,\nspecially intended for and addressed to the present race of Jews,--if\nonly he would make himself acquainted with their objections and ways of\nunderstanding Scripture. For instance, a learned Jew would perhaps\ncontend that this prophecy of Isaiah (c. ii. 2-4,) cannot fairly be\ninterpreted of a mere local origination of a religion historically; as\nthe drama might be described as going forth from Athens, and philosophy\nfrom Academus and the Painted Porch, but must refer to an established\nand continuing seat of worship, 'a house of the God of Jacob'. The\nanswer to this is provided in the preceding verse, 'in the top of the\nmountains'; which irrefragably proves the figurative character of the\nwhole prediction.\n\n\nIb. p. 431.\n\n  One point, however, is certain and equally important, namely, that the\n  Christian Church, when it comes to recognize more truly the obligation\n  imposed upon it by the original command of its Founder, 'Go teach all\n  nations', &c.\n\nThat the duty here recommended is deducible from this text is quite\nclear to my mind; but whether it is the direct sense and primary\nintention of the words; whether the first meaning is not\nnegative,--('Have no respect to what nation a man is of, but teach it to\nall indifferently whom you have an opportunity of addressing',)--this is\nnot so clear. The larger sense is not without its difficulties, nor is\nthis narrower sense without its practical advantages.\n\n\nDisc. IX. p. 453, 4.\n\nThe striking inferiority of several of these latter Discourses in point\nof style, as compared with the first 150 pages of this volume, perplexes\nme. It seems more than mere carelessness, or the occasional 'infausta\ntempora scribendi', can account for. I question whether from any modern\nwork of a tenth part of the merit of these Discourses, either in matter\nor in force and felicity of diction and composition, as many uncouth and\nawkward sentences could be extracted. The paragraph in page 453 and 454,\nis not a specimen of the worst. In a volume which ought to be, and which\nprobably will be, in every young Clergyman's library, these 'macul\u00e6' are\nsubjects of just regret. The utility of the work, no less than its great\ncomparative excellence, render its revision a duty on the part of the\nauthor; specks are no trifles in diamonds.\n\n\nDisc. XII. p. 519.\n\n  Four such ruling kingdoms did arise. The first, the Babylonian, was in\n  being when the prophecy is represented to have been given. It was\n  followed by the Persian; the Persian gave way to the Grecian; the\n  Roman closed the series.\n\nThis is stoutly denied by Eichhorn, who contends that the Mede or\nMedo-Persian is the second--if I recollect aright. But it always struck\nme that Eichhorn, like other learned Infidels, is caught in his own\nsnares. For if the prophecies are of the age of the first Empire, and\nactually delivered by Daniel, there is no reason why the Roman Empire\nshould not have been predicted;--for superhuman predictions, the last\ntwo at least must have been. But if the book was a forgery, or a\npolitical poem like Gray's Bard or Lycophron's Cassandra, and later than\nAntiochus Epiphanes, it is strange and most improbable that the Roman\nshould have escaped notice. In both cases the omission of the last and\nmost important Empire is inexplicable.\n\n\nIb. p. 521.\n\n  Yet we have it on authority of Josephus, that Daniel's prophecies were\n  read publicly among the Jews in their worship, as well as their other\n  received Scriptures.\n\nIt is but fair, however, to remember that the Jewish Church ranked the\nbook of Daniel in the third class only, among the Hagiographic\n--passionately almost as the Jews before and at the time of our Saviour\nwere attached to it.\n\n\nIb. p. 522-3.\n\n  But to a Jewish eye, or to any eye placed in the same position of view\n  in the age of Antiochus Epiphanes, it is utterly impossible to admit\n  that this superior strength of the Roman power to reduce and destroy,\n  this heavier arm of subjugation, could have revealed itself so\n  plainly, as to warrant the express deliberate description of it.\n\n'Qu\u00e6re'. See Polybius.\n\n\nIb.\n\n  We shall yet have to inquire how it could be foreseen that this\n  fourth, this yet unestablished empire, should be the last in the line.\n\nThis is a sound and weighty argument, which the preceding does not, I\nconfess, strike me as being. On the contrary, the admission that by a\nwriter of the Maccabaic \u00e6ra the Roman power could scarcely have been\noverlooked, greatly strengthens this second argument, as naturally\nsuggesting expectations of change, and wave-like succession of empires,\nrather than the idea of a last. In the age of Augustus this might\npossibly have occurred to a profound thinker; but the age of Antiochus\nwas too late to permit the Roman power to escape notice; and not late\nenough to suggest its exclusive establishment so as to leave no source\nof succession.\n\n\n\n[Footnote 1: Discourses on Prophecy, in which are considered its\nstructure, use and inspiration, being the substance of twelve Sermons\npreached in the Chapel of Lincoln's Inn in the Lecture founded by the\nRight Rev. William Warburton, Bishop of Gloucester. By John Davison,\nB.D. 2nd edit. London, 1825.]\n\n\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\n\nNOTES ON IRVING'S BEN-EZRA. [1] 1827.\n\n\n\n                Christ the WORD.\n                       |\n  The Scriptures--The Spirit--The Church.\n                       |\n                  The Preacher.\n\n\nSuch seemeth to me to be the scheme of the Faith in Christ. The written\nWord, the Spirit and the Church, are co-ordinate, the indispensable\nconditions and the working causes of the perpetuity and continued\nre-nascence and spiritual life of Christ still militant. The Eternal\nWord, Christ from everlasting, is the 'prothesis' or identity;--the\nScriptures and the Church are the two poles, or the 'thesis' and\n'antithesis'; the Preacher in direct line under the Spirit, but likewise\nthe point of junction of the written Word and the Church, being the\n'synthesis'. And here is another proof of a principle elsewhere by me\nasserted and exemplified, that divine truths are ever a 'tetractys', or\na triad equal to a 'tetractys': 4=1 or 3=4=1. But the entire scheme is a\npentad--God's hand in the world. [2]\n\nIt may be not amiss that I should leave a record in my own hand, how\nfar, in what sense, and under what conditions, I agree with my friend,\nEdward Irving, respecting the second coming of the Son of Man.\n\nI. How far? First, instead of the full and entire conviction, the\npositive assurance, which Mr. Irving entertains, I--even in those points\nin which my judgment most coincides with his,--profess only to regard\nthem as probable, and to vindicate them as nowise inconsistent with\northodoxy. They may be believed, and they may be doubted, 'salva\nCatholica fide'. Further, from these points I exclude all\nprognostications of time and event; the mode, the persons, the places,\nof the accomplishment; and I decisively protest against all parts of Mr.\nIrving's and of Lacunza's scheme grounded on the books of Daniel or the\nApocalypse, interpreted as either of the two, Irving or Lacunza,\nunderstands them. Again, I protest against all identification of the\ncoming with the Apocalyptic Millennium, which in my belief began under\nConstantine.\n\nII. In what sense? In this and no other, that the objects of the\nChristian Redemption will be perfected on this earth;--that the kingdom\nof God and his Word, the latter as the Son of Man, in which the divine\nwill shall 'be done on earth as it is in heaven', will 'come';--and that\nthe whole march of nature and history, from the first impregnation of\nChaos by the Spirit, converges toward this kingdom as the final cause of\nthe world. Life begins in detachment from Nature, and ends in union with\nGod.\n\nIII. Under what conditions? That I retain my former convictions\nrespecting St. Michael, and the ex-saint Lucifer, and the Genie Prince\nof Persia, and the re-institution of bestial sacrifices in the Temple at\nJerusalem, and the rest of this class. All these appear to me so many\npimples on the face of my friend's faith from inward heats, leaving it\nindeed a fine handsome intelligent face, but certainly not adding to its\ncomeliness.\n\nSuch are the convictions of S. T. Coleridge, May, 1827.\n\nP.S. I fully agree with Mr. Irving as to the literal fulfilment of all\nthe prophecies which respect the restoration of the Jews. ('Deuteron.'\nxxv. 1-8.)\n\nIt may be long before Edward Irving sees what I seem at least to see so\nclearly,--and yet, I doubt not, the time will come when he too will see\nwith the same evidentness,--how much grander a front his system would\nhave presented to judicious beholders; on how much more defensible a\nposition he would have placed it,--and the remark applies equally to Ben\nEzra (that is, Emanuel Lacunza)--had he trusted the proof to Scriptures\nof undisputed catholicity, to the spirit of the whole Bible, to the\nconsonance of the doctrine with the reason, its fitness to the needs and\ncapacities of mankind, and its harmony with the general plan of the\ndivine dealings with the world,--and had left the Apocalypse in the back\nground. But alas! instead of this he has given it such prominence, such\nprosiliency of relief, that he has made the main strength of his hope\nappear to rest on a vision, so obscure that his own author and\nfaith's-mate claims a meaning for its contents only on the supposition\nthat the meaning is yet to come!\n\n\nPreliminary Discourse, p. lxxx.\n\n  Now of these three, the office of Christ, as our prophet, is the means\n  used by the Holy Spirit for working the redemption of the\n  understanding of men; that faculty by which we acquire the knowledge\n  on which proceed both our inward principles of conduct and our outward\n  acts of power.\n\nI cannot forbear expressing my regret that Mr. Irving has not adhered to\nthe clear and distinct exposition of the understanding, 'genere et\ngradu', given in the Aids to Reflection. [3]\n\nWhat can be plainer than to say: the understanding is the medial faculty\nor faculty of means, as reason on the other hand is the source of ideas\nor ultimate ends. By reason we determine the ultimate end: by the\nunderstanding we are enabled to select and adapt the appropriate means\nfor the attainment of, or approximation to, this end, according to\ncircumstances. But an ultimate end must of necessity be an idea, that\nis, that which is not representable by the sense, and has no entire\ncorrespondent in nature, or the world of the senses. For in nature there\ncan be neither a first nor a last:--all that we can see, smell, taste,\ntouch, are means, and only in a qualified sense, and by the defect of\nour language, entitled ends. They are only relatively ends in a chain of\nmotives. B. is the end to A.; but it is itself a mean to C., and in like\nmanner C. is a mean to D., and so on. Thus words are the means by which\nwe reduce appearances, or things presented through the senses, to their\nseveral kinds, or 'genera'; that is, we generalize, and thus think and\njudge. Hence the understanding, considered specially as an intellective\npower, is the source and faculty of words;--and on this account the\nunderstanding is justly defined, both by Archbishop Leighton, and by\nImmanuel Kant, the faculty that judges by, or according to, sense.\nHowever, practical or intellectual, it is one and the same\nunderstanding, and the definition, the medial faculty, expresses its\ntrue character in both directions alike. I am urgent on this point,\nbecause on the right conception of the same, namely, that understanding\nand sense (to which the sensibility supplies the material of outness,\n'materiam objectivam',) constitute the natural mind of man, depends the\ncomprehension of St. Paul's whole theological system. And this natural\nmind, which is named the mind of the flesh, [Greek: phr\u00f3naema sark\u00f2s],\nas likewise [Greek: psychik\u00e0e synesis], the intellectual power of the\nliving or animal soul, St. Paul everywhere contradistinguishes from the\nspirit, that is, the power resulting from the union and co-inherence of\nthe will and the reason;--and this spirit both the Christian and elder\nJewish Church named, 'sophia', or wisdom.\n\n\nBen-Ezra. Part I. c. v. p. 67.\n\n  Eusebius and St. Epiphanius name Cerinthusas the inventor of many\n  corruptions. That heresiarch being given up to the belly and the\n  palate, placed therein the happiness of man. And so taught his\n  disciples, that after the Resurrection, * * *. And what appeared most\n  important, each would be master of an entire seraglio, like a Sultan,\n  &c.\n\nI find very great difficulty in crediting these black charges on\nCerinthus, and know not how to reconcile them with the fact that the\nApocalypse itself was by many attributed to Cerinthus. But Mr. Hunt is\nnot more famous for blacking than some of the Fathers.\n\n\nIb. pp. 73, 4.\n\n  Against whom a very eloquent man, Dionysius Alexandrinus, a Father of\n  the Church, wrote an elegant work, to ridicule the Millennarian fable,\n  the golden and gemmed Jerusalem on the earth, the renewal of the\n  Temple, the blood of victims. If the book of St. Dionysius had\n  contained nothing but the derision and confutation of all we have just\n  read, it is certain that he doth in no way concern himself with the\n  harmless Millennarians, but with the Jews and Judaizers. It is to be\n  clearly seen that Dionysius had nothing in his eye, but the ridiculous\n  excesses of Nepos, and his peculiar tenets upon circumcision, &c.\n\nLacunza, I suspect, was ignorant of Greek: and seems not to have known\nthat the object of Dionysius was to demonstrate that the Apocalypse was\nneither authentic nor a canonical book.\n\n\nIb. p. 85.\n\n  The ruin of Antichrist, with all that is comprehended under that name,\n  being entirely consummated, and the King of kings remaining master of\n  the field, St. John immediately continues in the 20th chapter, which\n  thus commenceth: 'And I saw an angel come down from heaven, &c. And I\n  saw thrones, &c. And when a thousand years are expired, Satan shall be\n  loosed out of his prison.'\n\nIt is only necessary to know that the whole book from the first verse to\nthe last is written in symbols, to be satisfied that the true meaning of\nthis passage is simply, that only the great Confessors and Martyrs will\nbe had in remembrance and honour in the Church after the establishment\nof Christianity throughout the Roman Empire. And observe, it is the\nsouls that the Seer beholds:--there is not a word of the resurrection of\nthe body;--for this would indeed have been the appropriate symbol of a\nresurrection in a real and personal sense.\n\n\nIb. c. vi. p. 108.\n\n  Now this very thing St. John likewise declareth * * to wit, 'that they\n  who have been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, and for the word of\n  God, and they who have not worshipped the beast', these shall live,\n  'or be raised' at the coming of the Lord, 'which is the first\n  resurrection.'\n\nAye! but by what authority is this synonimizing \"or\" asserted? The Seer\nnot only does not speak of any resurrection, but by the word [Greek:\npsych\u00e1s], souls, expressly asserts the contrary. In no sense of the word\ncan souls, which descended in Christ's train ('chorus sacer animarum et\nChristi comitatus') from Heaven, be said 'resurgere'. Resurrection is\nalways and exclusively resurrection in the body;--not indeed a rising of\nthe 'corpus' [Greek: phantastik\u00f3n], that is, the few ounces of carbon,\nnitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, and phosphate of lime, the 'copula' of which\nthat gave the form no longer exists,--and of which Paul exclaims;--'Thou\nfool! not this', &c.--but the 'corpus' [Greek: hypostatik\u00f2n, \u00e0e\nno\u00famenon].\n\nBut there is yet another and worse wresting of the text. Who that reads\nLacunza, p. 108, last line but twelve, would not understand that the\nApocalypt had asserted this enthronement of the souls of the Gentile and\nJud\u00e6o-Christian Martyrs which he beheld in the train or suite of the\ndescending Messiah; and that he had first seen them in the descent, and\nafterward saw thrones assigned to them? Whereas the sentence precedes,\nand has positively no connection with these souls. The literal\ninterpretation of the symbols c. xx. v. 4, is, \"I then beheld the\nChristian religion the established religion of the state throughout the\nRoman empire;--emperors, kings, magistrates, and the like, all\nChristians, and administering laws in the name of Christ, that is,\nreceiving the Scriptures as the supreme and paramount law. Then in all\nthe temples the name of Jesus was invoked as the King of glory, and\ntogether with him the old afflicted and tormented fellow-laborers with\nChrist were revived in high and reverential commemoration,\" &c. But that\nthe whole Vision from first to last, in every sentence, yea, every word,\nis symbolical, and in the boldest, largest style of symbolic language;\nand secondly, that it is a work of disputed canonicity, and at no known\nperiod of the Church could truly lay claim to catholicity;--but for\nthis, I think this verse would be worth a cartload of the texts which\nthe Romanist divines and catechists ordinarily cite as sanctioning the\ninvocation of Saints.\n\n\nIb. p. 110.\n\n  You will say nevertheless, that even the wicked will be raised\n  incorruptible to inherit incorruption, because being once raised,\n  their bodies will no more change or be dissolved, but must continue\n  entire, for ever united with their sad and miserable souls. Well, and\n  would you call this corruption or incorruptibility? Certainly this is\n  not the sense of the Apostle, when he formally assures us, yea, even\n  threatens us, that corruption cannot inherit incorruption. 'Neither\n  doth corruption inherit incorruption'. What then may this singular\n  expression mean? This is what it manifestly means;--that no person,\n  whoever he may be, without any exception, who possesseth a corrupt\n  heart and corrupt actions, and therein persevereth unto death, shall\n  have reason to expect in the resurrection a pure, subtile, active and\n  impassible body.\n\nThis is actually dangerous tampering with the written letter.\n\nWithout touching on the question whether St. Paul in this celebrated\nchapter (1 'Cor'. xv.) speaks of a partial or of the general\nresurrection, or even conceding to Lacunza that the former opinion is\nthe more probable; I must still vehemently object to this Jesuitical\ninterpretation of corruption, as used in a moral sense, and distinctive\nof the wicked souls. St. Paul nowhere speaks dogmatically or\npreceptively (not popularly and incidentally,) of a soul as the proper\n'I'. It is always 'we', or the man. How could a regenerate saint put off\ncorruption at the sound of the trump, if up to that hour it did not in\nsome sense or other appertain to him? But what need of many words? It\nflashes on every reader whose imagination supplies an unpreoccupied,\nunrefracting, 'medium' to the Apostolic assertion, that corruption in\nthis passage is a descriptive synonyme of the material sensuous organism\ncommon to saint and sinner,--standing in precisely the same relation to\nthe man that the testaceous offensive and defensive armour does to the\ncrab and tortoise. These slightly combined and easily decomponible\nstuffs are as incapable of subsisting under the altered conditions of\nthe earth as an hydatid in the blaze of a tropical sun. They would be no\nlonger 'media' of communion between the man and his circumstances.\n\nA heavy difficulty presses, as it appears to me, on Lacunza's system, as\nsoon as we come to consider the general resurrection. Our Lord (in books\nof indubitable and never doubted catholicity) speaks of some who rise to\nbliss and glory, others who at the same time rise to shame and\ncondemnation. Now if the former class live not during the whole interval\nfrom their death to the general resurrection, including the Millennium,\nor 'Dies Messi\u00e6',--how should they, whose imperfect or insufficient\nmerits excluded them from the kingdom of the Messiah on earth, be all at\nonce fitted for the kingdom of heaven?\n\n\nIb. ch. vii. p. 118.\n\n  It appears to me that this sentence, being looked to attentively,\n  means in good language this only, that the word 'quick', which the\n  Apostles, full of the Holy Spirit, set down, is a word altogether\n  useless, which might without loss have been omitted, and that it were\n  enough to have set down the word 'dead': for by that word alone is the\n  whole expressed, and with much more clearness and brevity.\n\nThe narrow outline within which the Jesuits confined the theological\nreading of their 'alumni' is strongly marked in this (in so many\nrespects) excellent work: for example, the \"most believing mind,\" with\nwhich Lacunza takes for granted the exploded fable of the Catechumens'\n('vulgo' Apostles') Creed having been the quotient of an Apostolic\n'pic-nic', to which each of the twelve contributed his several\n'symbolum'.\n\n\nIb. ch. ix. p. 127.\n\n  The Apostle, St. Peter, speaking of the day of the Lord, says, that\n  that day will come suddenly, &c. (2 Pet. iii. 10.)\n\nThere are serious difficulties besetting the authenticity of the\nCatholic Epistles under the name of Peter; though there exist no grounds\nfor doubting that they are of the Apostolic age. A large portion too of\nthe difficulties would be removed by the easy and nowise improbable\nsupposition, that Peter, no great scholar or grammarian, had dictated\nthe substance, the matter, and left the diction and style to his\n'amanuensis', who had been an auditor of St. Paul. The tradition which\nconnects, not only Mark, but Luke the Evangelist, the friend and\nbiographer of Paul, with Peter, as a secretary, is in favour of this\nhypothesis. But what is of much greater importance, especially for the\npoint in discussion, is the character of these and other similar\ndescriptions of the 'Dies Messi\u00e6', the 'Dies ultima', and the like. Are\nwe bound to receive them as articles of faith? Is there sufficient\nreason to assert them to have been direct revelations immediately\nvouchsafed to the sacred writers? I cannot satisfy my judgment that\nthere is;--first, because I find no account of any such events having\nbeen revealed to the Patriarchs, or to Moses, or to the Prophets; and\nbecause I do find these events asserted, and (for aught I have been able\nto discover,) for the first time, in the Jewish Church by uninspired\nRabbis, in nearly or altogether the same words as those of the Apostles,\nand know that before and in the Apostolic age, these anticipations had\nbecome popular, and generally received notions; and lastly, because they\nwere borrowed by the Jews from the Greek philosophy, and like several\nother notions, taken from less respectable quarters, adapted to their\nancient and national religious belief. Now I know of no revealed truth\nthat did not originate in Revelation, and find it hard to reconcile my\nmind to the belief that any Christian truth, any essential article of\nfaith, should have been first made known by the father of lies, or the\nguess-work of the human understanding blinded by Paganism, or at best\nwithout the knowledge of the true God. Of course I would not apply this\nto any assertion of any New Testament writer, which was the final aim\nand primary intention of the whole passage; but only to sentences 'in\nordine ad' some other doctrine or precept, 'illustrandi causa', or 'ad\nhominem', or 'more suasorio sive ad ornaturam, et rhetorice'.\n\n\nIb. Part II. p. 145.\n\n  Second characteristic. 'The kingdom shall be divided.'--Third\n  characteristic. 'The kingdom shall be partly strong and partly\n  brittle.'--Fourth characteristic. 'They shall mingle themselves with\n  the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another.'\n\nHow exactly do these characters apply to the Greek Empire under the\nsuccessors of Alexander,--when the Greeks were dispersed over the\ncivilized world, as artists, rhetoricians, 'grammatici', secretaries,\nprivate tutors, parasites, physicians, and the like!\n\n\nIb. p. 153.\n\n  'For to them he thus speaketh in the Gospel: And then shall they see\n  the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. And when\n  these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your\n  heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.'\n\nI cannot deny that there is great force and an imposing verisimilitude\nin this and the preceding chapter, and much that demands silent thought\nand respectful attention. But still the great question presses on\nme:--'coming in a cloud'! What is the true import of this phrase? Has\nnot God himself expounded it? To the Son of Man, the great Apostle\nassures us, all power is given in heaven and on earth. He became\nProvidence,--that is, a Divine Power behind the cloudy veil of human\nagency and worldly events and incidents, controlling, disposing, and\ndirecting acts and events to the gradual unfolding and final\nconsummation of the great scheme of Redemption; the casting forth of the\nevil and alien nature from man, and thus effecting the union of the\ncreature with the Creator, of man with God, in and through the Son of\nMan, even the Son of God made manifest. Now can it be doubted by the\nattentive and unprejudiced reader of St. Matthew, c. xxiv, that the Son\nof Man, in fact, came in the utter destruction and devastation of the\nJewish Temple and State, during the period from Vespasian to Hadrian,\nboth included; and is it a sufficient reason for our rejecting the\nteaching of Christ himself, of Christ glorified and in his kingly\ncharacter, that his Apostles, who disclaim all certain knowledge of the\nawful event, had understood his words otherwise, and in a sense more\ncommensurate with their previous notions and the prejudices of their\neducation? They communicated their conjectures, but as conjectures, and\nthese too guarded by the avowal, that they had no revelation, no\nrevealed commentary on their Master's words, upon this occasion, the\ngreat apocalypse of Jesus Christ while yet in the flesh. For by this\ntitle was this great prophecy known among the Christians of the\nApostolic age.\n\n\nIb. p. 253.\n\n  Never, Oh! our Lady! never, Oh! our Mother! shalt thou fall again into\n  the crime of idolatry.\n\nWas ever blindness like unto this blindness? I can imagine but one way\nof making it seem possible, namely, that this round square or\nrectilineal curve--this honest Jesuit, I mean--had confined his\nconception of idolatry to the worship of false gods;--whereas his saints\nare genuine godlings, and his 'Magna Mater' a goddess in her own\nright;--and that thus he overlooked the meaning of the word.\n\n\nIb. p. 254.\n\n  The entire text of the Apostle is as follows:--'Now we beseech you,\n  brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering\n  together unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind', &c. (2 Thess.\n  ii. 1-10.)\n\nO Edward Irving! Edward Irving! by what fascination could your spirit be\ndrawn away from passages like this, to guess and dream over the\nrhapsodies of the Apocalypse? For rhapsody, according to your\ninterpretation, the Poem undeniably is;--though, rightly expounded, it\nis a well knit and highly poetical evolution of a part of this and our\nLord's more comprehensive prediction, 'Luke' xvii.\n\n\nIb. p. 297.\n\n  On the ordinary ideas of the coming of Christ in glory and majesty, it\n  will doubtless appear an extravagance to name the Jews, or to take\n  them into consideration; for, according to those ideas, they should\n  hardly have the least particle of our attention.\n\nIn comparing this with the preceding chapter I could not help\nexclaiming; What an excellent book would this Jesuit have written, if\nDaniel and the Apocalypse had not existed, or had been unknown to, or\nrejected by, him!\n\nYou may divide Lacunza's points of belief into two parallel\ncolumns;--the first would be found to contain much that is demanded by,\nmuch that is consonant to, and nothing that is not compatible with,\nreason, the harmony of Holy Writ, and the idea of Christian faith. The\nsecond would consist of puerilities and anilities, some impossible, most\nincredible; and all so silly, so sensual, as to befit a dreaming\nTalmudist, not a Scriptural Christian. And this latter column would be\nfound grounded on Daniel and the Apocalypse!\n\n\n\n[Footnote 1: The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty. By Juan Josafat\nBen-Ezra, a converted Jew. Translated from the Spanish, with a\npreliminary Discourse. By the Rev. Edward Irving, A.M. London, 1827.]\n\n\n[Footnote 2:  See 'supra', vol. iii. p. 93.--Ed.]\n\n\n[Footnote 3: P. 157, 4th edit.--Ed.]\n\n\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\n\nNOTES ON NOBLE'S APPEAL. 1827. [1]\n\nHow natural it is to mistake the weakness of an adversary's arguments\nfor the strength of our own cause! This is especially applicable to Mr.\nNoble's Appeal. Assuredly as far as Mr. Beaumont's Notes are concerned,\nhis victory is complete.\n\n\nSect. IV. p. 210.\n\n  The intellectual spirit is moving upon the chaos of minds, which\n  ignorance and necessity have thrown into collision and confusion; and\n  the result will be a new creation. \"Nature\" (to use the nervous\n  language of an-old writer,) \"will be melted down and recoined; and all\n  will be bright and beautiful.\"\n\nAlas! if this be possible now, or at any time henceforward, whence came\nthe dross? If nature be bullion that can be melted and thus purified by\nthe conjoint action of heat and elective attraction, I pray Mr. Noble to\ntell me to what name or 'genus' he refers the dross? Will he tell me, to\nthe Devil? Whence came the Devil? And how was the pure bullion so\nthoughtlessly made as to have an elective affinity for this Devil?\n\n\nSect. V. p. 286.\n\n  The next anecdote that I shall adduce is similar in its nature to the\n  last * * *. The relater is Dr. Stilling, Counsellor at the Court of\n  the Duke of Baden, in a work entitled 'Die Theorie der Geister-Kunde',\n  printed in 1808.\n\nMr. Noble is a man of too much English good sense to have relied on\nSung's ('alias' Dr. Stilling's) testimony, had he ever read the work in\nwhich this passage is found. I happen to possess the work; and a more\nanile, credulous, solemn fop never existed since the days of old Audley.\nIt is strange that Mr. Noble should not have heard, that these three\nanecdotes were first related by Immanuel Kant, and still exist in his\nmiscellaneous writings.\n\n\nIb. p. 315.\n\n  \"Can he be a sane man who records the subsequent reverie as matter of\n  fact? The Baron informs us, that on a certain night a man appeared to\n  him in the midst of a strong shining light, and said, 'I am God the\n  Lord, the Creator and Redeemer; I have chosen thee to explain to men\n  the interior and spiritual sense of the Sacred Writings: I will\n  dictate to thee what thou oughtest to write?' From this period, the\n  Baron relates he was so illumined, as to behold, in the clearest\n  manner, what passed in the spiritual world, and that he could converse\n  with angels and spirits as with men,\" &c.\n\nI remember no such passage as this in Swedenborg's works. Indeed it is\nvirtually contradicted by their whole tenor. Swedenborg asserts himself\nto relate 'visa et audita',--his own experience, as a traveller and\nvisitor of the spiritual world,--not the words of another as a mere\n'amanuensis'. But altogether this Gulielmus must be a silly Billy.\n\n\nIb. p. 321.\n\n  The Apostolic canon in such cases is, 'Believe not every spirit, but\n  try the spirits whether they be of God'. (1 John iv. 1.) And the\n  touchstone to which they are to be brought is pointed out by the\n  Prophet: 'To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according\n  to this word, it is because there is no truth in them.' (Is. viii.\n  20.) But instead of this canon you offer another * * *. It is simply\n  this: Whoever professes to be the bearer of divine communications, is\n  insane. To bring Swedenborg within the operation of this rule, you\n  quote, as if from his own works, a passage which is nowhere to be\n  found in them, but which you seem to have taken from some biographical\n  dictionary or cyclop\u00e6dia; few or none of which give anything like a\n  fair account of the matter.\n\nAye! my memory did not fail me, I find. As to insanity in the sense\nintended by Gulielmus, namely, as 'mania',--I should as little think of\ncharging Swedenborg with it, as of calling a friend mad who laboured\nunder an 'acyanoblepsia'.\n\n\nIb. p. 323.\n\n  Did you never read of one who says, in words very like your version of\n  the Baron's reverie: 'It came to pass, that, as I took my journey, and\n  was come nigh unto Damascus, about noon, suddenly there shone from\n  heaven a great light round about me: and I fell on the ground, and\n  heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?'\n\nIn the short space of four years the newspapers contained three several\ncases, two of which I cut out, and still have among my ocean of papers,\nand which, as stated, were as nearly parallel, in external\naccompaniments, to St. Paul's as cases can well be:--struck with\nlightning,--heard the thunder as an articulate voice,--blind for a few\ndays, and suddenly recovered their sight. But then there was no Ananias,\nno confirming revelation to another. This it was that justified St. Paul\nas a wise man in regarding the incident as supernatural, or as more than\na providential omen. N. B. Not every revelation requires a sensible\nmiracle as the credential; but every revelation of a new series of\n'credenda'. The prophets appealed to records of acknowledged authority,\nand to their obvious sense literally interpreted. The Baptist needed no\nmiracle to attest his right of calling sinners to repentance. See\n'Exodus' iv. 10.\n\n\nIb. pp. 346, 7.\n\n  This sentiment, that miracles are not the proper evidences of\n  doctrinal truth, is, assuredly, the decision of the Truth itself; as\n  is obvious from many passages in Scripture. We have seen that the\n  design of the miracles of Moses, as external performances, was not to\n  instruct the Israelites in spiritual subjects, but to make them\n  obedient subjects of a peculiar species of political state. And though\n  the miracles of Jesus Christ collaterally served as testimonies to his\n  character, he repeatedly intimates that this was not their main\n  design. * * * At another time more plainly still, he says, that it is\n  'a wicked and adulterous generation' (that) 'seeketh after a sign'; on\n  which occasion, according to Mark, 'he sighed deeply in his spirit'.\n  How characteristic is that touch of the Apostle, 'The Jews require a\n  sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom!' (where by wisdom he means the\n  elegance and refinement of Grecian literature.)\n\nAgreeing, as in the main I do, with the sentiments here expressed by\nthis eloquent writer, I must notice that he has, however, mistaken the\nsense of the [Greek: saemeion], which the Jews would have tempted our\nSaviour to shew,--namely, the signal for revolt by openly declaring\nhimself their king, and leading them against the Romans. The\nforeknowledge that this superstition would shortly hurry them into utter\nruin caused the deep sigh,--as on another occasion, the bitter tears.\nAgain, by the [Greek: soph\u00eda] of the Greeks their disputatious [Greek:\nsophistik\u00e0e] is meant. The sophists pretended to teach wisdom as an art:\nand 'sophist\u00e6' may be literally rendered, wisdom-mongers, as we say,\niron-mongers.\n\n\nIb. p. 350.\n\n  Some probably will say, \"What argument can induce us to believe a man\n  in a concern of this nature who gives no visible credentials to his\n  authority?\" * * * But let us ask in return, \"Is it worthy of a being\n  wearing the figure of a man to require such proofs as these to\n  determine his judgment?\" * * * \"The beasts act from the impulse of\n  their bodily senses, but are utterly incapable of seeing from reason\n  why they should so act: and it might easily be shewn, that while a man\n  thinks and acts under the influence of a miracle, he is as much\n  incapable of perceiving from any rational ground why he should thus\n  think and act, as a beast is.\" \"What!\" our opponents will perhaps\n  reply, * * * \"Was it not by miracles that the prophets (some of them)\n  testified their authority? Do you not believe these facts?\" Yes, my\n  friends, I do most entirely believe them, &c.\n\nThere is so much of truth in all this reasoning on miracles, that I feel\npain in the thought that the result is false,--because it was not the\nwhole truth. But this is the grounding, and at the same time pervading,\nerror of the Swedenborgians;--that they overlook the distinction between\ncongruity with reason, truth of consistency, or internal possibility of\nthis or that being objectively real, and the objective reality as fact.\nMiracles, 'quoad' miracles, can never supply the place of subjective\nevidence, that is, of insight. But neither can subjective insight supply\nthe place of objective sight. The certainty of the truth of a\nmathematical arch can never prove the fact of its existence. I\nanticipate the answers; but know that they likewise proceed from the\nwant of distinguishing between ideas, such as God, Eternity, the\nresponsible Will, the Good, and the like,--the actuality of which is\nabsolutely subjective, and includes both the relatively subjective and\nthe relatively objective as higher or transcendant realities, which\nalone are the proper objects of faith, the great postulates of reason in\norder to its own admission of its own being,--the not distinguishing, I\nsay, between these, and those positions which must be either matters of\nfact or fictions. For such latter positions it is that miracles are\nrequired in lieu of experience. A.'s testimony of experience supplies\nthe want of the same experience for B. C. D., &c. For example, how many\nthousands believe the existence of red snow on the testimony of Captain\nParry! But who can expect more than hints in a marginal note?\n\n\nSect. VI. pp. 378, 9; 380, 1.\n\n  In the general views, then, which are presented in the writings of\n  Swedenborg on the subject of Heaven and Hell, as the abodes,\n  respectively, of happiness and of misery, while there certainly is not\n  anything which is not in the highest degree agreeable both to reason\n  and Scripture, there also seems nothing which could be deemed\n  inconsistent with the usual conceptions of the Christian world.\n\nWhat tends to render thinking readers a little sceptical, is the want of\na distinct boundary between the deductions from reason, and the\narticles, the truth of which is to rest on the Baron's personal\ntestimony, his 'visa et audita'. Nor is the Baron himself (as it appears\nto me) quite consistent on this point.\n\n\nIb. p. 434.\n\n  Witness, again, the poet Milton, who introduces active sports among\n  the recreations which he deemed worthy of angels, and (strange indeed\n  for a Puritan!) included even dancing among the number.\n\nHow could a man of Noble's sense and sensibility bring himself thus to\nprofane the awful name of Milton, by associating it with the epithet\n\"Puritan?\"\n\nI have often thought of writing a work to be entitled 'Vindici\u00e6\nHeterodox\u00e6, sive celebrium virorum [Greek: paradogmatiz\u00f3nt\u00f4n] defensio';\nthat is, Vindication of Great Men unjustly branded; and at such times\nthe names prominent to my mind's eye have been Giordano Bruno, Jacob\nBehmen, Benedict Spinoza, and Emanuel Swedenborg. Grant, that the origin\nof the Swedenborgian theology is a problem; yet on which ever of the\nthree possible hypotheses--(possible I mean for gentlemen, scholars and\nChristians)--it may be solved---namely:\n\n1. Swedenborg's own assertion\nand constant belief in the hypothesis of a supernatural illumination;\nor,\n\n2. that the great and excellent man was led into this belief by\nbecoming the subject of a very rare, but not (it is said) altogether\nunique, conjunction of the somniative faculty (by which the products of\nthe understanding, that is to say, words, conceptions and the like, are\nrendered instantaneously into forms of sense) with the voluntary and\nother powers of the waking state; or,\n\n3. the modest suggestion that the first and second may not be so\nincompatible as they appear--still it ought never to be forgotten that\nthe merit and value of Swedenborg's system do only in a very secondary\ndegree depend on any one of the three. For even though the first were\nadopted, the conviction and conversion of such a believer must,\naccording to a fundamental principle of the New Church, have been\nwrought by an insight into the intrinsic truth and goodness of the\ndoctrines, severally and collectively, and their entire consonance with\nthe light of the written and of the eternal word, that is, with the\nScriptures and with the sciential and the practical reason. Or say that\nthe second hypothesis were preferred, and that by some hitherto\nunexplained affections of Swedenborg's brain and nervous system, he from\nthe year 1743, thought and reasoned through the 'medium' and\ninstrumentality of a series of appropriate and symbolic visual and\nauditual images, spontaneously rising before him, and these so clear and\nso distinct, as at length to overpower perhaps his first suspicions of\ntheir subjective nature, and to become objective for him, that is, in\nhis own belief of their kind and origin,--still the thoughts, the\nreasonings, the grounds, the deductions, the facts illustrative, or in\nproof, and the conclusions, remain the same; and the reader might derive\nthe same benefit from them as from the sublime and impressive truths\nconveyed in the Vision of Mirza or the Tablet of Cebes. So much even\nfrom a very partial acquaintance with the works of Swedenborg, I can\nventure to assert; that as a moralist Swedenborg is above all praise;\nand that as a naturalist, psychologist, and theologian, he has strong\nand varied claims on the gratitude and admiration of the professional\nand philosophical student.--April 1827.\n\nP. S. Notwithstanding all that Mr. Noble says in justification of his\narrangement, it is greatly to be regretted that the contents of this\nwork are so confusedly tossed together. It is, however, a work of great\nmerit.\n\n\n\n[Footnote 1: An Appeal in behalf of the views of the eternal world and\nstate, and the doctrines of faith and life, held by the body of\nChristians who believe that a New Church is signified (in the\nRevelation, c. xxi.) by the New Jerusalem, including Answers to\nobjections, particularly those of the Rev. G. Beaumont, in his work\nentitled \"The Anti-Swedenborg.\" Addressed to the reflecting of all\ndenominations. By Samuel Noble, Minister of Hanover Street Chapel,\nLondon. London, 1826. Ed.]\n\n\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\n\nESSAY ON FAITH.\n\nFaith may be defined, as fidelity to our own being--so far as such being\nis not and cannot become an object of the senses; and hence, by clear\ninference or implication, to being generally, as far as the same is not\nthe object of the senses: and again to whatever is affirmed or\nunderstood as the condition, or concomitant, or consequence of the same.\nThis will be best explained by an instance or example. That I am\nconscious of something within me peremptorily commanding me to do unto\nothers as I would they should do unto me;--in other words, a categorical\n(that is, primary and unconditional) imperative;--that the maxim\n('regula maxima' or supreme rule) of my actions, both inward and\noutward, should be such as I could, without any contradiction arising\ntherefrom, will to be the law of all moral and rational beings;--this, I\nsay, is a fact of which I am no less conscious (though in a different\nway), nor less assured, than I am of any appearance presented by my\noutward senses. Nor is this all; but in the very act of being conscious\nof this in my own nature, I know that it is a fact of which all men\neither are or ought to be conscious;--a fact, the ignorance of which\nconstitutes either the non-personality of the ignorant, or the guilt, in\nwhich latter case the ignorance is equivalent to knowledge wilfully\ndarkened. I know that I possess this consciousness as a man, and not as\nSamuel Taylor Coleridge; hence knowing that consciousness of this fact\nis the root of all other consciousness, and the only practical\ncontradistinction of man from the brutes, we name it the conscience; by\nthe natural absence or presumed presence of which, the law, both divine\nand human, determines whether X Y Z be a thing or a person:--the\nconscience being that which never to have had places the objects in the\nsame order of things as the brutes, for example, idiots; and to have\nlost which implies either insanity or apostasy. Well--this we have\naffirmed is a fact of which every honest man is as fully assured as of\nhis seeing, hearing or smelling. But though the former assurance does\nnot differ from the latter in the degree, it is altogether diverse in\nthe kind; the senses being morally passive, while the conscience is\nessentially connected with the will, though not always, nor indeed in\nany case, except after frequent attempts and aversions of will,\ndependent on the choice. Thence we call the presentations of the senses\nimpressions, those of the conscience commands or dictates. In the senses\nwe find our receptivity, and as far as our personal being is concerned,\nwe are passive;--but in the fact of the conscience we are not only\nagents, but it is by this alone, that we know ourselves to be such; nay,\nthat our very passiveness in this latter is an act of passiveness, and\nthat we are patient ('patientes')--not, as in the other case, 'simply'\npassive. The result is, the consciousness of responsibility; and the\nproof is afforded by the inward experience of the diversity between\nregret and remorse.\n\nIf I have sound ears, and my companion speaks to me with a due\nproportion of voice, I may persuade him that I did not hear, but cannot\ndeceive myself. But when my conscience speaks to me, I can, by repeated\nefforts, render myself finally insensible; to which add this other\ndifference in the case of conscience, namely, that to make myself deaf\nis one and the same thing with making my conscience dumb, till at length\nI become unconscious of my conscience. Frequent are the instances in\nwhich it is suspended, and as it were drowned, in the inundation of the\nappetites, passions and imaginations, to which I have resigned myself,\nmaking use of my will in order to abandon my free-will; and there are\nnot, I fear, examples wanting of the conscience being utterly destroyed,\nor of the passage of wickedness into madness;--that species of madness,\nnamely, in which the reason is lost. For so long as the reason\ncontinues, so long must the conscience exist either as a good\nconscience, or as a bad conscience.\n\nIt appears then, that even the very first step, that the initiation of\nthe process, the becoming conscious of a conscience, partakes of the\nnature of an act. It is an act, in and by which we take upon ourselves\nan allegiance, and consequently the obligation of fealty; and this\nfealty or fidelity implying the power of being unfaithful, it is the\nfirst and fundamental sense of Faith. It is likewise the commencement of\nexperience, and the result of all other experience. In other words,\nconscience, in this its simplest form, must be supposed in order to\nconsciousness, that is, to human consciousness. Brutes may be, and are\nscions, but those beings only, who have an I, 'scire possunt hoc vel\nillud una cum seipsis'; that is, 'conscire vel scire aliquid mecum', or\nto know a thing in relation to myself, and in the act of knowing myself\nas acted upon by that something.\n\nNow the third person could never have been distinguished from the first\nbut by means of the second. There can be no He without a previous Thou.\nMuch less could an I exist for us, except as it exists during the\nsuspension of the will, as in dreams; and the nature of brutes may be\nbest understood, by conceiving them as somnambulists. This is a deep\nmeditation, though the position is capable of the strictest\nproof,--namely, that there can be no I without a Thou, and that a Thou\nis only possible by an equation in which I is taken as equal to Thou,\nand yet not the same. And this again is only possible by putting them in\nopposition as correspondent opposites, or correlatives. In order to\nthis, a something must be affirmed in the one, which is rejected in the\nother, and this something is the will. I do not will to consider myself\nas equal to myself, for in the very act of constituting myself 'I', I\ntake it as the same, and therefore as incapable of comparison, that is,\nof any application of the will. If then, I 'minus' the will be the\n'thesis'; [2] Thou 'plus' will must be the 'antithesis', but the\nequation of Thou with I, by means of a free act, negativing the sameness\nin order to establish the equality, is the true definition of\nconscience. But as without a Thou there can be no You, so without a You\nno They, These or Those; and as all these conjointly form the materials\nand subjects of consciousness, and the conditions of experience, it is\nevident that the con-science is the root of all consciousness,--'a\nfortiori', the precondition of all experience,--and that the conscience\ncannot have been in its first revelation deduced from experience. Soon,\nhowever, experience comes into play. We learn that there are other\nimpulses beside the dictates of conscience; that there are powers within\nus and without us ready to usurp the throne of conscience, and busy in\ntempting us to transfer our allegiance. We learn that there are many\nthings contrary to conscience, and therefore to be rejected, and utterly\nexcluded, and many that can coexist with its supremacy only by being\nsubjugated, as beasts of burthen; and others again, as, for instance,\nthe social tendernesses and affections, and the faculties and\nexcitations of the intellect, which must be at least subordinated. The\npreservation of our loyalty and fealty under these trials and against\nthese rivals constitutes the second sense of Faith; and we shall need\nbut one more point of view to complete its full import. This is the\nconsideration of what is presupposed in the human conscience. The answer\nis ready. As in the equation of the correlative I and Thou, one of the\ntwin constituents is to be taken as 'plus' will, the other as 'minus'\nwill, so is it here: and it is obvious that the reason or\n'super'-individual of each man, whereby he is man, is the factor we are\nto take as 'minus' will; and that the individual will or personalizing\nprinciple of free agency (arbitrement is Milton's word) is the factor\nmarked 'plus' will;--and again, that as the identity or coinherence of\nthe absolute will and the reason, is the peculiar character of God; so\nis the 'synthesis' of the individual will and the common reason, by the\nsubordination of the former to the latter, the only possible likeness or\nimage of the 'prothesis', or identity, and therefore the required proper\ncharacter of man. Conscience, then, is a witness respecting the identity\nof the will and the reason effected by the self-subordination of the\nwill, or self, to the reason, as equal to, or representing, the will of\nGod. But the personal will is a factor in other moral 'syntheses'; for\nexample, appetite 'plus' personal will=sensuality; lust of power, 'plus'\npersonal will,=ambition, and so on, equally as in the 'synthesis', on\nwhich the conscience is grounded. Not this therefore, but the other\n'synthesis', must supply the specific character of the conscience; and\nwe must enter into an analysis of reason. Such as the nature and objects\nof the reason are, such must be the functions and objects of the\nconscience. And the former we shall best learn by recapitulating those\nconstituents of the total man which are either contrary to, or disparate\nfrom, the reason.\n\n  I.   Reason, and the proper objects of reason, are wholly alien from\n       sensation. Reason is supersensual, and its antagonist is\n       appetite, and the objects of appetite the lust of the flesh.\n\n  II.  Reason and its objects do not appertain to the world of the\n       senses inward or outward; that is, they partake not of sense or\n       fancy. Reason is super-sensuous, and here its antagonist is the\n       lust of the eye.\n\n  III. Reason and its objects are not things of reflection, association,\n       discursion, discourse in the old sense of the word as opposed to\n       intuition; \"discursive or intuitive,\" as Milton has it. Reason\n       does not indeed necessarily exclude the finite, either in time or\n       in space, but it includes them 'eminenter'. Thus the prime mover\n       of the material universe is affirmed to contain all motion as its\n       cause, but not to be, or to suffer, motion in itself.\n\nReason is not the faculty of the finite. But here I must premise the\nfollowing. The faculty of the finite is that which reduces the confused\nimpressions of sense to their essential forms,--quantity, quality,\nrelation, and in these action and reaction, cause and effect, and the\nlike; thus raises the materials furnished by the senses and sensations\ninto objects of reflection, and so makes experience possible. Without\nit, man's representative powers would be a delirium, a chaos, a scudding\ncloudage of shapes; and it is therefore most appropriately called the\nunderstanding, or substantiative faculty. Our elder metaphysicians, down\nto Hobbes inclusively, called this likewise discourse, 'discursus,\ndiscursio,' from its mode of action as not staying at any one object,\nbut running as it were to and fro to abstract, generalize, and classify.\nNow when this faculty is employed in the service of the pure reason, it\nbrings out the necessary and universal truths contained in the infinite\ninto distinct contemplation by the pure act of the sensuous imagination,\nthat is, in the production of the forms of space and time abstracted\nfrom all corporeity, and likewise of the inherent forms of the\nunderstanding itself abstractedly from the consideration of particulars,\nas in the case of geometry, numeral mathematics, universal logic, and\npure metaphysics. The discursive faculty then becomes what our\nShakspeare with happy precision calls \"discourse of reason.\"\n\nWe will now take up our reasoning again from the words \"motion in\nitself.\"\n\nIt is evident then, that the reason, as the irradiative power, and the\nrepresentative of the infinite, judges the understanding as the faculty\nof the finite, and cannot without error be judged by it. When this is\nattempted, or when the understanding in its 'synthesis' with the\npersonal will, usurps the supremacy of the reason, or affects to\nsupersede the reason, it is then what St. Paul calls the mind of the\nflesh ([Greek: phr\u00f3naema sark\u00f2s]) or the wisdom of this world. The\nresult is, that the reason is super-finite; and in this relation, its\nantagonist is the insubordinate understanding, or mind of the flesh.\n\nIV. Reason, as one with the absolute will, ('In the beginning was the\n    Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God',) and\n    therefore for man the certain representative of the will of God, is\n    above the will of man as an individual will. We have seen in III.\n    that it stands in antagonism to all mere particulars; but here it\n    stands in antagonism to all mere individual interests as so many\n    selves, to the personal will as seeking its objects in the\n    manifestation of itself for itself--'sit pro ratione\n    voluntas';--whether this be realized with adjuncts, as in the lust\n    of the flesh, and in the lust of the eye; or without adjuncts, as in\n    the thirst and pride of power, despotism, egoistic ambition. The\n    fourth antagonist, then, of reason is the lust of the will.\n\nCorollary. Unlike a million of tigers, a million of men is very\ndifferent from a million times one man. Each man in a numerous society\nis not only coexistent with, but virtually organized into, the multitude\nof which he is an integral part. His 'idem' is modified by the 'alter'.\nAnd there arise impulses and objects from this 'synthesis' of the 'alter\net idem', myself and my neighbour. This, again, is strictly analogous to\nwhat takes place in the vital organization of the individual man. The\ncerebral system of nerves has its correspondent 'antithesis' in the\nabdominal system: but hence arises a 'synthesis' of the two in the\npectoral system as the intermediate, and, like a drawbridge, at once\nconductor and boundary. In the latter as objectized by the former arise\nthe emotions, affections, and in one word, the passions, as\ndistinguished from the cognitions and appetites. Now the reason has been\nshown to be super-individual, generally, and therefore not less so when\nthe form of an individualization subsists in the 'alter', than when it\nis confined to the 'idem'; not less when the emotions have their\nconscious or believed object in another, than when their subject is the\nindividual personal self. For though these emotions, affections,\nattachments, and the like, are the prepared ladder by which the lower\nnature is taken up into, and made to partake of, the highest room,--as\nwe are taught to give a feeling of reality to the higher 'per medium\ncommune' with the lower, and thus gradually to see the reality of the\nhigher (namely, the objects of reason) and finally to know that the\nlatter are indeed and pre-eminently real, as if you love your earthly\nparents whom you see, by these means you will learn to love your\nHeavenly Father who is invisible;--yet this holds good only so far as\nthe reason is the president, and its objects the ultimate aim; and cases\nmay arise in which the Christ as the Logos or Redemptive Reason\ndeclares, 'He that loves father or mother more than me, is not worthy of\nme'; nay, he that can permit his emotions to rise to an equality with\nthe universal reason, is in enmity with that reason. Here then reason\nappears as the love of God; and its antagonist is the attachment to\nindividuals wherever it exists in diminution of, or in competition with,\nthe love which is reason.\n\nIn these five paragraphs I have enumerated and explained the several\npowers or forces belonging or incidental to human nature, which in all\nmatters of reason the man is bound either to subjugate or subordinate to\nreason. The application to Faith follows of its own accord. The first or\nmost indefinite sense of faith is fidelity: then fidelity under previous\ncontract or particular moral obligation. In this sense faith is fealty\nto a rightful superior: faith is the duty of a faithful subject to a\nrightful governor. Then it is allegiance in active service; fidelity to\nthe liege lord under circumstances, and amid the temptations, of\nusurpation, rebellion, and intestine discord. Next we seek for that\nrightful superior on our duties to whom all our duties to all other\nsuperiors, on our faithfulness to whom all our bounden relations to all\nother objects of fidelity, are founded. We must inquire after that duty\nin which all others find their several degrees and dignities, and from\nwhich they derive their obligative force. We are to find a superior,\nwhose rights, including our duties, are presented to the mind in the\nvery idea of that Supreme Being, whose sovereign prerogatives are\npredicates implied in the subjects, as the essential properties of a\ncircle are co-assumed in the first assumption of a circle, consequently\nunderived, unconditional, and as rationally insusceptible, so probably\nprohibitive, of all further question. In this sense then faith is\nfidelity, fealty, allegiance of the moral nature to God, in opposition\nto all usurpation, and in resistance to all temptation to the placing\nany other claim above or equal with our fidelity to God.\n\nThe will of God is the last ground and final aim of all our duties, and\nto that the whole man is to be harmonized by subordination, subjugation,\nor suppression alike in commission and omission. But the will of God,\nwhich is one with the supreme intelligence, is revealed to man through\nthe conscience. But the conscience, which consists in an inappellable\nbearing-witness to the truth and reality of our reason, may legitimately\nbe construed with the term reason, so far as the conscience is\nprescriptive; while as approving or condemning, it is the consciousness\nof the subordination or insubordination, the harmony or discord, of the\npersonal will of man to and with the representative of the will of God.\nThis brings me to the last and fullest sense of Faith, that is, as the\nobedience of the individual will to the reason, in the lust of the flesh\nas opposed to the supersensual; in the lust of the eye as opposed to the\nsupersensuous; in the pride of the understanding as opposed to the\ninfinite, in the [Greek: phronaema sarkos] in contrariety to the\nspiritual truth; in the lust of the personal will as opposed to the\nabsolute and universal; and in the love of the creature, as far as it is\nopposed to the love which is one with the reason, namely, the love of\nGod.\n\nThus then to conclude. Faith subsists in the 'synthesis' of the reason\nand the individual will. By virtue of the latter therefore it must be an\nenergy, and inasmuch as it relates to the whole moral man, it must be\nexerted in each and all of his constituents or incidents, faculties and\ntendencies;--it must be a total, not a partial; a continuous, not a\ndesultory or occasional energy. And by virtue of the former, that is,\nreason, faith must be a light, a form of knowing, a beholding of truth.\nIn the incomparable words of the Evangelist, therefore--'faith must be a\nlight originating in the Logos, or the substantial reason, which is\ncoeternal and one with the Holy Will, and which light is at the same\ntime the life of men'. Now as life is here the sum or collective of all\nmoral and spiritual acts, in suffering, doing, and being, so is faith\nthe source and the sum, the energy and the principle of the fidelity of\nman to God, by the subordination of his human will, in all provinces of\nhis nature to his reason, as the sum of spiritual truth, representing\nand manifesting the will Divine.\n\n\nEND OF VOL. IV. (The Final Volume in this series.)","title":"The Literary Remains of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Volume 4","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":110204}