{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_44795/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_44795","id":"gutenberg_44795","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/44795","summary":null,"tags":["Aphorisms and apothegms","Bible -- History","Bible -- Inspiration","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, 1772-1834 -- Religion","Conduct of life","Faith","Religion -- Quotations, maxims, etc."],"text":"Transcriber's Note.\n\nThe \"Aphorisms on that which is indeed Spiritual Religion\" extend from\np. 102 to p. 241. They are interspersed with other material that is\nlisted in the Table of Contents. In addition some of the Aphorisms are\nlisted separately in the Table. It has been modified to clarify this.\n\nBiblical references have been standardised on one of the more common\nformats, viz. \"1 John iv. 5.\".\n\nThe Erratum has been incorporated in the text.\n\nApparent typographical errors have been corrected, although\ninconsistencies in hyphenation have been retained.\n\nItalics are indicated by _underscores_. Greek accents have been\nomitted though rough-breathing marks have been retained. Small\ncapitals have been converted to full capitals.\n\n\n\n\n AIDS TO REFLECTION\n\n AND\n\n THE CONFESSIONS OF AN\n INQUIRING SPIRIT.\n\n BY\n\n SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE.\n\n TO WHICH ARE ADDED\n\n HIS ESSAYS ON FAITH AND THE BOOK OF\n COMMON PRAYER, ETC.\n\n _NEW EDITION, REVISED._\n\n LONDON: GEORGE BELL AND SONS, YORK STREET,\n COVENT GARDEN.\n 1884.\n\n\n CHISWICK PRESS: C. WHITTINGHAM AND CO., TOOKS COURT,\n CHANCERY LANE.\n\n\n\n\nNOTE TO THIS EDITION.\n\n\nThe present re-print of the 'Aids to Reflection' is mainly from Mr. H.\nN. Coleridge's, or the fourth edition. In some points, however, the\nearlier editions, which have been carefully consulted throughout, have\nbeen followed.\n\nDr. Marsh's Preliminary Essay to the 'Aids to Reflection' is printed\nfrom his own second edition, published with the 'Aids' at Burlington,\nU.S., in 1840.\n\nColeridge's posthumous 'Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit' is from\nMr. H. N. Coleridge's text, which was printed from the author's MS.\n\nThe 'Essay on Faith' and 'Notes on the Book of Common Prayer' are\nre-printed from Coleridge's 'Remains,' as being, possibly, parts of\nthe \"supplementary volume\" to the 'Aids to Reflection,' which the\nauthor contemplated (_vide_ p. 257) but never published. The 'Nightly\nPrayer' is also re-printed from Coleridge's 'Remains.'\n\n\n\n\n CONTENTS.\n\n\n AIDS TO REFLECTION:                                              PAGE\n\n   Author's Original Title-page, 1825                               ix\n\n   Mr. H. N. Coleridge's Advertisement to the Fourth Edition        xi\n\n   Author's Address to the Reader                                 xiii\n\n   Author's Preface and Advertisement                               xv\n\n   Dr. Marsh's Preliminary Essay                                 xxiii\n\n   Introductory Aphorisms                                            1\n\n   On Sensibility                                                   22\n\n   Prudential Aphorisms                                             27\n\n   Moral and Religious Aphorisms                                    35\n\n   Elements of Religious Philosophy                                 88\n\n   Aphorisms on Spiritual Religion                                  96\n\n   Aphorisms on that which is indeed Spiritual Religion            102\n\n   On the Difference in kind of Reason and the Understanding\n     (after Aphorism VIII.)                                        143\n\n   On Instinct in Connection with the Understanding\n     (in Comment on Aphorism IX.)                                  162\n\n   On Original Sin (Aphorism X.)                                   172\n\n   Paley not a Moralist (Aphorism XII.)                            196\n\n   On Redemption (in Comment on Aphorism XIX.)                     223\n\n   On Baptism                                                      242\n\n   Conclusion                                                      258\n\n   Appendix A: Summary of the Argument on Reason and the\n     Understanding                                                 277\n\n   Appendix B: On Instinct; by Prof. J. H. Green                   278\n\n CONFESSIONS OF AN INQUIRING SPIRIT: Letters on the\n   Inspiration of the Scriptures                                   285\n\n   The Pentad of Operative Christianity                            288\n\n   Questions as to the Divine Origin of the Bible                  289\n\n   Letter I.                                                       291\n\n   Letter II.                                                      296\n\n   Letter III.                                                     301\n\n   Letter IV.                                                      308\n\n   Letter V.                                                       321\n\n   Letter VI.                                                      322\n\n   Letter VII.                                                     333\n\n ESSAY ON FAITH                                                    341\n\n NOTES ON THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER                                350\n\n A NIGHTLY PRAYER                                                  360\n\n INDEX                                                             363\n\n\n\n\n [_ORIGINAL TITLE-PAGE, 1825._]\n\n AIDS TO REFLECTION\n IN THE\n FORMATION OF A MANLY CHARACTER,\n ON THE SEVERAL GROUNDS OF\n PRUDENCE, MORALITY, AND RELIGION.\n\n ILLUSTRATED BY\n SELECT PASSAGES FROM OUR ELDER DIVINES, ESPECIALLY\n FROM ARCHBISHOP LEIGHTON.\n\n By S. T. COLERIDGE.\n\n\n    This makes, that whatsoever here befalls,\n    You in the region of yourself remain,\n    Neighb'ring on Heaven: and that no foreign land.\n\n    DANIEL.\n\n\n\n\nADVERTISEMENT TO THE FOURTH EDITION.\n\n[BY HENRY NELSON COLERIDGE.]\n\n\nThis corrected Edition of the Aids to Reflection is commended to\nChristian readers, in the hope and the trust that the power which the\nbook has already exercised over hundreds, it may, by God's\nfurtherance, hereafter exercise over thousands. No age, since\nChristianity had a name, has more pointedly needed the mental\ndiscipline taught in this work than that in which we now live; when,\nin the Author's own words, all the great ideas or verities of religion\nseem in danger of being condensed into idols, or evaporated into\nmetaphors. Between the encroachments, on the one hand, of those who so\nmagnify means that they practically impeach the supremacy of the ends\nwhich those means were meant to subserve; and of those, on the other\nhand, who, engrossed in the contemplation of the great Redemptive Act,\nrashly disregard or depreciate the appointed ordinances of\ngrace;--between those who, confounding the sensuous Understanding,\nvarying in every individual, with the universal Reason, the image of\nGod, the same in all men, inculcate a so-called faith, having no\ndemonstrated harmony with the attributes of God, or the essential laws\nof humanity, and being sometimes inconsistent with both; and those\nagain who requiring a logical proof of that which, though not\ncontradicting, does in its very kind, transcend, our reason, virtually\ndeny the existence of true faith altogether;--between these almost\nequal enemies of the truth, Coleridge,--in all his works, but\npre-eminently in this--has kindled an inextinguishable beacon of\nwarning and of guidance. In so doing, he has taken his stand on the\nsure word of Scripture, and is supported by the authority of almost\nevery one of our great divines, before the prevalence of that system\nof philosophy, (Locke's,) which no consistent reasoner can possibly\nreconcile with the undoubted meaning of the Articles and Formularies\nof the English Church:--\n\n    _In causaque valet, causamque juvantibus armis._\n\nThe Editor had intended to offer to the reader a few words by way of\nintroduction to some of the leading points of philosophy contained in\nthis Volume. But he has been delighted to find the work already done\nto his hand, in a manner superior to anything he could have hoped to\naccomplish himself, by an affectionate disciple of Coleridge on the\nother side of the Atlantic. The following Essay was written by the\nRev. James Marsh, President of the University of Vermont, United\nStates of America, and prefixed by him to his Edition of the Aids to\nReflection, published at Burlington in 1829. The Editor has printed\nthis Essay entire;[1]--as well out of respect for its author, as\nbelieving that the few paragraphs in it having a more special\nreference to the state of opinion in America, will not be altogether\nwithout an interest of their own to the attentive observers of the\nprogress of Truth in this or any other country.\n\nLincoln's Inn, 25th April, 1839.\n\n[1] See pp. xxiii-lxxvi. Mr. H. N. Coleridge gave the first edition of\nDr. Marsh's Essay. The reader has in the present volume the essay as\nit appeared in its second and revised edition, 1840.--ED.\n\n\n\n\nTHE AUTHOR'S ADDRESS TO THE READER.\n\n\nFellow-Christian! the wish to be admired as a fine writer held a very\nsubordinate place in my thoughts and feelings in the composition of\nthis volume. Let then its comparative merits and demerits, in respect\nof style and stimulancy, possess a proportional weight, and no more,\nin determining your judgment for or against its contents. Read it\n_through_: then compare the state of your mind, with the state in\nwhich your mind was, when you first opened the book. Has it led you to\nreflect? Has it supplied or suggested fresh subjects for reflection?\nHas it given you any new information? Has it removed any obstacle to a\nlively conviction of your responsibility as a moral agent? Has it\nsolved any difficulties, which had impeded your faith as a Christian?\nLastly, has it increased your power of thinking connectedly?\nEspecially on the Scheme and purpose of the Redemption by Christ? If\nit have done none of these things, condemn it aloud as worthless: and\nstrive to compensate for your own loss of time, by preventing others\nfrom wasting theirs. But if your conscience dictates an affirmative\nanswer to all or any of the preceding questions, declare this too\naloud, and endeavour to extend my utility.[2]\n\n[2] In the place of this Address the first edition, 1825, had the\nAdvertisement which we now print at the end of the Author's Preface,\np. xix.--ED.\n\n\n\n\n \u039f\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b7,\n \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd, \u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nMARINUS.\n\n\n_Omnis divin\u00e6 atque human\u00e6 eruditionis elementa tria, Nosse, Velle,\nPosse; quorum principium unum Mens; cujus oculus Ratio; cui lumen * *\npr\u00e6bet Deus._\n\nVICO.\n\n\n_Naturam hominis hanc Deus ipse voluit, ut duarum rerum cupidus et\nappetens esset, religionis et sapienti\u00e6. Sed homines ideo falluntur,\nquod aut religionem suscipiunt omissa sapientia; aut sapienti\u00e6 soli\nstudent omissa religione; cum alterum sine altero esse non possit\nverum._\n\nLACTANTIUS.\n\n\n\n\nTHE AUTHOR'S PREFACE.\n\n\nAn Author has three points to settle: to what sort his work belongs,\nfor what description of readers it is intended, and the specific end,\nor object, which it is to answer. There is indeed a preliminary\nquestion respecting the end which the writer himself has in view,\nwhether the number of purchasers, or the benefit of the readers. But\nthis may be safely passed by; since where the book itself or the known\nprinciples of the writer do not supersede the question, there will\nseldom be sufficient strength of character for good or for evil, to\nafford much chance of its being either distinctly put or fairly\nanswered.\n\nI shall proceed therefore to state as briefly as possible the\nintentions of the present volume in reference to the three\nfirst-mentioned points, viz. _What?_ For _Whom?_ and _For_ what?\n\nI. WHAT? The answer is contained in the title-page.[3] It belongs to\nthe class of _didactic_ works. Consequently, those who neither wish\n_instruction_ for themselves, nor assistance in instructing others,\nhave no interest in its contents. _Sis sus, sis Divus: sum caltha, et\nnon tibi spiro._\n\nII. FOR WHOM? _Generally_, for as many in all classes as wish for aid\nin disciplining their minds to habits of reflection--for all who,\ndesirous of building up a manly character in the light of distinct\nconsciousness, are content to study the principles of moral\narchitecture on the several grounds of prudence, morality, and\nreligion. And lastly, for all who feel an interest in the Position, I\nhave undertaken to defend--this, namely, that the CHRISTIAN FAITH (_in\nwhich I include every article of belief and doctrine professed by the\nfirst Reformers in common_)[4] IS THE PERFECTION OF HUMAN\nINTELLIGENCE,--an interest sufficiently strong to insure a patient\nattention to the arguments brought in its support.\n\nBut if I am to mention any particular class or description of readers,\nthat were prominent in my thought during the composition of the\nvolume, my reply must be; that it was _especially_ designed for the\nstudious Young at the close of their education or on their first\nentrance into the duties of manhood and the rights of self-government.\nAnd of these, again, in thought and wish I destined the work (the\nlatter and larger portion, at least) yet more particularly to Students\nintended for the Ministry; _first_, as in duty bound, to the members\nof our two Universities: _secondly_, (but only in respect of this\nmental precedency _second_) to all alike of whatever name, who have\ndedicated their future lives to the cultivation of their race, as\nPastors, Preachers, Missionaries, or Instructors of Youth.\n\nIII. FOR WHAT? The worth of an author is estimated by the ends, the\nattainment of which he proposed to himself by the particular work;\nwhile the value of the work depends on its fitness, as the Means. The\nobjects of the present volume are the following, arranged in the order\nof their comparative importance.\n\n1. To direct the reader's attention to the value of the Science of\nWords, their use and abuse (see _Note, p. 5_) and the incalculable\nadvantages attached to the habit of using them appropriately, and with\na distinct knowledge of their primary, derivative, and metaphorical\nsenses. And in furtherance of this Object I have neglected no occasion\nof enforcing the maxim, that to expose a sophism and to detect the\nequivocal or double meaning of a word is, in the great majority of\ncases, one and the same thing. Horne Tooke entitled his celebrated\nwork, \"\u0395\u03c0\u03b5\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, Winged Words\": or Language, not only the\n_Vehicle_ of Thought but the _Wheels_. With my convictions and views,\nfor \u03c0\u03b5\u03b1 I should substitute \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9, that is, Words _select_ and\n_determinate_, and for \u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b6\u03c9\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, that is, _living_ Words.\nThe _Wheels_ of the Intellect I admit them to be; but such as Ezekiel\nbeheld in _the visions of God_ as he sate among the captives by the\nriver of Chebar. _Whithersoever the Spirit was to go, the wheels went,\nand thither was their Spirit to go: for the Spirit of the living\ncreature was in the wheels also._\n\n2. To establish the _distinct_ characters of Prudence, Morality, and\nReligion: and to impress the conviction, that though the second\nrequires the first, and the third contains and supposes both the\nformer; yet still Moral Goodness is other and more than Prudence, or\nthe Principle of Expediency; and Religion more and higher than\nMorality. For this distinction the better schools even of Pagan\nPhilosophy contended. (_See pp. 20, 21._)\n\n3. To substantiate and set forth at large the momentous distinction\nbetween Reason and Understanding. Whatever is achievable by the\nUnderstanding for the purposes of worldly interest, private or public,\nhas in the present age been pursued with an activity and a success\nbeyond all former experience, and to an extent which equally demands\nmy admiration and excites my wonder. But likewise it is, and long has\nbeen, my conviction, that in no age since the first dawning of Science\nand Philosophy in this island have the truths, interests, and studies\nthat especially belong to the Reason, contemplative or practical, sunk\ninto such utter neglect, not to say contempt, as during the last\ncentury. It is therefore one main object of this volume to establish\nthe position, that whoever transfers to the Understanding the primacy\ndue to the Reason, loses the one and spoils the other.\n\n4. To exhibit a full and consistent Scheme of the Christian\nDispensation, and more largely of all the _peculiar_ doctrines of the\nChristian Faith; and to answer all the objections to the same, which\ndo not originate in a corrupt Will rather than an erring Judgment; and\nto do this in a manner intelligible for all who, possessing the\nordinary advantages of education, do in good earnest desire to form\ntheir religious creed in the light of their own convictions, and to\nhave a reason for the faith which they profess. There are indeed\nMysteries, in evidence of which no reasons can be brought. But it has\nbeen my endeavour to show, that the true solution of this problem is,\nthat these Mysteries _are_ Reason, Reason in its highest form of\nSelf-affirmation.\n\nSuch are the special Objects of these \"Aids to Reflection.\" Concerning\nthe general character of the work, let me be permitted to add the few\nfollowing sentences. St. Augustine, in one of his Sermons, discoursing\non a high point of theology, tells his auditors--_Sic accipite, ut\nmereamini intelligere. Fides enim debet pr\u00e6cedere intellectum, ut\nsit intellectus fidei pr\u00e6mium._ Now without a certain portion of\ngratuitous and (as it were) _experimentative_ faith in the writer, a\nreader will scarcely give that degree of continued attention, without\nwhich no _didactic_ work worth reading can be read to any wise or\nprofitable purpose. In _this_ sense, therefore, and to _this_ extent,\n_every_ author, who is competent to the office he has undertaken, may\nwithout arrogance repeat St. Augustine's words in his own right, and\nadvance a similar claim on similar grounds. But I venture no further\nthan to imitate the sentiment at a humble distance, by avowing my\nbelief that he who seeks _instruction_ in the following pages, will\nnot fail to find _entertainment_ likewise; but that whoever seeks\nentertainment only will find neither.\n\nREADER!--You have been bred in a land abounding with men, able in\narts, learning, and knowledges manifold, this man in one, this in\nanother, few in many, none in all. But there is one art, of which\nevery man should be master, the art of REFLECTION. If you are not a\n_thinking_ man, to what purpose are you a _man_ at all? In like\nmanner, there is one knowledge, which it is every man's interest and\nduty to acquire, namely, SELF-KNOWLEDGE: or to what end was man alone,\nof all animals, endued by the Creator with the faculty of\n_self-consciousness_? Truly said the Pagan moralist, _e c\u00e6lo\ndescendit_, \u0393\u03bd\u03c9\u03b8\u03b9 \u03c3\u03b5\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nBut you are likewise born in a CHRISTIAN land: and Revelation has\nprovided for you new subjects for reflection, and new treasures of\nknowledge, never to be unlocked by him who remains self-ignorant.\nSelf-knowledge is the key to this casket; and by reflection alone can\nit be obtained. Reflect on your own thoughts, actions, circumstances,\nand--which will be of especial aid to you in forming a _habit_ of\nreflection,--accustom yourself to reflect on the words you use, hear,\nor read, their birth, derivation and history. For if words are not\nTHINGS, they are LIVING POWERS, by which the things of most importance\nto mankind are actuated, combined, and humanized. Finally, by\nreflection you may draw from the fleeting facts of your worldly trade,\nart, or profession, a science permanent as your immortal soul; and\nmake even these subsidiary and preparative to the reception of\nspiritual truth, \"doing as the dyers do, who having first dipt their\nsilks in colours of less value, then give them the last tincture of\ncrimson in grain.\"\n\n[ADVERTISEMENT.[5]--In the bodies of several species of animals there\nare found certain parts of which neither the office, the functions,\nnor the relations could be ascertained by the Comparative Anatomist\ntill he had become acquainted with the state of the animal before\nbirth. Something sufficiently like this (for the purpose of an\nillustration at least) applies to the work here offered to the public.\nIn the introductory portion there occur several passages, which the\nreader will be puzzled to decipher, without some information\nrespecting the original design of the volume, and the changes it has\nundergone during its immature and embryonic state. On this account\nonly, I think myself bound to make it known, that the work was begun\nas a mere selection from the Writings of Archbishop Leighton, under\nthe usual title of \"The Beauties of Archbishop Leighton,\" with a few\nnotes and a biographical preface by the Selector. Hence the term\n_Editor_, subscribed to the notes, and prefixed, alone or conjointly\nto the Aphorisms, according as the passage was written entirely by\nmyself, or only modified and (_avowedly_) interpolated.[6] I continued\nthe use of the word on the plea of uniformity; though, like most other\ndeviations from propriety of language, it would, probably, have been a\nwiser choice to have omitted or exchanged it. The various Reflections,\nhowever, that pressed on me while I was considering the motives for\nselecting this or that passage; the desire for enforcing, and as it\nwere entegrating, the truths contained in the original author, by\nadding those which the words suggested or recalled to my own mind; the\nconversations with men of eminence in the literary and religious\ncircles, occasioned by the objects which I had in view; and, lastly,\nthe increasing disproportion of the Commentary to the Text, and the\ntoo marked difference in the frame, character, and colours of the two\nstyles; soon induced me to recognize and adopt a revolution in my plan\nand object, which had in fact actually taken place without my\nintention, and almost unawares. It would indeed be more correct to\nsay, that the present volume owed its accidental origin to the\nintention of compiling one of a different description than to speak of\nit as the same work. It is not a change in the child, but a\nchangeling.\n\nStill, however, the selections from Leighton, which will be found in\nthe Prudential and Moral sections of this work, and which I could\nretain consistently with its present form and matter, will both from\nthe intrinsic excellence and from the characteristic beauty of the\npassages, suffice to answer two prominent purposes of the original\nplan, that of placing in a clear light the principle which pervades\nall Leighton's writings--his sublime view, I mean, of Religion and\nMorality as the means of reforming the human Soul in the Divine Image\n(_Idea_); and that of exciting an interest in the works, and an\naffectionate reverence for the name and memory of this severely tried\nand truly primitive Churchman.\n\nS. T. C.]\n\n[3] Coleridge's original title-page, viz., that to the 1825 edition,\nis given at p. ix. That edition bore the imprint of Taylor and Hessey,\n93, Fleet Street, and 13, Waterloo Place, Pall Mall.--ED.\n\n[4] This parenthesis was in editions one to three, but was dropped out\nof the fourth.--ED.\n\n[5] Coleridge's advertisement to the first edition, 1825. It has been\nomitted since, until now.--ED.\n\n[6] In the first edition the Aphorisms were superscribed \"Leighton,\"\n&c., when selected, and \"Editor\" when by Coleridge himself. Some later\neditions excluded these useful headings. We revert to the author's\nfirst plan, substituting the name Coleridge for \"Editor.\"--ED.\n\n\n\n\nPRELIMINARY ESSAY.\n\nBY THE REV. JAMES MARSH.[7]\n\n\nWhether the present state of religions feeling, and the prevailing\ntopics of theological inquiry among us, are particularly favourable to\nthe success of the Work herewith offered to the Public can be\ndetermined only by the result. The question, however, has not been\nleft unconsidered; and however that may be, it is not a work, the\nvalue of which depends essentially upon its relation to the passing\ncontroversies of the day. Unless I distrust my own feelings and\nconvictions altogether, I must suppose, that for some, I hope for\nmany, minds, it will have a deep and enduring interest. Of those\nclasses, for whose use it is more especially designated in the\nAuthor's Preface, I trust there are many also in this country, who\nwill justly appreciate the objects at which it aims, and avail\nthemselves of its instruction and assistance. I could wish it might be\nreceived, by all who concern themselves in religious inquiries and\ninstruction especially, in the spirit which seems to me to have\nanimated its great and admirable author; and I hesitate not to say,\nthat to all of every class, who shall so receive it, and peruse it\nwith the attention and thoughtfulness, which it demands and deserves,\nit will be found by experience to furnish, what its title imports,\n\"AIDS TO REFLECTION\" on subjects, upon which every man is bound to\nreflect deeply and in earnest.\n\nWhat the specific objects of the Work are, and for whom it is written,\nmay be learned in a few words from the Preface of the Author. From\nthis, too, it will be seen to be professedly didactic. It is designed\nto aid those who wish for instruction, or assistance in the\ninstruction of others. The plan and composition of the Work will to\nmost readers probably appear somewhat anomalous; but reflection upon\nthe nature of the objects aimed at, and some little experience of its\nresults, may convince them that the method adopted is not without its\nadvantages. It is important to observe, that it is designed, as its\ngeneral characteristic, to aid REFLECTION, and for the most part upon\nsubjects which can be learned and understood only by the exercise of\nreflection in the strict and proper sense of that term. It was not so\nmuch to teach a speculative system of doctrines built upon established\npremises, for which a different method would have been obviously\npreferable, as to turn the mind continually back upon the premises\nthemselves--upon the inherent grounds of truth and error in its own\nbeing. The only way in which it is possible for any one to learn the\nscience of words, which is one of the objects to be sought in the\npresent Work, and the true import of those words especially, which\nmost concern us as rational and accountable beings, is by reflecting\nupon and bringing forth into distinct consciousness, those mental acts\nwhich the words are intended to designate. We must discover and\ndistinctly apprehend different meanings, before we can appropriate to\neach a several word, or understand the words so appropriated by\nothers. Now it is not too much to say, that most men, and even a large\nproportion of educated men, do not reflect sufficiently upon their\nown inward being, upon the constituent laws of their own\nunderstanding, upon the mysterious powers and agencies of reason, and\nconscience, and will, to apprehend with much distinctness the objects\nto be named, or of course to refer the names with correctness to their\nseveral objects. Hence the necessity of associating the study of words\nwith the study of morals and religion; and that is the most effectual\nmethod of instruction, which enables the teacher most successfully to\nfix the attention upon a definite meaning, that is, in these studies,\nupon a particular act, or process, or law of the mind--to call it into\ndistinct consciousness, and assign to it its proper name, so that the\nname shall thenceforth have for the learner a distinct, definite, and\nintelligible sense. To impress upon the reader the importance of this,\nand to exemplify it in the particular subjects taken up in the Work,\nis a leading aim of the Author throughout; and it is obviously the\nonly possible way by which we can arrive at any satisfactory and\nconclusive results on subjects of philosophy, morals, and religion.\nThe first principles, the ultimate grounds, of these, so far as they\nare possible objects of knowledge for us, must be sought and found in\nthe laws of our being, or they are not found at all. The knowledge of\nthese, terminates in the knowledge of ourselves, of our rational and\npersonal being, of our proper and distinctive humanity, and of that\nDivine Being, in whose image we are created. \"We must retire inward,\"\nsays St. Bernard, \"if we would ascend upward.\" It is by\nself-inspection, by reflecting upon the mysterious grounds of our own\nbeing, that we can alone arrive at any rational knowledge of the\ncentral and absolute ground of all being. It is by this only, that we\ncan discover that principle of unity and consistency, which reason\ninstinctively seeks after, which shall reduce to an harmonious system\nall our views of truth and of being, and destitute of which all the\nknowledge that comes to us from without is fragmentary, and in its\nrelation to our highest interests as rational beings but the\npatch-work of vanity.\n\nNow, of necessity, the only method, by which another can aid our\nefforts in the work of reflection, is by first reflecting himself, and\nso pointing out the process and marking the result by words, that we\ncan repeat it, and try the conclusions by our own consciousness. If he\nhave reflected aright, if he have excluded all causes of\nself-deception, and directed his thoughts by those principles of truth\nand reason, and by those laws of the understanding, which belong in\ncommon to all men, his conclusions must be true for all. We have only\nto repeat the process, impartially to reflect ourselves, unbiassed by\nreceived opinions, and undeceived by the idols of our own\nunderstandings, and we shall find the same truths in the depths of our\nown self-consciousness. I am persuaded that such, for the most part,\nwill be found to be the case with regard to the principles developed\nin the present Work, and that those who, with serious reflection and\nan unbiassed love of truth, will refer them to the laws of thought in\ntheir own minds, to the requirements of their own reason, will find\nthere a witness to their truth.\n\nViewing the Work in this manner, therefore, as an instructive and safe\nguide to the knowledge of what it concerns all men to know, I cannot\nbut consider it in itself as a work of great and permanent value to\nany Christian community. Whatever indeed tends to awaken and cherish\nthe power, and to form the habit, of reflection upon the great\nconstituent principles of our own permanent being and proper humanity,\nand upon the abiding laws of truth and duty, as revealed in our reason\nand conscience, cannot but promote our highest interests as moral and\nrational beings. Even if the particular conclusions, to which the\nAuthor has arrived, should prove erroneous, the evil is comparatively\nof little importance, if he have at the same time communicated to our\nminds such powers of thought, as will enable us to detect his errors,\nand attain by our own efforts to a more perfect knowledge of the\ntruth. That some of his views may not be erroneous, or that they are\nto be received on his authority, the Author, I presume, would be the\nlast to affirm; and although in the nature of the case it was\nimpossible for him to aid reflection without anticipating, and in some\nmeasure influencing, the results, yet the primary tendency and design\nof the Work is, not to establish this or that system, but to cultivate\nin every mind the power and the will to seek earnestly and steadfastly\nfor the truth in the only direction, in which it can ever be found.\nThe work is no further controversial, than every work must be, \"that\nis writ with freedom and reason\" upon subjects of the same kind; and\nif it be found at variance with existing opinions and modes of\nphilosophizing, it is not necessarily to be considered the fault of\nthe writer.\n\nIn republishing the Work in this country, I could wish that it might\nbe received by all, for whose instruction it was designed, simply as a\ndidactic work, on its own merits, and without controversy. I must not,\nhowever, be supposed ignorant of its bearing upon those questions,\nwhich have so often been, and still are, the prevailing topics of\ntheological controversy among us. It was indeed incumbent on me,\nbefore inviting the attention of the religious community to the Work,\nto consider its relation to existing opinions, and its probable\ninfluence on the progress of truth. This I have done with as severe\nthought as I am capable of bestowing upon any subject, and I trust too\nwith no want of deference and conscientious regard to the feelings and\nopinions of others. I have not attempted to disguise from myself, nor\ndo I wish to disguise from the readers of the Work, the inconsistency\nof some of its leading principles with much that is taught and\nreceived in our theological circles. Should it gain much of the public\nattention in any way, it will become, as it ought to do, an object of\nspecial and deep interest to all, who would contend for the truth, and\nlabour to establish it upon a permanent basis. I venture to assure\nsuch, even those of them who are most capable of comprehending the\nphilosophical grounds of truth in our speculative systems of theology,\nthat in its relation to this whole subject they will find it to be a\nWork of great depth and power, and, whether right or wrong, eminently\ndeserving their attention. It is not to be supposed that all who read,\nor even all who comprehend it, will be convinced of the soundness of\nits views, or be prepared to abandon those which they have long\nconsidered essential to the truth. To those, whose understandings by\nlong habit have become limited in their powers of apprehension, and as\nit were identified with certain schemes of doctrine, certain modes of\ncontemplating all that pertains to religious truth, it may appear\nnovel, strange, and unintelligible, or even dangerous in its tendency,\nand be to them an occasion of offence. But I have no fear that any\nearnest and single-hearted lover of the truth as it is in Jesus, who\nwill free his mind from the idols of preconceived opinion, and give\nhimself time and opportunity to understand the Work by such reflection\nas the nature of the subject renders unavoidable, will find in it any\ncause of offence, or any source of alarm. If the Work become the\noccasion of controversy at all, I should expect it from those, who,\ninstead of reflecting deeply upon the first principles of truth in\ntheir own reason and conscience and in the word of God, are more\naccustomed to speculate--that is, from premises given or assumed, but\nconsidered unquestionable, as the constituted point of observation, to\nlook abroad upon the whole field of their intellectual vision, and\nthence to decide upon the true form and dimensions of all which meets\ntheir view. To such I would say with deference, that the merits of\nthis Work cannot be determined by the merely relative aspect of its\ndoctrines, as seen from the high ground of any prevailing metaphysical\nor theological system. Those on the contrary who will seek to\ncomprehend it by reflection, to learn the true meaning of the whole\nand of all its parts, by retiring into their own minds and finding\nthere the true point of observation for each, will not be in haste to\nquestion the truth or the tendency of its principles. I make these\nremarks because I am anxious, as far as may be, to anticipate the\ncauseless fears of all, who earnestly pray and labour for the\npromotion of the truth, and to preclude that unprofitable controversy,\nwhich might arise from hasty or prejudiced views of a Work like this.\nAt the same time I should be far from deprecating any discussion which\nmight tend to unfold more fully the principles which it teaches, or to\nexhibit more distinctly its true bearing upon the interests of\ntheological science and of spiritual religion. It is to promote this\nobject, indeed, that I am induced in the remarks which follow to offer\nsome of my own thoughts on these subjects, imperfect I am well aware,\nand such as, for that reason, as well as others, worldly prudence\nmight require me to suppress. If, however, I may induce reflecting\nmen, and those who are engaged in theological inquiries especially, to\nindulge a suspicion that all truth, which it is important for them to\nknow, is not contained in the systems of doctrine usually taught, and\nthat this Work may be worthy of their serious and reflecting perusal,\nmy chief object will be accomplished. I shall of course not need to\nanticipate in detail the contents of the Work itself, but shall aim\nsimply to point out what I consider its distinguishing and essential\ncharacter and tendency, and then direct the attention of my readers to\nsome of those general feelings and views on the subjects of religious\ntruth, and of those particulars in the prevailing philosophy of the\nage, which seem to me to be exerting an injurious influence on the\ncause of theological science and of spiritual religion, and not only\nto furnish a fit occasion, but to create an imperious demand, for a\nWork like that which is here offered to the public.\n\nIn regard then to the distinguishing character and tendency of the\nWork itself, it has already been stated to be didactic, and designed\nto aid reflection on the principles and grounds of truth in our own\nbeing; but in another point of view, and with reference to my present\nobject, it might rather be denominated A PHILOSOPHICAL STATEMENT AND\nVINDICATION OF THE DISTINCTIVELY SPIRITUAL AND PECULIAR DOCTRINES OF\nTHE CHRISTIAN SYSTEM. In order to understand more clearly the import\nof this statement, and the relation of the Author's views to those\nexhibited in other systems, the reader is requested to examine in the\nfirst place, what he considers the _peculiar doctrines of\nChristianity_, and what he means by the terms _spirit_ and\n_spiritual_. A synoptical view of what he considers peculiar to\nChristianity as a revelation is given in Aphorism VII., on Spiritual\nReligion, and, if I mistake not, will be found essentially to\ncoincide, though not perhaps in the language employed, with what among\nus are termed the Evangelical doctrines of religion. Those who are\nanxious to examine further into the orthodoxy of the Work in\nconnection with this statement, may consult the articles on ORIGINAL\nSIN and REDEMPTION,[8] though I must forewarn them that it will\nrequire much study in connection with the other parts of the Work,\nbefore one unaccustomed to the Author's language, and unacquainted\nwith his views, can fully appreciate the merit of what may be peculiar\nin his mode of treating those subjects. With regard to the term\n_spiritual_, it may be sufficient to remark here, that he regards it\nas having a specific import, and maintains that in the sense of the\nNew Testament, _spiritual_ and _natural_ are contradistinguished, so\nthat what is spiritual is different in kind from that which is\nnatural, and is in fact _super_-natural. So, too, while morality is\nsomething more than prudence, religion, the spiritual life, is\nsomething more than morality.\n\nIn vindicating the peculiar doctrines of the Christian system so\nstated, and a faith in the reality of agencies and modes of being\nessentially spiritual or supernatural, he aims to show their\nconsistency with reason and with the true principles of philosophy,\nand that indeed, so far from being irrational, CHRISTIAN FAITH IS THE\nPERFECTION OF HUMAN REASON. By reflection upon the subjective grounds\nof knowledge and faith in the human mind itself, and by an analysis of\nits faculties, he developes the distinguishing characteristics and\nnecessary relations of the natural and the spiritual in our modes of\nbeing and knowing, and the all-important fact, that although the\nformer does not comprehend the latter, yet neither does it preclude\nits existence. He proves, that \"the scheme of Christianity, * * *\nthough not discoverable by human reason, is yet in accordance with it;\nthat link follows link by necessary consequence; that Religion passes\nout of the ken of Reason only where the eye of Reason has reached its\nown horizon--and that Faith is then but its continuation.\"[9] Instead\nof adopting, like the popular metaphysicians of the day, a system of\nphilosophy at war with religion, and which tends inevitably to\nundermine our belief in the reality of any thing spiritual in the only\nproper sense of that word, and then coldly and ambiguously referring\nus for the support of our faith to the authority of Revelation, he\nboldly asserts the reality of something distinctively spiritual in\nman, and the futility of all those modes of philosophizing, in which\nthis is not recognized, or which are incompatible with it. He\nconsiders it the highest and most rational purpose of any system of\nphilosophy, at least of one professing to be Christian, to investigate\nthose higher and peculiar attributes, which distinguish us from the\nbrutes that perish--which are the image of God in us, and constitute\nour proper humanity. It is in his view the proper business and the\nduty of the Christian philosopher to remove all appearance of\ncontradiction between the several manifestations of the one Divine\nWord, to reconcile reason with revelation, and thus to justify the\nways of God to man. The methods by which he accomplishes this, either\nin regard to the terms in which he enunciates the great doctrines of\nthe Gospel, or the peculiar views of philosophy by which he reconciles\nthem with the subjective grounds of faith in the universal reason of\nman, need not be stated here. I will merely observe, that the key to\nhis system will be found in the distinctions, which he makes and\nillustrates between _nature_ and _free-will_, and between the\n_understanding_ and _reason_. It may meet the prejudices of some to\nremark farther, that in philosophizing on the grounds of our faith he\ndoes not profess or aim to solve all mysteries, and to bring all truth\nwithin the comprehension of the understanding. A truth may be\nmysterious, and the primary ground of all truth and reality must be\nso. But though we may believe what _passeth all understanding_, we\n_cannot_ believe what is _absurd_, or contradictory to _reason_.\n\nWhether the Work be well executed, according to the idea of it, as now\ngiven, or whether the Author have accomplished his purpose, must be\ndetermined by those who are capable of judging, when they shall have\nexamined and reflected upon the whole as it deserves. The inquiry\nwhich I have now to propose to my readers is, whether the idea itself\nbe a rational one, and whether the purpose of the Author be one which\na wise man and a Christian ought to aim at, or which in the present\nstate of our religious interests, and of our theological science,\nspecially needs to be accomplished.\n\nNo one, who has had occasion to observe the general feelings and views\nof our religious community for a few years past, can be ignorant, that\na strong prejudice exists against the introduction of philosophy, in\nany form, in the discussion of theological subjects. The terms\n_philosophy_ and _metaphysics_, even _reason_ and _rational_, seem, in\nthe minds of those most devoted to the support of religious truth, to\nhave forfeited their original, and to have acquired a new import,\nespecially in their relation to matters of faith. By a philosophical\nview of religious truth would generally be understood a view, not only\nvarying from the religion of the Bible in the form and manner of\npresenting it, but at war with it; and a rational religion is supposed\nto be of course something diverse from revealed religion. A\nphilosophical and rational system of religious truth would by most\nreaders among us, if I mistake not, be supposed a system deriving its\ndoctrines not from revelation, but from the speculative reason of men,\nor at least relying on that only for their credibility. That these\nterms have been used to designate such systems, and that the prejudice\nagainst reason and philosophy so employed is not, therefore, without\ncause, I need not deny; nor would any friend of revealed truth be less\ndisposed to give credence to such systems, than the Author of the Work\nbefore us.\n\nBut, on the other hand, a moment's reflection only can be necessary to\nconvince any man, attentive to the use of language, that we do at the\nsame time employ these terms in relation to truth generally in a\nbetter and much higher sense. _Rational_, as contradistinguished from\n_irrational_ and _absurd_, certainly denotes a quality, which every\nman would be disposed to claim, not only for himself, but for his\nreligious opinions. Now, the adjective _reasonable_ having acquired a\ndifferent use and signification, the word _rational_ is the adjective\ncorresponding in sense to the substantive _reason_, and signifies\nwhat is conformed to reason. In one sense, then, all men would appeal\nto reason in behalf of their religious faith; they would deny that it\nwas irrational or absurd. If we do not in this sense adhere to reason,\nwe forfeit our prerogative as rational beings, and our faith is no\nbetter than the bewildered dream of a man who has lost his reason.\nNay, I maintain that when we use the term in this higher sense, it is\nimpossible for us to believe on any authority what is directly\ncontradictory to reason and seen to be so. No evidence from another\nsource, and no authority could convince us, that a proposition in\ngeometry, for example, is false, which our reason intuitively\ndiscovers to be true. Now if we suppose (and we may at least suppose\nthis,) that reason has the same power of intuitive insight in relation\nto certain moral and spiritual truths, as in relation to the truths of\ngeometry, then it would be equally impossible to divest us of our\nbelief of those truths.\n\nFurthermore, we are not only unable to believe the same proposition to\nbe false, which our reason sees to be true, but we cannot believe\nanother proposition, which by the exercise of the same rational\nfaculty we see to be incompatible with the former, or to contradict\nit. We may, and probably often do, receive with a certain kind and\ndegree of credence opinions, which reflection would show to be\nincompatible. But when we have reflected, and discovered the\ninconsistency, we cannot retain both. We cannot believe two\ncontradictory propositions knowing them to be such. It would be\nirrational to do so.\n\nAgain, we cannot conceive it possible, that what by the same power of\nintuition we see to be universally and necessarily true should appear\notherwise to any other rational being. We cannot, for example, but\nconsider the propositions of geometry as necessarily true for all\nrational beings. So, too, a little reflection, I think, will convince\nany one, that we attribute the same necessity of reason to the\nprinciples of moral rectitude. What in the clear daylight of our\nreason, and after mature reflection, we see to be right, we cannot\nbelieve to be wrong in the view of other rational beings in the\ndistinct exercise of their reason. Nay, in regard to those truths,\nwhich are clearly submitted to the view of our reason, and which we\nbehold with distinct and steadfast intuitions, we necessarily\nattribute to the Supreme Reason, to the Divine Mind, views the same,\nor coincident, with those of our own reason. We cannot, (I say it with\nreverence and I trust with some apprehension of the importance of the\nassertion,) we _cannot_ believe that to be right in the view of the\nSupreme Reason, which is clearly and decidedly wrong in the view of\nour own. It would be contradictory to reason, it would be irrational,\nto believe it, and therefore we cannot do so, till we lose our reason,\nor cease to exercise it.\n\nI would ask, now, whether this be not an authorized use of the words\nreason and rational, and whether so used they do not mean something.\nIf it be so--and I appeal to the mind of every man capable of\nreflection, and of under standing the use of language, if it be\nnot--then there is meaning in the terms _universal reason_, and _unity\nof reason_, as used in this Work. There is, and can be, in this\nhighest sense of the word but one reason, and whatever contradicts\nthat reason, being seen to do so, cannot be received as matter either\nof knowledge or faith. To reconcile religion with reason used in this\nsense, therefore, and to justify the ways of God to man, or in the\nview of reason, is so far from being irrational that reason\nimperatively demands it of us. We cannot, as rational beings, believe\na proposition on the grounds of reason, and deny it on the authority\nof revelation. We cannot believe a proposition in philosophy, and deny\nthe same proposition in theology; nor can we believe two incompatible\npropositions on the different grounds of reason and revelation. So\nfar as we compare our thoughts, the objects of our knowledge and\nfaith, and by reflection refer them to their common measure in the\nuniversal laws of reason, so far the instinct of reason impels us to\nreject whatever is contradictory and absurd, and to bring unity and\nconsistency into all our views of truth. Thus, in the language of the\nAuthor of this Work, though \"the word _rational_ has been strangely\nabused of late times, this must not disincline us to the weighty\nconsideration, that thoughtfulness, and a desire to rest all our\nconvictions on grounds of right reason, are inseparable from the\ncharacter of a Christian.\"[10]\n\nBut I beg the reader to observe, that in relation to the doctrines of\nspiritual religion--to all that he considers the peculiar doctrines of\nthe Christian revelation, the Author assigns to reason only a negative\nvalidity. It does not teach us what those doctrines are, or what they\nare not, except that they are not, and cannot be, such as contradict\nthe clear convictions of right reason. But his views on this point are\nfully stated in the Work.[11]\n\nIf then it be our prerogative, as rational beings, and our duty as\nChristians, to think, as well as to act, _rationally_,--to see that\nour convictions of truth rest on the grounds of right reason; and if\nit be one of the clearest dictates of reason, that we should endeavour\nto shun, and on discovery should reject, whatever is contradictory to\nthe universal laws of thought, or to doctrines already established, I\nknow not by what means we are to avoid the application of philosophy,\nat least to some extent, in the study of theology. For to determine\nwhat _are_ the grounds of right reason, what are those ultimate\ntruths, and those universal laws of thought, which we cannot\nrationally contradict, and by reflection to compare with these\nwhatever is proposed for our belief, is in fact to philosophize; and\nwhoever does this to a greater or less extent, is so far a philosopher\nin the best and highest sense of the word. To this extent we are bound\nto philosophize in theology, as well as in every other science. For\nwhat is not rational in theology, is, of course, irrational, and\ncannot be of the household of faith; and to determine whether it be\nrational in the sense already explained or not, is the province of\nphilosophy. It is in this sense that the Work before us is to be\nconsidered a philosophical work, namely, that it proves the doctrines\nof the Christian Faith to be rational, and exhibits philosophical\ngrounds for the _possibility_ of a truly spiritual religion. The\n_reality_ of those experiences, or states of being, which constitute\nexperimental or spiritual religion, rests on other grounds. It is\nincumbent on the philosopher to free them from the contradictions of\nreason, and nothing more; and who will deny, that to do this is a\npurpose worthy of the ablest philosopher and the most devoted\nChristian? Is it not desirable to convince all men that the doctrines,\nwhich we affirm to be revealed in the Gospel, are not contradictory to\nthe requirements of reason and conscience? Is it not, on the other\nhand, vastly important to the cause of religious truth, and even to\nthe practical influence of religion on our own minds, and the minds of\nthe community at large, that we should attain and exhibit views of\nphilosophy and doctrines in metaphysics, which are at least compatible\nwith, if they do not specially favour, those views of religion, which,\non other grounds, we find it our duty to believe and maintain? For, I\nbeg it may be observed, as a point of great moment, that it is not the\nmethod of the genuine philosopher to separate his philosophy and\nreligion, and adopting his principles independently in each, to leave\nthem to be reconciled or not, as the case may be. He has, and can\nhave, rationally but one system, in which his philosophy becomes\nreligious, and his religion philosophical. Nor am I disposed in\ncompliance with public opinion to limit the application of this\nremark, as is usually done, to the mere external evidences of\nrevelation. The philosophy which we adopt will and must influence not\nonly our decision of the question, whether a book be of divine\nauthority, but our views also of its meaning.\n\nBut this is a subject, on which, if possible, I would avoid being\nmisunderstood, and must, therefore, exhibit it more fully, even at the\nrisk of repeating what was said before, or is elsewhere found in the\nWork. It has been already, I believe, distinctly enough stated, that\nreason and philosophy ought to prevent our reception of doctrines\nclaiming the authority of revelation only so far as the very\nnecessities of our rational being require. However mysterious the\nthing affirmed may be, though _it passeth all understanding_, if it\ncannot be shown to contradict the unchangeable principles of right\nreason, its being incomprehensible to our understandings is not an\nobstacle to our faith. If it contradict reason, we cannot believe it,\nbut must conclude, either that the writing is not of divine authority,\nor that the language has been misinterpreted. So far it seems to me,\nthat our philosophy ought to modify our views of theological\ndoctrines, and our mode of interpreting the language of an inspired\nwriter. But then we must be cautious, that we philosophize rightly,\nand \"do not call _that_ reason which is not so.\" Otherwise we may be\nled by the supposed requirements of reason to interpret\nmetaphorically, what ought to be received literally, and evacuate the\nScriptures of their most important doctrines. But what I mean to say\nhere is, that we cannot avoid the application of our philosophy in the\ninterpretation of the language of Scripture, and in the explanation of\nthe doctrines of religion generally. We cannot avoid incurring the\ndanger just alluded to of philosophizing erroneously, even to the\nextent of rejecting as irrational that which tends to the perfection\nof reason itself. And hence I maintain, that instead of pretending to\nexclude philosophy from our religious inquiries, it is very important\nthat we philosophize in earnest--that we should endeavour by profound\nreflection to learn the real requirements of reason, and attain a true\nknowledge of ourselves.\n\nIf any dispute the necessity of thus combining the study of philosophy\nwith that of religion, I would beg them to point out the age since\nthat of the Apostles, in which the prevailing metaphysical opinions\nhave not distinctly manifested themselves in the prevailing views of\nreligion; and if, as I fully believe will be the case, they fail to\ndiscover a single system of theology, a single volume on the subject\nof the Christian religion, in which the author's views are not\nmodified by the metaphysical opinions of the age or of the individual,\nit would be desirable to ascertain, whether this influence be\naccidental or necessary. The metaphysician analyzes the faculties and\noperations of the human mind, and teaches us to arrange, to classify,\nand to name them, according to his views of their various\ndistinctions. The language of the Scriptures, at least to a great\nextent, speaks of subjects that can be understood only by a reference\nto those same powers and processes of thought and feeling, which we\nhave learned to think of, and to name, according to our particular\nsystem of metaphysics. How is it possible then to avoid interpreting\nthe one by the other? Let us suppose, for example, that a man has\nstudied and adopted the philosophy of Brown, is it possible for him to\ninterpret the 8th chapter of Romans, without having his views of its\nmeaning influenced by his philosophy? Would he not unavoidably\ninterpret the language and explain the doctrines, which it contains,\ndifferently from one, who should have adopted such views of the human\nmind as are taught in this Work? I know it is customary to disclaim\nthe influence of philosophy in the business of interpretation, and\nevery writer now-a-days on such subjects will assure us, that he has\nnothing to do with metaphysics, but is guided only by common sense and\nthe laws of interpretation. But I should like to know how a man comes\nby any common sense in relation to the movements and laws of his\nintellectual and moral being without metaphysics. What is the common\nsense of a Hottentot on subjects of this sort? I have no hesitation in\nsaying, that from the very nature of the case, it is nearly, if not\nquite, impossible for any man entirely to separate his philosophical\nviews of the human mind from his reflections on religious subjects.\nProbably no man has endeavoured more faithfully to do this, perhaps no\none has succeeded better in giving the truth of Scripture free from\nthe glosses of metaphysics, than Professor Stuart. Yet, I should risk\nlittle in saying that a reader deeply versed in the language of\nmetaphysics, extensively acquainted with the philosophy of different\nages, and the peculiar phraseology of different schools, might\nascertain his metaphysical system from many a passage of his\nCommentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. What then, let me ask, is\nthe possible use to the cause of truth and of religion, from thus\nperpetually decrying philosophy in theological inquiries, when we\ncannot avoid it if we would? Every man, who has reflected at all, has\nhis metaphysics; and if he reads on religious subjects, he interprets\nand understands the language which he employs, by the help of his\nmetaphysics. He cannot do otherwise.--And the proper inquiry is, not\nwhether we admit our philosophy into our theological and religious\ninvestigations, but whether our philosophy be right and true. For\nmyself, I am fully convinced that we can have no right views of\ntheology, till we have right views of the human mind; and that these\nare to be acquired only by laborious and persevering reflection. My\nbelief is, that the distinctions unfolded in this Work will place us\nin the way to truth, and relieve us from numerous perplexities, in\nwhich we are involved by the philosophy which we have so long taken\nfor our guide. For we are greatly deceived, if we suppose for a moment\nthat the systems of theology which have been received among us, or\neven the theoretical views which are now most popular, are free from\nthe entanglements of worldly wisdom. The readers of this Work will be\nable to see, I think, more clearly the import of this remark, and the\ntrue bearing of the received views of philosophy on our theological\ninquiries. Those who study the Work without prejudice, and adopt its\nprinciples to any considerable extent, will understand too how deeply\nan age may be ensnared in the metaphysical webs of its own weaving, or\nentangled in the net which the speculations of a former generation\nhave thrown over it, and yet suppose itself blessed with a perfect\nimmunity from the dreaded evils of metaphysics.\n\nBut before I proceed to remark on those particulars, in which our\nprevailing philosophy seems to be dangerous in its tendency, and\nunfriendly to the cause of spiritual religion, I must beg leave to\nguard myself and the Work from misapprehension on another point of\ngreat importance in its relation to the whole subject. While it is\nmaintained that reason and philosophy, in their true character,\n_ought_ to have a certain degree and extent of influence in the\nformation of our religious system, and that our metaphysical opinions,\nwhatever they may be, _will_ almost unavoidably, modify more or less\nour theoretical views of religious truth _generally_, it is yet a\nspecial object of the Author of the Work to show that the spiritual\nlife, or what among us is termed experimental religion, is, in itself,\nand in its own proper growth and development, essentially distinct\nfrom the forms and processes of the understanding; and that, although\na true faith cannot contradict any universal principle of speculative\nreason, it is yet in a certain sense independent of the discursions\nof philosophy, and in its proper nature beyond the reach \"of positive\nscience and theoretical _insight_.\" \"Christianity is not a _theory_ or\na _speculation_; but a _life_. Not a _philosophy_ of life, but a life\nand a living process.\" It is not, therefore, so properly a species of\nknowledge, as a form of being. And although the theoretical views of\nthe understanding, and the motives of prudence which it presents, may\nbe, to a certain extent, connected with the development of the\nspiritual principle of religious life in the Christian, yet a true and\nliving faith is not incompatible with at least some degree of\nspeculative error. As the acquisition of merely speculative knowledge\ncannot of itself communicate the principle of spiritual life, so\nneither does that principle, and the living process of its growth,\ndepend wholly, at least, upon the degree of speculative knowledge with\nwhich it co-exists. That religion, of which our blessed Saviour is\nhimself the essential Form and the living Word, and to which he\nimparts the actuating Spirit, has a principle of unity and consistency\nin itself distinct from the unity and consistency of our theoretical\nviews. Of this we have evidence in every day's observation of\nChristian character; for how often do we see and acknowledge the power\nof religion, and the growth of a spiritual life in minds but little\ngifted with speculative knowledge, and little versed in the forms of\nlogic or philosophy! How obviously, too, does the living principle of\nreligion manifest the same specific character, the same essential\nform, amidst all the diversities of condition, of talents, of\neducation, and natural disposition, with which it is associated; every\nwhere rising above nature, and the powers of the natural man, and\nunlimited in its goings on by the forms in which the understanding\nseeks to comprehend and confine its spiritual energies. _There are\ndiversities of gifts, but the same Spirit_: and it is no less true now\nthan in the age of the Apostles, that in all lands, and in every\nvariety of circumstances, the manifestations of spiritual life are\nessentially the same; and all who truly believe in heart, however\ndiverse in natural condition, in the character of their\nunderstandings, and even in their theoretical views of truth, are\n_one_ in _Christ Jesus_. The essential faith is not to be found in the\nunderstanding or the speculative theory, but \"the _life_, the\n_substance_, the _hope_, the _love_--in one word, the _faith_--these\nare derivatives from the practical, moral, and spiritual nature and\nbeing of man.\" Speculative systems of theology indeed have often had\nlittle connection with the essential spirit of religion, and are\nusually little more than schemes resulting from the strivings of the\nfinite understanding to comprehend and exhibit under its own forms and\nconditions a mode of being and spiritual truths essentially diverse\nfrom their proper objects, and with which they are incommensurate.\n\nThis I am aware is an imperfect, and I fear may be an unintelligible,\nview of a subject exceedingly difficult of apprehension at the best.\nIf so, I must beg the reader's indulgence, and request him to suspend\nhis judgment, as to the absolute intelligibility of it, till he\nbecomes acquainted with the language and sentiments of the Work\nitself. It will, however, I hope, be so far understood, at least, as\nto answer the purpose for which it was introduced--of precluding the\nsupposition that, in the remarks which preceded, or in those which\nfollow, any suspicion was intended to be expressed, with regard to the\nreligious principles or the essential faith of those who hold the\nopinions in question. According to this view of the inherent and\nessential nature of Spiritual Religion, as existing in the _practical\nreason_ of man, we may not only admit, but can better understand the\npossibility of what every charitable Christian will acknowledge to be\na fact, so far as human observation can determine facts of this\nsort--that a man may be truly religious, and essentially a believer at\nheart, while his understanding is sadly bewildered with the attempt\nto comprehend and express philosophically, what yet he feels and knows\nspiritually. It is indeed impossible for us to tell, how far the\nunderstanding may impose upon itself by partial views and false\ndisguises, without perverting the will, or estranging it from the laws\nand the authority of reason and the divine word. We cannot say to what\nextent a false system of philosophy and metaphysical opinions, which\nin their natural and uncounteracted tendency would go to destroy all\nreligion, may be received in a Christian community, and yet the power\nof spiritual religion retain its hold and its efficacy in the hearts\nof the people. We may perhaps believe that in opposition to all the\nmight of false philosophy, so long as the great body of the people\nhave the Bible in their hands, and are taught to reverence and receive\nits heavenly instructions, though the Church may suffer injury from\nunwise and unfruitful speculations, it will yet be preserved; and that\nthe spiritual seed of the divine word, though mingled with many tares\nof worldly wisdom and philosophy falsely so called, will yet spring\nup, and bear fruit unto everlasting life.\n\nBut though we may hope and believe this, we cannot avoid believing, at\nthe same time, that injury must result from an unsuspecting confidence\nin metaphysical opinions, which are essentially at variance with the\ndoctrines of Revelation. Especially must the effect be injurious,\nwhere those opinions lead gradually to alter our views of religion\nitself and of all that is peculiar in the Christian system. The great\nmass of the community, who know little of metaphysics, and whose faith\nin Revelation is not so readily influenced by speculations not\nimmediately connected with it, may, indeed, for a time, escape the\nevil, and continue to _receive with meekness the ingrafted word_. But\nin the minds of the better educated, especially those who think and\nfollow out their conclusions with resolute independence of thought,\nthe result must be either a loss of confidence in the opinions\nthemselves, or a rejection of all those parts of the Christian system\nwhich are at variance with them. Under particular circumstances,\nindeed, where both the metaphysical errors, and the great doctrines of\nthe Christian Faith, have a strong hold upon the minds of a community,\na protracted struggle may take place, and earnest and long-continued\nefforts may be made to reconcile opinions which we are resolved to\nmaintain, with a faith which our consciences will not permit us to\nabandon. But so long as the effort continues and such opinions retain\ntheir hold upon our confidence, it must be by some diminution of the\nfulness and simplicity of our faith. To a greater or less degree,\naccording to the education and habits of thought in different\nindividuals, the word of God is received with doubt, or with such\nglozing modifications as enervate its power. Thus the light from\nheaven is intercepted, and we are left to a shadow-fight of\nmetaphysical schemes and metaphorical interpretations. While one\nparty, with conscientious and earnest endeavours, and at great expense\nof talent and ingenuity, contends for the Faith, and among the\npossible shapings of the received metaphysical system, seeks that\nwhich will best comport with the simplicity of the Gospel,--another\nmore boldly interprets the language of the Gospel itself in conformity\nwith those views of religion to which their philosophy seems obviously\nto conduct them. The substantial being and the living energy of the\nWORD, which is not only the light but the life of men, is either\nmisapprehended or denied by all parties: and even those who contend\nfor what they conceive the literal import of the Gospel, do it--as\nthey must, to avoid too glaring absurdity--with such explanations of\nits import as make it to become, in no small degree, the _words of\nman's wisdom_, rather than a simple _demonstration of the Spirit, and\nof power_. Hence, although such as have experienced the spiritual and\nlife-giving power of the Divine Word, may be able, through the\npromised aids of the Spirit, to overcome the natural tendency of\nspeculative error, and, by _the law of the Spirit of life_ which is in\nthem, may at length be made _free from the law of sin and death_, yet\nwho can tell how much they may lose of the blessings of the Gospel,\nand be retarded in their spiritual growth when they are but too often\nfed with the lifeless and starveling products of the human\nunderstanding, instead of that _living bread which came down from\nheaven_? Who can tell, moreover, how many, through the prevalence of\nsuch philosophical errors as lead to misconceptions of the truth or\ncreate a prejudice against it, and thus tend to intercept the light\nfrom heaven, may continue in their ignorance, _alienated from the life\nof God_, and groping in the darkness of their own understandings?\n\nBut however that may be, enlightened Christians, and especially\nChristian instructors, know it to be their duty, as far as possible,\nto prepare the way for the full and unobstructed influence of the\nGospel, to do all in their power to remove those natural prejudices,\nand those errors of the understanding, which are obstacles to the\ntruth, that the word of God may find access to the heart, and\nconscience, and reason of every man, that it may have _free course,\nand run, and be glorified_. My own belief, that such obstacles to the\ninfluence of truth exist in the speculative and metaphysical opinions\ngenerally adopted in this country, and that the present Work is in\nsome measure at least calculated to remove them, is pretty clearly\nindicated by the remarks which I have already made. But, to be\nperfectly explicit on the subject I do not hesitate to express my\nconviction, that the natural tendency of some of the leading\nprinciples of our prevailing system of metaphysics, and those which\nmust unavoidably have more or less influence on our theoretical views\nof religion, are of an injurious and dangerous tendency, and that so\nlong as we retain them, however we may profess to exclude their\ninfluence from our theological inquiries, and from the interpretation\nof Scripture, we can maintain no consistent system of Scriptural\ntheology, nor clearly and distinctly apprehend the spiritual import of\nthe Scripture language. The grounds of this conviction I shall proceed\nto exhibit, though only in a partial manner, as I could not do more\nwithout anticipating the contents of the Work itself, instead of\nmerely preparing the reader to peruse them with attention. I am aware,\ntoo, that some of the language, which I have already employed, and\nshall be obliged to employ, will not convey its full import to the\nreader, till he becomes acquainted with some of the leading principles\nand distinctions unfolded in the Work. But this also is an evil which\nI saw no means of avoiding without incurring a greater, and writing a\nbook instead of a brief essay.\n\nLet it be understood, then, without further preface, that by the\nprevailing system of metaphysics, I mean the system, of which in\nmodern times Locke is the reputed author, and the leading principles\nof which, with various modifications, more or less important, but not\naltering its essential character, have been almost universally\nreceived in this country. It should be observed, too, that the causes\nenumerated by the Author, as having elevated it to its \"pride of\nplace\" in Europe, have been aided by other favouring circumstances\nhere. In the minds of our religious community, especially, some of its\nmost important doctrines have become associated with names justly\nloved and revered among ourselves, and so connected with all our\ntheoretical views of religion, that a man can hardly hope to question\ntheir validity without hazarding his reputation, not only for\northodoxy, but even for common sense. To controvert, for example, the\nprevailing doctrines with regard to the freedom of the will, the\nsources of our knowledge, the nature of the understanding as\ncontaining the controlling principles of our whole being, and the\nuniversality of the law of cause and effect, even in connection with\nthe argument and the authority of the most powerful intellect of the\nage, may even now be worse than in vain. Yet I have reasons for\nbelieving there are some among us, and that their number is fast\nincreasing, who are willing to revise their opinions on these\nsubjects, and who will contemplate the views presented in this Work\nwith a liberal, and something of a prepared feeling, of curiosity. The\ndifficulties in which men find themselves involved by the received\ndoctrines on these subjects, in their most anxious efforts to explain\nand defend the peculiar doctrines of spiritual religion, have led many\nto suspect that there must be some lurking error in the premises. It\nis not that these principles lead us to mysteries which we cannot\ncomprehend; they are found, or believed at least by many, to involve\nus in absurdities which we can comprehend. It is necessary indeed only\nto form some notion of the distinctive and appropriate import of the\nterm spiritual, as opposed to natural in the New Testament, and then\nto look at the writings, or hear the discussions, in which the\ndoctrines of the Spirit and of spiritual influences are taught and\ndefended, to see the insurmountable nature of the obstacles, which\nthese metaphysical dogmas throw in the way of the most powerful minds.\nTo those who shall read this Work with any degree of reflection, it\nmust, I think, be obvious, that something more is implied in the\ncontinual opposition of these terms in the New Testament, than can be\nexplained consistently with the prevailing opinions on the subjects\nabove enumerated; and that through their influence our highest notions\nof that distinction have been rendered confused, contradictory, and\ninadequate. I have already directed the attention of the reader to\nthose parts of the Work, where this distinction is unfolded; and had I\nno other grounds than the arguments and views there exhibited, I\nshould be convinced that so long as we hold the doctrines of Locke and\nthe Scotch metaphysicians respecting power, cause and effect, motives,\nand the freedom of the will, we not only can make and defend no\nessential distinction between that which is _natural_, and that which\nis _spiritual_, but we cannot even find rational grounds for the\nfeeling of _moral obligation_, and the distinction between _regret_\nand _remorse_.\n\nAccording to the system of these authors, as nearly and distinctly as\nmy limits will permit me to state it, the same law of cause and effect\nis the law of the universe. It extends to the moral and spiritual--if\nin courtesy these terms may still be used--no less than to the\nproperly natural powers and agencies of our being. The acts of the\nfree-will are pre-determined by a cause _out of the will_, according\nto the same law of cause and effect which controls the changes in the\nphysical world. We have no notion of power but uniformity of\nantecedent and consequent. The notion of a power in the will to act\nfreely is therefore nothing more than an inherent capacity of being\nacted upon, agreeably to its nature, and according to a fixed law, by\nthe motives which are present in the understanding. I feel authorized\nto take this statement partly from Brown's Philosophy, because that\nwork has been decidedly approved by our highest theological\nauthorities; and indeed it would not be essentially varied, if\nexpressed in the precise terms used by any of the writers most usually\nquoted in reference to these subjects.\n\nI am aware that variations may be found in the mode of stating these\ndoctrines, but I think every candid reader, who is acquainted with the\nmetaphysics and theology of this country, will admit the above to be a\nfair representation of the form in which they are generally received.\nI am aware, too, that much has been said and written to make out,\nconsistently with these general principles, a distinction between\nnatural and moral causes, natural and moral ability, and inability,\nand the like. But I beg all lovers of sound and rational philosophy to\nlook carefully at the general principles, and see whether there be, in\nfact, ground left for any such distinctions of this kind as are worth\ncontending for. My first step in arguing with a defender of these\nprinciples, and of the distinctions in question, as connected with\nthem, would be to ask for his definition of nature and _natural_. And\nwhen he had arrived at a distinctive general notion of the import of\nthese, it would appear, if I mistake not, that he had first subjected\nour whole being to the law of nature, and then contended for the\nexistence of something which is not nature. For in their relation to\nthe law of moral rectitude, and to the feeling of moral\nresponsibility, what difference is there, and what difference can\nthere be, between what are called natural and those which are called\nmoral powers and affections, if they are all under the control of the\nsame universal _law_ of cause and effect? If it still be a mere\nnature, and the determinations of our will be controlled by causes out\nof the will, according to our nature, then I maintain that a moral\nnature has no more to do with the feeling of responsibility than any\nother nature.\n\nPerhaps the difficulty may be made more obvious in this way. It will\nbe admitted that brutes are possessed of various natures, some\ninnocent or useful, otherwise noxious, but all alike irresponsible in\na moral point of view. But why? Simply because they act in accordance\nwith their natures. They possess, each according to its proper nature,\ncertain appetites and susceptibilities which are stimulated and acted\nupon by their appropriate objects in the world of the senses; and the\nrelation--the law of action and reaction--subsisting between these\nspecific susceptibilities and their corresponding outward objects,\nconstitutes their nature. They have a power of selecting and choosing\nin the world of sense the objects appropriate to the wants of their\nnature; but that nature is the sole law of their being. Their power of\nchoice is but a part of it, instrumental in accomplishing its ends,\nbut not capable of rising above it, of controlling its impulses, and\nof determining itself with reference to a purely ideal law, distinct\nfrom their nature. They act in accordance with the law of cause and\neffect, which constitutes their several natures, and cannot do\notherwise. They are, therefore not responsible--not capable of guilt,\nor of remorse.\n\nNow let us suppose another being, possessing, in addition to the\nsusceptibilities of the brute, certain other specific susceptibilities\nwith their correlative objects, either in the sensible world, or in a\nfuture world, but that these are subjected, like the other, to the\nsame binding and inalienable law of cause and effect. What, I ask, is\nthe amount of the difference thus supposed between this being and the\nbrute? The supposed addition, it is to be understood, is merely an\naddition to its nature; and the only power of will belonging to it is,\nas in the case of the brute, only a capacity of choosing and acting\nuniformly in accordance with its nature. These additional\nsusceptibilities still act but as they are acted upon; and the will is\ndetermined accordingly. What advantage is gained in this case by\ncalling these supposed additions moral affections, and their\ncorrelative stimulants moral causes? Do we thereby find any rational\nground for the feeling of moral responsibility, for conscience, for\nremorse? The being acts according to its nature, and why is it\nblameworthy more than the brute? If the moral law existing out of the\nwill be a power or cause which, in its relation to the specific\nsusceptibility of the moral being, produces under the same\ncircumstances uniformly the same result, according to the law of cause\nand effect; if the acts of the will be subject to the same law, as\nmere links in the chain of antecedents and consequents, and thus a\npart of our nature, what is gained, I ask again, by the distinction of\na moral and a physical nature? It is still only a nature under the law\nof cause and effect, and the liberty of the moral being is under the\nsame condition with the liberty of the brute. Both are free to follow\nand fulfil the law of their nature, and both are alike bound by that\nlaw, as by an adamantine chain. The very conditions of the law\npreclude the possibility of a power to act otherwise than according to\ntheir nature. They preclude the very idea of a free-will, and render\nthe feeling of moral responsibility not an enigma merely, not a\nmystery, but a self-contradiction and an absurdity.\n\nTurn the matter as we will--call these correlatives, namely, the\ninherent susceptibilities and the causes acting on them from without,\nnatural, or moral, or spiritual--so long as their action and reaction,\nor the law of reciprocity, which constitutes their specific natures,\nis considered as the controlling law of our whole being, so long as we\nrefuse to admit the existence in the will of a power capable of rising\nabove this law, and controlling its operation by an act of absolute\nself-determination, so long we shall be involved in perplexities both\nin morals and religion. At all events, the only method of avoiding\nthem will be to adopt the creed of the Necessitarians entire, to give\nman over to an irresponsible nature as a better sort of animal, and\nresolve the will of the Supreme Reason into a blind and irrational\nFate.\n\nI am well aware of the objections that will be made to this statement,\nand especially the demonstrated incomprehensibleness of a\nself-determining power. To this I may be permitted to answer, that,\nadmitting the power to originate an act or state of mind may be beyond\nthe capacity of our understandings to comprehend, it is still not\ncontradictory to reason; and that I find it more easy to believe the\nexistence of that which is simply incomprehensible to my\nunderstanding, than of that which involves an absurdity for my\nreason. I venture to affirm, moreover, that however we may bring our\nunderstandings into bondage to the more comprehensible doctrine,\nsimply because it is comprehensible under the forms of the\nunderstanding, every man does, in fact, believe himself possessed of\nfreedom in the higher sense of self-determination. Every man's\nconscience commands him to believe it, as the only rational ground of\nmoral responsibility. Every man's conscience, too, betrays the fact\nthat he does believe it, whenever for a moment he indulges the feeling\neither of moral self-approbation, or of remorse. Nor can we on any\nother grounds justify the ways of God to man upon the supposition that\nhe inflicts or will inflict any other punishment than that which is\nsimply remedial or disciplinary. But this subject will be found more\nfully explained in the course of the Work. My present object is merely\nto show the necessity of some system in relation to these subjects\ndifferent from the received one.\n\nIt may perhaps be thought, that the language used above is too strong\nand too positive. But I venture to ask every candid man, at least\nevery one who has not committed himself by writing and publishing on\nthe subject, whether in considering the great questions connected with\nmoral accountability and the doctrine of rewards and punishments, he\nhas not felt himself pressed with such difficulties as those above\nstated; and whether he has ever been able fully to satisfy his reason,\nthat there was not a lurking contradiction in the idea of a being\ncreated and placed under the law of its nature, and possessing at the\nsame time a feeling of moral obligation to fulfil a law above its\nnature. That many have been in this state of mind I know. I know, too,\nthat some whose moral and religious feelings had led them to a full\nbelief in the doctrines of spiritual religion, but who at the same\ntime had been taught to receive the prevailing opinions in\nmetaphysics, have found these opinions carrying them unavoidably, if\nthey would be consequent in their reasonings, and not do violence to\ntheir reason, to adopt a system of religion which does not profess to\nbe spiritual, and thus have been compelled to choose between their\nphilosophy and their religion. In most cases indeed, where men reflect\nat all, I am satisfied that it requires all the force of authority,\nand all the influence of education, to carry the mind over these\ndifficulties; and that then it is only by a vague belief that, though\nwe cannot see how, there must be some method of reconciling what seems\nto be so contradictory.\n\nIf examples were wanting to prove that serious and trying difficulties\nare felt to exist here, enough may be found, as it has appeared to me,\nin the controversy respecting the nature and origin of sin, which is\nat this moment interesting the public mind. Let any impartial observer\ntrace the progress of that discussion, and after examining the\ndistinctions which are made or attempted to be made, decide whether\nthe subject, as there presented, be not involved in difficulties,\nwhich cannot be solved on the principles to which, hitherto, both\nparties have adhered; whether, holding as they do the same premises in\nregard to the freedom of the will, they can avoid coming to the same\nconclusion in regard to the nature and origin of sin; whether in fact\nthe distinctions aimed at must not prove merely verbal distinctions,\nand the controversy a fruitless one. But in the September number of\nthe \"Christian Spectator\" for 1829,[12] the reader will find remarks\non this subject, to which I beg leave to refer him, and which I could\nwish him attentively to consider in connection with the remarks which\nI have made. I allude to the correspondence with the editors near the\nend of the number. The letter there inserted is said to be, and\nobviously is, from the pen of a very learned and able writer; and I\nconfess it has been no small gratification and encouragement to me,\nwhile labouring to bring this Work and this subject before the public,\nto find such a state of feeling expressed, concerning the great\nquestion at issue, by such a writer. It will be seen by reference to\np. 545 of the C. S., that he places the \"_nucleus_ of the dispute\"\njust where it is placed in this Work and in the above remarks. It will\nbe seen, too, that by throwing authorities aside, and studying his own\nmind, he has \"come seriously to doubt,\" whether the received opinions\nwith regard to _motives_, the law of _cause and effect_, and the\n_freedom of the will_, may not be erroneous. They appear to him \"to be\nbordering on fatalism, if not actually embracing it.\" He doubts\nwhether the mind may not have within itself the adequate cause of its\nown acts; whether indeed it have not a self-determining power, \"for\nthe power in question involves the idea of originating volition. Less\nthan this it cannot be conceived to involve, and yet be _free_\nagency.\" Now, this is just the view offered in the present Work; and,\nas it seems to me, these are just the doubts and conclusions which\nevery one will entertain, who lays aside authority, and reflects upon\nthe goings-on of his own mind, and the dictates of his own reason and\nconscience.\n\nBut let us look for a moment at the remarks of the editors in reply to\nthe letter above quoted. They maintain, in relation to original sin\nand the perversion of the will, that from either the _original_ or the\n_acquired_ strength of certain natural appetites, principles of\nself-love, &c., \"left to themselves,\" the corruption of the heart will\ncertainly follow. \"In every instance the will does, in fact, yield to\nthe demands of these. But whenever it thus yielded, _there was power\nto the contrary_; otherwise there could be no freedom of moral\naction.\" Now I beg leave to place my finger on the phrase in italics,\nand ask the editors what they mean by it. If they hold the common\ndoctrines with regard to the relation of cause and effect, and with\nregard to power as connected with that relation, and apply these to\nthe acts of the will, I can see no more possibility of conceiving a\n_power to the contrary_ in this case, than of conceiving such a power\nin the current of a river. But if they mean to assert the existence in\nthe will of an _actual_ power to rise above the demands of appetite,\n&c., above the law of nature and to decide _arbitrarily_, whether to\nyield or not to yield, then they admit that the will is not determined\n_absolutely_ by the extraneous _cause_, but is in fact _self_-determined.\nThey agree with the letter-writer; and the question for them is at\nrest. Thus, whatever distinctions may be attempted here, there can be\nno real distinction but between an irresponsible nature and a will\nthat is self-determined.\n\nI cannot but be aware, that the views of the Will here exhibited will\nmeet with strong prejudices in a large portion, at least, of our\nreligious community. I could wish that all such would carefully\ndistinguish between the Author's views of the doctrines of religion\nand the philosophical grounds on which he supposes those doctrines are\nto be defended. If no one disputes, and I trust no one will dispute,\nthe substantial orthodoxy of the Work, without first carefully\nexamining what has been the orthodoxy of the church in general, and of\nthe great body of the Reformers, then I should hope it may be wisely\nconsidered, whether, as a question of philosophy, the metaphysical\nprinciples of this Work are not in themselves more in accordance with\nthe doctrines of a spiritual religion, and better suited to their\nexplanation and defence, than those above treated of. If on\nexamination it cannot be disputed that they are, then, if not before,\nI trust the two systems may be compared without undue partiality, and\nthe simple question of the truth of each may be determined by that\ncalm and persevering reflection, which alone can determine questions\nof this sort.\n\nIf the system here taught be true, then it will follow, not, be it\nobserved, that our religion is necessarily wrong, or our essential\nfaith erroneous, but that the _philosophical grounds_, on which we are\naccustomed to defend our faith, are unsafe, and that their _natural\ntendency_ is to error. If the spirit of the Gospel still exert its\ninfluence; if a truly spiritual religion be maintained, it is in\n_opposition_ to our philosophy, and not at all by its aid. I know it\nwill be said, that the practical results of our peculiar forms of\ndoctrine are at variance with these remarks. But this I am not\nprepared to admit. True, religion and religious institutions have\nflourished; the Gospel, in many parts of our country, has been\naffectionately and faithfully preached by great and good men; the word\nand the Spirit of God have been communicated to us in rich abundance;\nand I rejoice with heartfelt joy and thanksgiving, in the belief, that\nthereby multitudes have been regenerated to a new and spiritual life.\nBut so were equal or greater effects produced under the preaching of\nBaxter, and Howe, and other good and faithful men of the same age,\nwith none of the peculiarities of our theological systems. Neither\nreason nor experience indeed furnish any ground for believing that the\nliving and life-giving power of the Divine Word has ever derived any\nportion of its efficacy, in the conversion of the heart to God, from\nthe forms of metaphysical theology, with which the human understanding\nhas invested it. It requires, moreover, but little knowledge of the\nhistory of philosophy, and of the writings of the 16th and 17th\ncenturies to know, that the opinions of the Reformers, and of all the\ngreat divines of that period, on subjects of this sort, were far\ndifferent from those of Mr. Locke and his followers, and were in fact\nessentially the same with those taught in this Work. This last remark\napplies not only to the views entertained by the eminent philosophers\nand divines of that period on the particular subject above discussed,\nbut to the distinctions made, and the language employed, by them with\nreference to other points of no less importance in the constitution of\nour being.\n\nIt must have been observed by the reader of the foregoing pages, that\nI have used several words, especially _understanding_ and _reason_, in\na sense somewhat diverse from their present acceptation; and the\noccasion of this I suppose would be partly understood from my having\nalready directed the attention of the reader to the distinction\nexhibited between these words in the Work, and from the remarks made\non the ambiguity of the word \"reason\" in its common use. I now proceed\nto remark, that the ambiguity spoken of, and the consequent perplexity\nin regard to the use and authority of reason, have arisen from the\nhabit of using, since the time of Locke, the terms understanding and\nreason indiscriminately, and thus confounding a distinction clearly\nmarked in the philosophy and in the language of the older writers.\nAlas! had the _terms_ only been confounded, or had we suffered only an\ninconvenient ambiguity of language, there would be comparatively\nlittle cause for earnestness upon the subject; or had our views of the\nthings signified by these terms been only partially confused, and had\nwe still retained correct notions of our prerogative, as rational and\nspiritual beings, the consequences might have been less deplorable.\nBut the misfortune is, that the powers of understanding and reason\nhave not merely been blended and confounded in the view of our\nphilosophy, the higher and far more characteristic, as an essential\nconstituent of our proper humanity, has been as it were obscured and\nhidden from our observation in the inferior power, which belongs to\nus in common with the brutes which perish. According to the old, the\nmore spiritual, and genuine philosophy, the distinguishing attributes\nof our humanity--that _image_ of God in which man alone was created of\nall the dwellers upon earth, and in virtue of which he was placed at\nthe head of this lower world, was said to be found in the _reason_ and\n_free-will_. But understanding these in their strict and proper sense,\nand according to the true _ideas_ of them, as contemplated by the\nolder metaphysicians, we have literally, if the system of Locke and\nthe popular philosophy of the day be true, neither the one nor the\nother of these--neither reason nor free-will. What they esteemed the\nimage of God in the soul, and considered as distinguishing us\nspecifically, and so vastly too, above each and all of the irrational\nanimals, is found, according to this system, to have in fact no real\nexistence. The reality neither of the free-will, nor of any of those\nlaws or ideas, which spring from, or rather constitute reason, can be\nauthenticated by the sort of proof which is demanded, and we must\ntherefore relinquish our prerogative, and take our place with becoming\nhumility among our more unpretending companions. In the ascending\nseries of powers, enumerated by Milton, with so much philosophical\ntruth, as well as beauty of language, in the fifth book of Paradise\nLost, he mentions\n\n    _Fancy_ and _understanding_, whence the soul\n    REASON receives. And reason is her _being_,\n    Discursive or intuitive.\n\nBut the highest power here, that which is the being of the soul,\nconsidered as any thing differing in kind from the understanding, has\nno place in our popular metaphysics. Thus we have only the\n_understanding_, \"the faculty judging according to sense,\" a faculty\nof abstracting and generalizing, of contrivance and forecast, as the\nhighest of our intellectual powers; and this, we are expressly\ntaught, belongs to us in common with brutes. Nay, these views of our\nessential being, consequences and all, are adopted by men, whom one\nwould suppose religion, if not philosophy, should have taught their\nutter inadequateness to the true and essential constituents of our\nhumanity. Dr. Paley tells us in his Natural Theology, that only\n\"CONTRIVANCE,\" a power obviously and confessedly belonging to brutes,\nis necessary to constitute _personality_. His whole system both of\ntheology and morals neither teaches, nor implies, the existence of any\nspecific difference either between the understanding and reason, or\nbetween nature and the will. It does not imply the existence of any\npower in man, which does not obviously belong, in a greater or less\ndegree, to irrational animals. Dr. Fleming, another reverend prelate\nin the English Church, in his \"Philosophy of Zoology,\" maintains in\nexpress terms that we have no faculties differing in kind from those\nwhich belong to brutes. How many other learned, and reverend, and wise\nmen adopt the same opinions, I know not: though these are obviously\nnot the peculiar views of the individuals, but conclusions resulting\nfrom the essential principles of their system. If, then, there is no\nbetter _system_, if this be the genuine philosophy, and founded in the\nnature of things, there is no help for us, and we must believe it--_if\nwe can_. But most certainly it will follow, that we ought, as fast as\nthe prejudices of education will permit, to rid ourselves of certain\nnotions of prerogative, and certain feelings of our own superiority,\nwhich somehow have been strangely prevalent among our race. For though\nwe have indeed, according to this system, a little _more_\nunderstanding than other animals--can abstract and generalize and\nforecast events, and the consequences of our actions, and compare\nmotives _more_ skilfully than they: though we have thus _more_\nknowledge and can circumvent them; though we have _more_ power and can\nsubdue them; yet, as to any _distinctive_ and _peculiar_\ncharacteristic--as to any inherent and essential _worth_, we are after\nall but little better--though we may be better off--than our dogs and\nhorses. There is no essential difference, and we may rationally\ndoubt--at least we might do so, if by the supposition we were rational\nbeings--whether our fellow animals of the kennel and the stall are not\nunjustly deprived of certain _personal rights_, and whether a dog\ncharged with trespass may not _rationally_ claim to be tried by a jury\nof his _peers_. Now however trifling and ridiculous this may appear, I\nwould ask in truth and soberness, if it be not a fair and legitimate\ninference from the premises, and whether the _absurdity_ of the one\ndoes not _demonstrate_ the utter falsity of the other. And where, I\nwould beg to know, shall we look, according to the popular system of\nphilosophy, for that _image of God_ in which we are created? Is it a\nthing of _degrees_? And is it simply because we have something _more_\nof the same faculties which belong to brutes, that we become the\nobjects of God's special and fatherly care, the _distinguished_\nobjects of his Providence, and the _sole_ objects of his Grace?--_Doth\nGod take care for oxen?_ But why not?\n\nI assure my readers, that I have no desire to treat with disrespect\nand contumely the opinions of great or good men; but the distinction\nin question, and the assertion and exhibition of the higher\nprerogatives of reason, as an essential constituent of our being, are\nso vitally important, in my apprehension, to the formation and support\nof any rational system of philosophy, and--no less than the\ndistinction before treated of--so pregnant of consequences to the\ninterests of truth, in morals, and religion, and indeed of all truth,\nthat mere opinion and the authority of names may well be disregarded.\nThe discussion, moreover, relates to facts, and to such facts, too, as\nare not to be learned from the instruction, or received on the\nauthority, of any man. They must be ascertained by every man for\nhimself, by reflection upon the processes and laws of his own inward\nbeing, or they are not learned at all to any valuable purpose. We do\nindeed find in ourselves then, as no one will deny, certain powers of\nintelligence, which we have abundant reason to believe the brutes\npossess in common with us in a greater or less degree. The functions\nof the understanding, as treated of in the popular systems of\nmetaphysics, its faculties of attention, of abstraction, of\ngeneralization, the power of forethought and contrivance, of adapting\nmeans to ends, and the law of association, may be, so far as we can\njudge, severally represented more or less adequately in the\ninstinctive intelligence of the higher orders of brutes. But, not to\nanticipate too far a topic treated of in the Work, do these, or any\nand all the faculties which we discover in irrational animals,\nsatisfactorily account to a reflecting mind for all the _phenomena_\nwhich are presented to our observation in our own consciousness? Would\nany supposable addition to the _degree_ merely of those powers which\nwe ascribe to brutes, render them _rational_ beings, and remove the\nsacred distinction, which law and reason have sanctioned, between\nthings and persons? Will any such addition account for our\nhaving--what the brute is not supposed to have--the pure _ideas_ of\nthe geometrician, the power of ideal construction, the intuition of\ngeometrical or other necessary and universal truths? Would it give\nrise, in irrational animals, to a _law of moral rectitude_ and _to\nconscience_--to the feelings of moral _responsibility_ and _remorse_?\nWould it awaken them to a reflective self-consciousness, and lead them\nto form and contemplate the _ideas_ of the _soul_, of _free-will_, of\n_immortality_, and of God. It seems to me, that we have only to\nreflect for a serious hour upon what we mean by these, and then to\ncompare them with our notion of what belongs to a brute, its inherent\npowers and their correlative objects, to feel that they are utterly\nincompatible--that in the possession of these we enjoy a prerogative\nwhich we cannot disclaim without a violation of reason, and a\nvoluntary abasement of ourselves--and that we must therefore be\npossessed of some _peculiar_ powers--of some source of ideas\n_distinct_ from the understanding, differing _in kind_ from any and\nall of those which belong to us in common with inferior and irrational\nanimals.\n\nBut what these powers are, or what is the precise nature of the\ndistinction between the understanding and reason, it is not my\nprovince, nor have I undertaken, to show. My object is merely to\nillustrate its necessity, and the palpable obscurity, vagueness, and\ndeficiency, in this respect, of the mode of philosophizing, which is\nheld in so high honour among us. The distinction itself will be found\nillustrated with some of its important bearings in the Work, and in\nthe notes attached to it; and cannot be too carefully studied--in\nconnection with that between nature and the will--by the student who\nwould acquire distinct and intelligible notions of what constitutes\nthe truly spiritual in our being, or find rational grounds for the\npossibility of a truly spiritual religion. Indeed, could I succeed in\nfixing the attention of the reader upon this distinction, in such a\nway as to secure his candid and reflecting perusal of the Work, I\nshould consider any personal effort or sacrifice abundantly\nrecompensed. Nor am I alone in this view of its importance. A literary\nfriend, whose opinion on this subject would be valued by all who knew\nthe soundness of his scholarship, says in a letter just now\nreceived,--\"if you can once get the attention of thinking men fixed on\nhis distinction between the reason and the understanding, you will\nhave done enough to reward the labour of a life. As prominent a place\nas it holds in the writings of Coleridge, he seems to me far enough\nfrom making too much of it.\" No person of serious and philosophical\nmind, I am confident, can reflect upon the subject, enough to\nunderstand it in its various aspects, without arriving at the same\nviews of the importance of the distinction, whatever may be his\nconviction with regard to its truth.\n\nBut, indeed, the only grounds which I find, to apprehend that the\nreality of the distinction and the importance of the consequence\nresulting from it, will be much longer denied and rejected among us,\nis in the overweening assurance which prevails with regard to the\nadequateness and perfection of the system of philosophy which is\nalready received. It is taken for granted, as a fact undisputed and\nindisputable, that this is the most enlightened age of the world, not\nonly with regard to the more general diffusion of certain points of\npractical knowledge; in which, probably, it may be so, but _in all\nrespects_; that our whole system of the philosophy of mind as derived\nfrom Lord Bacon, especially, is the only one, which has any claims to\ncommon sense; and that all distinctions not recognized in that are\nconsequently unworthy of our regard. What those Reformers, to whose\ntranscendant powers of mind, and to whose characters as truly\nspiritual divines, we are accustomed to look with feelings of so much\ngeneral regard, might find to say in favour of their philosophy, few\ntake the pains to inquire. Neither they nor the great philosophers\nwith whom they held communion on subjects of this sort can appear\namong us to speak in their own defence: and even the huge folios and\nquartos, in which, though dead, they yet speak--and ought to be\nheard--have seldom strayed to this side of the Atlantic. All our\ninformation respecting their philosophical opinions, and the grounds\non which they defended them, has been received from writers, who were\nconfessedly advocating a system of recent growth, at open war with\nevery thing more ancient, and who, in the great abundance of their\nself-complacency, have represented their own discoveries as containing\nthe sum and substance of all philosophy, and the accumulated\ntreasures of ancient wisdom as unworthy the attention of \"this\nenlightened age.\" Be it so--yet the _foolishness_ of antiquity, if it\nbe _of God_, may prove _wiser than men_. It may be found that the\nphilosophy of the Reformers and their religion are essentially\nconnected, and must stand or fall together. It may at length be\ndiscovered that a system of religion essentially spiritual, and a\nsystem of philosophy which excludes the very idea of all spiritual\npower and agency, in their only distinctive and proper character,\ncannot be consistently associated together.\n\nIt is our peculiar misfortune in this country that, while the\nphilosophy of Locke and the Scottish writers has been received in full\nfaith, as the only rational system, and its leading principles\nespecially passed off as unquestionable, the strong attachment to\nreligion, and the fondness for speculation, by both of which we are\nstrongly characterized, have led us to combine and associate these\nprinciples, such as they are, with our religious interests and\nopinions, so variously and so intimately, that by most persons they\nare considered as necessary parts of the same system; and from being\nso long contemplated together, the rejection of one seems impossible\nwithout doing violence to the other. Yet how much evidence might not\nan impartial observer find in examining the theological discussions\nwhich have prevailed, the speculative systems which have been formed\nand arrayed against each other, for the last seventy years, to\nconvince him that there must be some discordance in the elements, some\nprinciple of secret but irreconcilable hostility between a philosophy\nand a religion, which, under every ingenious variety of form and\nshaping, still stand aloof from each other and refuse to cohere. For\nis it not a fact, that in regard to every speculative system which has\nbeen formed on these philosophical principles,--to every new shaping\nof theory which has been devised and has gained adherents among\nus,--is it not a fact, I ask, that, to all, except those adherents,\nthe _system_--the philosophical _theory_--has seemed dangerous in its\ntendency, and at war with orthodox views of religion--perhaps even\nwith the attributes of God? Nay, to bring the matter still nearer and\nmore plainly to view, I ask, whether at this moment the organs and\nparticular friends of our leading theological seminaries in New\nEngland, both devotedly attached to an orthodox and spiritual system\nof religion, and expressing mutual confidence as to the _essentials_\nof their mutual faith, do not each consider the other as holding a\nphilosophical _theory_ subversive of orthodoxy? If I am not\nmisinformed, this is the simple fact.\n\nNow, if these things be so, I would ask again with all earnestness,\nand out of regard to the interests of truth alone, whether serious and\nreflecting men may not be permitted, without the charge of heresy in\nRELIGION, to stand in doubt of this PHILOSOPHY _altogether_; whether\nthese facts which will not be disputed, do not furnish just grounds\nfor suspicion, that the principles of our philosophy may be erroneous,\nor at least induce us to look with candour and impartiality at the\nclaims of another and a different system?\n\nWhat are the claims of the system, to which the attention of the\npublic is invited in this Work, can be understood fully, only by a\ncareful and reflecting examination of its principles in connection\nwith the conscious wants of our own inward being--the requirements of\nour own reason and consciences. Its purpose and tendency, I have\nendeavoured in some measure to exhibit; and if the influence of\nauthority, which the prevailing system furnishes against it, can and\nmust be counteracted by anything of a like kind--(and whatever\nprofessions we may make, the influence of authority produces at least\na predisposing effect upon our minds)--the remarks which I have made,\nwill show, that the principles here taught are not wholly\nunauthorized by men, whom we have been taught to reverence among the\ngreat and good. I cannot but add, as a matter of simple justice to the\nquestion, that however our prevailing system of philosophizing may\nhave appealed to the authority of Lord Bacon, it needs but a candid\nexamination of his writings, especially the first part of his _Novum\nOrganum_, to be convinced that such an appeal is without grounds; and\nthat in fact the fundamental principles of his philosophy are the same\nwith those taught in this work. The great distinction especially,\nbetween the understanding and the reason, is clearly and fully\nrecognized; and as a philosopher he would be far more properly\nassociated with Plato, or even Aristotle, than with the modern\nphilosophers, who have miscalled their systems by his name. In our own\ntimes, moreover, there is abundant evidence, whatever may be thought\nof the principles of this Work here, that the same general views of\nphilosophy are regaining their ascendancy elsewhere. In Great Britain\nthere are not few, who begin to believe that the deep-toned and\nsublime eloquence of Coleridge on these great subjects may have\nsomething to claim their attention besides a few peculiarities of\nlanguage. In Paris, the doctrines of a rational and spiritual system\nof philosophy are taught to listening and admiring thousands by one of\nthe most learned and eloquent philosophers of the age; and in Germany,\nif I mistake not, the same general views are adopted by the serious\nfriends of religious truth among her great and learned men.\n\nSuch--as I have no doubt--must be the case, wherever thinking men can\nbe brought distinctly and impartially to examine their claims; and\nindeed to those who shall study and comprehend the general history of\nphilosophy, it must always be matter of special wonder, that in a\nChristian community, anxiously striving to explain and defend the\ndoctrines of Christianity in their spiritual sense, there should have\nbeen a long-continued and tenacious adherence to philosophical\nprinciples, so subversive of their faith in everything distinctively\nspiritual; while those of an opposite tendency, and claiming a near\nrelationship and correspondence with the truly spiritual in the\nChristian system, and the mysteries of its sublime faith, were looked\nupon with suspicion and jealousy, as unintelligible or dangerous\nmetaphysics.\n\nAnd here I must be allowed to add a few remarks with regard to the\npopular objections against the system of philosophy, the claims of\nwhich I am urging, especially against the writings of the Author,\nunder whose name it appears in the present Work. These are various and\noften contradictory, but usually have reference either to his\npeculiarities of language, or to the depth--whether apparent or\nreal,--and the unintelligibleness, of his thoughts.\n\nTo the first of these it seems to me a sufficient answer, for a mind\nthat would deal honestly and frankly by itself, to suggest that in the\nvery nature of things it is impossible for a writer to express by a\nsingle word any truth, or to mark any distinction, not recognized in\nthe language of his day, unless he adopts a word entirely new, or\ngives to one already in use a new and more peculiar sense. Now in\ncommunicating truths, which the writer deems of great and fundamental\nimportance, shall he thus appropriate a single word old or new, or\ntrust to the vagueness of perpetual circumlocution? Admitting for\nexample, the existence of the important distinction, for which this\nwriter contends, between the understanding and reason, and that this\ndistinction when recognized at all, is confounded in the common use of\nlanguage by employing the words indiscriminately, shall he still use\nthese words indiscriminately, and either invent a new word, or mark\nthe distinction by descriptive circumlocutions, or shall he assign a\nmore distinctive and precise meaning to the words already used? It\nseems to me obviously more in accordance with the laws and genius of\nlanguage to take the course which he has adopted. But in this case and\nin many others, where his language seems peculiar, it cannot be denied\nthat the words had already been employed in the same sense, and the\nsame distinctions recognized, by the older and many of the most\ndistinguished writers in the language.\n\nWith regard to the more important objection, that the _thoughts_ of\nColeridge are _unintelligible_, if it be intended to imply, that his\nlanguage is not in itself expressive of an intelligible meaning, or\nthat he affects the appearance of depth and mystery, while his\nthoughts are common-place, it is an objection, which no one who has\nread his Works attentively, and acquired a feeling of interest for\nthem, will treat their Author with so much disrespect as to answer at\nall. Every such reader _knows_ that he uses words uniformly with\nastonishing precision, and that language becomes, in his use of it--in\na degree, of which few writers can give us a conception--a living\npower, \"consubstantial\" with the power of thought, that gave birth to\nit, and awakening and calling into action a corresponding energy in\nour own minds. There is little encouragement, moreover, to answer the\nobjections of any man, who will permit himself to be incurably\nprejudiced against an Author by a few peculiarities of language, or an\napparent difficulty of being understood, and without inquiring into\nthe cause of that difficulty, where at the same time he cannot but see\nand acknowledge the presence of great intellectual and moral power.\n\nBut if it be intended by the objection to say simply, that the\nthoughts of the Author are often difficult to be apprehended--that he\nmakes large demands not only upon the attention, but upon the\nreflecting and thinking powers, of his readers, the fact is not, and\nneed not be, denied; and it will only remain to be decided, whether\nthe instruction offered, as the reward, will repay us for the\nexpenditure of thought required, or can be obtained for less. I know\nit is customary in this country, as well as in Great Britain--and that\ntoo among men from whom different language might be expected--to\naffect either contempt or modesty, in regard to all that is more than\ncommon-place in philosophy, and especially \"Coleridge's Metaphysics,\"\nas \"too deep for them.\" Now it may not be every man's duty, or in\nevery man's power, to devote to such studies the time and thought\nnecessary to understand the deep things of philosophy. But for one who\nprofesses to be a scholar, and to cherish a manly love of truth for\nthe truth's sake, to object to a system of metaphysics because it is\n\"too _deep_ for him,\" must be either a disingenuous insinuation, that\nits depths are not worth exploring--which is more than the objector\nknows--or a confession, that--with all his professed love of truth and\nknowledge--he prefers to \"sleep after dinner.\" The misfortune is, that\nmen have been cheated into a belief, that all philosophy and\nmetaphysics worth knowing are contained in a few volumes, which can be\nunderstood with little expense of thought; and that they may very well\nspare themselves the vexation of trying to comprehend the depths of\n\"Coleridge's Metaphysics.\" According to the popular notions of the\nday, it is a very easy matter to understand the philosophy of mind. A\nnew work on philosophy is as easy to read as the last new novel; and\nsuperficial, would-be scholars, who have a very sensible horror at the\nthought of studying Algebra, or the doctrine of fluxions, can yet go\nthrough a course of moral sciences, and know all about the philosophy\nof the mind.\n\nNow why will not men of sense, and men who have any just pretensions\nto scholarship, see that there must of necessity be gross sophistry\nsomewhere in any system of metaphysics, which pretends to give us an\nadequate and scientific self-knowledge--to render comprehensible to\nus the mysterious laws of our own inward being, with less manly and\npersevering effort of thought on our part, than is confessedly\nrequired to comprehend the simplest of those sciences, all of which\nare but some of the _ph\u00e6nomena_ from which the laws in question are\nto be inferred?--Why will they not see and acknowledge--what one would\nsuppose a moment's reflection would teach them--that to attain true\nself-knowledge by reflection upon the objects of our inward\nconsciousness--not merely to understand the motives of our conduct as\nconscientious Christians, but to know ourselves scientifically as\nphilosophers--must, of necessity, be the most deep and difficult of\nall our attainments in knowledge? I trust that what I have already\nsaid will be sufficient to expose the absurdity of objections against\nmetaphysics in general, and do something towards showing, that we are\nin actual and urgent need of a system somewhat deeper than those, the\ncontradictions of which have not without reason made the name of\nphilosophy a terror to the friends of truth and of religion. \"False\nmetaphysics can be effectually counteracted by true metaphysics alone;\nand if the reasoning be clear, solid, and pertinent, the truth deduced\ncan never be the less valuable on account of the depth from which it\nmay have been drawn.\" It is a fact, too, of great importance to be\nkept in mind, in relation to this subject, that in the study of\nourselves--in attaining a knowledge of our own being,--there are\ntruths of vast concernment, and lying at a great depth, which yet no\nman can draw for another. However the depth may have been fathomed,\nand the same truth brought up by others, for a light and a joy to\ntheir own minds, it must still remain, and be sought for by us, each\nfor himself, at the bottom of the well.\n\nThe system of philosophy here taught does not profess to make men\nphilosophers, or--which ought to mean the same thing--to guide them\nto the knowledge of themselves, without the labour both of attention\nand of severe thinking. If it did so, it would have, like the more\npopular works of philosophy, far less affinity than it now has, with\nthe mysteries of religion, and those profound truths concerning our\nspiritual being and destiny, which are revealed in the _things hard to\nbe understood_ of St. Paul and of the _beloved disciple_. For I cannot\nbut remind my readers again, that the Author does not undertake to\nteach us the philosophy of the human mind, with the exclusion of the\ntruths and influences of religion. He would not undertake to\nphilosophize respecting the being and character of man, and at the\nsame time exclude from his view the very principle which constitutes\nhis proper humanity: he would not, in teaching the doctrine of the\nsolar system, omit to mention the sun, and the law of gravitation. He\nprofesses to investigate and unfold the being of man _as man_, in his\nhigher, his peculiar, and distinguishing attributes. These it is,\nwhich are hard to be understood, and to apprehend which requires the\nexercise of deep reflection and exhausting thought. Nor in aiming at\nthis object would he consider it very philosophical to reject the aid\nand instruction of eminent writers on the subject of religion, or even\nof the volume of Revelation itself. He would consider St. Augustine as\nnone the less a philosopher, because he became a Christian. The\nApostles John and Paul were, in the view of this system of philosophy,\nthe most rational of all writers, and the New Testament the most\nphilosophical of all books. They are so because they unfold more\nfully, than any other, the true and essential principles of our being;\nbecause they give us a clearer and deeper insight into those\nconstituent laws of our humanity, which as men, and therefore as\nphilosophers, we are most concerned to know. Not only to those, who\nseek the practical self-knowledge of the humble, spiritually-minded\nChristian, but to those also, who are impelled by the \"heaven\ndescended \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03b8\u03b9 \u03c3\u03b5\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\" to study themselves as philosophers, and\nto make self-knowledge a science, the truths of Scripture are a light\nand a revelation. The more earnestly we reflect upon these and refer\nthem, whether as Christians or as philosophers, to the movements of\nour inward being--to the laws which reveal themselves in our own\nconsciousness, the more fully shall we understand, not only the\nlanguage of Scripture, but all that most demands and excites the\ncuriosity of the genuine philosopher in the mysterious character of\nman. It is by this guiding light, that we can best search into and\napprehend the constitution of that \"marvellous microcosm,\" which, the\nmore it has been known, has awakened more deeply the wonder and\nadmiration of the true philosopher in every age.\n\nNor would the Author of this Work, or those who have imbibed the\nspirit of his system, join with the philosophers of the day in\nthrowing aside and treating with a contempt, as ignorant as it is\narrogant, the treasures of ancient wisdom. _He_, says the son of\nSirach, _that giveth his mind to the law of the Most High, and is\noccupied in the meditation thereof, will seek out the wisdom of all\nthe ancient_. In the estimation of the true philosopher, the case\nshould not be greatly altered in the present day; and now that two\nthousand years have added such rich and manifold abundance to those\nancient \"sayings of the wise,\" he will still approach them with\nreverence, and receive their instruction with gladness of heart. In\nseeking to explore and unfold these deeper and more solemn mysteries\nof our being, which inspire us with awe, while they baffle our\ncomprehension, he will especially beware of trusting to his own\nunderstanding, or of contradicting, in compliance with the\nself-flattering inventions of a single age, the universal faith and\nconsciousness of the human race. On such subjects, though he would\ncall no man master, yet neither would he willingly forego the aids to\nbe derived, in the search after truth, from those great oracles of\nhuman wisdom--those giants in intellectual power who from generation\nto generation were admired and venerated by the great and good. Much\nless could he think it becoming, or consistent with his duty to hazard\nthe publication of his own thoughts on subjects of the deepest\nconcernment, and on which minds of greatest depth and power had been\noccupied in former ages, while confessedly ignorant alike of their\ndoctrines and of the arguments by which they are sustained.\n\nIt is in this spirit, that the Author of the work here offered to the\npublic has prepared himself to deserve the candid and even confiding\nattention of his readers, with reference to the great subject of which\nhe treats.\n\nAnd although the claims of the Work upon our attention, as of every\nother work, must depend more upon its inherent and essential\ncharacter, than upon the worth and authority of its Author, it may yet\nbe of service to the reader to know, that he is no hasty or\nunfurnished adventurer in the department of authorship to which the\nWork belongs. The discriminating reader of this Work cannot fail to\ndiscover his profound knowledge of the philosophy of language, the\nprinciples of its construction, and the laws of its interpretation. In\nothers of his works, perhaps more fully than in this, there is\nevidence of an unrivalled mastery over all that pertains both to logic\nand philology. It has been already intimated, that he is no contemner\nof the great writers of antiquity and of their wise sentences; and\nprobably few English scholars, even in those days when there were\ngiants of learning in Great Britain, had minds more richly furnished\nwith the treasures of ancient lore. But especially will the reader of\nthis Work observe with admiration the profoundness of his\nphilosophical attainments, and his thorough and intimate knowledge,\nnot only of the works and systems of Plato and Aristotle, and of the\ncelebrated philosophers of modern times, but of those too much\nneglected writings of the Greek and Roman Fathers, and of the great\nleaders of the Reformation, which more particularly qualified him for\ndiscussing the subjects of the present Work. If these qualifications,\nand--with all these, and above all--a disposition professed and made\nevident seriously to value them, chiefly as they enable him more fully\nand clearly to apprehend and illustrate the truths of the Christian\nsystem,--if these, I say, can give an Author a claim to serious and\nthoughtful attention, then may the Work here offered urge its claim\nupon the reader. My own regard for the cause of truth, for the\ninterests of philosophy, of reason, and of religion, lead me to hope\nthat they may not be urged in vain.\n\nOf his general claims to our regard, whether from exalted personal and\nmoral worth, or from the magnificence of his intellectual powers, and\nthe vast extent and variety of his accumulated stores of knowledge, I\nshall not venture to speak. If it be true indeed that a really great\nmind can be worthily commended only by those who adequately both\nappreciate and _comprehend_ its greatness, there are few who should\nundertake to estimate, and set forth in appropriate terms, the\nintellectual power and moral worth of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Neither\nhe, nor the public, would be benefited by such commendations as I\ncould bestow. The few among us who have read his works with the\nattention which they deserve, are at no loss what rank to assign him\namong the writers of the present age; to those who have not, any\nlanguage which I might use would appear hyperbolical and extravagant.\nThe character and influence of his principles as a philosopher, a\nmoralist, and a Christian, and of the writings by which he is\nenforcing them, do not ultimately depend upon the estimation in which\nthey may now be held; and to posterity he may safely entrust those\n\"productive ideas\" and \"living words\"--those\n\n    ---- truths that wake,\n    To perish never,\n\nthe possession of which will be for their benefit, and connected with\nwhich, in the language of the Son of Sirach,--_His own memorial shall\nnot depart away, and his name shall live from generation to\ngeneration_.\n\nJ. M.[13]\n\n[7] President of the University of Vermont, United States, where his\nEssay was first published with Dr. Marsh's edition of the 'Aids,'\n1829. See Mr. H. N. Coleridge's Advertisement to the Fourth Edition,\n_ante_, p. xii.--ED.\n\n[8] See pp. 172, 208, 223, &c.--ED.\n\n[9] Coleridge's 'Biographia Literaria,' p. 301, Bohn's edition.--ED.\n\n[10] Introductory Aphorisms, XVI., p. 8.--ED.\n\n[11] Also in Appendix B of the 'Statesman's Manual, Bohn's edition p,\n337.--ED.\n\n[12] The 'Quarterly Christian Spectator,' of New Haven, U.S. The\nletter referred to is signed \"Pacificus,\" and appeared in answer to a\nreview of \"Taylor and Harvey\" (American divines), \"On Human\nDepravity,\" which had appeared in the previous number of the\nQ.C.S.--ED.\n\n[13] Dr. Marsh's signature to the \"Advertisement\" published with the\nabove essay in its revised American edition was dated \"Burlington,\nDec. 26, 1839.\"--ED.\n\n\n\n\nAIDS TO REFLECTION.\n\nINTRODUCTORY APHORISMS.\n\n\nAPHORISM I.\n\nIn philosophy equally as in poetry, it is the highest and most useful\nprerogative of genius to produce the strongest impressions of novelty,\nwhile it rescues admitted truths from the neglect caused by the very\ncircumstance of their universal admission. Extremes meet. Truths, of\nall others the most awful and interesting, are too often considered as\nso true, that they lose all the power of truth, and lie bed-ridden in\nthe dormitory of the soul, side by side with the most despised and\nexploded errors.\n\n\nAPHORISM II.\n\nThere is one sure way of giving freshness and importance to the most\n_common-place_ maxims--that of _reflecting_ on them in direct\nreference to our own state and conduct, to our own past and future\nbeing.\n\n\nAPHORISM III.\n\nTo restore a common-place truth to its first _uncommon_ lustre, you\nneed only _translate_ it into action. But to do this, you must have\n_reflected_ on its truth.\n\n\nAPHORISM IV.\n\nLEIGHTON AND COLERIDGE.\n\nIt is the advice of the wise man, 'Dwell at home,' or, with yourself;\nand though there are very few that do this, yet it is surprising that\nthe greatest part of mankind cannot be prevailed upon, at least to\nvisit themselves sometimes; but, according to the saying of the wise\nSolomon, _The eyes of the fool are in the ends of the earth_.\n\nA reflecting mind, says an ancient writer, is the spring and\nsource of every good thing. ('_Omnis boni principium intellectus\ncogitabundus._') It is at once the disgrace and the misery of men,\nthat they live without fore-thought. Suppose yourself fronting a\nmirror. Now what the objects behind you are to their images at the\nsame apparent distance before you, such is Reflection to Fore-thought.\nAs a man without Fore-thought scarcely deserves the name of a man, so\nFore-thought without Reflection is but a metaphorical phrase for the\n_instinct_ of a beast.\n\n\nAPHORISM V.\n\nAs a fruit-tree is more valuable than any one of its fruits singly, or\neven than all its fruits of a single season, so the noblest object of\nreflection is the mind itself, by which we reflect:\n\nAnd as the blossoms, the green, and the ripe, fruit, of an orange-tree\nare more beautiful to behold when on the tree and seen as one with it,\nthan the same growth detached and seen successively, after their\nimportation into another country and different clime; so is it with\nthe manifold objects of reflection, when they are considered\nprincipally in reference to the reflective power, and as part and\nparcel of the same. No object, of whatever value our passions may\nrepresent it, but becomes _foreign_ to us, as soon as it is altogether\nunconnected with our intellectual, moral, and spiritual life. To be\n_ours_, it must be referred to the mind either as motive, or\nconsequence, or symptom.\n\n\nAPHORISM VI.\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nHe who teaches men the principles and precepts of spiritual wisdom,\nbefore their minds are called off from foreign objects, and turned\ninward upon themselves, might as well write his instructions, as the\nSibyl wrote her prophecies, on the loose leaves of trees, and commit\nthem to the mercy of the inconstant winds.\n\n\nAPHORISM VII.\n\nIn order to learn we must _attend_: in order to profit by what we have\nlearnt, we must _think_--_i.e._ reflect. He only thinks who\n_reflects_.[14]\n\n[14] The indisposition, nay, the angry aversion to _think_, even in\npersons who are most willing to _attend_, and on the subjects to which\nthey are giving studious _attention_--as Political Economy, Biblical\nTheology, Classical Antiquities, and the like,--is the phenomenon that\nforces itself on my notice afresh, every time I enter into the society\nof persons in the higher ranks. To assign a _feeling_ and a\ndetermination of _will_, as a satisfactory reason for embracing or\nrejecting this or that opinion or belief, is of ordinary occurrence,\nand sure to obtain the sympathy and the suffrages of the company. And\nyet to me, this seems little less irrational than to apply the nose to\na picture, and to decide on its genuineness by the sense of smell.\n\n\nAPHORISM VIII.\n\nLEIGHTON AND COLERIDGE.\n\nIt is a matter of great difficulty, and requires no ordinary skill and\naddress, to fix the attention of men on the world within them, to\ninduce them to study the processes and superintend the works which\nthey are themselves carrying on in their own minds; in short, to\nawaken in them both the faculty of thought[15] and the inclination to\nexercise it. For alas! the largest part of mankind are nowhere greater\nstrangers than at home.\n\n[15] _Distinction between Thought and Attention._--By THOUGHT is here\nmeant the voluntary reproduction in our own minds of those states of\nconsciousness, or (to use a phrase more familiar to the religious\nreader) of those inward experiences, to which, as to his best and most\nauthentic documents, the teacher of moral or religious truth refers\nus. In ATTENTION, we keep the mind _passive_: in THOUGHT we rouse it\ninto activity. In the former, we submit to an impression--we keep the\nmind steady in order to _receive_ the stamp. In the latter, we seek to\n_imitate_ the artist, while we ourselves make a copy or duplicate of\nhis work. We may learn arithmetic, or the elements of geometry, by\ncontinued attention alone; but _self_-knowledge, or an insight into\nthe laws and constitutions of the human mind, and the _grounds_ of\nreligion and true morality, in addition to the effort of attention\nrequires the energy of THOUGHT.\n\n\nAPHORISM IX.\n\nLife is the one universal soul, which, by virtue of the enlivening\nBREATH, and the informing WORD, all organized bodies have in common,\neach _after its kind_. This, therefore, all animals possess, and man\nas an animal. But, in addition to this, God transfused into man a\nhigher gift, and specially imbreathed:--even a living (that is,\nself-subsisting) soul, a soul having its life in itself. \"And man\nbecame a living soul.\" He did not merely _possess_ it, he _became_ it.\nIt was his proper _being_, his truest _self_, _the_ man _in_ the man.\nNone then, not one of human kind, so poor and destitute, but there is\nprovided for him, even in his present state, _a house not built with\nhands_. Aye, and spite of the philosophy (falsely so called) which\nmistakes the causes, the conditions, and the occasions of our becoming\n_conscious_ of certain truths and realities for the truths and\nrealities themselves--a house gloriously furnished. Nothing is wanted\nbut the eye, which is the light of this house, the light which is the\neye of this soul. This _seeing_ light, this _enlightening_ eye, is\nReflection.[16] It is more, indeed, than is ordinarily meant by that\nword; but it is what a Christian ought to mean by it, and to know too,\nwhence it first came, and still continues to come--of what light even\nthis light is _but_ a reflection. This, too, is THOUGHT; and all\nthought is but unthinking that does not flow out of this, or tend\ntowards it.\n\n[16] The \"_dianoia_\" of 1 John v. 20, inaccurately rendered\n\"understanding\" in our translation. To exhibit the full force of the\nGreek word, we must say, _a power of discernment by Reason_.\n\n\n\nAPHORISM X.\n\nSelf-superintendence! that anything should overlook itself! Is not\nthis a paradox, and hard to understand? It is, indeed, difficult, and\nto the imbruted sensualist a direct contradiction: and yet most truly\ndoes the poet exclaim,\n\n    ---- Unless _above_ himself he can\n    Erect himself, how mean a thing is man!\n\n\nAPHORISM XI.\n\nAn hour of solitude passed in sincere and earnest prayer, or the\nconflict with, and conquest over, a single passion or \"subtle bosom\nsin,\" will teach us more of thought, will more effectually awaken the\n_faculty_, and form the _habit_, of reflection, than a year's study in\nthe schools without them.\n\n\nAPHORISM XII.\n\nIn a world, the opinions of which are drawn from outside shows, many\nthings may be _paradoxical_, (that is, contrary to the common notion)\nand nevertheless true: nay, _because_ they are true. How should it be\notherwise, as long as the imagination of the Worldling is wholly\noccupied by surfaces, while the Christian's thoughts are fixed on the\nsubstance, that which _is_ and abides, and which, _because_ it is the\nsubstance,[17] the outward senses cannot recognize. Tertullian had\ngood reason for his assertion, that the simplest Christian (if indeed\na Christian) knows more than the most accomplished irreligious\nphilosopher.\n\nCOMMENT.\n\nLet it not, however, be forgotten, that the powers of the\nunderstanding and the intellectual graces are precious gifts of God;\nand that every Christian, according to the opportunities vouchsafed to\nhim, is bound to cultivate the one and to acquire the other. Indeed,\nhe is scarcely a Christian who wilfully neglects so to do. What says\nthe apostle? Add to your faith _knowledge_, and to knowledge _manly\nenergy_: for this is the proper rendering of \u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd, and not\n_virtue_, at least in the present and ordinary acceptation of the\nword.[18]\n\n[17] _Quod stat subtus_, that which stands _beneath_, and (as it were)\nsupports, the appearance. In a language like ours, where so many words\nare derived from other languages, there are few modes of instruction\nmore useful or more amusing than that of accustoming young people to\nseek for the etymology, or primary meaning, of the words they use.\nThere are cases, in which more knowledge of more value may be conveyed\nby the history of a _word_, than by the history of a campaign.\n\n[18] I am not ashamed to confess that I dislike the frequent use of\nthe word virtue, instead of righteousness, in the pulpit: and that in\nprayer or preaching before a Christian community, it sounds too much\nlike _Pagan_ philosophy. The passage in St. Peter's epistle is the\nonly scripture authority that can be pretended for its use, and I\nthink it right, therefore, to notice that it rests either on an\noversight of the translators, or on a change in the meaning of the\nword since their time.\n\n\nAPHORISM XIII.\n\nNever yet did there exist a full faith in the Divine Word (by whom\n_light_, as well as immortality, was brought into the world), which\ndid not expand the intellect, while it purified the heart;--which did\nnot multiply the aims and objects of the understanding, while it fixed\nand simplified those of the desires and passions.[19]\n\nCOMMENT.\n\nIf acquiescence without insight; if warmth without light; if an\nimmunity from doubt, given and guaranteed by a resolute ignorance; if\nthe habit of _taking for granted_ the words of a catechism, remembered\nor forgotten; if a mere _sensation_ of positiveness substituted--I\nwill not say, for the _sense_ of _certainty_; but--for that calm\nassurance, the very means and conditions of which it supersedes; if a\nbelief that seeks the darkness, and yet strikes no root, immovable as\nthe limpet from the rock, and like the limpet, fixed there by mere\nforce of adhesion; if these suffice to make men Christians, in what\nsense could the apostle affirm that believers receive, not indeed\nworldly wisdom, that comes to nought, but the wisdom of God, that we\nmight _know and comprehend_ the things that are freely given to us of\nGod? On what grounds could he denounce the sincerest _fervour_ of\nspirit as _defective_, where it does not likewise bring forth fruits\nin the UNDERSTANDING?\n\n[19] The effects of a zealous ministry on the intellects and\nacquirements of the labouring classes are not only attested by Baxter,\nand the Presbyterian divines, but admitted by Bishop Burnet, who,\nduring his mission in the west of Scotland, was \"amazed to find a poor\ncommonalty so able to argue,\" &c. But we need not go to a sister\nchurch for proof or example. The diffusion of light and knowledge\nthrough this kingdom, by the exertions of the Bishops and clergy, by\nEpiscopalians and Puritans, from Edward VI. to the Restoration, was as\nwonderful as it is praiseworthy, and may be justly placed among the\nmost remarkable facts of history.\n\n\nAPHORISM XIV.\n\nIn our present state, it is little less than impossible that the\naffections should be kept constant to an object which gives no\nemployment to the understanding, and yet cannot be made manifest to\nthe senses. The exercise of the reasoning and reflecting powers,\nincreasing insight, and enlarging views, are requisite to keep alive\nthe substantial faith in the heart.\n\n\nAPHORISM XV.\n\nIn the state of perfection, perhaps, all other faculties may be\nswallowed up in love, or superseded by immediate vision; but it is on\nthe wings of the CHERUBIM, that is, (according to the interpretation\nof the ancient Hebrew doctors) the _intellectual_ powers and energies,\nthat we must first be borne up to the \"pure empyrean.\" It must be\nseraphs, and not the hearts of imperfect mortals, that can burn\nunfuelled and self-fed. _Give me understanding_ (is the prayer of the\nRoyal Psalmist), _and I shall observe thy law with my whole\nheart_.[20]--_Thy law is exceeding broad_--that is, comprehensive,\npregnant, containing far more than the apparent import of the words on\na first perusal. _It is my meditation all the day._[21]\n\nCOMMENT.\n\nIt is worthy of especial observation, that the Scriptures are\ndistinguished from all other writings pretending to inspiration, by\nthe strong and frequent recommendations of knowledge, and a spirit of\ninquiry. Without reflection, it is evident that neither the one can be\nacquired nor the other exercised.\n\n[20] Ps. cxix. 34.--ED.\n\n[21] Ps. cxix. 97.--ED.\n\n\nAPHORISM XVI.\n\nThe word _rational_ has been strangely abused of late times. This must\nnot, however, disincline us to the weighty consideration, that\nthoughtfulness, and a desire to rest all our convictions on grounds of\nright reasoning, are inseparable from the character of a Christian.\n\n\nAPHORISM XVII.\n\nA reflecting mind is not a flower that grows wild, or comes up of its\nown accord. The difficulty is indeed greater than many, who mistake\nquick recollection for thought, are disposed to admit; but how much\nless than it would be, had we not been born and bred in a Christian\nand Protestant land, few of us are sufficiently aware. Truly may we,\nand thankfully ought we to, exclaim with the Psalmist: _The entrance\nof thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the\nsimple_.[22]\n\n[22] Ps. cxix. 130.--ED.\n\n\n\nAPHORISM XVIII.\n\nExamine the journals of our zealous missionaries, I will not say among\nthe Hottentots or Esquimaux, but in the highly _civilized_, though\nfearfully _uncultivated_, inhabitants of ancient India. How often, and\nhow feelingly, do they describe the difficulty of rendering the\nsimplest chain of thought intelligible to the ordinary natives, the\nrapid exhaustion of their whole power of attention, and with what\ndistressful effort it is exerted while it lasts! Yet it is among these\nthat the hideous practices of self-torture chiefly prevail. O, if\nfolly were no _easier_ than wisdom, it being often so very much more\n_grievous_, how certainly might these unhappy slaves of superstition\nbe converted to Christianity! But, alas! to swing by hooks passed\nthrough the back, or to walk in shoes with nails of iron pointed\nupwards through the soles--all this is so much less _difficult_,\ndemands so much less exertion of the will than to _reflect_, and by\nreflection to gain knowledge and tranquillity!\n\nCOMMENT.\n\nIt is not true, that ignorant persons have no notion of the\n_advantages_ of truth and knowledge. They confess, they see and bear\nwitness to these advantages in the conduct, the immunities, and the\nsuperior powers of the possessors. Were they attainable by pilgrimages\nthe most toilsome, or penances the most painful, we should assuredly\nhave as many pilgrims and self-tormentors in the service of true\nreligion, as now exist under the tyranny of Papal or Brahman\nsuperstition.\n\n\nAPHORISM XIX.\n\nIn countries enlightened by the gospel, however, the most formidable\nand (it is to be feared) the most frequent impediment to men's turning\nthe mind inward upon themselves, is that they are afraid of what they\nshall find there. There is an aching hollowness in the bosom, a dark\ncold speck at the heart, an obscure and boding sense of somewhat, that\nmust be kept _out of sight_ of the conscience; some secret lodger,\nwhom they can neither resolve to eject or retain.[23]\n\nCOMMENT.\n\nFew are so obdurate, few have sufficient strength of character, to be\nable to draw forth an evil tendency or immoral practice into distinct\n_consciousness_, without bringing it in the same moment before an\nawaking _conscience_. But for this very reason it becomes a duty of\nconscience to form the mind to a habit of distinct consciousness. An\nunreflecting Christian walks in twilight among snares and pitfalls! He\nentreats the heavenly Father not to lead him into temptation, and yet\nplaces himself on the very edge of it, because he will not kindle the\ntorch which his Father had given into his hands, as a means of\nprevention, and lest he should pray too late.\n\n[23] The following sonnet was extracted by me from Herbert's 'Temple,'\nin a work long since out of print, for the purity of the language and\nthe fulness of the sense. But I shall be excused, I trust, in\nrepeating it here for higher merits and with higher purposes, as a\nforcible comment on the words in the text.\n\n    _Graces vouchsafed in a Christian land._\n\n    Lord! with what care hast thou begirt us round!\n    Parents first season us. Then schoolmasters\n    Deliver us to laws. They send us bound\n    To rules of reason. Holy messengers;\n    Pulpits and Sundays; sorrow dogging sin;\n    Afflictions _sorted_; anguish of all sizes;\n    Fine nets and stratagems to catch us in!\n    Bibles laid open; millions of surprizes;\n    Blessings beforehand; ties of gratefulness;\n    The sound of glory ringing in our ears:\n    Without, our shame; within, our consciences;\n    Angels and grace; eternal hopes and fears!\n    Yet all these fences, and their whole array,\n    One cunning BOSOM-SIN blows quite away.\n\n\nAPHORISM XX.\n\nAmong the various undertakings of men, can there be mentioned one more\nimportant, can there be conceived one more sublime, than an intention\nto form the human mind anew after the DIVINE IMAGE? The very\nintention, if it be sincere, is a ray of its dawning.\n\nThe requisites for the execution of this high intent may be comprised\nunder three heads; the prudential, the moral, and the spiritual.\n\n\nAPHORISM XXI.\n\nFirst, RELIGIOUS PRUDENCE.--What this is, will be best explained by\nits effects and operations. PRUDENCE in the service of RELIGION\nconsists in the prevention or abatement of hindrances and\ndistractions; and consequently in avoiding, or removing, all such\ncircumstances as, by diverting the attention of the workman, retard\nthe progress and hazard the safety of the work. It is likewise (I deny\nnot) a part of this unworldly prudence, to place ourselves as much and\nas often as it is in our power so to do, in circumstances directly\nfavourable to our great design; and to avail ourselves of all the\n_positive_ helps and furtherances which these circumstances afford.\nBut neither dare we, as Christians, forget whose and under what\ndominion the things are, _qu\u00e6 nos circumstant_, that is, which _stand\naround_ us. We are to remember, that it is the _world_ that\nconstitutes our outward circumstances; that in the form of the world,\nwhich is evermore at variance with the Divine form (or idea) they are\ncast and moulded; and that of the means and measures which the same\nprudence requires in the forming anew of the Divine Image in the soul,\nthe far greater number suppose the world at enmity with our design. We\nare to avoid its snares, to repel its attacks, to suspect its aids and\nsuccours, and even when compelled to receive them as allies within our\ntrenches, we are to commit the outworks alone to their charge, and to\nkeep them at a jealous distance from the citadel. The powers of the\nworld are often _christened_, but seldom christianized. They are but\n_proselytes of the outer gate_; or like the Saxons of old, enter the\nland as auxiliaries, and remain in it as conquerors and lords.\n\n\nAPHORISM XXII.\n\nThe rules of prudence in general, like the laws of the stone tables,\nare for the most part prohibitive. _Thou shalt not_ is their\ncharacteristic formula: and it is an especial part of Christian\nprudence that it should be so. Nor would it be difficult to bring\nunder this head, all the social obligations that arise out of the\nrelations of the present life, which the sensual understanding (\u03c4\u03bf\n\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03a3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, Romans viii. 6.) is of itself able to discover,\nand the performance of which, under favourable circumstances, the\nmerest worldly self-interest, without love or faith, is sufficient to\nenforce; but which Christian Prudence enlivens by a higher principle,\nand renders symbolic and sacramental. (Ephesians v. 32.)\n\nCOMMENT.\n\nThis then, under the appellation of prudential requisites, comes first\nunder consideration: and may be regarded as the shrine and frame-work\nfor the Divine image, into which the worldly human is to be\ntransformed. We are next to bring out the Divine Portrait itself, the\ndistinct features of its countenance, as a sojourner among men; its\nbenign aspect turned towards its fellow-pilgrims, the extended arm,\nand the hand that blesseth and healeth.\n\n\nAPHORISM XXIII.\n\nThe outward service (\u0398\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1[24]) of ancient religion, the rites,\nceremonies and ceremonial vestments of the old law, had morality for\ntheir substance. They were the _letter_, of which morality was the\n_spirit_; the enigma, of which morality was the _meaning_. But\nmorality itself is the service and ceremonial (cultus exterior,\n\u03b8\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1) of the Christian religion. The scheme of grace and truth\nthat _became_[25] through Jesus Christ, the faith that _looks[26]\ndown into_ the perfect law of liberty, has _light for its garment:\nits very robe is righteousness_.\n\nCOMMENT.\n\nHerein the apostle places the pre-eminence, the peculiar and\ndistinguishing excellence, of the Christian religion. The ritual is of\nthe same kind, (\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd) though not of the same order, with the\nreligion itself--not arbitrary or conventional, as types and\nhieroglyphics are in relation to the things expressed by them; but\ninseparable, consubstantiated (as it were), and partaking therefore of\nthe same life, permanence, and intrinsic worth with its spirit and\nprinciple.\n\n[24] See the epistle of St. James, i. 26, 27, where, in the authorized\nversion, the Greek word \u03b8\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 is falsely rendered _religion_;\nwhether by mistake of the translator, or from the intended sense\nhaving become obsolete, I cannot decide. At all events, for the\nEnglish reader of our times it has the effect of an erroneous\ntranslation. It not only obscures the connexion of the passage, and\nweakens the peculiar force and sublimity of the thought, rendering it\ncomparatively flat and trivial, almost indeed tautological, but has\noccasioned this particular verse to be perverted into a support of a\nvery dangerous error; and the whole epistle to be considered as a\n_set-off_ against the epistles and declarations of St. Paul, instead\nof (what in fact it is) a masterly comment and confirmation of the\nsame. I need not inform the religious reader, that James i. 27, is the\nfavourite text and most boasted authority of those divines who\nrepresent the Redeemer of the world as little more than a moral\nreformer, and the Christian faith as a code of ethics, differing from\nthe moral system of Moses and the prophets by an additional motive; or\nrather, by the additional strength and clearness which the historical\nfact of the resurrection has given to the same motive.\n\n[25] The Greek word \u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf, unites in itself the two senses of\n_began to exist_ and _was made to exist_. It exemplifies the force of\nthe _middle voice_, in distinction from the verb reflex. In answer to\na note on John i. 2., in the Unitarian version of the New Testament, I\nthink it worth noticing, that the same word is used in the very same\nsense by Aristophanes in that famous parody on the cosmogonies of the\nMythic poets, or the creation of the finite, as delivered, or supposed\nto be delivered, in the Cabiric or Samothracian mysteries, in the\nComedy of the Birds.\n\n    ---- \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4 \u039f\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u03a9\u03ba\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\n    \u039a\u03b1\u03b9 \u0393\u03b7.\n\n[26] James i. 25. \u039f \u03b4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c5\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2.\nThe Greek word, _parakupsas_, signifies the incurvation or bending of\nthe body in the act of _looking down into_; as, for instance, in the\nendeavour to see the reflected image of a star in the water at the\nbottom of a well. A more happy or forcible word could not have been\nchosen to express the nature and ultimate object of reflection, and to\nenforce the necessity of it, in order to discover the living fountain\nand spring-head of the evidence of the Christian faith in the believer\nhimself, and at the same time to point out the seat and region, where\nalone it is to be found. _Quantum sumus, scimus._ That which we find\nwithin ourselves, which is more than ourselves, and yet the ground of\nwhatever is good and permanent therein, is the substance and life of\nall other knowledge.\n\nN.B. The Familists of the sixteenth century, and similar enthusiasts\nof later date, overlooked the essential point, that it was a _law_,\nand a law that involved its own end (\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2), a _perfect_ law (\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2)\nor law that perfects or completes itself; and therefore, its\nobligations are called, in reference to human statutes, _imperfect_\nduties, i.e. incoercible from without. They overlooked that it was a\nlaw that _portions out_ (\u039d\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 _from_ \u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03c9 _to allot, or make division\nof_) to each man the sphere and limits within which it is to be\nexercised--which as St. Peter notices of certain profound passages in\nthe writings of St. Paul, (2 Pet. iii. 16.)--o\u03b9 \u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\n\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u03c2, \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u03c0\u03c9\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd.\n\n\nAPHORISM XXIV.\n\nMorality is the body, of which the faith in Christ is the soul--so far\nindeed its earthly body, as it is adapted to its state of warfare on\nearth, and the appointed form and instrument of its communion with the\npresent world; yet not \"terrestrial,\" nor of the world, but a\ncelestial body, and capable of being transfigured from glory to glory,\nin accordance with the varying circumstances and outward relations of\nits moving and informing spirit.\n\n\nAPHORISM XXV.\n\nWoe to the man, who will believe neither power, freedom, nor morality;\nbecause he nowhere finds either entire, or unmixed with sin, thraldom\nand infirmity. In the natural and intellectual realms, we distinguish\nwhat we cannot separate; and in the moral world, we must distinguish\n_in order to_ separate. Yea, in the clear distinction of good from\nevil the process of separation commences.\n\nCOMMENT.\n\nIt was customary with religious men in former times, to make a rule of\ntaking every morning some text, or aphorism,[27] for their occasional\nmeditation during the day, and thus to fill up the intervals of their\nattention to business. I do not point it out for imitation, as knowing\ntoo well, how apt these self-imposed rules are to degenerate into\nsuperstition or hollowness; otherwise I would have recommended the\nfollowing as the first exercise.\n\n[27] In accordance with a preceding remark, on the use of etymology in\ndisciplining the youthful mind to thoughtful habits, and as consistent\nwith the title of this work, 'Aids to Reflection,' I shall offer no\napology for the following and similar notes:\n\n_Aphorism_, determinate position, from the Greek, _ap_, from; and\n_horizein_, to bound or limit; whence our horizon.--In order to get\nthe full sense of a word, we should first present to our minds the\nvisual image that forms its primary meaning. Draw lines of different\ncolours round the different counties of England, and then cut out each\nseparately, as in the common play-maps that children take to pieces\nand put together--so that each district can be contemplated apart from\nthe rest, as a whole in itself. This twofold act of circumscribing,\nand detaching, when it is exerted by the mind on subjects of\nreflection and reason, is to _aphorize_, and the result an _aphorism_.\n\n\nAPHORISM XXVI.\n\nIt is a dull and obtuse mind, that must divide in order to\ndistinguish; but it is a still worse, that distinguishes in order to\ndivide. In the former, we may contemplate the source of superstition\nand idolatry;[28] in the latter, of schism, heresy,[29] and a\nseditious and sectarian spirit.[30]\n\n[28] \u03a4\u03bf \u039d\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b7\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u0399\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2.--_Damasc. de\nMyst. Egypt_; that is, They _divided_ the intelligible into many and\nseveral individualities.\n\n[29] From \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. Though well aware of its formal and apparent\nderivation from _haireo_, I am inclined to refer both words to _airo_,\nas the primitive term, containing the primary visual image, and\ntherefore should explain _h\u00e6resis_, as a wilful raising into public\nnotice, an uplifting (for display) of any particular opinion differing\nfrom the established belief of the church at large, and making it a\nground of schism, that is, division.\n\n[30] I mean these words in their large and philosophic sense in\nrelation to the _spirit_, or originating temper and tendency, and not\nto any one mode under which, or to any one class, in or by which it\nmay be displayed. A seditious spirit may (it is possible, though not\nprobable) exist in the council-chamber of a palace as strongly as in a\nmob in Palace-Yard; and a sectarian spirit in a cathedral, no less\nthan in a conventicle.\n\n\nAPHORISM XXVII.\n\nExclusive of the abstract sciences, the largest and worthiest portion\nof our knowledge consists of _aphorisms_: and the greatest and best of\nmen is but an _aphorism_.\n\n\nAPHORISM XXVIII.\n\n On the prudential influence which the fear or foresight of the\n _consequences_ of his actions, in respect of his own loss or gain,\n may exert on a newly-converted Believer.\n\nPRECAUTIONARY REMARK.--I meddle not with the dispute respecting\n_conversion_, whether, and in what sense, necessary in all Christians.\nIt is sufficient for my purpose, that a very _large_ number of men,\neven in Christian countries, _need_ to be converted, and that not a\nfew, I trust, have been. The tenet becomes fanatical and dangerous,\nonly when rare and extraordinary exceptions are made to be the general\nrule;--when what was vouchsafed to the apostle of the Gentiles by\nespecial grace, and for an especial purpose, namely, a conversion[31]\nbegun and completed in the same moment, is demanded or expected of all\nmen, as a necessary sign and pledge of their election. Late\nobservations have shown, that under many circumstances the magnetic\nneedle, even after the disturbing influence has been removed, will\nkeep wavering, and require many days before it points aright, and\nremains steady to the pole. So is it ordinarily with the soul, after\nit has begun to free itself from the disturbing forces of the flesh\nand the world, and to convert[32] itself towards God.\n\n[31] Whereas Christ's other disciples had a breeding under him, St.\nPaul was _born_ an apostle; not carved out, as the rest, by degrees\nand in course of time, but a _fusile_ apostle, an apostle poured out\nand cast in a mould. As Adam was a perfect man in an instant, so was\nSt. Paul a perfect Christian. The same spirit was the lightning that\nmelted, and the mould that received and shaped him.--Donne's\nSermons--_quoted from memory_.\n\n[32] From the Latin, _convertere_--that is, by an act of the WILL _to\nturn towards_ the true pole, _at the same time_ (for this is the force\nof the prepositive _con_) that the understanding is convinced and made\naware of its existence and direction.\n\n\nAPHORISM XXIX.\n\nAwakened by the cock-crow, (a sermon, a calamity, a sick bed, or a\nprovidential escape) the Christian pilgrim sets out in the morning\ntwilight, while yet the truth (the \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f11\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2)\nis below the horizon. Certain necessary _consequences_\nof his past life and his present undertaking will be _seen_ by the\nrefraction of its light: more will be apprehended and conjectured. The\nphantasms, that had predominated during the hours of darkness, are\nstill busy. Though they no longer present themselves as distinct\nforms, they yet remain as formative motions in the pilgrim's soul,\nunconscious of its own activity and overmastered by its own\nworkmanship. Things take the signature of thought. The shapes of the\nrecent dream become a _mould_ for the objects in the distance; and\nthese again give an outwardness and a sensation of reality to the\nshapings of the dream. The bodings inspired by the long habit of\nselfishness, and self-seeking cunning, though they are now commencing\nthe process of their purification into that fear which is the\n_beginning_ of wisdom, and which, as such, is ordained to be our guide\nand safeguard, till the sun of love, the perfect law of liberty, is\nfully arisen--these bodings will set the fancy at work, and haply, for\na time, transform the mists of dim and imperfect knowledge into\ndeterminate superstitions. But in either case, whether seen clearly or\ndimly, whether beholden or only imagined, the _consequences_,\ncontemplated in their bearings on the individual's inherent[33]\ndesire of happiness and dread of pain, become _motives_: and (unless\nall distinction in the words be done away with, and either prudence or\nvirtue be reduced to a superfluous synonyme, a redundancy in all the\nlanguages of the civilized world), these motives, and the acts and\nforbearances directly proceeding from them, fall under the head of\nPRUDENCE, as belonging to one or other of its four very distinct\nspecies.\n\nI. It may be a prudence, that stands in opposition to a higher moral\nlife, and tends to preclude it, and to prevent the soul from ever\narriving at the hatred of sin for its own exceeding sinfulness (Rom.\nvii. 13): and this is an EVIL PRUDENCE.\n\nII. Or it may be a _neutral_ prudence, not incompatible with spiritual\ngrowth: and to this we may, with especial propriety, apply the words\nof our Lord, \"What is not _against_ us is for us.\" It is therefore an\ninnocent, and (being such) a proper, and COMMENDABLE PRUDENCE.\n\nIII. Or it may lead and be subservient to a higher principle than\nitself. The mind and conscience of the individual may be reconciled to\nit, in the foreknowledge of the higher principle, and with a yearning\ntowards it that implies a foretaste of future freedom. The enfeebled\nconvalescent is reconciled to his crutches, and thankfully makes use\nof them, not only because they are necessary for his immediate\nsupport, but likewise, because they are the means and conditions of\nEXERCISE; and by exercise, of establishing, _gradatim paulatim_, that\nstrength, flexibility, and almost spontaneous obedience of the\nmuscles, which the idea and cheering presentiment of health hold out\nto him. He finds their _value_ in their present necessity, and their\n_worth_ as they are the instruments of finally superseding it. This is\na faithful, a WISE PRUDENCE, having indeed, its birth-place in the\nworld, and the _wisdom of this world_ for its father; but naturalized\nin a better land, and having the wisdom from above for its sponsor and\nspiritual parent. To steal a dropt feather from the spicy nest of the\nPh\u0153nix, (the fond humour, I mean, of the mystic divines and\nallegorizers of Holy Writ,) it is the _son of Terah from Ur of the\nChaldees_, who gives a tithe of all to the King of Righteousness,\nwithout father, without mother, without descent, (\u039d\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2),\nand receives a blessing on the remainder.\n\nIV. Lastly, there is a prudence that co-exists with morality, as\nmorality co-exists with the spiritual life: a prudence that is the\norgan of both, as the understanding is to the reason and the will, or\nas the lungs are to the heart and brain. This is A HOLY PRUDENCE, the\nsteward faithful and discreet, (\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, Luke\nxii. 42), the \"eldest servant\" in the family of faith, _born in the\nhouse_, and \"made the ruler over his lord's household.\"\n\nLet not, then, I entreat you, my purpose be misunderstood; as if, in\n_distinguishing_ virtue from prudence, I wished to divide the one from\nthe other. True morality is hostile to that prudence only, which is\npreclusive of true morality. The teacher, who _subordinates_ prudence\nto virtue, cannot be supposed to _dispense_ with it; and he who\nteaches the proper connexion of the one with the other, does not\ndepreciate the lower in any sense; while by making it a link of the\nsame chain with the higher, and receiving the same influence, he\nraises it.\n\nIn general, Morality may be compared to the consonant, Prudence to the\nvowel. The former cannot be _uttered_ (reduced to practice) but by\nmeans of the latter.\n\n[33] The following extract from Leighton's 'Theological Lectures,'\nsect. II. may serve as a comment on this sentence:\n\n\"The human mind, however stunned and weakened by the fall, still\nretains some faint idea of the good it has lost; a kind of languid\nsense of its misery and indigence, with affections suitable to these\nobscure notions. This at least is beyond all doubt and indisputable,\nthat all men wish well to themselves; nor can the mind divest itself\nof this propensity, without divesting itself of its being. This is\nwhat the schoolmen mean, when in their manner of expression they say,\nthat 'the will (voluntas, _not_ arbitrium) is carried towards\nhappiness not simply as _will_, but as _nature_.\"\n\nI venture to remark that this position, if not more _certainly_ would\nbe more _evidently_ true, if instead of _beatitudo_, the word\n_indolentia_ (that is, freedom from pain, negative happiness) had been\nused. But this depends on the exact meaning attached to the term\n_self_, of which more in another place. One conclusion, however,\nfollows inevitably from the preceding position, namely, that this\npropensity can never be legitimately made the _principle_ of morality,\neven because it is no part or appurtenance of the moral will; and\nbecause the proper object of the moral principle is to limit and\ncontrol this propensity, and to determine in what it _may_ be, and in\nwhat it _ought_ to be gratified; while it is the business of\nphilosophy to instruct the understanding, and the office of religion\nto convince the whole man, that otherwise than as a _regulated_, and\nof course therefore a _subordinate_, end, this propensity, innate and\ninalienable though it be, can never be realized or fulfilled.\n\n\nAPHORISM XXX.\n\nWhat the duties of MORALITY are, the apostle instructs the believer in\nfull, comprising them under the two heads of negative and positive;\nnegative, to keep himself pure from the world; and positive,\nbeneficence from loving-kindness, that is, love of his fellow-men (his\nkind) as himself.\n\n\nAPHORISM XXXI.\n\nLast and highest, come the _spiritual_, comprising all the truths,\nacts, and duties that have an especial reference to the Timeless, the\nPermanent, the Eternal: to the sincere love of the True, _as_ truth;\nof the Good, _as_ good: and of God as both in one. It comprehends the\nwhole ascent from uprightness (morality, virtue, inward rectitude) to\n_godlikeness_, with all the acts, exercises, and disciplines of mind,\nwill, and affection, that are requisite or conducive to the great\ndesign of our Redemption from the form of the evil one, and of our\nsecond creation or birth in the divine image.[34]\n\n[34] It is worthy of observation, and may furnish a fruitful subject\nfor future reflection, how nearly this scriptural division coincides\nwith the Platonic, which, _commencing_ with the prudential, or the\nhabit of act and purpose proceeding from enlightened self-interest,\n[_qui animi imperio, corporis servitio, rerum auxilio, in proprium sui\ncommodum et sibi providus utitur, hunc esse prudentem statuimus_]\n_ascends_ to the moral, that is, to the _purifying_ and _remedial_\nvirtues; and seeks its _summit_ in the imitation of the Divine nature.\nIn this last division, answering to that which we have called the\nSpiritual, Plato includes all those inward acts and aspirations,\nwaitings, and watchings, which have a growth in godlikeness for their\nimmediate purpose, and the union of the human soul with the Supreme\nGood as their ultimate object. Nor was it altogether without grounds\nthat several of the Fathers ventured to believe that Plato had some\ndim conception of the necessity of a Divine Mediator, whether through\nsome indistinct echo of the patriarchal faith, or some rays of light\nrefracted from the Hebrew prophets through a Phoenician medium, (to\nwhich he may possibly have referred in his phrase, \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03b9\u03b1, the wisdom delivered from God), or by his own sense of the\nmysterious contradiction in human nature between the will and the\nreason, the natural appetences and the not less innate law of\nconscience (_Romans_ ii. 14, 15.), we shall in vain attempt to\ndetermine. It is not impossible that all three may have co-operated in\npartially unveiling these awful truths to this plank from the wreck of\nparadise thrown on the shores of idolatrous Greece, to this Divine\nPhilosopher,\n\n    Che 'n quella schiera and\u00f3 pi\u00f9 presso al segno\n    Al qual aggiunge, a chi dal cielo \u00e8 dato.\n\n    _Petrarch: Del Trionfo della Fama, Cap. III. 5, 6._\n\n\nAPHORISM XXXII.\n\nIt may be an additional aid to reflection, to distinguish the three\nkinds severally, according to the faculty to which each corresponds,\nthe part of our human nature which is more particularly its organ.\nThus: the prudential corresponds to the sense and the understanding;\nthe moral to the heart and the conscience; the spiritual to the will\nand the reason, that is, to the finite will reduced to harmony with,\nand in subordination to, the reason, as a ray from that true light\nwhich is both reason and will, universal reason, and will absolute.\n\n\n\n\nREFLECTIONS,\n\nINTRODUCTORY TO\n\nMORAL AND RELIGIOUS APHORISMS.\n\nON SENSIBILITY.\n\n\nIf Prudence, though practically inseparable from Morality, is not to\nbe confounded with the Moral Principle; still less may Sensibility,\nthat is, a constitutional quickness of Sympathy with Pain and\nPleasure, and a keen sense of the gratifications that accompany social\nintercourse, mutual endearments, and reciprocal preferences, be\nmistaken, or deemed a Substitute for either. Sensibility is not even a\nsure pledge of a GOOD HEART, though among the most common meanings of\nthat many-meaning and too commonly misapplied expression.\n\nSo far from being either Morality, or one with the Moral Principle, it\nought not even to be placed in the same rank with Prudence. For\nPrudence is at least an offspring of the Understanding; but\nSensibility (the Sensibility, I mean, here spoken of), is for the\ngreater part a quality of the nerves, and a result of individual\nbodily temperament.\n\nPrudence is an _active_ Principle, and implies a sacrifice of Self,\nthough only to the same Self _projected_, as it were, to a distance.\nBut the very term Sensibility, marks its _passive_ nature; and in its\nmere self, apart from Choice and Reflection, it proves little more\nthan the coincidence or contagion of pleasurable or painful\nSensations in different persons.\n\nAlas! how many are there in this over-stimulated age, in which the\noccurrence of excessive and unhealthy sensitiveness is so frequent, as\neven to have reversed the current meaning of the word, _nervous_. How\nmany are[35] there whose sensibility prompts them to remove those\nevils alone, which by hideous spectacle or clamorous outcry are\npresent to their senses and disturb their selfish enjoyments. Provided\nthe dunghill is not before their parlour window, they are contented to\nknow that it exists, and perhaps as the hotbed on which their own\nluxuries are reared. Sensibility is not necessarily Benevolence. Nay,\nby rendering us tremblingly alive to trifling misfortunes, it\nfrequently prevents it, and induces an effeminate Selfishness instead,\n\n    ---- pampering the coward heart,\n    With feelings all too delicate for use.\n    Sweet are the Tears, that from a Howard's eye\n    Drop on the cheek of one, he lifts from earth:\n    And he, who works me good with unmoved face,\n    Does it but half. He chills me, while he aids,\n    My Benefactor, not my Brother Man.\n    But even this, this _cold_ benevolence,\n    Seems Worth, seems Manhood, when there rise before me,\n    The sluggard Pity's vision-weaving tribe,\n    Who sigh for wretchedness yet shun the wretched,\n    Nursing in some delicious solitude,\n    Their slothful Loves and dainty Sympathies.[36]\n\nLastly, where Virtue is, Sensibility is the ornament and becoming\nAttire of Virtue. On certain occasions it may almost be said to\n_become_[37] Virtue. But Sensibility and all the amiable qualities\nmay likewise become, and too often _have_ become, the panders of Vice\nand the instruments of Seduction.\n\nSo must it needs be with all qualities that have their rise only in\n_parts_ and _fragments_ of our nature. A man of warm passions may\nsacrifice half his estate to rescue a friend from prison; for he is\nnaturally sympathetic, and the more social _part_ of his nature\nhappened to be uppermost. The same man shall afterwards exhibit the\nsame disregard of money in an attempt to seduce that friend's wife or\ndaughter.\n\nAll the evil achieved by Hobbes, and the whole School of Materialists\nwill appear inconsiderable, if it be compared with the mischief\neffected and occasioned by the sentimental Philosophy of STERNE, and\nhis numerous imitators. The vilest appetites and the most remorseless\ninconstancy towards their objects, acquired the titles of _the Heart,\nthe irresistible Feelings, the too tender Sensibility;_ and if the\nFrosts of Prudence, the icy chains of Human Law thawed and vanished at\nthe genial warmth of Human _Nature_, who _could help it_? It was an\namiable Weakness!\n\nAbout this time, too, the profanation of the word Love, rose to its\nheight. The French Naturalists, Buffon and others, borrowed it from\nthe sentimental Novelists: the Swedish and English Philosophers took\nthe contagion; and the Muse of Science condescended to seek admission\ninto the Saloons of Fashion and Frivolity, _rouged_ like a harlot, and\nwith the harlot's wanton leer. I know not how the Annals of Guilt\ncould be better forced into the service of Virtue, than by such a\nComment on the present paragraph, as would be afforded by a selection\nfrom the sentimental correspondence produced in Courts of Justice\nwithin the last thirty years, fairly translated into the true meaning\nof the words, and the actual Object and Purpose of the infamous\nwriters.\n\nDo you in good earnest aim at Dignity of Character? By all the\ntreasures of a peaceful mind, by all the charms of an open\ncountenance, I conjure you, O youth! turn away from those who live in\nthe Twilight between Vice and Virtue. Are not Reason, Discrimination,\nLaw, and deliberate Choice, the distinguishing Characters of Humanity?\nCan aught, then, worthy of a human Being, proceed from a Habit of\nSoul, which would exclude all these and (to borrow a metaphor from\nPaganism) prefer the den of Trophonius to the Temple and Oracles of\nthe God of Light? Can any thing _manly_, I say, proceed from those,\nwho for Law and Light would substitute shapeless feelings, sentiments,\nimpulses, which as far as they differ from the vital workings in the\nbrute animals, owe the difference to their former connexion with the\nproper Virtues of Humanity; as dendrites derive the outlines, that\nconstitute their value above other clay-stones, from the casual\nneighbourhood and pressure of the plants, the names of which they\nassume? Remember, that Love itself in its highest earthly Bearing, as\nthe ground of the marriage union,[38] becomes Love by an inward FIAT\nof the Will, by a completing and sealing Act of Moral Election, and\nlays claim to permanence only under the form of DUTY.\n\n[35] This paragraph is abridged from the _Watchman_, No. IV. March 25,\n1796; respecting which the inquisitive Reader may consult my 'Literary\nLife.'--_Author's note_ in editions 1 (1825) and 1836, since\nsuppressed.--ED.\n\n[36] Coleridge's 'Reflections On Having Left a Place of Retirement,'\nl. 48, &c. ('Sibylline Leaves,' 1797).--ED.\n\n[37] There sometimes occurs an apparent _play_ on words, which not\nonly to the Moralizer, but even to the philosophical Etymologist,\nappears more than a mere Play. Thus in the double sense of the word,\n_become_. I have known persons so anxious to have their dress _become_\nthem, as to convert it at length into their proper self, and thus\nactually to _become_ the dress. Such a one, (safeliest spoken of by\nthe _neuter_ pronoun), I consider as but a suit of _live_ finery. It\nis indifferent whether we say--It _becomes_ he, or, he _becomes_ it.\n\n[38] It might be a mean of preventing many unhappy marriages, if the\nyouth of both sexes had it early impressed on their minds, that\nMarriage contracted between Christians is a true and perfect Symbol or\nMystery; that is, the actualizing Faith being supposed to exist in the\nReceivers, it is an outward Sign co-essential with that which it\nsignifies, or a living Part of that, the whole of which it represents.\nMarriage, therefore, in the Christian sense (Ephesians v. 22-33), as\nsymbolical of the union of the Soul with Christ the Mediator, and with\nGod through Christ, is perfectly a _sacramental_ ordinance, and not\nretained by the Reformed Churches as one of THE Sacraments, for two\nreasons; first, that the Sign is not _distinctive_ of the Church of\nChrist, and the Ordinance not peculiar nor owing its origin to the\nGospel Dispensation; secondly, it is not of universal obligation, not\na means of Grace enjoined on all Christians. In other and plainer\nwords, Marriage does not contain in itself an open Profession of\nChrist, and it is not a Sacrament of the _Church_, but only of certain\nIndividual Members of the Church. It is evident, however, that neither\nof these reasons affect or diminish the _religious_ nature and\ndedicative force of the marriage Vow, or detract from the solemnity in\nthe Apostolic Declaration: THIS IS A GREAT MYSTERY.\n\nThe interest which the state has in the appropriation of one woman to\none man, and the civil obligations therefrom resulting, form an\naltogether distinct consideration. When I meditate on the words of the\nApostle, confirmed and illustrated as they are, by so many harmonies\nin the Spiritual Structure of our proper Humanity, (in the image of\nGod, male and female created he the man), and then reflect how little\nclaim so large a number of legal cohabitations have to the name of\nChristian marriages--I feel inclined to doubt whether the plan of\ncelebrating marriages universally by the Civil Magistrate, in the\nfirst instance, and leaving the _religious_ Covenant and sacramental\nPledge to the election of the parties themselves, adopted during the\nRepublic in England, and in our own times by the French Legislature,\nwas not _in fact_, whatever it might be in intention, _reverential_ to\nChristianity. At all events, it was their own act and choice, if the\nparties made bad worse by the profanation of a Gospel Mystery.\n\n\n\n\nPRUDENTIAL APHORISMS.\n\n\nAPHORISM I.\n\nLEIGHTON AND COLERIDGE.\n\nWith respect to any final aim or end, the greater part of mankind live\nat hazard. They have no certain harbour in view, nor direct their\ncourse by any fixed star. But to him that knoweth not the port to\nwhich he is bound, no wind can be favourable; neither can he who has\nnot yet determined at what mark he is to shoot, direct his arrow\naright.\n\nIt is not, however, the less true, that there is a proper object to\naim at; and if this object be meant by the term happiness, (though I\nthink that not the most appropriate term for a state, the perfection\nof which consists in the exclusion of all _hap_ (that is, chance)), I\nassert that there is such a thing as human happiness, as _summum\nbonum_, or ultimate good. What this is, the Bible alone shows clearly\nand certainly, and points out the way that leads to the attainment of\nit. This is that which prevailed with St. Augustine to study the\nScriptures, and engaged his affection to them. \"In Cicero, and Plato,\nand other such writers,\" says he, \"I meet with many things acutely\nsaid, and things that excite a certain warmth of emotion, but in none\nof them do I find these words, _Come unto me, all ye that labour, and\nare heavy laden, and I will give you rest_.\"[39]\n\nCOMMENT.\n\nFelicity, _in its proper_ sense, is but another word for\nfortunateness, or happiness; and I can see no advantage in the\nimproper use of words, when proper terms are to be found, but, on the\ncontrary, much mischief. For, by familiarizing the mind to _equivocal_\nexpressions, that is, such as may be taken in two or more different\nmeanings, we introduce confusion of thought, and furnish the sophist\nwith his best and handiest tools. For the juggle of sophistry\nconsists, for the greater part, in using a word in one sense in the\npremise, and in another sense in the conclusion. We should accustom\nourselves to _think_, and _reason_, in precise and stedfast terms;\neven when custom, or the deficiency, or the corruption of the language\nwill not permit the same strictness in speaking. The mathematician\nfinds this so necessary to the truths which he is seeking, that his\nscience begins with, and is founded on, the definition of his terms.\nThe botanist, the chemist, the anatomist, &c., feel and submit to this\nnecessity at all costs, even at the risk of exposing their several\npursuits to the ridicule of the many, by technical terms, hard to be\nremembered, and alike quarrelsome to the ear and the tongue. In the\nbusiness of moral and religious reflection, in the acquisition of\nclear and distinct conceptions of our duties, and of the relations in\nwhich we stand to God, our neighbour, and ourselves, no such\ndifficulties occur. At the utmost we have only to rescue words,\nalready existing and familiar, from the false or vague meanings\nimposed on them by carelessness, or by the clipping and debasing\nmisusage of the market. And surely happiness, duty, faith, truth, and\nfinal blessedness, are matters of deeper and dearer interest for all\nmen, than circles to the geometrician, or the characters of plants to\nthe botanist, or the affinities and combining principle of the\nelements of bodies to the chemist, or even than the mechanism (fearful\nand wonderful though it be!) of the perishable Tabernacle of the Soul\ncan be to the anatomist. Among the _aids to_ reflection, place the\nfollowing maxim prominent: let distinctness in expression advance side\nby side with distinction in thought. For one useless subtlety in our\nelder divines and moralists, I will produce ten sophisms of\nequivocation in the writings of our modern preceptors: and for one\nerror resulting from excess in _distinguishing_ the indifferent, I\nwould show ten mischievous delusions from the habit of _confounding_\nthe diverse. Whether you are reflecting for yourself, or reasoning\nwith another, make it a rule to ask yourself the precise meaning of\nthe word, on which the point in question appears to turn; and if it\nmay be (that is, by writers of authority _has been_) used in several\nsenses, then ask which of these the word is at present intended to\nconvey. By this mean, and scarcely without it, you will at length\nacquire a facility in detecting the _quid pro quo_. And believe me, in\nso doing you will enable yourself to disarm and expose four-fifths of\nthe main arguments of our most renowned irreligious philosophers,\nancient and modern. For the _quid pro quo_ is at once the rock and\nquarry, on and with which the strong-holds of disbelief, materialism,\nand (more pernicious still) epicurean morality are built.\n\n[39] _Apud Ciceronem et Platonem, aliosque ejusmodi scriptores, multa\nsunt acute dicta, et leniter calentia, sed in iis omnibus hoc non\ninvenio, Venite ad me_, &c. [Matt. xii. 28.]\n\n\nAPHORISM II.\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nIf we seriously consider what religion is, we shall find the saying of\nthe wise king Solomon to be unexceptionably true: _Her ways are ways\nof pleasantness, and all her paths are peace_.[40]\n\nDoth religion require anything of us more than that we live _soberly,\nrighteously, and godly in this present world_? Now what, I pray, can\nbe more pleasant or peaceable than these? Temperance is always at\nleisure, luxury always in a hurry: the latter weakens the body and\npollutes the soul; the former is the sanctity, purity, and sound state\nof both. It is one of Epicurus's fixed maxims, \"That life can never be\npleasant without virtue.\"\n\nCOMMENT.\n\nIn the works of moralists, both Christian and Pagan, it is often\nasserted (indeed there are few common-places of more frequent\nrecurrence) that the happiness even of this life consists solely, or\nprincipally, in virtue; that virtue is the only happiness of this\nlife; that virtue is the truest _pleasure_, &c.\n\nI doubt not that the meaning, which the writers intended to convey by\nthese and the like expressions, was true and wise. But I deem it safer\nto say, that in all the outward relations of this life, in all our\noutward conduct and actions, both in what we should do, and in what we\nshould abstain from, the dictates of virtue are the very same with\nthose of self-interest, tending _to_, though they do not proceed\n_from_, the same point. For the outward object of virtue being the\ngreatest producible sum of happiness of all men, it must needs include\nthe object of an intelligent self-love, which is the greatest possible\nhappiness of one individual; for what is true of all, must be true of\neach. Hence, you cannot become better (that is, more virtuous), but\nyou will become happier: and you cannot become worse (that is, more\nvicious), without an increase of misery (or at the best a proportional\nloss of enjoyment) as the consequence. If the thing were not\ninconsistent with our well-being, and known to be so, it would not\nhave been classed as a _vice_. Thus what in an enfeebled and\ndisordered mind is called prudence, is the voice of nature in a\nhealthful state: as is proved by the known fact, that the prudential\nduties, (that is, those actions which are commanded by virtue\n_because_ they are prescribed by prudence), the animals fulfil by\nnatural instinct.\n\nThe pleasure that accompanies or depends on a healthy and vigorous\nbody will be the consequence and reward of a temperate life and habits\nof active industry, whether this pleasure were or were not the chief\nor only determining _motive_ thereto. Virtue may, possibly, add to the\npleasure a good of another kind, a higher good, perhaps, than the\nworldly mind is capable of understanding, a spiritual complacency, of\nwhich in your present sensualized state you can form no idea. It may\n_add_, I say, but it cannot detract from it. Thus the reflected rays\nof the sun that gave light, distinction, and endless multiformity to\nthe mind, afford at the same time the pleasurable sensation of\n_warmth_ to the body.\n\nIf then the time has not yet come for any thing higher, act on the\nmaxim of seeking the most pleasure with the least pain: and, if only\nyou do not seek where you yourself _know_ it will not be found, this\nvery pleasure and this freedom from the disquietude of pain may\nproduce in you a state of being directly and indirectly favourable to\nthe germination and up-spring of a nobler seed. If it be true, that\nmen are miserable because they are wicked, it is likewise true, that\nmany men are wicked because they are miserable. Health, cheerfulness,\nand easy circumstances, the ordinary consequence of Temperance and\nIndustry, will at least leave the field clear and open, will tend to\npreserve the scales of the judgment even: while the consciousness of\npossessing the esteem, respect, and sympathy of your neighbours, and\nthe sense of your own increasing power and influence, can scarcely\nfail to give a tone of dignity to your mind, and incline you to hope\nnobly of your own Being. And thus they may prepare and predispose you\nto the sense and acknowledgment of a principle, differing not merely\nin degree but in _kind_ from the faculties and instincts of the higher\nand more intelligent species of animals, (the ant, the beaver, the\nelephant), and which principle is therefore your proper humanity. And\non this account and with this view alone may certain modes of\npleasurable or _agreeable_ sensation, without confusion of terms, be\nhonoured with the title of refined, intellectual, ennobling pleasures.\nFor Pleasure (and happiness in its proper sense is but the continuity\nand sum-total of the pleasure which is allotted or happens to a man,\nand hence by the Greeks called \u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03b9\u03b1, that is, good-hap, or more\nreligiously \u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1, that is, favourable providence)--pleasure, I\nsay, consists in the harmony between the specific excitability of a\nliving creature, and the exciting causes correspondent thereto.\nConsidered therefore exclusively in and for itself, the only question\nis, _quantum_, not _quale_? _How much on the whole?_ the contrary,\nthat is, the painful and disagreeable having been subtracted. The\nquality is a matter of _taste_: _et de gustibus non est disputandum_.\nNo man can judge for another.\n\nThis, I repeat, appears to me a safer language than the sentences\nquoted above, (that virtue alone is happiness; that happiness consists\nin virtue, &c.) sayings which I find it hard to reconcile with other\npositions of still more frequent occurrence in the same divines, or\nwith the declaration of St. Paul: \"If in this life only we have hope,\nwe are of all men most miserable.\"\n\nAt all events, I should rely far more confidently on the converse,\nnamely, that to be vicious is to be _miserable_. Few men are so\nutterly reprobate, so imbruted by their vices, as not to have some\nlucid, or at least quiet and sober, intervals; and in such a moment,\n_dum des\u00e6viunt ir\u00e6_, few can stand up unshaken against the appeal to\ntheir own experience--what have been the wages of sin? what has the\ndevil done for you? What sort of master have you _found_ him? Then let\nus in befitting _detail_, and by a series of questions that ask no\nloud, and are secure against any _false_, answer, urge home the proof\nof the position, that to be vicious is to be wretched: adding the\nfearful corollary, that if even in the body, which as long as life is\nin it can never be _wholly_ bereaved of pleasurable sensations, vice\nis found to be misery, what must it not be in the world to come?\nThere, where even the _crime_ is no longer possible, much less the\ngratifications that once attended it--where nothing of vice remains\nbut its guilt and its misery--vice must be misery itself, all and\nutter misery.--So best, if I err not, may the motives of prudence be\nheld forth, and the impulses of self-love be awakened, in alliance\nwith truth, and free from the danger of confounding things (the Laws\nof Duty, I mean, and the Maxims of Interest) which it deeply concerns\nus to keep distinct, inasmuch as this distinction and the faith\ntherein are essential to our moral nature, and this again the\nground-work and pre-condition of the spiritual state, in which the\nHumanity strives after Godliness, and, in the name and power, and\nthrough the prevenient and assisting grace, of the Mediator, will not\nstrive in vain.\n\nThe _advantages_ of a life passed in conformity with the precepts of\nvirtue and religion, and in how many and various respects they\nrecommend virtue and religion, even on grounds of prudence, form a\ndelightful subject of meditation, and a source of refreshing thought\nto good and pious men. Nor is it strange if, transported with the\nview, such persons should sometimes discourse on the charms of forms\nand colours to men whose eyes are not yet _couched_; or that they\noccasionally seem to invert the relations of cause and effect, and\nforget that there are acts and determinations of the will and\naffections, the _consequences_ of which may be plainly foreseen, and\nyet cannot be made our proper and primary _motives_ for such acts and\ndeterminations, without destroying or entirely altering the distinct\nnature and character of the latter. Sophron is well informed that\nwealth and extensive patronage will be the consequence of his\nobtaining the love and esteem of Constantia. But if the foreknowledge\nof this consequence were, and were _found out_ to be, Sophron's main\nand determining motive for seeking this love and esteem; and if\nConstantia were a woman that merited, or was capable of feeling,\neither the one or the other; would not Sophron find (and deservedly\ntoo) aversion and contempt in their stead? Wherein, if not in this,\ndiffers the friendship of worldlings from true friendship? Without\nkind offices and useful services, wherever the power and opportunity\noccur, love would be a hollow pretence. Yet what noble mind would not\nbe offended, if he were thought to value the love for the sake of the\nservices, and not rather the services for the sake of the love?\n\n[40] Proverbs iii. 17.--ED.\n\n\nAPHORISM III.\n\nThough prudence in itself is neither virtue nor spiritual holiness,\nyet without prudence, or in opposition to it, neither virtue nor\nholiness can exist.\n\n\nAPHORISM IV.\n\nArt thou under the tyranny of sin? a slave to vicious habits? at\nenmity with God, and a skulking fugitive from thy own conscience? O,\nhow idle the dispute, whether the listening to the dictates of\n_prudence_ from prudential and self-interested motives be virtue or\nmerit, when the _not_ listening is guilt, misery, madness, and\ndespair! The best, the most _Christianlike_ pity thou canst show, is\nto take pity on thy own soul. The best and most acceptable service\nthou canst render, is to do justice and show mercy to _thyself_.\n\n\n\n\nMORAL AND RELIGIOUS APHORISMS.\n\n\nAPHORISM I.\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nWhat the Apostles were in an extraordinary way, befitting the first\nannunciation of a Religion for all Mankind, this all Teachers of Moral\nTruth, who aim to prepare for its reception by calling the attention\nof men to the Law in their own hearts, may, without presumption,\nconsider themselves to be, under ordinary gifts and circumstances;\nnamely, Ambassadors for the Greatest of Kings, and upon no mean\nemployment, the great Treaty of Peace and Reconcilement betwixt him\nand Mankind.\n\n\nAPHORISM II.\n\n_On the Feelings Natural to Ingenuous Minds towards those who have\nfirst led them to Reflect._\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nThough Divine Truths are to be received equally from every Minister\nalike, yet it must be acknowledged that there is something (we know\nnot what to call it) of a more acceptable reception of those which at\nfirst were the means of bringing men to God, than of others; like the\nopinion some have of physicians, whom they love.\n\n\nAPHORISM III.\n\nLEIGHTON AND COLERIDGE.\n\nThe worth and value of Knowledge is in proportion to the worth and\nvalue of its object. What, then, is the best knowledge?\n\nThe exactest knowledge of things, is, to know them in their causes; it\nis then an excellent thing, and worthy of their endeavours who are\nmost desirous of knowledge, to know the best things in their highest\ncauses; and the happiest way of attaining to this knowledge, is, to\npossess those things, and to know them in experience.\n\n\nAPHORISM IV.\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nIt is one main point of happiness, that he that is happy doth know and\njudge himself to be so. This being the peculiar good of a reasonable\ncreature, it is to be enjoyed in a reasonable way. It is not as the\ndull resting of a stone, or any other natural body in its natural\nplace; but the knowledge and consideration of it is the fruition of\nit, the very relishing and tasting of its sweetness.\n\nREMARK.\n\nAs in a Christian land we receive the lessons of Morality in connexion\nwith the Doctrines of Revealed Religion, we cannot too early free the\nmind from prejudices widely spread, in part through the abuse, but far\nmore from ignorance, of the true meaning of doctrinal Terms, which,\nhowever they may have been perverted to the purposes of Fanaticism,\nare not only scriptural, but of too frequent occurrence in Scripture\nto be overlooked or passed by in silence. The following extract,\ntherefore, deserves attention, as clearing the doctrine of Salvation,\nin connexion with the divine Foreknowledge, from all objections on\nthe score of Morality, by the just and impressive view which the\nArchbishop here gives of those occasional revolutionary moments, that\n_Turn of the Tide_ in the mind and character of certain Individuals,\nwhich (taking a religious course, and referred immediately to the\nAuthor of all Good) were in his day, more generally than at present,\nentitled EFFECTUAL CALLING. The theological interpretation and the\nphilosophic validity of this Apostolic Triad, Election, Salvation, and\nEffectual Calling, (the latter being the intermediate), will be found\namong the Comments on the Aphorisms of Spiritual Import. For our\npresent purpose it will be sufficient if only I prove, that the\nDoctrines are in themselves _innocuous_, and may be both holden and\ntaught without any practical ill-consequences, and without detriment\nto the moral frame.\n\n\nAPHORISM V.\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nTwo Links of the Chain (namely, Election and Salvation) are up in\nheaven in God's own hand; but this middle one (that is, Effectual\nCalling) is let down to earth, into the hearts of his children, and\nthey laying hold on it have sure hold on the other two: for no power\ncan sever them. If, therefore, they can read the characters of God's\nimage in their own souls, those are the counterpart of the golden\ncharacters of his love, in which their names are written in the book\nof life. Their believing writes their names under the promises of the\nrevealed book of life (the Scriptures) and thus ascertains them, that\nthe same names are in the secret book of life which God hath by\nhimself from eternity. So that finding the stream of grace in their\nhearts, though they see not the fountain whence it flows, nor the\nocean into which it returns, yet they know that it hath its source in\ntheir eternal election, and shall empty itself into the ocean of their\neternal salvation.\n\nIf _election_, _effectual calling_, and _salvation_ be inseparably\nlinked together, then, by any one of them a man may lay hold upon all\nthe rest, and may know that his hold is sure; and this is the way\nwherein we may attain and ought to seek, the comfortable assurance of\nthe love of God. Therefore _make your calling sure_, and by that your\n_election_; for that being done, this follows of itself. We are not to\npry immediately into the decree, but to read it in the performance.\nThough the mariner sees not the _pole-star_, yet the needle of the\ncompass which points to it, tells him which way he sails: thus the\nheart that is touched with the loadstone of divine love, trembling\nwith godly fear, and yet still looking towards God by fixed believing,\ninterprets the fear by the love _in_ the fear, and tells the soul that\nits course is heavenward, towards the haven of eternal rest. He that\nloves may be sure he was loved first; and he that chooses God for his\ndelight and portion, may conclude confidently, that God has chosen him\nto be one of those that shall enjoy him, and be happy in him for ever;\nfor that our love and electing of him is but the return and\nrepercussion of the beams of his love shining upon us.\n\nAlthough from present unsanctification, a man cannot infer that he is\nnot _elected_; for the decree may, for part of a man's life, run (as\nit were) underground; yet this is sure, that that estate leads to\ndeath, and unless it be broken, will prove the black line of\nreprobation. A man hath no portion amongst the children of God, nor\ncan read one word of comfort in all the promises that belong to them,\nwhile he remains unholy.\n\nREMARK.\n\nIn addition to the preceding, I select the following paragraphs, as\nhaving nowhere seen the terms, Spirit, the Gifts of the Spirit, and\nthe like, so effectually vindicated from the sneers of the Sciolist on\nthe one hand, and protected from the perversions of the Fanatic on the\nother. In these paragraphs the Archbishop at once shatters and\nprecipitates the only draw-bridge between the fanatical and the\northodox doctrine of Grace, and the Gifts of the Spirit. In Scripture\nthe term Spirit, as a power or property seated in the human soul,\nnever stands singly, but is always _specified_ by a genitive case\nfollowing; this being a Hebraism instead of the adjective which the\nwriter would have used if he had _thought_, as well as _written_, in\nGreek. It is \"the Spirit of Meekness\" (a meek Spirit), or \"the Spirit\nof Chastity,\" and the like. The moral Result, the specific Form and\nCharacter in which the Spirit _manifests_ its presence, is the only\nsure pledge and token of its presence; which is to be, and which\nsafely may be, inferred from its practical effects, but of which an\n_immediate_ knowledge or consciousness is impossible; and every\npretence to such knowledge is either hypocrisy or fanatical delusion.\n\n\nAPHORISM VI.\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nIf any pretend that they have the Spirit, and so turn away from the\nstraight rule of the Holy Scriptures, they have a spirit indeed, but\nit is a fanatical spirit, the spirit of delusion and giddiness; but\nthe Spirit of God, that leads his children in the way of truth, and is\nfor that purpose sent them from Heaven to guide them thither, squares\ntheir thoughts and ways to that rule whereof it is author, and that\nword which was inspired by it, and sanctifies them to obedience. _He\nthat saith I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar,\nand the truth is not in him._ (1 John ii. 4.)\n\nNow this Spirit which sanctifieth, and sanctifieth to obedience, is\nwithin us the evidence of our election, and the earnest of our\nsalvation. And whoso are not sanctified and led by this Spirit, the\nApostle tells us what is their condition: _If any man have not the\nSpirit of Christ, he is none of his._[41] The stones which are\nappointed for that glorious temple above, are hewn, and polished, and\nprepared for it here; as the stones were wrought and prepared in the\nmountains, for building the temple at Jerusalem.\n\nCOMMENT.\n\nThere are many serious and sincere Christians who have not attained to\na fulness of knowledge and insight, but are well and judiciously\nemployed in preparing for it. Even these may study the master-works of\nour elder Divines with safety and advantage, if they will accustom\nthemselves to translate the theological terms into their _moral_\nequivalents; saying to themselves--This may not be _all_ that is\nmeant, but this _is_ meant, and it is that portion of the meaning,\nwhich belongs to _me_ in the present stage of my progress. For\nexample: render the words, sanctification of the Spirit, or the\nsanctifying influences of the Spirit, by Purity in Life and Action\nfrom a pure Principle.\n\nWe need only reflect on our own experience to be convinced, that the\nman makes the _motive_, and not the motive the man. What is a strong\nmotive to one man, is no motive at all to another. If, then, the man\ndetermines the motive, what determines the man--to a good and worthy\nact, we will say, or a virtuous Course of Conduct? The intelligent\nWill, or the self-determining Power? True, _in part_ it is; and\ntherefore the Will is pre-eminently the _spiritual_ Constituent in our\nBeing. But will any reflecting man admit, that his own Will is the\nonly and sufficient determinant of all he _is_, and all he does? Is\nnothing to be attributed to the harmony of the system to which he\nbelongs, and to the pre-established Fitness of the Objects and Agents,\nknown and unknown, that surround him, as acting _on_ the will, though,\ndoubtless, _with_ it likewise? a process, which the co-instantaneous\nyet reciprocal action of the air and the vital energy of the lungs in\nbreathing may help to render intelligible.\n\nAgain: in the world we see every where evidences of a Unity, which the\ncomponent parts are so far from explaining, that they necessarily\npre-suppose it as the cause and condition of their existing _as_ those\nparts; or even of their existing at all. This antecedent Unity, or\nCause and Principle of each Union, it has since the time of Bacon and\nKepler been customary to call a law. This crocus, for instance: or any\nother flower the reader may have in sight or choose to bring before\nhis fancy. That the root, stem, leaves, petals, &c. cohere to one\nplant, is owing to an antecedent Power or Principle in the Seed, which\nexisted before a single particle of the matters that constitute the\n_size_ and visibility of the crocus, had been attracted from the\nsurrounding soil, air, and moisture. Shall we turn to the seed? Here\ntoo the same necessity meets us. An antecedent Unity (I speak not of\nthe parent plant, but of an agency antecedent in the order of\noperance, yet remaining present as the conservative and reproductive\nPower) must here too be supposed. Analyze the seed with the finest\ntools, and let the Solar Microscope come in aid of your senses, what\ndo you find? Means and instruments, a wondrous Fairy-tale of Nature,\nmagazines of food, stores of various sorts, pipes, spiracles,\ndefences--a house of many chambers, and the owner and inhabitant\ninvisible! Reflect further on the countless millions of seeds of the\nsame name, each more than numerically differenced from every other:\nand further yet, reflect on the requisite harmony of all surrounding\nthings, each of which necessitates the same process of thought, and\nthe coherence of all of which to a System, a World, demands its own\nadequate Antecedent Unity, which must therefore of necessity be\npresent _to_ all and _in_ all, yet in no wise excluding or suspending\nthe individual Law or Principle of Union in each. Now will Reason,\nwill common Sense, endure the assumption, that in the material and\nvisible system, it is highly reasonable to believe a Universal Power,\nas the cause and pre-condition of the harmony of all particular\nWholes, each of which involves the working Principle of its own\nUnion--that it is reasonable, I say, to believe this respecting the\nAggregate of _Objects_, which without a _Subject_ (that is, a sentient\nand intelligent Existence) would be purposeless; and yet unreasonable\nand even superstitious or enthusiastic to entertain a similar Belief\nin relation to the System of intelligent and self-conscious Beings, to\nthe moral and personal World? But if in _this_ too, in the great\nCommunity of _Persons_, it is rational to infer a One universal\nPresence, a One present to all and in all, is it not most irrational\nto suppose that a finite Will can exclude it?\n\nWhenever, therefore, the man is determined (that is, impelled and\ndirected) to act in harmony of inter-communion, must not something be\nattributed to this all-present power as acting _in_ the Will? and by\nwhat fitter names can we call this than the LAW, as empowering; THE\nWORD, as informing; and THE SPIRIT, as actuating?\n\nWhat has been here said amounts (I am aware) only to a negative\nconception; but this is all that is required for a mind at that period\nof its growth which we are now supposing, and as long as Religion is\ncontemplated under the form of Morality. A _positive_ insight belongs\nto a more advanced stage; for spiritual truths can only spiritually be\ndiscerned. This we know from Revelation, and (the existence of\nspiritual truths being granted) Philosophy is compelled to draw the\nsame conclusion. But though merely negative, it is sufficient to\nrender the union of Religion and Morality _conceivable_; sufficient to\nsatisfy an unprejudiced inquirer, that the spiritual Doctrines of the\nChristian Religion are not at war with the reasoning Faculty, and that\nif they do not run on the same Line (or Radius) with the\nUnderstanding, yet neither do they cut or cross it. It is sufficient,\nin short, to prove, that some distinct and consistent meaning may be\nattached to the assertion of the learned and philosophic Apostle, that\n\"the Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit\"[42]--that is, with\n_the Will_, as the supernatural in man and the Principle of our\nPersonality--of that, I mean, by which we are responsible Agents;\n_Persons_, and not merely living _Things_.[43]\n\nIt will suffice to satisfy a reflecting mind, that even at the porch\nand threshold of Revealed Truth there is a great and worthy sense in\nwhich we may believe the Apostle's assurance, that not only doth \"the\nSpirit aid our infirmities;\"[44] that is, _act on_ the Will by a\npredisposing influence _from without_, as it were, though in a\nspiritual manner, and without suspending or destroying its freedom\n(the possibility of which is proved to us in the influences of\neducation, of providential occurrences, and, above all, of example)\nbut that in regenerate souls it may act _in_ the will; that uniting\nand becoming one[45] with our will or spirit, it may make\n\"intercession for us;\"[46] nay, in this intimate union taking upon\nitself the form of our infirmities, may intercede for us \"with\ngroanings that cannot be uttered.\" Nor is there any danger of\nFanaticism or Enthusiasm as the consequence of such a belief, if only\nthe attention be carefully and earnestly drawn to the concluding words\nof the sentence (Romans viii. 26); if only the due force and _full_\nimport be given to the term _unutterable_ or _incommunicable_, in St.\nPaul's use of it. In this, the strictest and most proper use of the\nterm, it signifies, that the subject, of which it is predicated, is\nsomething which I _cannot_, which from the nature of the thing it is\nimpossible that I should, communicate to any human mind (even of a\nperson under the same conditions with myself) so as to make it _in\nitself_ the object of his direct and immediate consciousness. It\ncannot be the object of _my own_ direct and immediate Consciousness;\nbut must be _inferred_. Inferred it may be _from_ its workings; it\ncannot be perceived _in_ them. And, thanks to God! in all points in\nwhich the knowledge is of high and necessary concern to our moral and\nreligious welfare, from the _Effects_ it may safely be inferred by us,\nfrom the Workings it may be assuredly known; and the Scriptures\nfurnish the clear and unfailing Rules for directing the inquiry, and\nfor drawing the conclusion.\n\nIf any reflecting mind be surprised that the aids of the Divine Spirit\nshould be deeper than our Consciousness can reach, it must arise from\nthe not having attended sufficiently to the nature and necessary\nlimits of human Consciousness. For the same impossibility exists as to\nthe first acts and movements of our own will--the farthest distance\nour recollection can follow back the traces, never leads us to the\nfirst foot-mark--the lowest depth that the light of our Consciousness\ncan visit even with a doubtful glimmering, is still at an unknown\ndistance from the ground: and so, indeed, must it be with all Truths,\nand all modes of Being that can neither be counted, coloured, or\ndelineated. Before and After, when applied to such Subjects, are but\nallegories, which the Sense or Imagination supplies to the\nUnderstanding. The Position of the Aristotelians, _nihil in intellectu\nquod non prius in sensu_, on which Mr. Locke's Essay is grounded, is\nirrefragable: Locke erred only in taking half the Truth for a whole\nTruth. Conception is consequent on Perception. What we cannot\n_imagine_, we cannot, in the proper sense of the word, conceive.\n\nI have already given one definition of Nature. Another, and differing\nfrom the former in words only, is this: Whatever is representable in\nthe forms of Time and Space, is Nature. But whatever is comprehended\nin Time and Space, is included in the Mechanism of Cause and Effect.\nAnd conversely, whatever, by whatever means, has its principle in\nitself, so far as to _originate_ its actions, cannot be contemplated\nin any of the forms of Space and Time; it must, therefore, be\nconsidered as _Spirit_ or _Spiritual_ by a mind in that stage of its\ndevelopement which is here supposed, and which we have agreed to\nunderstand under the name of Morality, or the Moral State: for in this\nstage we are concerned only with the forming of _negative_\nconceptions, _negative_ convictions; and by _spiritual_ I do not\npretend to determine _what_ the Will _is_, but what it is\n_not_--namely, that it is not Nature. And as no man who admits a Will\nat all, (for we may safely presume that no man not meaning to speak\nfiguratively, would call the shifting current of a stream the WILL[47]\nof the river), will suppose it _below_ Nature, we may safely add, that\nit is super-natural; and this without the least pretence to any\npositive Notion or Insight.\n\nNow Morality accompanied with Convictions like these, I have ventured\nto call _Religious_ Morality. Of the importance I attach to the state\nof mind implied in these convictions, for its own sake, and as the\nnatural preparation for a yet higher state and a more substantive\nknowledge, proof more than sufficient, perhaps, has been given in the\nlength and minuteness of this introductory Discussion, and in the\nforeseen risk which I run of exposing the volume at large to the\ncensure which every work, or rather which every writer, must be\nprepared to undergo, who, treating of subjects that cannot be seen,\ntouched, or in any other way made matters of outward sense, is yet\nanxious both to attach to, and to convey a distinct meaning by, the\nwords he makes use of--the censure of being dry, abstract, and (of all\nqualities most scaring and opprobrious to the ears of the present\ngeneration) _metaphysical_; though how it is possible that a work not\n_physical_, that is, employed on objects known or believed on the\nevidence of the senses, should be other than _meta_physical, that is,\ntreating on Subjects, the evidence of which is not derived from the\nsenses, is a problem which critics of this order find it convenient to\nleave unsolved.\n\nThe author of the present volume will, indeed, have reason to think\nhimself fortunate, if this be all the charge!--How many smart\nquotations, which (duly cemented by personal allusions to the author's\nsupposed pursuits, attachments, and infirmities), would of themselves\nmake up \"a review\" of the volume, might be supplied from the works of\nButler, Swift, and Warburton. For instance: \"It may not be amiss to\ninform the Public, that the Compiler of the Aids to Reflection, and\nCommenter on a Scotch Bishop's Platonico-Calvinistic commentary on St.\nPeter, belongs to the sect of the _\u00c6olists_, whose fruitful\nimaginations lead them into certain notions, which, although in\nappearance _very unaccountable, are not without their mysteries and\ntheir meanings_; furnishing plenty of matter for such, _whose\nconverting Imaginations dispose them to reduce all things into TYPES;\nwho can make SHADOWS, no thanks to the Sun; and then mould them into\nSUBSTANCES, no thanks to Philosophy: whose peculiar Talent lies in\nfixing TROPES and ALLEGORIES to the LETTER, and refining what is\nLITERAL into FIGURE and MYSTERY._\"--_Tale of the Tub_, Sect. xi.\n\nAnd would it were my lot to meet with a Critic, who, in the might of\nhis own Convictions, and with arms of equal point and efficiency from\nhis own forge, would come forth as my assailant; or who, as a friend\nto my purpose, would set forth the objections to the matter and\npervading Spirit of these Aphorisms, and the accompanying\nElucidations. Were it my task to form the mind of a young man of\ntalent, desirous to establish his opinions and belief on solid\nprinciples, and in the light of distinct understanding,--I would\ncommence his theological studies, or, at least, that most important\npart of them respecting the aids which Religion promises in our\nattempts to realize the ideas of Morality, by bringing together all\nthe passages scattered throughout the writings of Swift and Butler,\nthat bear on Enthusiasm, Spiritual Operations, and pretences to the\nGifts of the Spirit, with the whole train of New Lights, Raptures,\nExperiences, and the like. For all that the richest Wit, in intimate\nunion with profound Sense and steady Observation, can supply on these\ntopics, is to be found in the works of these satirists; though\nunhappily alloyed with much that can only tend to pollute the\nimagination.\n\nWithout stopping to estimate the degree of caricature in the portraits\nsketched by these bold masters, and without attempting to determine in\nhow many of the Enthusiasts, brought forward by them in proof of the\ninfluence of false Doctrines, a constitutional Insanity that would\nprobably have shown itself in some other form, would be the truer\nsolution, I would direct my pupil's attention to one feature common to\nthe whole group--the pretence, namely, of possessing, or a Belief and\nExpectation grounded on other men's assurances of their possessing, an\nimmediate Consciousness, a sensible Experience, of the Spirit in and\nduring its operation on the soul. It is not enough that you grant them\na consciousness of the Gifts and Graces infused, or an assurance of\nthe Spiritual Origin of the same, grounded on their correspondence to\nthe Scripture _promises_, and their conformity with the _idea_ of the\nDivine Giver. No! they all alike, it will be found, lay claim (or at\nleast look forward), to an inward perception of the Spirit itself and\nof its operating.\n\nWhatever must be misrepresented in order to be ridiculed, is in fact\n_not_ ridiculed; but the thing substituted for it. It is a satire on\nsomething else, coupled with a lie on the part of the satirist, who\nknowing, or having the means of knowing the truth, chose to call one\nthing by the name of another. The Pretensions to the Supernatural,\n_pilloried_ by Butler, sent to Bedlam by Swift, and (on their\nre-appearance in public) _gibbetted_ by Warburton, and _anatomized_ by\nBishop Lavington, one and all have _this_ for their essential\ncharacter, that the Spirit is made the immediate Object of Sense or\nSensation. Whether the spiritual Presence and Agency are supposed\ncognizable by indescribable Feeling or unimaginable Vision by some\nspecific visual energy; whether seen, or heard, or touched, smelt and\ntasted--for in those vast Store-houses of fanatical assertion, the\nvolumes of Ecclesiastical History and religious Auto-biography,\ninstances are not wanting even of the three latter extravagancies;--this\nvariety in the mode may render the several pretensions more or less\noffensive to the _taste_; but with the same absurdity for the\n_reason_, this being derived from a contradiction in terms common and\nradical to them all alike,--the assumption of a something essentially\nsupersensual, that is nevertheless the object of Sense, that is, _not_\nsupersensual.\n\nWell then!--for let me be allowed still to suppose the Reader present\nto me, and that I am addressing him in the character of Companion and\nGuide--the positions recommended for your examination not only do not\ninvolve, but they exclude, this inconsistency. And for aught that\nhitherto appears, we may see with complacency the arrows of satire\nfeathered with Wit, weighted with Sense, and discharged by a strong\narm, fly home to their mark. Our conceptions of a possible Spiritual\nCommunion, though they are but negative and only preparatory to a\nfaith in its actual existence, stand neither in the level or in the\ndirection of the shafts.\n\nIf it be objected, that Swift and Warburton did not choose openly to\nset up the interpretations of later and more rational divines against\nthe decisions of their own Church, and from _prudential_\nconsiderations did not attack the doctrine _in toto_: that is _their_\nconcern (I would answer), and it is more charitable to think\notherwise. But we are in the silent school of Reflection, in the\nsecret confessional of Thought. Should we _lie for God_, and that to\nour own thoughts? They, indeed, who dare do the one, will soon be able\nto do the other.--So did the Comforters of Job: and to the divines,\nwho resemble Job's Comforters, we will leave both attempts.\n\nBut, (it may be said), a possible Conception is not necessarily a true\none; nor even a probable one, where the Facts can be otherwise\nexplained. In the name of the supposed pupil I would reply--That is\nthe very question I am preparing myself to examine; and am now seeking\nthe Vantage-ground where I may best command the Facts. In my own\nperson, I would ask the Objector, whether he counted the Declarations\nof Scripture among the Facts to be explained. But both for myself and\nmy pupil, and in behalf of all rational inquiry, I would demand that\nthe decision should not be such, in itself or in its effects, as would\nprevent our becoming acquainted with the most important of these\nFacts; nay, such as would, for the mind of the decider, preclude their\nvery existence.--_Unless ye believe_, says the prophet, _ye cannot\nunderstand_. Suppose (what is at least possible) that the facts should\nbe consequent on the belief, it is clear that without the belief the\nmaterials, on which the understanding is to exert itself, would be\nwanting.\n\nThe reflections that naturally arise out of this last remark, are\nthose that best suit the stage at which we last halted, and from which\nwe now recommence our progress--the state of a _Moral_ Man, who has\nalready welcomed certain truths of Religion, and is inquiring after\nother and more special doctrines: still however as a Moralist,\ndesirous indeed to receive them into combination with Morality, but to\nreceive them as its Aid, not as its Substitute. Now, to such a man I\nsay; Before you reject the Opinions and Doctrines asserted and\nenforced in the following extract from Leighton, and before you give\nway to the Emotions of Distaste or Ridicule, which the Prejudices of\nthe circle in which you move, or your own familiarity with the mad\nperversions of the doctrine by fanatics in all ages, have connected\nwith the very words, Spirit, Grace, Gifts, Operations, &c., re-examine\nthe arguments advanced in the first pages of this Introductory\nComment, and the simple and sober view of the doctrine, contemplated\nin the first instance as a mere idea of the reason, flowing naturally\nfrom the admission of an infinite omnipresent Mind as the Ground of\nthe Universe. Reflect again and again, and be sure that you\n_understand_ the doctrine before you determine on rejecting it. That\nno false judgments, no extravagant conceits, no practical\nill-consequences need arise out of the Belief of the Spirit, and its\npossible communion with the Spiritual Principle in man, _can_ arise\nout of the _right_ Belief, or are compatible with the doctrine truly\nand scripturally explained, Leighton, and almost every single period\nin the passage here transcribed from him, will suffice to convince\nyou.\n\nOn the other hand, reflect on the consequences of rejecting it. For\nsurely it is not the act of a reflecting mind, nor the part of a man\nof sense to disown and cast out one tenet, and yet persevere in\nadmitting and clinging to another that has neither sense nor purpose,\nthat does not _suppose_ and rest on the truth and reality of the\nformer! If you have resolved that all belief of a divine Comforter\npresent to our inmost Being and aiding our infirmities, is fond and\nfanatical--if the Scriptures promising and asserting such communion\nare to be explained away into the action of circumstances, and the\nnecessary movements of the vast machine, in one of the circulating\nchains of which the human Will is a petty Link--in what better light\ncan Prayer appear to you, than the groans of a wounded lion in his\nsolitary den, or the howl of a dog with his eyes on the moon? At the\nbest, you can regard it only as a transient bewilderment of the Social\nInstinct, as a social Habit misapplied! Unless indeed you should adopt\nthe theory which I remember to have read in the writings of the late\nDr. Jebb, and for some supposed beneficial re-action of praying on the\nprayer's own mind, should practise it as a species of _Animal-Magnetism_\nto be brought about by a wilful eclipse of the reason, and a temporary\n_make-believe_ on the part of the self-magnetizer!\n\nAt all events, do not pre-judge a Doctrine, the utter rejection of\nwhich must oppose a formidable obstacle to your acceptance of\nChristianity itself, when the books, from which alone we can learn\nwhat Christianity is and what it teaches, are so strangely written,\nthat in a series of the most concerning points, including (historical\nfacts excepted) all the _peculiar_ Tenets of the Religion, the plain\nand obvious meaning of the words, that in which they were understood\nby learned and simple, for at least sixteen centuries, during the far\nlarger part of which the language was a living language, is no\nsufficient guide to their actual sense or to the writer's own meaning!\nAnd this, too, where the literal and received Sense involves nothing\nimpossible, or immoral, or contrary to reason. With such a persuasion,\nDeism would be a more consistent creed. But, alas! even this will fail\nyou. The utter rejection of all present and living communion with the\nUniversal Spirit impoverishes Deism itself, and renders it as\ncheerless as Atheism, from which indeed it would differ only by an\nobscure impersonation of what the Atheist receives unpersonified,\nunder the name of Fate or Nature.\n\n[41] Romans viii. 9.--ED.\n\n[42] Romans viii. 16.--ED.\n\n[43] Whatever is comprised in the Chain and Mechanism of Cause and\nEffect, of course _necessitated_, and having its necessity in some\nother thing, antecedent or concurrent--this is said to be _Natural_;\nand the Aggregate and System of all such things is NATURE. It is,\ntherefore, a contradiction in terms to include in this the Free-will,\nof which the verbal definition is--that which _originates_ an act or\nstate of Being. In this sense, therefore, which is the sense of St.\nPaul, and indeed of the New Testament throughout, Spiritual and\nSupernatural are synonymous.\n\n[44] Romans viii. 26.--ED.\n\n[45] Some distant and faint _similitude_ of this, that merely as a\nsimilitude may be innocently used to quiet the Fancy, provided it be\nnot imposed on the understanding as an analogous fact or as identical\nin kind, is presented to us in the power of the Magnet to awaken and\nstrengthen the magnetic power in a bar of Iron, and (in the instance\nof the compound Magnet) acting in and with the latter.\n\n[46] Romans viii. 26.--ED.\n\n[47]\n\n    \"The river windeth[48] at his own sweet will.\"\n\n    _Wordsworth's exquisite Sonnet on Westminster-bridge at Sun-rise._\n\nBut who does not see that here the poetic charm arises from the known\nand felt _impropriety_ of the expression, in the technical sense of\nthe word _impropriety_, among grammarians?\n\n[48] The latest editions of Wordsworth have \"glideth\" for\n\"windeth.\"--ED.\n\n\nAPHORISM VII.\n\nLEIGHTON AND COLERIDGE.\n\nThe proper and natural Effect, and in the absence of all disturbing or\nintercepting forces, the certain and sensible accompaniment of Peace,\n(or Reconcilement) with God, is our own inward Peace, a calm and quiet\ntemper of mind. And where there is a consciousness of earnestly\ndesiring, and of having sincerely striven after the former, the latter\nmay be considered as a _Sense_ of its presence. In this case, I say,\nand for a soul watchful, and under the discipline of the Gospel, the\nPeace with a man's self may be the medium or organ through which the\nassurance of his Peace with God is conveyed. We will not therefore\ncondemn this mode of speaking, though we dare not greatly recommend\nit. Be it, that there is, truly and in sobriety of speech, enough of\njust analogy in the subjects meant, to make this use of the words, if\nless than proper, yet something more than metaphorical; still we must\nbe cautious not to transfer to the Object the defects or the\ndeficiency of the Organ, which must needs partake of the imperfections\nof the imperfect beings to whom it belongs. Not without the\nco-assurance of other senses and of the same sense in other men, dare\nwe affirm that what our eye beholds, is verily there to be beholden.\nMuch less may we conclude negatively, and from the inadequacy, or the\nsuspension, or from any other affection of sight infer the\nnon-existence, or departure, or changes of the thing itself. The\nchameleon darkens in the shade of him who bends over it to ascertain\nits colours. In like manner, but with yet greater caution, ought we to\nthink respecting a tranquil habit of inward life, considered as a\nspiritual _sense_, as the medial Organ in and by which our Peace with\nGod, and the lively Working of his Grace on our Spirit, are perceived\nby us. This Peace which we have with God in Christ, is inviolable; but\nbecause the sense and persuasion of it may be interrupted, the soul\nthat is truly at peace with God may for a time be disquieted in\nitself, through weakness of faith, or the strength of temptation, or\nthe darkness of desertion, losing sight of that grace, that love and\nlight of God's countenance, on which its tranquillity and joy depend.\n_Thou didst hide thy face_, saith David, _and I was troubled_.[49] But\nwhen these eclipses are over, the soul is revived with new\nconsolation, as the face of the earth is renewed and made to smile\nwith the return of the sun in the spring; and this ought always to\nuphold Christians in the saddest times, namely, that the grace and\nlove of God towards them depend not on their sense, nor upon anything\nin them, but is still in itself, incapable of the smallest alteration.\n\nA holy heart that gladly entertains grace, shall find that it and\npeace cannot dwell asunder; while an ungodly man may sleep to death in\nthe lethargy of carnal presumption and impenitency; but a true,\nlively, solid peace, he cannot have. _There is no peace to the wicked,\nsaith my God._ Isa. lvii. 21.\n\n[49] Psalm xxx. 7.--ED.\n\n\nAPHORISM VIII.\n\n_Worldly Hopes._\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nWorldly hopes are not living, but lying hopes; they die often before\nus, and we live to bury them, and see our own folly and infelicity in\ntrusting to them; but at the utmost, they die with us when we die, and\ncan accompany us no further. But the lively Hope, which is the\nChristian's Portion, answers expectation to the full, and much beyond\nit, and deceives no way but in that happy way of far exceeding it.\n\nA living hope, living in death itself! The world dares say no more for\nits device, than _Dum spiro spero_: but the children of God can add,\nby virtue of this living hope, _Dum exspiro spero_.\n\n\nAPHORISM IX.\n\n_The Worldling's Fear._\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nIt is a fearful thing when a man and all his hopes die together. Thus\nsaith Solomon of the wicked, Prov. xi. 7.--When he dieth, then die his\nhopes; (many of them _before_, but at the utmost _then_, all of them;)\nbut _the righteous hath hope in his death_, Prov. xiv. 32.[50]\n\n[50] One of the numerous proofs against those who with a strange\ninconsistency hold the Old Testament to have been inspired throughout,\nand yet deny that the doctrine of a future state is taught therein.\n\n\nAPHORISM X.\n\n_Worldly Mirth._\n\nLEIGHTON AND COLERIDGE.\n\n_As he that taketh away a garment in cold weather, and as vinegar upon\nnitre, so is he that singeth songs to a heavy heart_, Prov. xxv. 20.\nWorldly mirth is so far from curing spiritual grief, that even worldly\ngrief, where it is great and takes deep root, is not allayed but\nincreased by it. A man who is full of inward heaviness, the more he is\nencompassed about with mirth, it exasperates and enrages his grief the\nmore; like ineffectual weak physic, which removes not the humour, but\nstirs it and makes it more unquiet. But spiritual joy is seasonable\nfor all estates: in prosperity, it is pertinent to crown and sanctify\nall other enjoyments, with this which so far surpasses them; and in\ndistress, it is the only _Nepenthe_, the cordial of fainting spirits:\nso, Psal. iv. 7. _He hath put joy into my heart._ This mirth makes way\nfor itself, which other mirth cannot do. These songs are sweetest in\nthe night of distress.\n\nThere is something exquisitely beautiful and touching in the first of\nthese similes: and the second, though less pleasing to the\nimagination, has the charm of propriety, and expresses the transition\nwith equal force and liveliness. A grief of recent birth is a sick\ninfant that must have its medicine administered in its milk, and sad\nthoughts are the sorrowful heart's natural food. This is a complaint\nthat is not to be cured by opposites, which for the most part only\nreverse the symptoms while they exasperate the disease--or like a rock\nin the mid-channel of a river swoln by a sudden rain-flush from the\nmountains, which only detains the excess of waters from their proper\noutlet, and makes them foam, roar, and eddy. The soul in her\ndesolation hugs the sorrow close to her, as her sole remaining\ngarment: and this must be drawn off so gradually, and the garment to\nbe put in its stead so gradually slipt on and feel so like the former,\nthat the sufferer shall be sensible of the change only by the\nrefreshment.--The true Spirit of Consolation is well content to detain\nthe tear in the eye, and finds a surer pledge of its success, in the\nsmile of Resignation that dawns through that, than in the liveliest\nshows of a forced and alien exhilaration.\n\n\nAPHORISM XI.\n\nPlotinus thanked God, that his soul was not tied to an immortal body.\n\n\nAPHORISM XII.\n\nLEIGHTON AND COLERIDGE.\n\nWhat a full Confession do we make of our dissatisfaction with the\nObjects of our bodily senses, that in our attempts to express what we\nconceive the Best of Beings, and the Greatest of Felicities to be, we\ndescribe by the exact Contraries of all, that we experience here--the\none as _In_finite, _In_comprehensible, _Im_mutable, &c., the other as\n_in_corruptible, _un_defiled, and that passeth _not_ away. At all\nevents, this Coincidence, say rather, Identity of Attributes, is\nsufficient to apprize us, that to be inheritors of bliss we must\nbecome the children of God.\n\nThis remark of Leighton's is ingenious and startling. Another, and\nmore fruitful, perhaps more solid inference from the fact would be,\nthat there is something in the human mind which makes it know (as soon\nas it is sufficiently awakened to reflect on its own thoughts and\nnotices), that in all finite Quantity there is an Infinite, in all\nmeasures of Time an Eternal; that the latter are the basis, the\nsubstance, the true and abiding _reality_ of the former; and that as\nwe truly _are_, only as far as God is with us, so neither can we truly\n_possess_ (that is, enjoy) our Being or any other real Good, but by\nliving in the sense of his holy presence.\n\nA life of wickedness is a life of lies; and an evil being, or the\nbeing of evil, the last and darkest mystery.\n\n\nAPHORISM XIII.\n\n_The Wisest Use of the Imagination._\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nIt is not altogether unprofitable; yea, it is great wisdom in\nChristians to be arming themselves against such temptations as may\nbefal them hereafter, though they have not as yet met with them; to\nlabour to overcome them beforehand, to suppose the hardest things that\nmay be incident to them, and to put on the strongest resolutions they\ncan attain unto. Yet all that is but an imaginary effort; and\ntherefore there is no assurance that the victory is any more than\nimaginary too, till it come to action, and then, they that have spoken\nand thought very confidently, may prove but (as one said of the\nAthenians) _fortes in tabula_, patient and courageous in picture or\nfancy; and, notwithstanding all their arms, and dexterity in handling\nthem by way of exercise, may be foully defeated when they are to fight\nin earnest.\n\n\nAPHORISM XIV.\n\n_The Language of Scripture._\n\nThe Word of God speaks to men, and therefore it speaks the language of\nthe Children of Men. This just and pregnant thought was suggested to\nLeighton by Gen. xxii. 12. The same text has led me to unfold and\nexpand the remark.--On moral subjects, the Scriptures speak in the\nlanguage of the affections which they excite in us; on sensible\nobjects, neither metaphysically, as they are known by superior\nintelligences; nor theoretically, as they would be seen by us were we\nplaced in the sun; but as they are represented by our human senses in\nour present relative position. Lastly, from no vain, or worse than\nvain, ambition of seeming _to walk on the sea_ of Mystery in my way to\nTruth, but in the hope of removing a difficulty that presses heavily\non the minds of many who in heart and desire are believers, and which\nlong pressed on my own mind, I venture to add: that on _spiritual_\nthings, and allusively to the mysterious union or conspiration of the\nDivine with the Human in the Spirits of the Just, spoken of in Romans\nviii. 27, the word of God attributes the language of the Spirit\nsanctified to the Holy One, the Sanctifier.\n\nNow the Spirit in Man (that is, the Will) knows its own State in and\nby its Acts alone: even as in geometrical reasoning the Mind knows\nits constructive _faculty_ in the _act_ of constructing, and\ncontemplates the act in the _product_ (that is, the mental figure or\ndiagram) which is inseparable from the act and co-instaneous.\n\nLet the reader join these two positions: first, that the Divine Spirit\nacting _in_ the Human Will is described as _one with_ the Will so\nfilled and actuated: secondly, that our actions are the means, by\nwhich alone the Will becomes assured of its own state; and he will\nunderstand, though he may not perhaps adopt my suggestion, that the\nverse, in which God _speaking of himself_, says to Abraham, _Now I\nknow that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thy\nonly son, from me_[51]--may be more than merely _figurative_. An\n_accommodation_ I grant; but in the _thing expressed_, and not\naltogether in the Expressions. In arguing with infidels, or with the\nweak in faith, it is a part of religious Prudence, no less than of\nreligious Morality, to avoid whatever looks _like_ an evasion. To\nretain the literal sense, wherever the harmony of Scripture permits,\nand reason does not forbid, is ever the honester, and, nine times in\nten, the more rational and pregnant interpretation. The contrary plan\nis an easy and approved way of _getting rid_ of a difficulty; but nine\ntimes in ten a bad way of solving it. But alas! there have been too\nmany Commentators who are content not to understand a text themselves,\nif only they can make the reader believe that they do.\n\nOf the figures of speech in the sacred volume, that are only figures\nof speech, the one of most frequent occurrence is that which describes\nan effect by the name of its most usual and best known cause: the\npassages, for instance, in which grief, fury, repentance, &c., are\nattributed to the Deity.--But these are far enough from justifying the\n(I had almost said, dishonest) fashion of metaphorical glosses, in as\nwell as out of the Church; and which our fashionable divines have\ncarried to such an extent, as in the doctrinal part of their creed, to\nleave little else but metaphors. But the reader who wishes to find\nthis latter subject, and that of the Aphorism, treated more at large,\nis referred to Mr. Southey's 'Omniana,' Vol. II. p. 7-12; and to the\nNote in p. 62-67, of the author's second 'Lay-Sermon.'[52]\n\n[51] Gen. xxii. 12.--ED.\n\n[52] An edition of the 'Lay Sermons' is published with Bohn's edition\nof Coleridge's 'Biographia Literaria.' The corresponding pages to\nthose referred to would be pp. 409-10. The passages in 'Omniana'\nreferred to are in Coleridge's own contributions to that work, and are\nreprinted in his 'Remains' (1836, v. 1, pp. 321-330), under the heads\n\"Pelagianism\" and \"The Soul and its Organs of Sense.\"--ED.\n\n\nAPHORISM XV.\n\n_The Christian no Stoic._\n\nLEIGHTON AND COLERIDGE.\n\nSeek not altogether to dry up the stream of Sorrow, but to bound it,\nand keep it within its banks. Religion doth not destroy the life of\nnature, but adds to it a life more excellent; yea, it doth not only\npermit, but requires some feeling of afflictions. Instead of patience,\nthere is in some men an affected pride of spirit suitable only to the\ndoctrine of the Stoics as it is usually taken. They strive not to feel\nat all the afflictions that are on them; but where there is no feeling\nat all, there can be no patience.\n\nOf the sects of ancient philosophy the Stoic is, perhaps, the nearest\nto Christianity. Yet even to this sect Christianity is fundamentally\nopposite. For the Stoic attaches the highest honour (or rather,\nattaches honour _solely_) to the person that acts virtuously in spite\nof his feelings, or who has raised himself above the conflict by their\nextinction; while Christianity instructs us to place small reliance on\na virtue that does not _begin_ by bringing the Feelings to a\nconformity with the commands of the Conscience. Its especial aim, its\ncharacteristic operation, is to moralize the affections. The Feelings,\nthat oppose a right act, must be wrong feelings. The _act_, indeed,\nwhatever the agent's _feelings_ might be, Christianity would command;\nand under certain circumstances would both command and commend\nit--commend it, as a healthful symptom in a sick patient; and command\nit, as one of the ways and means of changing the feelings, or\ndisplacing them by calling up the opposite.\n\nCOROLLARIES TO APHORISM XV.\n\nI. The more _consciousness_ in our Thoughts and Words, and the less in\nour Impulses and general Actions, the better and more healthful the\nstate both of head and heart. As the flowers from an orange tree in\nits time of blossoming, that burgeon forth, expand, fall and are\nmomently replaced, such is the sequence of hourly and momently\ncharities in a pure and gracious soul. The modern fiction which\ndepictures the son of Cytherea with a bandage round his eyes, is not\nwithout a spiritual meaning. There is a sweet and holy blindness in\nChristian LOVE, even as there is a blindness of Life, yea and of\nGenius too, in the moment of productive Energy.\n\nII. Motives are symptoms of weakness, and supplements for the\ndeficient Energy of the living PRINCIPLE, the LAW within us. Let them\nthen be reserved for those momentous Acts and Duties, in which the\nstrongest and best balanced natures must feel themselves deficient,\nand where Humility, no less than Prudence, prescribes Deliberation. We\nfind a similitude of this, I had almost said a remote analogy, in\norganized bodies. The lowest class of animals or _protozoa_, the\n_polypi_ for instance, have neither brain nor nerves. Their motive\npowers are all from without. The sun, light, the warmth, the air are\ntheir nerves and brain. As life ascends, nerves appear; but still only\nas the conductors of an _external_ influence; next are seen the knots\nor ganglions, as so many _foci_ of _instinctive_ agency, that\nimperfectly imitate the yet wanting _centre_.--And now the promise and\ntoken of a true Individuality are disclosed; both the reservoir of\nSensibility and the imitative power that actuates the organs of Motion\n(the muscles) with the net-work of conductors, are all taken inward\nand appropriated; the Spontaneous rises into the Voluntary, and\nfinally after various steps and a long ascent, the Material and Animal\nMeans and Conditions are prepared for the manifestations of a Free\nWill, having its Law within itself and its motive in the Law--and thus\nbound to originate its own Acts, not only without, but even against,\nalien Stimulants. That in our present state we have only the Dawning\nof this inward Sun (the perfect Law of Liberty) will sufficiently\nlimit and qualify the preceding position if only it have been allowed\nto produce its twofold consequence--the excitement of Hope and the\nrepression of Vanity.[53]\n\n[53] See Prof. J. H. Green's 'Vital Dynamics,' 1840.--ED.\n\n\nAPHORISM XVI.\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nAs excessive eating or drinking both makes the body sickly and lazy,\nfit for nothing but sleep, and besots the mind, as it clogs up with\ncrudities the way through which the spirits should pass,[54] bemiring\nthem, and making them move heavily, as a coach in a deep way; thus\ndoth all immoderate use of the world and its delights wrong the soul\nin its spiritual condition, makes it sickly and feeble, full of\nspiritual distempers and inactivity, benumbs the graces of the Spirit,\nand fills the soul with sleepy vapours, makes it grow secure and heavy\nin spiritual exercises, and obstructs the way and motion of the Spirit\nof God, in the soul. Therefore, if you would be spiritual, healthful,\nand vigorous, and enjoy much of the consolations of Heaven, be sparing\nand sober in those of the earth, and what you abate of the one, shall\nbe certainly made up in the other.\n\n[54] Technical phrases of an obsolete System will yet retain their\nplaces, nay, acquire universal currency, and become sterling in the\nlanguage, when they at once represent the feelings, and give an\napparent solution of them by visual images easily managed by the\nfancy. Such are many terms and phrases from the _Humoral_ Physiology\nlong exploded, but which are far more popular then any description\nwould be from the theory that has taken its place.\n\n\nAPHORISM XVII.\n\n_Inconsistency._\n\nLEIGHTON AND COLERIDGE.\n\nIt is a most unseemly and unpleasant thing, to see a man's life full\nof ups and downs, one step like a Christian, and another like a\nworldling; it cannot choose but both pain himself and mar the\nedification of others.\n\nThe same sentiment, only with a special application to the maxims and\nmeasures of our Cabinet and Statesmen, has been finely expressed by a\nsage Poet of the preceding generation, in lines which, no generation\nwill find inapplicable or superannuated.\n\n    God and the World we worship both together,\n      Draw not our Laws to Him, but His to ours;\n    Untrue to both, so prosperous in neither,\n      The imperfect Will brings forth but barren Flowers!\n    Unwise as all distracted Interests be,\n    Strangers to God, Fools in Humanity:\n    Too good for great things, and too great for good,\n    While still \"I dare not\" waits upon \"I wou'd.\"\n\nAPHORISM XVII. CONTINUED.\n\n_The Ordinary Motive to Inconsistency._\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nWhat though the polite man count thy fashion a little odd and too\nprecise, it is because he knows nothing above that model of goodness\nwhich he hath set himself, and therefore approves of nothing beyond\nit: he knows not God, and therefore doth not discern and esteem what\nis most like Him. When courtiers come down into the country, the\ncommon home-bred people possibly think their habit strange; but they\ncare not for that, it is the fashion at court. What need, then, that\nChristians should be so tender-foreheaded, as to be put out of\ncountenance because the world looks on holiness as a singularity? It\nis the only fashion in the highest court, yea, of the King of Kings\nhimself.\n\n\nAPHORISM XVIII.\n\n_Superficial Reconciliations, and Self-deceit in Forgiving._\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nWhen, after variances, men are brought to an agreement, they are much\nsubject to this, rather to cover their remaining malices with\nsuperficial verbal forgiveness, than to dislodge them, and free the\nheart of them. This is a poor self-deceit. As the philosopher said to\nhim, who being ashamed that he was espied by him in a tavern in the\nouter room, withdrew himself to the inner, he called after him, \"That\nis not the way out, the more you go that way, you will be the further\nin!\" So when hatreds are upon admonition not thrown out, but retire\ninward to hide themselves, they grow deeper and stronger than before;\nand those constrained semblances of reconcilement are but a false\nhealing, do but skin the wound over, and therefore it usually breaks\nforth worse again.\n\n\nAPHORISM XIX.\n\n_Of the Worth and the Duties of the Preacher._\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nThe stream of custom and our profession bring us to the Preaching of\nthe Word, and we sit out our hour under the sound; but how few\nconsider and prize it as the great ordinance of God for the salvation\nof souls, the beginner and the sustainer of the Divine life of grace\nwithin us! And certainly, until we have these thoughts of it, and seek\nto feel it thus ourselves, although we hear it most frequently, and\nlet slip no occasion, yea, hear it with attention and some present\ndelight, yet still we miss the right use of it, and turn it from its\ntrue end, while we take it not as _that ingrafted word which is able\nto save our souls_ (James i. 21).\n\nThus ought they who preach to speak the word; to endeavour their\nutmost to accommodate it to this end, that sinners may be converted,\nbegotten again, and believers nourished and strengthened in their\nspiritual life; to regard no lower end, but aim steadily at that mark.\nTheir hearts and tongues ought to be set on fire with holy zeal for\nGod and love to souls, kindled by the Holy Ghost, that came down on\nthe apostles in the shape of fiery tongues.\n\nAnd those that hear, should remember this as the end of their hearing,\nthat they may receive spiritual life and strength by the word. For\nthough it seems a poor despicable business, that a frail sinful man\nlike yourselves should speak a few words in your hearing, yet, look\nupon it as the way wherein God communicates happiness to those who\nbelieve, and works that believing unto happiness, alters the whole\nframe of the soul, and makes a new creation, as it begets it again to\nthe inheritance of glory. Consider it thus, which is its true notion;\nand then, what can be so precious?\n\n\nAPHORISM XX.\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nThe difference is great in our natural life, in some persons\nespecially; that they who in infancy were so feeble, and wrapped up as\nothers in swaddling clothes, yet, afterwards come to excel in wisdom\nand in the knowledge of sciences, or to be commanders of great armies,\nor to be kings: but the distance is far greater and more admirable,\nbetwixt the small beginnings of grace, and our after perfection, that\nfulness of knowledge that we look for, and that crown of immortality\nwhich all they are born to who are born of God.\n\nBut as in the faces or actions of some children, characters and\npresages of their after-greatness have appeared (as a singular beauty\nin Moses's face, as they write of him, and as Cyrus was made king\namong the shepherds' children with whom he was brought up, &c.) so\nalso, certainly, in these children of God, there be some characters\nand evidences that they are born for Heaven by their new birth. That\nholiness and meekness, that patience and faith which shine in the\nactions and sufferings of the saints, are characters of their Father's\nimage, and show their high original, and foretell their glory to come;\nsuch a glory as doth not only surpass the world's thoughts, but the\nthoughts of the children of God themselves. 1 John iii. 2.\n\nCOMMENT.\n\n_On an Intermediate State, or State of Transition from Morality to\nSpiritual Religion._\n\nThis Aphorism would, it may seem, have been placed more fitly in the\nChapter following. In placing it here, I have been determined by the\nfollowing convictions: 1. Every state, and consequently that which we\nhave described as the state of Religious Morality, which is not\nprogressive, is dead, or retrograde. 2. As a pledge of this\nprogression, or, at least, as the form in which the propulsive\ntendency shows itself, there are certain Hopes, Aspirations,\nYearnings, that, with more or less of consciousness, rise and stir in\nthe Heart of true Morality as naturally as the sap in the full-formed\nstem of a rose flows towards the bud, within which the flower is\nmaturing. 3. No one, whose own experience authorizes him to confirm\nthe truth of this statement, can have been conversant with the volumes\nof religious biography, can have perused (for instance) the lives of\nCranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Wishart, Sir Thomas More, Bernard Gilpin,\nBishop Bedel, or of Egede, Swartz, and the missionaries of the frozen\nworld, without an occasional conviction, that these men lived under\nextraordinary influences, which in each instance and in all ages of\nthe Christian \u00e6ra bear the same characters, and both in the\naccompaniments and the results evidently refer to a common origin. And\nwhat can this be? is the question that must needs force itself on the\nmind in the first moment of reflection on a phenomenon so interesting\nand apparently so anomalous. The answer is as necessarily contained in\none or the other of two assumptions. These influences are either the\nProduct of Delusion (_insania amabilis_, and the re-action of\ndisordered nerves), or they argue the existence of a relation to some\nreal agency, distinct from what is experienced or acknowledged by the\nworld at large, for which as not merely _natural_ on the one hand, and\nyet not assumed to be _miraculous_[55] on the other, we have no apter\nname than _spiritual_. Now if neither analogy justifies nor the moral\nfeelings permit the former assumption, and we decide therefore in\nfavour of the reality of a State other and higher than the mere Moral\nMan, whose Religion[56] consists in Morality, has attained under these\nconvictions, can the existence of a _transitional_ state appear other\nthan probable? or that these very convictions, when accompanied by\ncorrespondent dispositions and stirrings of the heart, are among the\nmarks and indications of such a state? And thinking it not unlikely\nthat among the readers of this volume, there may be found some\nIndividuals, whose inward state, though disquieted by doubts and\noftener still perhaps by blank misgivings, may, nevertheless, betoken\nthe commencement of a Transition from a not irreligious Morality to a\nSpiritual Religion, with a view to their interests I placed this\nAphorism under the present head.\n\n[55] In check of fanatical pretensions, it is expedient to confine the\nterm _miraculous_, to cases where the _senses_ are appealed to in\nproof of something that transcends, or can be a part of the Experience\nderived from the senses.\n\n[56] For let it not be forgotten, that Morality, as distinguished from\nPrudence, implying (it matters not under what name, whether of Honour,\nor Duty, or Conscience, still, I say, implying), and being grounded\nin, an awe of the Invisible and a Confidence therein beyond (nay,\noccasionally in apparent contradiction to) the inductions of outward\nExperience, is essentially religious.\n\n\nAPHORISM XXI.\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nThe most approved teachers of wisdom, in a human way, have required of\ntheir scholars, that to the end their minds might be capable of it,\nthey should be purified from vice and wickedness. And it was Socrates'\ncustom, when any one asked him a question, seeking to be informed by\nhim, before he would answer them, he asked them concerning their own\nqualities and course of life.\n\n\nAPHORISM XXII.\n\n_Knowledge not the ultimate End of Religious Pursuits._\n\nLEIGHTON AND COLERIDGE.\n\nThe Hearing and Reading of the Word, under which I comprise\ntheological studies generally, are alike defective when pursued\n_without_ increase of Knowledge, and when pursued chiefly _for_\nincrease of Knowledge. To seek no more than a present delight, that\nevanisheth with the sound of the words that die in the air, is not to\ndesire the Word as meat, but as music, as God tells the prophet\nEzekiel of his people, Ezek. xxxiii. 32. _And lo, thou art unto them\nas a very lovely song of one that hath a pleasant voice, and can play\nwell upon an instrument; for they hear thy words, and they do them\nnot._ To desire the word for the increase of knowledge, although this\nis necessary and commendable, and, being rightly qualified, is a part\nof spiritual accretion, yet, take it as going no further, it is not\nthe true end of the Word. Nor is the venting of that knowledge in\nspeech and frequent discourse of the Word and the divine truths that\nare in it; which, where it is governed with Christian prudence, is not\nto be despised, but commended; yet, certainly, the highest knowledge,\nand the most frequent and skilful speaking of the Word, severed from\nthe growth here mentioned, misses the true end of the Word. If any\none's head or tongue should grow apace, and all the rest stand at a\nstay, it would certainly make him a monster; and they are no other,\nwho are knowing and discoursing Christians, and grow daily in that\nrespect, but not at all in holiness of heart, and life, which is the\nproper growth of the children of God. Apposite to their case is\nEpictetus's comparison of the sheep; they return not what they eat in\ngrass, but in wool.\n\n\nAPHORISM XXIII.\n\n_The sum of Church History._\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nIn times of peace, the Church may dilate more, and build as it were\ninto breadth, but in times of trouble, it arises more in height; it is\nthen built upwards; as in cities where men are straitened, they build\nusually higher than in the country.\n\n\nAPHORISM XXIV.\n\n _Worthy to be framed and hung up in the Library of every\n Theological Student._\n\nLEIGHTON AND COLERIDGE.\n\nWhen there is a great deal of smoke, and no clear flame, it argues\nmuch moisture in the matter, yet it witnesseth certainly that there is\nfire there; and therefore dubious questioning is a much better\nevidence, than that senseless deadness which most take for believing.\nMen that know nothing in sciences, have no doubts. He never truly\nbelieved, who was not made first sensible and convinced of unbelief.\n\nNever be afraid to doubt, if only you have the disposition to believe,\nand doubt in order that you may end in believing the Truth. I will\nventure to add in my own name and from my own conviction the\nfollowing:\n\n\nAPHORISM XXV.\n\nHe, who begins by loving Christianity better than Truth, will proceed\nby loving his own Sect or Church better than Christianity, and end in\nloving himself better than all.\n\n\nAPHORISM XXVI.\n\n _The Absence of Disputes, and a general Aversion to Religious\n Controversies, no proof of True Unanimity._\n\nLEIGHTON AND COLERIDGE.\n\nThe boasted peaceableness about questions of Faith too often proceeds\nfrom a superficial temper, and not seldom from a supercilious disdain\nof whatever has no marketable use or value, and from indifference to\nreligion itself. Toleration is a herb of spontaneous growth in the\nSoil of Indifference; but the weed has none of the virtues of the\nmedicinal plant, reared by Humility in the Garden of Zeal. Those, who\nregard religions as matters of taste, may consistently include all\nreligious differences in the old adage, _De gustibus non est\ndisputandum_. And many there be among these of Gallio's temper, who\n_care for none of these things_, and who account all questions in\nreligion, as he did, but matter of words and names. And by this all\nreligions may agree together. But that were not a natural union\nproduced by the active heat of the spirit, but a confusion rather,\narising from the want of it; not a knitting together, but a freezing\ntogether, as cold congregates all bodies, how heterogeneous soever,\nsticks, stones, and water; but heat makes first a separation of\ndifferent things, and then unites those that are of the same nature.\n\nMuch of our common union of minds, I fear, proceeds from no other than\nthe afore-mentioned causes, want of knowledge, and want of affection\nto religion. You that boast you live conformably to the appointments\nof the Church, and that no one hears of your noise, we may thank the\nignorance of your minds for that kind of quietness.\n\nThe preceding extract is particularly entitled to our serious\nreflections, as in a tenfold degree more applicable to the present\ntimes than to the age in which it was written. We all know, that\nLovers are apt to take offence and wrangle on occasions that perhaps\nare but trifles, and which assuredly would appear such to those who\nregard Love itself as folly. These quarrels may, indeed, be no proof\nof wisdom; but still, in the imperfect state of our nature the entire\nabsence of the same, and this too on far more serious provocations,\nwould excite a strong suspicion of a comparative indifference in the\nparties who can love so coolly where they profess to love so well. I\nshall believe our present religious tolerancy to proceed from the\nabundance of our charity and good sense, when I see proofs that we are\nequally cool and forbearing as litigants and political partizans.\n\n\nAPHORISM XXVII.\n\n _The Influence of Worldly Views (or what are called a Man's\n Prospects in Life), the Bane of the Christian Ministry._\n\nLEIGHTON\n\nIt is a base, poor thing for a man to seek himself; far below that\nroyal dignity that is here put upon Christians, and that priesthood\njoined with it. Under the Law, those who were squint-eyed were\nincapable of the priesthood: truly, this squinting toward our own\ninterest, the looking aside to that, in God's affairs especially, so\ndeforms the face of the soul, that it makes it altogether unworthy the\nhonour of this spiritual priesthood. Oh! this is a large task, an\ninfinite task. The several creatures bear their part in this; the sun\nsays somewhat, and moon and stars, yea, the lowest have some share in\nit; the very plants and herbs of the field speak of God; and yet, the\nvery highest and best, yea all of them together, the whole concert of\nHeaven and earth, cannot show forth all His praise to the full. No, it\nis but a part, the smallest part of that glory, which they can reach.\n\n\nAPHORISM XXVIII.\n\n_Despise none: Despair of none._\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nThe Jews would not willingly tread upon the smallest piece of paper in\ntheir way, but took it up; for possibly, said they, the name of God\nmay be on it. Though there was a little superstition in this, yet\ntruly there is nothing but good religion in it, if we apply it to men.\nTrample not on any; there may be some work of grace there, that thou\nknowest not of. The name of God may be written upon that soul thou\ntreadest on; it may be a soul that Christ thought so much of, as to\ngive His precious blood for it; therefore despise it not.\n\n\nAPHORISM XXIX.\n\n _Men of Least Merit most apt to be Contemptuous, Because most\n Ignorant and most Overweening of Themselves._\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nToo many take the ready course to deceive themselves; for they look\nwith both eyes on the failings and defects of others, and scarcely\ngive their good qualities half an eye, while on the contrary, in\nthemselves, they study to the full their own advantages, and their\nweaknesses and defects, (as one says), they skip over, as children do\ntheir hard words in their lesson, that are troublesome to read; and\nmaking this uneven parallel, what wonder if the result be a gross\nmistake of themselves!\n\n\nAPHORISM XXX.\n\n _Vanity may strut in rags, and Humility be arrayed in purple\n and fine linen._\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nIt is not impossible that there may be in some an affected pride in\nthe meanness of apparel, and in others, under either neat or rich\nattire, a very humble unaffected mind: using it upon some of the\nafore-mentioned engagements, or such like, and yet the heart not at\nall upon it. _Magnus qui fictilibus ubitur tanquam argento, nec ille\nminor qui argento tanquam fictilibus_, says Seneca: Great is he who\nenjoys his earthenware as if it were plate, and not less great is the\nman to whom all his plate is no more than earthenware.\n\n\nAPHORISM XXXI.\n\n_Of the Detraction among Religious Professors._\n\nLEIGHTON AND COLERIDGE.\n\nThey who have attained to a self-pleasing pitch of civility or formal\nreligion, have usually that point of presumption with it, that they\nmake their own size the model and rule to examine all by. What is\nbelow it, they condemn indeed as profane; but what is beyond it, they\naccount needless and affected preciseness; and therefore are as ready\nas others to let fly invectives or bitter taunts against it, which are\nthe keen and poisoned shafts of the tongue, and a persecution that\nshall be called to a strict account.\n\nThe slanders, perchance, may not be altogether forged or untrue; they\nmay be the implements, not the inventions, of Malice. But they do not\non this account escape the guilt of detraction. Rather, it is\ncharacteristic of the evil spirit in question, to work by the\nadvantage of real faults; but these stretched and aggravated to the\nutmost. IT IS NOT EXPRESSIBLE HOW DEEP A WOUND A TONGUE SHARPENED TO\nTHIS WORK WILL GIVE, WITH NO NOISE AND A VERY LITTLE WORD. This is the\ntrue _white_ gunpowder, which the dreaming Projectors of silent\nMischiefs and insensible Poisons sought for in the Laboratories of Art\nand Nature, in a World of Good; but which was to be found, in its most\ndestructive form, in \"the World of Evil, the Tongue.\"\n\n\nAPHORISM XXXII.\n\n_The Remedy._\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nAll true remedy must begin at the heart; otherwise it will be but a\nmountebank cure, a false imagined conquest. The weights and wheels\nare _there_, and the clock strikes according to their motion. Even he\nthat speaks contrary to what is within him, guilefully contrary to his\ninward conviction and knowledge, yet speaks conformably to what is\nwithin him in the temper and frame of his heart, which is double, _a\nheart and a heart_, as the Psalmist hath it: Psalm xii. 2.\n\n\nAPHORISM XXXIII.\n\nLEIGHTON AND COLERIDGE.\n\nIt is an argument of a candid ingenuous mind, to delight in the good\nname and commendations of others; to pass by their defects, and take\nnotice of their virtues; and to speak and hear of those willingly, and\nnot endure either to speak or hear of the other; for in this indeed\nyou may be little less guilty than the evil speaker, in taking\npleasure in it, though you speak it not. He that willingly drinks in\ntales and calumnies, will, from the delight he hath in evil hearing,\nslide insensibly into the humour of evil speaking. It is strange how\nmost persons dispense with themselves in this point, and that in\nscarcely any societies shall we find a hatred of this ill, but rather\nsome tokens of taking pleasure in it; and until a Christian sets\nhimself to an inward watchfulness over his heart, not suffering in it\nany thought that is uncharitable, or vain self-esteem, upon the sight\nof others' frailties, he will still be subject to somewhat of this, in\nthe tongue or ear at least. So, then, as for the evil of guile in the\ntongue, a sincere heart, _truth in the inward parts_, powerfully\nredresses it; therefore it is expressed, Psal. xv. 2, _That speaketh\nthe truth from his heart_; thence it flows. Seek much after this, to\nspeak nothing with God, nor men, but what is the sense of a single\nunfeigned heart. O sweet truth! excellent but rare sincerity! he that\n_loves that truth within_, and who is himself at once THE TRUTH and\nTHE LIFE, He alone can work it there! Seek it of him.\n\nIt is characteristic of the Roman dignity and sobriety, that, in the\nLatin, _to favour with the_ tongue (_favere lingua_) means _to be\nsilent_. We say, Hold your tongue! as if it were an injunction, that\ncould not be carried into effect but by manual force, or the pincers\nof the Forefinger and Thumb! And verily--I blush to say it--it is not\nWomen and Frenchmen only that would rather have their tongues bitten\nthan bitted, and feel their souls in a strait-waistcoat, when they are\nobliged to remain silent.\n\n\nAPHORISM XXXIV.\n\n_On the Passion for New and Striking Thoughts._\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nIn conversation seek not so much either to vent thy knowledge, or to\nincrease it, as to know more spiritually and effectually what thou\ndost know. And in this way those mean despised truths, that everyone\nthinks he is sufficiently seen in, will have a new sweetness and use\nin them, which thou didst not so well perceive before (for these\nflowers cannot be sucked dry), and in this humble sincere way thou\nshalt _grow in grace and in knowledge_ too.\n\n\nAPHORISM XXXV.\n\n _The Radical Difference between the Good Man and the\n Vicious Man._\n\nLEIGHTON AND COLERIDGE.\n\nThe godly man hates the evil he possibly by temptation hath been drawn\nto do, and loves the good he is frustrated of, and, having intended,\nhath not attained to do. The sinner, who hath his denomination from\nsin as his course, hates the good which sometimes he is forced to do,\nand loves that sin which many times he does not, either wanting\noccasion and means, so that he cannot do it, or through the check of\nan enlightened conscience possibly dares not do; and though so bound\nup from the act, as a dog in a chain, yet the habit, the natural\ninclination and desire in him, is still the same, the strength of his\naffection is carried to sin. So in the weakest _sincere_ Christian,\nthere is that predominant sincerity and desire of holy walking,\naccording to which he is called a _righteous person_, the Lord is\npleased to give him that name, and account him so, being upright in\nheart, though often failing.\n\nLeighton adds, \"There is a Righteousness of a higher strain.\" I do not\nask the reader's full assent to this position: I do not suppose him as\nyet prepared to yield it. But thus much he will readily admit, that\nhere, _if_ any where, we are to seek the fine Line which, like stripes\nof Light in Light, distinguishes, not divides, the summit of religious\nMorality from Spiritual Religion.\n\n\"A Righteousness\" (Leighton continues) \"that is not _in_ him, but\n_upon_ him. He is _clothed_ with it.\" This, reader! is the\ncontroverted Doctrine, so warmly asserted and so bitterly decried\nunder the name of \"IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS.\" Our learned Archbishop, you\nsee, adopts it; and it is on this account principally, that by many of\nour leading Churchmen his orthodoxy has been more than questioned, and\nhis name put in the list of proscribed divines, as a Calvinist. That\nLeighton attached a definite sense to the words above quoted, it would\nbe uncandid to doubt; and the general spirit of his writings leads me\nto presume that it was compatible with the eternal distinction between\n_things_ and _persons_, and therefore opposed to _modern_ Calvinism.\nBut what it was, I have not (I own) been able to discover. The sense,\nhowever, in which I think he _might_ have received this doctrine, and\nin which I avow myself a believer in it, I shall have an opportunity\nof showing in another place. My present object is to open out the road\nby the removal of prejudices, so far at least as to throw some\ndisturbing _doubts_ on the secure _taking-for-granted_, that the\npeculiar Tenets of the Christian Faith asserted in the articles and\nhomilies of our National Church are in contradiction to the common\nsense of mankind. And with this view, (and not in the arrogant\nexpectation or wish, that a mere _ipse dixit_ should be received for\nargument) I here avow my conviction, that the doctrine of IMPUTED\nRighteousness, rightly and scripturally interpreted, is so far from\nbeing either _irrational_ or _immoral_, that Reason itself prescribes\nthe idea in order to give a _meaning_ and an ultimate object to\nMorality; and that the Moral Law in the Conscience demands its\nreception in order to give reality and substantive existence to the\nidea presented by the Reason.\n\n\nAPHORISM XXXVI.\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nYour blessedness is not,--no, believe it, it is not where most of you\nseek it, in things below you. How can that be? It must be a higher\ngood to make you happy.\n\nCOMMENT.\n\nEvery rank of creatures, as it ascends in the scale of creation,\nleaves death behind it or under it. The metal at its height of being\nseems a mute prophecy of the coming vegetation, into a mimic semblance\nof which it crystallizes. The blossom and flower, the acme of\nvegetable life, divides into correspondent organs with reciprocal\nfunctions, and by instinctive motions and approximations seems\nimpatient of that fixure, by which it is differenced in kind from the\nflower-shaped Psyche, that flutters with free wing above it. And\nwonderfully in the insect realm doth the Irritability, the proper seat\nof Instinct, while yet the nascent Sensibility is subordinated\nthereto--most wonderfully, I say, doth the muscular life in the\ninsect, and the musculo-arterial in the bird, imitate and typically\nrehearse the adaptive Understanding, yea, and the moral affections and\ncharities, of man. Let us carry ourselves back, in spirit, to the\nmysterious Week, the teeming Work-days of the Creator: as they rose in\nvision before the eye of the inspired historian _of the Generations of\nthe Heaven and the Earth, in the days that the Lord God made the Earth\nand the Heavens_.[57] And who that hath watched their ways with an\nunderstanding heart, could, as the vision evolving, still advanced\ntowards him, contemplate the filial and loyal bee; the home-building,\nwedded, and divorceless swallow; and above all the manifoldly\nintelligent[58] ant tribes, with their Commonwealths and\nConfederacies, their warriors and miners, the husbandfolk, that fold\nin their tiny flocks on the honeyed leaf, and the virgin sisters, with\nthe holy instincts of maternal love, detached and in selfless\npurity--and not say to himself, Behold the Shadow of approaching\nHumanity, the Sun rising from behind, in the kindling Morn of\nCreation! Thus all lower Natures find their highest Good in semblances\nand seekings of that which is higher and better. All things strive to\nascend, and ascend in their striving. And shall man alone stoop? Shall\nhis pursuits and desires, the _reflections_ of his inward life, be\nlike the reflected image of a tree on the edge of a pool, that grows\ndownward, and seeks a mock heaven in the unstable element beneath it,\nin neighbourhood with the slim water-weeds and oozy bottom-grass that\nare yet better than itself and more noble, in as far as Substances\nthat appear as Shadows are preferable to Shadows mistaken for\nSubstance! No! it must be a higher good to make you happy. While you\nlabour for any thing below your proper Humanity, you seek a happy Life\nin the region of Death. Well saith the moral poet--\n\n        Unless above himself he can\n    Erect himself, how mean a thing is man![59]\n\n[57] Gen. ii. 4.--ED.\n\n[58] See H\u00fcber on Bees, and on Ants.\n\n[59] Samuel Daniel, 1562-1619:--\n\n        Unless above himself he can\n    Erect himself, how poor a thing is man!\n\n    _To the Countess of Cumberland_, stanza 12.--ED.\n\n\nAPHORISM XXXVII.\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nThere is an imitation of men that is impious and wicked, which\nconsists in taking a copy of their sins. Again, there is an imitation\nwhich though not so grossly evil, yet is poor and servile, being in\nmean things, yea, sometimes descending to imitate the very\nimperfections of others, as fancying some comeliness in them: as some\nof Basil's scholars, who imitated his slow speaking, which he had a\nlittle in the extreme, and could not help. But this is always\nlaudable, and worthy of the best minds, to be _imitators of that which\nis good_, wheresoever they find it; for that stays not in any man's\nperson, as the ultimate pattern, but rises to the highest grace, being\nman's nearest likeness to God, His image and resemblance, bearing his\nstamp and superscription, and belonging peculiarly to Him, in what\nhand soever it be found, as carrying the mark of no other owner than\nHim.\n\n\nAPHORISM XXXVIII.\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nThose who think themselves high-spirited, and will bear least, as they\nspeak, are often, even by that, forced to bow most, or to burst under\nit; while humility and meekness escape many a burden, and many a blow,\nalways keeping peace within, and often without too.\n\n\nAPHORISM XXXIX.\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nOur condition is universally exposed to fears and troubles, and no man\nis so stupid but he studies and projects for some fence against them,\nsome bulwark to break the incursion of evils, and so to bring his mind\nto some ease, ridding it of the fear of them. Thus men seek safety in\nthe greatness, or multitude, or supposed faithfulness of friends; they\nseek by any means to be strongly underset this way; to have many, and\npowerful, and trust-worthy friends. But wiser men, perceiving the\nunsafety and vanity of these and all external things, have cast about\nfor some higher course. They see a necessity of withdrawing a man from\nexternals, which do nothing but mock and deceive those most who trust\nmost to them; but they cannot tell whither to direct him. The best of\nthem bring him _into himself_, and think to quiet him so; but the\ntruth is, he finds as little to support him there; there is nothing\ntruly strong enough within him, to hold out against the many sorrows\nand fears which still from without do assault him. So then, though it\nis well done, to call off a man from outward things, as moving sands,\nthat he build not on them, yet, this is not enough; for his own spirit\nis as unsettled a piece as is in all the world, and must have some\nhigher strength than its own, to fortify and fix it. This is the way\nthat is here taught, _Fear not their fear, but sanctify the Lord your\nGod in your hearts_; and if you can attain this latter, the former\nwill follow of itself.\n\n\nAPHORISM XL.\n\n_Worldly Troubles Idols._\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nThe too ardent love or self-willed desire of power, or wealth, or\ncredit in the world, is (an Apostle has assured us) Idolatry. Now\namong the words or synonimes for idols, in the Hebrew language, there\nis one that in its primary sense signifies _troubles_ (_tegirim_),\nother two that signify _terrors_ (_miphletzeth_ and _emim_). And so it\nis certainly. All our idols prove so to us. They fill us with nothing\nbut anguish and troubles, with cares and fears, that are good for\nnothing but to be fit punishments of the folly, out of which they\narise.\n\n\nAPHORISM XLI.\n\n_On the right Treatment of Infidels._\n\nLEIGHTON AND COLERIDGE.\n\nA regardless contempt of infidel writings is usually the fittest\nanswer; _Spreta vilescerent_. But where the holy profession of\nChristians is likely to receive either the main or the indirect blow,\nand a word of defence may do any thing to ward it off, there we ought\nnot to spare to do it.\n\nChristian prudence goes a great way in the regulating of this. Some\nare not capable of receiving rational answers, especially in Divine\nthings; they were not only lost upon them, but religion dishonoured by\nthe contest.\n\nOf this sort are the vulgar railers at religion, the foul-mouthed\nbeliers of the Christian faith and history. Impudently false and\nslanderous assertions can be met only by assertions of their impudent\nand slanderous falsehood: and Christians will not, must not,\ncondescend to this. How can mere railing be answered by them who are\nforbidden to return a railing answer? Whether, or on what\nprovocations, such offenders may be punished or coerced on the score\nof incivility, and ill-neighbourhood, and for abatement of a nuisance,\nas in the case of other scolds and endangerers of the public peace,\nmust be trusted to the discretion of the civil magistrate. Even then,\nthere is danger of giving them importance, and flattering their\nvanity, by attracting attention to their works, if the punishment be\nslight; and if severe, of spreading far and wide their reputation as\nmartyrs, as the smell of a dead dog at a distance is said to change\ninto that of musk. Experience hitherto seems to favour the plan of\ntreating these _b\u00eates puantes_ and _enfans de diable_, as their\nfour-footed brethren, the skink and squash, are treated[60] by the\nAmerican woodmen, who turn their backs upon the fetid intruder, and\nmake appear not to see him, even at the cost of suffering him to\nregale on the favourite viand of these animals, the brains of a stray\ngoose or crested _thraso_ of the dunghill. At all events, it is\ndegrading to the majesty, and injurious to the character of Religion,\nto make its safety the plea for their punishment, or at all to connect\nthe name of Christianity with the castigation of indecencies that\nproperly belong to the beadle, and the perpetrators of which would\nhave equally deserved his lash, though the religion of their\nfellow-citizens, thus assailed by them, had been that of Fo or\nJuggernaut.\n\nOn the other hand, we are to answer every one that _inquires a\nreason_, or an account; which supposes something receptive of it. We\nought to judge ourselves engaged to give it, be it an enemy, if he\nwill hear; if it gain him not, it may in part convince and cool him;\nmuch more, should it be one who ingenuously inquires for satisfaction,\nand possibly inclines to receive the truth, but has been, prejudiced\nby misrepresentations of it.\n\n[60] About the end of the same year (says Kalm), another of these\nAnimals (_Mephitis Americana_) crept into our cellar; but did not\nexhale the smallest scent, _because it was not disturbed_. _A foolish\nold woman, however, who perceived it at night, by the shining, and\nthought, I suppose, that it would set the world on fire, killed it:\nand at that moment its stench began to spread._\n\nWe recommend this anecdote to the consideration of sundry old women,\non this side of the Atlantic, who, though they do not wear the\nappropriate garment, are worthy to sit in their committee-room, like\nBickerstaff in the Tatler, under the canopy of their grandam's\nhoop-petticoat.\n\n\nAPHORISM XLII.\n\n_Passion no Friend to Truth._\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nTruth needs not the service of passion; yea, nothing so disserves it,\nas passion when set to serve it. The _Spirit of truth_ is withal the\n_Spirit of meekness_. The Dove that rested on that great champion of\ntruth, who is The Truth itself, is from Him derived to the lovers of\ntruth, and they ought to seek the participation of it. Imprudence\nmakes some kind of Christians lose much of their labour, in speaking\nfor religion, and drive those further off, whom they would draw into\nit.\n\nThe confidence that attends a Christian's belief makes the believer\nnot fear men, to whom he answers, but still he fears his God, for whom\nhe answers, and whose interest is chief in those things he speaks of.\nThe soul that hath the deepest sense of spiritual things, and the\ntruest knowledge of God, is most afraid to miscarry in speaking of\nHim, most tender and wary how to acquit itself when engaged to speak\nof and for God.[61]\n\n[61] To the same purpose are the two following sentences from Hilary:\n\n_Etiam qu\u00e6_ pro _Religione dicimus, cum grandi motu et disciplina\ndicere debemus_.--Hilarius de Trinit. Lib. 7.\n\n_Non relictus est hominum eloquiis de Dei rebus alius quam Dei\nsermo._--Idem.\n\nThe latter, however, must be taken with certain _qualifications_ and\n_exceptions_; as when any two or more texts are in apparent\ncontradiction, and it is required to state a Truth that comprehends\nand reconciles both, and which, of course, cannot be expressed in the\nwords of either,--for example, the filial subordination (_My Father is\ngreater than I_), in the equal Deity (_My Father and I are one_).\n\n\nAPHORISM XLIII.\n\n_On the Conscience_.\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nIt is a fruitless verbal debate, whether Conscience be a Faculty or a\nHabit. When all is examined, Conscience will be found to be no other\nthan _the mind of a man, under the notion of a particular reference to\nhimself_ and his own actions.\n\nCOMMENT.\n\n_What_ Conscience is, and that it is the ground and antecedent of\nhuman (or _self-_) consciousness, and not any modification of the\nlatter, I have shown at large in a work announced for the press, and\ndescribed in the Chapter following.[62] I have selected the preceding\nextract as an Exercise for Reflection; and _because_ I think that in\ntoo closely following Thomas \u00e0 Kempis, the Archbishop has strayed from\nhis own judgment. The definition, for instance, seems to say all, and\nin fact says nothing; for if I asked, How do you define the _human\nmind_? the answer must at least _contain_, if not consist of, the\nwords, \"a mind capable of _Conscience_.\" For Conscience is no synonime\nof Consciousness, nor any mere expression of the same as modified by\nthe particular Object. On the contrary, a Consciousness properly human\n(that is, _Self_-consciousness), with the sense of moral\nresponsibility, presupposes the Conscience, as its antecedent\ncondition and ground. Lastly, the sentence, \"It is a fruitless verbal\ndebate,\" is an assertion of the same complexion with the contemptuous\nsneers, at verbal criticism by the contemporaries of Bentley. In\nquestions of Philosophy or Divinity, that have occupied the learned\nand been the subjects of many successive controversies, for one\ninstance of mere logomachy I could bring ten instances of\n_logod\u00e6daly_, or verbal legerdemain, which have perilously confirmed\nprejudices, and withstood the advancement of truth in consequence of\nthe neglect of _verbal debate_, that is, strict discussion of terms.\nIn whatever sense, however, the term Conscience may be used, the\nfollowing Aphorism is equally true and important. It is worth\nnoticing, likewise, that Leighton himself in a following page (vol.\nii. p. 97), tells us that a good Conscience is the _root_ of a good\nConversation: and then quotes from St. Paul a text, Titus i. 15, in\nwhich the Mind and the Conscience are expressly distinguished.\n\n[62] See Aphorisms on Spiritual Religion, p. 103.--ED.\n\n\nAPHORISM XLIV.\n\n _The Light of Knowledge a necessary accompaniment of a\n Good Conscience._\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nIf you would have a good conscience, you must by all means have so\nmuch light, so much knowledge of the will of God, as may regulate you,\nand show you your way, may teach you how to do, and speak, and think,\nas in His presence.\n\n\nAPHORISM XLV.\n\n _Yet the Knowledge of the Rule, though Accompanied by an endeavour\n to accommodate our conduct to this Rule, will not of itself form a\n Good Conscience._\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nTo set the outward actions right, though with an honest intention, and\nnot so to regard and find out the inward disorder of the heart, whence\nthat in the actions flows, is but to be still putting the index of a\nclock right with your finger, while it is foul, or out of order\nwithin, which is a continual business, and does no good. Oh! but a\npurified conscience, a soul renewed and refined in its temper and\naffections, will make things go right without, in all the duties and\nacts of our calling.\n\n\nAPHORISM XLVI.\n\n_The Depth of the Conscience._\n\nHow deeply seated the conscience is in the human soul is seen in the\neffect which sudden calamities produce on guilty men, even when\nunaided by any determinate notion or fears of punishment after death.\nThe wretched Criminal, as one rudely awakened from a long sleep,\nbewildered with the new light, and half recollecting, half striving to\nrecollect, a fearful something, he knows not what, but which he will\nrecognize as soon as he hears the name, already interprets the\ncalamities into _judgments_, executions of a sentence passed by an\n_invisible_ Judge; as if the vast pyre of the Last Judgment were\nalready kindled in an unknown distance, and some flashes of it,\ndarting forth at intervals beyond the rest, were flying and lighting\nupon the face of his soul. The calamity may consist in loss of\nfortune, or character, or reputation; but you hear no _regrets_ from\nhim. Remorse extinguishes all Regret; and Remorse is the _implicit_\nCreed of the Guilty.\n\n\nAPHORISM XLVII.\n\nLEIGHTON AND COLERIDGE.\n\nGod hath suited every creature He hath made with a convenient good to\nwhich it tends, and in the obtainment of which it rests and is\nsatisfied. Natural bodies have all their own natural place, whither,\nif not hindered, they move incessantly till they be in it; and they\ndeclare, by resting there, that they are (as I may say) where they\nwould be. Sensitive creatures are carried to seek a sensitive good, as\nagreeable to their rank in being, and, attaining that, aim no further.\nNow, in this is the excellency of Man, that he is made capable of a\ncommunion with his Maker, and, because capable of it, is unsatisfied\nwithout it: the soul, being cut out (so to speak) to that largeness,\ncannot be filled with less. Though he is fallen from his right to that\ngood, and from all right desire of it, yet, not from a capacity of it,\nno, nor from a necessity of it, for the answering and filling of his\ncapacity.\n\nThough the heart once gone from God turns continually further away\nfrom Him, and moves not towards Him till it be renewed, yet, even in\nthat wandering, it retains that natural relation to God, as its\ncentre, that it hath no true rest elsewhere, nor can by any means find\nit. It is made for Him, and is therefore still restless till it meet\nwith Him.\n\nIt is true, the natural man takes much pains to quiet his heart by\nother things, and digests many vexations with hopes of contentment in\nthe end and accomplishment of some design he hath; but still the heart\nmisgives. Many times he attains not the thing he seeks; but if he do,\nyet he never attains the satisfaction he seeks and expects in it, but\nonly learns from that to desire something further, and still hunts on\nafter a fancy, drives his own shadow before him, and never overtakes\nit; and if he did, yet it is but a shadow. And so, in running from\nGod, besides the sad end, he carries an interwoven punishment with his\nsin, the natural disquiet and vexation of his spirit, fluttering to\nand fro, and _finding no rest for the sole of his foot_; the _waters_\nof inconstancy and vanity _covering the whole face of the earth_.\n\nThese things are too gross and heavy. The soul, the immortal soul,\ndescended from heaven, must either be more happy, or remain miserable.\nThe Highest, the Increated Spirit, is the proper good, _the Father of\nSpirits_, that pure and full good which raises the soul above itself;\nwhereas all other things draw it down below itself. So, then, it is\nnever well with the soul but when it is near unto God, yea, in its\nunion with Him, married to Him: mismatching itself elsewhere, it hath\nnever anything but shame and sorrow. _All that forsake Thee shall be\nashamed_, says the Prophet, Jer. xvii. 13; and the Psalmist, _They\nthat are far off from thee shall perish_, Psalm lxxiii. 27. And this\nis indeed our natural miserable condition, and it is often expressed\nthis way, by estrangedness and distance from God.\n\nThe same sentiments are to be found in the works of Pagan philosophers\nand moralists. Well then may they be made a subject of Reflection in\nour days. And well may the pious deist, if such a character now\nexists, reflect that Christianity alone both teaches the way, and\nprovides the means, of fulfilling the obscure promises of this great\nInstinct for all men, which the Philosophy of boldest pretensions\nconfined to the sacred few.\n\n\nAPHORISM XLVIII.\n\n _A contracted Sphere, or what is called Retiring from the Business\n of the World, no Security from the Spirit of the World._\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nThe heart may be engaged in a little business, as much, if thou watch\nit not, as in many and great affairs. A man may drown in a little\nbrook or pool, as well as in a great river, if he be down and plunge\nhimself into it, and put his head under water. Some care thou must\nhave, that thou mayest not care. Those things that are thorns indeed,\nthou must make a hedge of them, to keep out those temptations that\naccompany sloth, and extreme want that waits on it; but let them be\nthe hedge; suffer them not to grow within the garden.\n\n\nAPHORISM XLIX.\n\n _On Church-going, as a part of Religious Morality, when not in\n reference to a Spiritual Religion._\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nIt is a strange folly in multitudes of us, to set ourselves no mark,\nto propound no end in the hearing of the Gospel.--The merchant sails\nnot merely that he may sail, but for traffic, and traffics that he may\nbe rich. The husbandman plows not merely to keep himself busy, with no\nfurther end, but plows that he may sow, and sows that he may reap\nwith advantage. And shall we do the most excellent and fruitful work\nfruitlessly,--hear only to hear, and look no further? This is indeed a\ngreat vanity, and a great misery, to lose that labour, and gain\nnothing by it, which, duly used, would be of all others most\nadvantageous and gainful: and yet all meetings are full of this!\n\n\nAPHORISM L.\n\n _On the Hopes and Self-Satisfaction of a religious Moralist,\n independent of a Spiritual Faith--on what are they grounded?_\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nThere have been great disputes one way or another, about the merit of\ngood works; but I truly think they who have laboriously engaged in\nthem have been very idly, though very eagerly, employed about nothing,\nsince the more sober of the schoolmen themselves acknowledge there can\nbe no such thing as meriting from the blessed God, in the human, or,\nto speak more accurately, in any created nature whatsoever: nay, so\nfar from any possibility of merit, there can be no room for reward any\notherwise than of the sovereign pleasure and gracious kindness of God;\nand the more ancient writers, when they use the word merit, mean\nnothing by it but a certain _correlate_ to that reward which God both\npromises and bestows of mere grace and benignity. Otherwise, in order\nto constitute what is properly called merit, many things must concur,\nwhich no man in his senses will presume to attribute to human works,\nthough ever so excellent; particularly, that the thing done must not\npreviously be matter of debt, and that it be entire, or our own act,\nunassisted by foreign aid; it must also be perfectly good, and it must\nbear an adequate proportion to the reward claimed in consequence of\nit. If all these things do not concur, the act cannot possibly amount\nto merit. Whereas I think no one will venture to assert, that any one\nof these can take place in any human action whatever. But why should I\nenlarge here, when one single circumstance overthrows all those\ntitles: the most righteous of mankind would not be able to stand, if\nhis works were weighed in the balance of strict justice; how much less\nthen could they deserve that immense glory which is now in question!\nNor is this to be denied only concerning the unbeliever and the\nsinner, but concerning the righteous and pious believer, who is not\nonly free from all the guilt of his former impenitence and rebellion,\nbut endowed with the gift of the Spirit. \"For the time _is come_ that\njudgment must begin at the house of God: and if _it_ first _begin_ at\nus, what shall the end _be_ of them that obey not the Gospel of God?\nAnd if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and\nthe sinner appear?\" 1 Peter iv. 17, 18. The Apostle's interrogation\nexpresses the most vehement negation, and signifies that no mortal, in\nwhatever degree he is placed, if he be called to the strict\nexamination of Divine Justice, without daily and repeated forgiveness,\ncould be able to keep his standing, and much less could he arise to\nthat glorious height. \"That merit,\" says Bernard, \"on which my hope\nrelies, consists in these three things; the love of adoption, the\ntruth of the promise, and the power of its performance.\" This is the\nthreefold cord which cannot be broken.\n\nCOMMENT.\n\nOften have I heard it said by advocates for the Socinian scheme--True!\nwe are all sinners; but even in the Old Testament God has promised\nforgiveness on repentance. One of the Fathers (I forget which)\nsupplies the retort--True! God has promised pardon on penitence: but\nhas he promised penitence on sin?--He that repenteth shall be\nforgiven: but where is it said, He that sinneth shall repent? But\nrepentance, perhaps, the repentance required in Scripture, _the\nPassing into a new mind_, into a new and contrary Principle of Action,\nthis METANOIA,[63] is in the sinner's own power? at his own liking? He\nhas but to open his eyes to the sin, and the tears are close at hand\nto wash it away!--Verily, the exploded tenet of _Transubstantiation_\nis scarcely at greater variance with the common sense and experience\nof mankind, or borders more closely on a contradiction in terms, than\nthis volunteer _Transmentation_, this Self-change, as the easy[64]\nmeans of Self-salvation! But the reflections of our evangelical author\non this subject will appropriately commence the Aphorisms relating to\nSpiritual Religion.\n\n[63] \u039c\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1, the New Testament word which we render by Repentance,\ncompounded of \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1, _trans_, and \u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, _mens_, the Spirit, or\npractical Reason.\n\n[64] May I without offence be permitted to record the very appropriate\ntitle, with which a stern Humorist _lettered_ a collection of\nUnitarian Tracts?--\"Salvation made easy; or, Every Man his own\nRedeemer.\"\n\n\n\n\nELEMENTS OF\n\nRELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY,\n\nPRELIMINARY TO THE\n\nAPHORISMS ON SPIRITUAL RELIGION.\n\n\n Philip saith unto him: Lord, _show_ us the Father, and it sufficeth\n us. Jesus saith unto him, He that hath seen me hath seen the Father;\n and how sayest thou then, _Show_ us the Father? Believest thou not,\n that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? And I will pray the\n Father and he shall give you another Comforter, even the _Spirit_ of\n Truth: whom the world _cannot_ receive, because it seeth him not,\n neither knoweth him. But ye know him, for he dwelleth _with_ you and\n _shall_ be _in_ you. And in that day ye shall know that I am in my\n Father, and ye in me, and I in you. John xiv. 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20.\n\nPRELIMINARY.\n\nIf there be aught _Spiritual_ in Man, the Will must be such.\n\n_If_ there be a Will, there must be a Spirituality in Man.\n\nI suppose both positions granted. The Reader admits the reality of the\npower, agency, or mode of Being expressed in the term, Spirit; and the\nactual existence of a Will. He sees clearly, that the idea of the\nformer is necessary to the conceivability of the latter; and that,\n_vice vers\u00e1_, in asserting the _fact_ of the latter he presumes and\ninstances the truth of the former--just as in our common and received\nSystems of Natural Philosophy, the Being of imponderable Matter is\nassumed to render the lode-stone intelligible, and the Fact of the\nlode-stone adduced to prove the reality of imponderable Matter.\n\nIn short, I suppose the reader, whom I now invite to the third and\nlast division of the work, already disposed to reject for himself and\nhis human brethren the insidious title of \"Nature's noblest _animal_,\"\nor to retort it as the unconscious irony of the Epicurean poet on the\nanimalizing tendency of his own philosophy. I suppose him convinced,\nthat there is more in man than can be rationally referred to the life\nof Nature and the mechanism of Organization; that he has a will not\nincluded in this mechanism; and that the Will is in an especial and\npre-eminent sense the spiritual part of our Humanity.\n\nUnless, then, we have some distinct notion of the Will, and some\nacquaintance with the prevalent errors respecting the same, an insight\ninto the nature of Spiritual Religion is scarcely possible; and our\nreflections on the particular truths and evidences of a Spiritual\nState will remain obscure, perplexed, and unsafe. To place my reader\non this requisite vantage-ground, is the purpose of the following\nexposition.\n\nWe have begun, as in geometry, with defining our Terms; and we\nproceed, like the Geometricians, with stating our POSTULATES; the\ndifference being, that the postulates of Geometry _no_ man _can_ deny,\nthose of Moral Science are such as no _good_ man _will_ deny. For it\nis _not_ in our power to disclaim our nature, as _sentient_ beings;\nbut it _is_ in our power to disclaim our nature as _moral_ beings.[65]\nIt is possible (barely possible, I admit) that a man may have remained\nignorant or unconscious of the Moral Law within him: and a man need\nonly persist in disobeying the Law of Conscience to _make_ it possible\nfor himself to deny its existence, or to reject or repel it as a\nphantom of Superstition. Were it otherwise, the Creed would stand in\nthe same relation to Morality as the multiplication table.\n\nThis then is the distinction of Moral Philosophy--_not_ that I begin\nwith one or more _assumptions_: for this is common to _all_ science;\nbut--that I assume a something, the proof of which no man can _give_\nto another, yet every man may _find_ for himself. If any man assert,\nthat he _can_ not find it, I am _bound_ to disbelieve him. I cannot do\notherwise without unsettling the very foundations of my own moral\nnature. For I either find it as an _essential_ of the Humanity\n_common_ to him and me: or I have not _found_ it at all, except as an\nhypochondriast finds _glass_ legs. If, on the other hand, he _will_\nnot find it, he excommunicates himself. He forfeits his _personal_\nrights, and becomes a _Thing_: that is, one who may rightfully be\n_employed_, or _used_ as[66] means to an end, against his will, and\nwithout regard to his interest.\n\nAll the significant objections of the Materialist and Necessitarian\nare contained in the term, Morality, all the objections of the infidel\nin the term, Religion. The very terms, I say, imply a something\n_granted_, which the Objection supposes _not_ granted. The term\n_presumes_ what the objection denies, and in denying _presumes_ the\ncontrary. For it is most important to observe, that the reasoners on\n_both_ sides commence by taking something for granted, our assent to\nwhich they ask or demand: that is, both set off with an Assumption in\nthe form of a Postulate. But the Epicurean assumes what according to\nhimself he neither is nor can be under any _obligation_ to assume, and\ndemands what he _can_ have no _right_ to demand: for _he_ denies the\nreality of _all_ moral Obligation, the existence of _any_ Right. If he\nuse the _words_, Right and Obligation, he does it deceptively, and\nmeans only Power and Compulsion. To overthrow the Faith in aught\nhigher or other than Nature and physical Necessity, is the very\npurpose of his argument. He desires you only to _take for granted_,\nthat _all_ reality is _in_cluded in Nature, and he may then safely\ndefy you to ward off his conclusion--that _nothing_ is _ex_cluded!\n\nBut as he cannot morally demand, neither can he rationally expect,\nyour assent to this premiss: for he cannot be ignorant, that the best\nand greatest of men have devoted their lives to the enforcement of the\ncontrary, that the vast majority of the human race in all ages and in\nall nations have believed in the contrary; and there is not a language\non earth, in which he could argue, for ten minutes, in support of his\nscheme, without sliding into words and phrases, that imply the\ncontrary. It has been said, that the Arabic has a thousand names for a\nlion; but this would be a trifle compared with the number of\nsuperfluous words and useless synonyms that would be found in an\n_Index Expurgatorius_ of any European dictionary constructed on the\nprinciples of a consistent and strictly consequential Materialism.\n\nThe _Christian_ likewise grounds _his_ philosophy on assertions; but\nwith the best of all _reasons_ for making them--namely, that he\n_ought_ so to do. He asserts what he can neither prove, nor account\nfor, nor himself comprehend; but with the strongest _inducements_,\nthat of understanding thereby whatever else it most concerns him to\nunderstand aright. And yet his assertions have nothing in them of\ntheory or hypothesis; but are in immediate reference to three ultimate\n_facts_; namely, the Reality of the LAW OF CONSCIENCE; the existence\nof a RESPONSIBLE WILL, as the subject of that law; and lastly, the\nexistence of EVIL--of Evil essentially such, not by accident of\noutward circumstances, not derived from its physical consequences, nor\nfrom any cause, out of itself. The first is a Fact of Consciousness;\nthe second a Fact of Reason necessarily concluded from the first; and\nthe third a Fact of History interpreted by both.\n\n_Omnia exeunt in mysterium_, says a schoolman; that is, _There is\nnothing, the absolute ground of which is not a Mystery_. The contrary\nwere indeed a contradiction in terms: for how can that, which is to\nexplain all things, be susceptible of an explanation? It would be to\nsuppose the same thing first and second at the same time.\n\nIf I rested here, I should merely have placed my Creed in direct\nopposition to that of the Necessitarians, who assume (for observe\n_both_ Parties begin in an _Assumption_, and cannot do otherwise) that\nmotives act on the Will, as bodies act on bodies; and that whether\nmind and matter are essentially the same, or essentially different,\nthey are both alike under one and the same law of compulsory\nCausation. But this is far from exhausting my intention. I mean at the\nsame time to oppose the disciples of SHAFTESBURY and those who,\nsubstituting one Faith for another, have been well called the pious\nDeists of the last century, in order to distinguish them from the\nInfidels of the present age, who _persuade_ themselves, (for the thing\nitself is not possible) that they reject all Faith. I declare my\ndissent from these too, because they imposed upon themselves an _idea_\nfor a fact: a most sublime idea indeed, and so necessary to human\nnature, that without it no virtue is conceivable: but still an idea.\nIn contradiction to their splendid but delusory tenets, I profess a\ndeep conviction that man was and is a _fallen_ creature, not by\naccidents of bodily constitution, or any other cause, which _human_\nwisdom in a course of ages might be supposed capable of removing; but\nas diseased in his _Will_, in that Will which is the true and only\nstrict synonime of the word, I, or the intelligent Self. Thus at each\nof these two opposite roads (the philosophy of Hobbes and that of\nShaftesbury), I have placed a directing post, informing my\nfellow-travellers, that on neither of these roads can they see the\nTruths to which I would direct their attention.\n\nBut the place of starting was at the meeting of _four_ roads, and one\nonly was the right road. I proceed, therefore, to preclude the opinion\nof those likewise, who indeed agree with me as to the moral\nResponsibility of man in opposition to Hobbes and the Anti-Moralists,\nand that he is a fallen creature, essentially diseased, in opposition\nto Shaftesbury and the misinterpreters of Plato; but who differ from\nme in exaggerating the diseased _weakness_ of the Will into an\nabsolute privation of all Freedom, thereby making moral\nresponsibility, not a mystery _above_ comprehension, but a direct\ncontradiction, of which we do distinctly comprehend the absurdity.\nAmong the consequences of this doctrine, is that direful one of\nswallowing up all the attributes of the Supreme Being in the one\nAttribute of infinite Power, and thence deducing that things are good\nand wise because they were created, and not created through Wisdom and\nGoodness. Thence too the awful Attribute of _Justice_ is explained\naway into a mere right of absolute _Property_; the sacred distinction\nbetween things and persons is erased; and the selection of persons for\nvirtue and vice in this life, and for eternal happiness or misery in\nthe next, is represented as the result of a mere _Will_, acting in the\nblindness and solitude of its own Infinity. The title of a work\nwritten by the great and pious Boyle is \"Of the Awe, which the human\nMind owes to the Supreme Reason.\" This, in the language of these\ngloomy doctors, must be translated into--\"The horror, which a Being\ncapable of eternal Pleasure or Pain is compelled to feel at the idea\nof an Infinite Power, about to inflict the latter on an immense\nmajority of human Souls, without any power on their part either to\nprevent it or the actions which are (not indeed its causes but) its\nassigned _signals_, and preceding links of the same iron chain!\"\n\nAgainst these tenets I maintain, that a Will conceived separately from\nIntelligence is a Non-entity and a mere phantasm of abstraction; and\nthat a Will, the state of which does in _no sense_ originate in its\nown act, is an absolute contradiction. It might be an Instinct, an\nImpulse, a plastic Power, and, if accompanied with consciousness, a\nDesire; but a Will it _could_ not be. And this _every_ human being\n_knows_ with equal _clearness_, though different minds may _reflect_\non it with different degrees of _distinctness_; for who would not\nsmile at the notion of a rose _willing_ to put forth its buds and\nexpand them into flowers? That such a phrase would be deemed a\n_poetic_ licence proves the difference in the things: for all\nmetaphors are grounded on an apparent likeness of things essentially\ndifferent. I utterly disclaim the notion, that any _human_\nIntelligence, with whatever power it might manifest itself, is _alone_\nadequate to the office of restoring health to the Will: but at the\nsame time I deem it impious and absurd to hold, that the Creator would\nhave _given_ us the faculty of Reason, or that the Redeemer would in\nso many varied forms of argument and persuasion have _appealed_ to it,\nif it had been either totally useless or wholly impotent. Lastly, I\nfind all these several Truths reconciled and united in the belief,\nthat the imperfect human understanding can be effectually exerted only\nin _subordination_ to, and in a dependent _alliance_ with, the means\nand aidances supplied by the All-perfect and Supreme Reason; but that\nunder these conditions it is not only an admissible, but a necessary,\ninstrument of bettering both ourselves and others.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWe may now proceed to our reflections on the _Spirit_ of Religion. The\nfirst three or four Aphorisms I have selected from the Theological\nWorks of Dr. Henry More, a contemporary of Archbishop Leighton, and\nlike him, holden in suspicion by the Calvinists of that time as a\nLatitudinarian and Platonizing Divine, and who probably, like him,\nwould have been arraigned as a Calvinist by the Latitudinarians (I\ncannot say, Platonists) of this day, had the suspicion been equally\ngroundless. One or two I have ventured to add from my own Reflections.\nThe purpose, however, is the same in all--that of declaring, in the\nfirst place, what Spiritual Religion is _not_, what is _not_ a\nReligious Spirit, and what are _not_ to be deemed influences of the\nSpirit. If after these declaimers I shall without proof be charged by\nany with renewing or favouring the errors of the _Familists_,\n_Vanists_, _Seekers_, _Behmenists_, or by whatever other names Church\nHistory records the poor bewildered Enthusiasts, who in the swarming\ntime of our Republic turned the facts of the Gospel into allegories,\nand superseded the written ordinances of Christ by a pretended\nTeaching and sensible Presence of the Spirit, I appeal against them to\ntheir own consciences, as wilful slanderers. But if with proof, I have\nin these Aphorisms signed and sealed my own condemnation.\n\n\"These things I could not forbear to write. For _the Light within me_,\nthat is, _my Reason and Conscience_, does assure me, that the Ancient\nand Apostolic Faith according to the _historical_ meaning thereof, and\nin the _literal_ sense of the Creed, is solid and true: and that\n_Familism_[67] in its fairest form and under whatever disguise, is a\nsmooth tale to seduce the simple from their Allegiance to Christ.\"\n\nHENRY MORE.[68]\n\n[65] In a leaf of corrections to the text of the first edition\nColeridge directed that \"prerogative as _moral_ beings\" should be read\nhere. The correction seems to have been overlooked by Coleridge's\neditors.--ED.\n\n[66] On this principle alone is it possible to justify _capital_, or\n_ignominious_ punishments (or indeed any punishment not having the\nreformation of the Criminal, as _one_ of its objects). Such\npunishments, like those inflicted on Suicides, must be regarded as\n_posthumous_: the wilful extinction of the moral and personal life\nbeing, for the purposes of punitive Justice, equivalent to a wilful\ndestruction of the natural life. If the speech of Judge Burnet to the\nhorse-stealer (You are not hanged for stealing a horse; but, that\nhorses may not be stolen) can be vindicated at all, it must be on this\nprinciple; and not on the all-unsettling scheme of _Expedience_, which\nis the anarchy of Morals.\n\n[67] The religion of the Dutch sect called the \"Family of Love,\"\noriginated by Henry Nicholas about 1540.--ED.\n\n[68] More's 'Mystery of Godliness.'--ED.\n\n\n\n\nAPHORISMS ON SPIRITUAL RELIGION.\n\n\nAnd here it will not be impertinent to observe, that what the eldest\nGreek Philosophy entitled _the Reason_ (\u039d\u039f\u03a5\u03a3) and _Ideas_, the\nphilosophic Apostle names _the Spirit_ and _Truths spiritually_\ndiscerned: while to those who in the pride of learning or in the\nover-weening meanness of modern metaphysics decry the doctrine of the\nSpirit in Man and its possible communion with the Holy Spirit, as\n_vulgar_ enthusiasm, I submit the following sentences from a Pagan\nphilosopher, a nobleman and a minister of state--\"Ita dico, Lucili!\nSACER INTRA NOS SPIRITUS SEDET, malorum bonorumque nostrorum\nobservator et custos. Hic prout a nobis tractatus est, ita nos ipse\ntractat. BONUS VIR SINE DEO NEMO EST.\" SENECA, _Epist._ xli.\n\n\nAPHORISM I.\n\nH. MORE.\n\nEvery one is _to give a reason of his faith_; but Priests and\nMinisters more punctually than any, their province being to make good\nevery sentence of the Bible to a rational inquirer into the truth of\nthese Oracles. Enthusiasts find it an easy thing to heat the fancies\nof unlearned and unreflecting hearers; but when a sober man would be\nsatisfied of the _grounds_ from whence they speak, he shall not have\none syllable or the least tittle of a pertinent answer. Only they will\ntalk big of THE SPIRIT, and inveigh against _Reason_ with bitter\nreproaches, calling it carnal or fleshly, though it be indeed no soft\nflesh, but enduring and penetrant steel, even the sword of the Spirit,\nand such as pierces to the heart.\n\n\nAPHORISM II.\n\nH. MORE.\n\nThere are two very bad things in this resolving of men's Faith and\nPractice into _the immediate suggestion_ of a Spirit not acting on our\nunderstandings, or rather into the illumination of such a Spirit as\nthey can give no account of, such as does not enlighten their reason\nor enable them to render their doctrine intelligible to others. First,\nit defaces and makes useless that part of the Image of God in us,\nwhich we call REASON; and secondly, it takes away that advantage,\nwhich raises Christianity above all other religions, that she dare\nappeal to so solid a faculty.\n\n\nAPHORISM III.\n\nIt is the glory of the Gospel Charter and the Christian Constitution,\nthat its Author and Head is the Spirit of Truth, Essential Reason as\nwell as Absolute and Incomprehensible Will. Like a just Monarch, he\nrefers even his own causes to the Judgment of his high Courts. He has\nhis King's Bench in the Reason, his Court of Equity in the Conscience:\n_that_ the Representative of his majesty and universal justice, _this_\nthe nearest to the King's heart, and the dispenser of his particular\ndecrees. He has likewise his Court of Common Pleas in the\nUnderstanding, his Court of Exchequer in the Prudence. The Laws are\n_his_ Laws. And though by Signs and Miracles he has mercifully\ncondescended to interline here and there with his own hand the great\nStatute-book, which he had dictated to his Amanuensis, Nature; yet has\nhe been graciously pleased to forbid our receiving as the _King's_\nMandates aught that is not stamped with the Great Seal of the\nConscience, and countersigned by the Reason.\n\n\nAPHORISM IV.\n\n _On an Unlearned Ministry, under pretence of a Call of the Spirit,\n and inward Graces superseding Outward helps._\n\nH. MORE.\n\nTell me, Ye high-flown _Perfectionists_, ye boasters of the _Light\nwithin_ you, could the highest perfection of your inward Light ever\nshow to you the history of past ages, the state of the world at\npresent, the knowledge of arts and tongues, without books or teachers?\nHow then can you understand the Providence of God, or the age, the\npurpose, the fulfilment of Prophecies, or distinguish such as have\nbeen fulfilled from those to the fulfilment of which we are to look\nforward? How can you judge concerning the authenticity and\nuncorruptedness of the Gospels, and the other sacred Scriptures? And\nhow without this knowledge can you support the truth of Christianity?\nHow can you either have, or give a reason for the faith which you\nprofess? This _Light within_, that loves darkness, and would exclude\nthose excellent Gifts of God to Mankind, Knowledge and Understanding,\nwhat is it but a sullen self-sufficiency within you, engendering\ncontempt of superiors, pride and a spirit of division, and inducing\nyou to reject for yourselves and to undervalue in others the _helps\nwithout_, which the Grace of God has provided and appointed for his\nChurch--nay, to make them grounds or pretexts of your dislike or\nsuspicion of Christ's Ministers who have fruitfully availed themselves\nof the Helps afforded them?\n\n\nAPHORISM V.\n\nH. MORE.\n\nThere are wanderers, whom neither pride nor a perverse humour have led\nastray; and whose condition is such, that I think few more worthy of a\nman's best directions. For the more imperious sects having put such\nunhandsome vizards on Christianity, and the sincere milk of the _Word_\nhaving been every where so sophisticated by the humours and inventions\nof men, it has driven these anxious melancholists to seek for _a\nteacher_ that cannot deceive, the voice of the _eternal_ Word within\nthem; to which if they be faithful, they assure themselves it will be\nfaithful to them in return. Nor would this be a groundless\npresumption, if they had sought this voice in the Reason and the\nConscience, with the Scripture articulating the same, instead of\ngiving heed to their fancy and mistaking bodily disturbances, and the\nvapours resulting therefrom, for inspiration and the teaching of the\nSpirit.\n\n\nAPHORISM VI.\n\nBISHOP HACKET.\n\nWhen every man is his own end, all things will come to a bad end.\nBlessed were those days, when every man thought himself rich and\nfortunate by good success of the public wealth and glory. We want\npublic souls, we want them. I speak it with compassion: there is no\nsin and abuse in the world that affects my thought so much. Every man\nthinks, that he is a whole Commonwealth in his private family. _Omnes\nqu\u00e6 sua sunt qu\u00e6runt._ All seek their own.[69]\n\nCOMMENT.\n\nSelfishness is common to all ages and countries. In all ages\nSelf-seeking is the Rule, and Self-sacrifice the Exception. But if to\nseek our private advantage in harmony with, and by the furtherance of,\nthe public prosperity, and to derive a portion of our happiness from\nsympathy with the prosperity of our fellow-men--if this be Public\nSpirit, it would be morose and querulous to pretend that there is any\nwant of it in this country and at the present time. On the contrary,\nthe number of \"public souls\" and the general readiness to contribute\nto the public good, in science and in religion, in patriotism and in\nphilanthropy, stand prominent[70] among the characteristics of this\nand the preceding generation. The habit of referring actions and\nopinions to fixed laws; convictions rooted in principles; thought,\ninsight, system;--these, had the good Bishop lived in our times, would\nhave been his _desiderata_, and the theme of his complaints.--\"We want\n_thinking_ Souls, we _want them_.\"\n\nThis and the three preceding extracts will suffice as precautionary\nAphorisms. And here again, the reader may exemplify the great\nadvantages to be obtained from the habit of tracing the _proper_\nmeaning and history of words. We need only recollect the common and\nidiomatic phrases in which the word \"spirit\" occurs in a physical or\nmaterial sense (as, fruit has lost its _spirit_ and flavour), to be\nconvinced that its property is to improve, enliven, actuate some other\nthing, not to constitute a thing in its own name. The enthusiast may\nfind one exception to this where the material itself is called\n_Spirit_. And when he calls to mind, how _this_ spirit acts when taken\n_alone_ by the unhappy persons who in their first exultation will\nboast that it is meat, drink, fire, and clothing to them, all in\none--when he reflects, that its properties are to inflame, intoxicate,\nmadden, with exhaustion, lethargy, and atrophy for the sequels--well\nfor him, if in some lucid interval he should fairly put the question\nto his own mind, how far this is _analogous_ to his own case, and\nwhether the exception does not confirm the rule. The _Letter_ without\nthe Spirit killeth; but does it follow, that the Spirit is to kill the\nLetter? To kill that which it is its appropriate office to enliven?\n\nHowever, where the Ministry is not invaded, and the plain sense of the\nScriptures is left undisturbed, and the Believer looks for the\nsuggestions of the Spirit only or chiefly in applying particular\npassages to his own individual case and exigences; though in this\nthere may be much weakness, some delusion and imminent danger of more,\nI cannot but join with Henry More in avowing, that I feel knit to such\na man in the bonds of a common faith far more closely, than to those\nwho receive neither the Letter nor the Spirit, turning the one into\nmetaphor, and oriental hyperbole, in order to explain away the other\ninto the influence of motives suggested by their own understandings,\nand realized by their own strength.\n\n[69] Hacket's Sermons, p. 449.--ED.\n\n[70] The very marked _positive_ as well as comparative, magnitude and\nprominence of the bump, entitled BENEVOLENCE (_see Spurzheim's Map of\nthe Human Skull_) on the head of the late Mr. John Thurtel, has\nwoefully unsettled the faith of many ardent Phrenologists, and\nstrengthened the previous doubts of a still greater number into utter\ndisbelief. On MY mind this fact (for a _fact_ it is) produced the\ndirectly contrary effect; and inclined me to suspect, for the first\ntime, that there may be some truth in the Spurzheimian Scheme. Whether\nfuture Craniologists may not see cause to _new-name_ this and one or\ntwo other of these convex gnomons, is quite a different question. At\npresent, and according to the present use of words, any such change\nwould be premature; and we must be content to say, that Mr. Thurtel's\nBenevolence was insufficiently modified by the unprotrusive and\nunindicated convolutes of the brain, that secrete honesty and\ncommon-sense. The organ of Destructiveness was indirectly\n_potentiated_ by the absence or imperfect development of the glands of\nReason and Conscience in this, \"_unfortunate Gentleman_!\"\n\n\n\n\nAPHORISMS\n\nON THAT\n\nWHICH IS INDEED SPIRITUAL RELIGION.\n\n\nIn the selection of the extracts that form the remainder of this volume\nand of the comments affixed, I had the following objects principally in\nview:--first, to exhibit the true and scriptural meaning and intent of\nseveral Articles of Faith, that are rightly classed among the Mysteries\nand peculiar Doctrines of Christianity:--secondly, to show the perfect\nrationality of these Doctrines, and their freedom from all just\nobjection when examined by their proper organs, the Reason and\nConscience of Man:--lastly, to exhibit from the works of Leighton, who\nperhaps of all our learned Protestant Theologians best deserves the\ntitle of a Spiritual Divine, an instructive and affecting picture of\nthe contemplations, reflections, conflicts, consolations and monitory\nexperiences of a philosophic and richly-gifted mind, amply stored with\nall the knowledge that books and long intercourse with men of the most\ndiscordant characters could give, under the convictions, impressions,\nand habits of a Spiritual Religion.\n\nTo obviate a possible disappointment in any of my readers, who may\nchance to be engaged in theological studies, it may be well to notice,\nthat in vindicating the peculiar tenets of our Faith, I have not\nentered on the Doctrine of the Trinity, or the still profounder\nMystery of the Origin of Moral Evil--and this for the reasons\nfollowing. 1. These Doctrines are not (strictly speaking) subjects of\n_Reflection_, in the proper sense of this word: and both of them\ndemand a power and persistency of Abstraction, and a previous\ndiscipline in the highest forms of human thought, which it would be\nunwise, if not presumptuous, to expect from any, who require \"_Aids_\nto Reflection,\" or would be likely to seek them in the present work.\n2. In my intercourse with men of various ranks and ages, I have found\nthe far larger number of serious and inquiring persons little, if at\nall, disquieted by doubts respecting Articles of Faith, that are\nsimply above their comprehension. It is only where the belief required\nof them jars with their _moral_ feelings; where a doctrine in the\nsense, in which they have been taught to receive it, appears to\ncontradict their clear notions of right and wrong, or to be at\nvariance with the divine attributes of goodness and justice; that\nthese men are surprised, perplexed, and alas! not seldom offended and\nalienated. Such are the Doctrines of Arbitrary Election and\nReprobation; the Sentence to everlasting Torment by an eternal and\nnecessitating decree; vicarious Atonement, and the necessity of the\nAbasement, Agony and ignominious Death of a most holy and meritorious\nPerson, to appease the wrath of God. Now it is more especially for\nsuch persons, unwilling sceptics, who believing earnestly ask help for\ntheir unbelief, that this volume was compiled, and the comments\nwritten: and therefore to the Scripture Doctrines, _intended_ by the\nabove-mentioned, my principal attention has been directed.\n\nBut lastly, the whole Scheme of the Christian Faith, including _all_\nthe Articles of Belief common to the Greek and Latin, the Roman, and\nthe Protestant Churches, with the threefold proof, that it is\n_ideally_, _morally_, and _historically_ true, will be found exhibited\nand vindicated in a proportionally larger work, the principal labour\nof my life since manhood, and which I am now preparing for the press\nunder the title, 'Assertion of Religion, as necessarily _involving_\nRevelation; and of Christianity, as the only Revelation of permanent\nand universal validity.'[71]\n\n[71] A work left incomplete by Coleridge, and not yet given to the\nworld.--ED.\n\n\nAPHORISM I.\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nWhere, if not in Christ, is the Power that can persuade a Sinner to\nreturn, that can _bring home a heart to God_?\n\nCommon mercies of God, though they have a leading faculty to\nrepentance, (Rom. ii. 4.) yet, the rebellious heart will not be led by\nthem. The judgments of God, public or personal, though they ought to\ndrive us to God, yet the heart, unchanged, runs the further from God.\nDo we not see it by ourselves and other sinners about us? They look\nnot at all towards Him who smites, much less do they return; or if any\nmore serious thoughts of returning arise upon the surprise of an\naffliction, how soon vanish they, either the stroke abating, or the\nheart, by time, growing hard and senseless under it! Leave Christ out,\nI say, and all other means work not this way; neither the works nor\nthe word of God sounding daily in his ear, _Return return_. Let the\nnoise of the rod speak it too, and both join together to make the cry\nthe louder, _yet the wicked will do wickedly_: Dan. xii. 10.\n\nCOMMENT.\n\nBy the phrase \"in Christ,\" I understand all the supernatural aids\nvouchsafed and conditionally promised in the Christian dispensation;\nand among them the Spirit of Truth, which the world cannot receive,\nwere it only that the knowledge of _spiritual_ Truth is of necessity\nimmediate and _intuitive_: and the World or Natural Man possesses no\nhigher intuitions than those of the pure _Sense_, which are the\nsubjects of _mathematical_ science. But _aids_, observe! Therefore,\nnot _by_ Will of man alone; but neither _without_ the Will. The\ndoctrine of modern Calvinism as laid down by Jonathan Edwards and the\nlate Dr. Williams, which represents a Will absolutely passive, clay in\nthe hands of a potter, destroys all Will, takes away its essence and\ndefinition, as effectually as in saying: This circle is square--I\nshould deny the figure to be a circle at all. It was in strict\nconsistency therefore, that these writers supported the Necessitarian\nscheme, and made the relation of Cause and Effect the Law of the\nUniverse, subjecting to its mechanism the moral World no less than the\nmaterial or physical. It follows, that all is Nature. Thus, though few\nwriters use the term Spirit more frequently, they in effect deny its\nexistence, and evacuate the term of all its proper meaning. With such\na system not the wit of man nor all the Theodicies ever framed by\nhuman ingenuity before and since the attempt of the celebrated\nLeibnitz, can reconcile the Sense of Responsibility, nor the fact of\nthe difference _in kind_ between REGRET AND REMORSE. The same\ncompulsion of consequence drove the Fathers of Modern (or Pseudo-)\nCalvinism to the origination of Holiness in power, of Justice in right\nof Property, and whatever other outrages on the common sense and moral\nfeelings of mankind they have sought to cover, under the fair name of\n_Sovereign Grace_.\n\nI will not take on me to defend sundry harsh and inconvenient\nexpressions in the works of Calvin. Phrases equally strong and\nassertions not less rash and startling are no rarities in the writings\nof Luther; for catachresis was the favourite figure of speech in that\nage. But let not the opinions of either on this most fundamental\nsubject be confounded with the New England System, now entitled\nCalvinistic. The fact is simply this. Luther considered the\npretensions to Free-will _boastful_, and better suited to the \"budge\ndoctors of the Stoic Fur,\" than to the preachers of the Gospel, whose\ngreat theme is the Redemption of the Will from Slavery; the\nrestoration of the Will to perfect Freedom being the _end_ and\nconsummation of the redemptive process, and the same with the entrance\nof the Soul into Glory, that is, its union with Christ: \"GLORY\"\n(_John_ xvii. 5.) being one of the names or tokens or symbols of the\nSpiritual Messiah. Prospectively to this we are to understand the\nwords of our Lord. \"At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father,\nand ye in me,\" John xiv. 20: the freedom of a finite will being\npossible under this condition only, that it has become one with the\nwill of God. Now as the difference of a captive and enslaved Will,\nand _no_ Will at all, such is the difference between the\n_Lutheranism_ of Calvin and the Calvinism of Jonathan Edwards.\n\n\nAPHORISM II.\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nThere is nothing in religion farther out of Nature's reach, and more\nremote from the natural man's liking and believing, than the doctrine\nof Redemption by a Saviour, and by a crucified Saviour. It is\ncomparatively easy to persuade men of the necessity of an amendment of\nconduct; it is more difficult to make them see the necessity of\nRepentance in the _Gospel_ sense, the necessity of a change in the\n_principle_ of action; but to convince men of the necessity of the\nDeath of Christ is the most difficult of all. And yet the first is but\nvarnish and white-wash without the second; and the second but a barren\nnotion without the last. Alas! of those who admit the doctrine in\nwords, how large a number evade it in fact, and empty it of all its\nsubstance and efficacy, making the effect the efficient cause, or\nattributing their election to Salvation to a supposed Foresight of\ntheir Faith and Obedience.--But it is most vain to imagine a faith in\nsuch and such men, which being foreseen by God, determined him to\nelect them for salvation: were it only that nothing at all is\n_future_, or can have this imagined _futurition_, but _as_ it is\ndecreed, and _because_ it is decreed by God so to be.\n\nCOMMENT.\n\nNo impartial person, competently acquainted with the history of the\nReformation, and the works of the earlier Protestant Divines, at home\nand abroad, even to the close of Elizabeth's reign, will deny that the\ndoctrines of Calvin on Redemption and the natural state of fallen man,\nare in all essential points the same as those of Luther, Zuinglius,\nand the first Reformers collectively. These Doctrines have, however,\nsince the re-establishment of the Episcopal Church at the return of\nCharles II., been as generally [72] exchanged for what is commonly\nentitled Arminianism, but which, taken as a complete and explicit\nScheme of Belief, it would be both historically and theologically more\naccurate to call _Grotianism_, or Christianity according to Grotius.\nThe change was not, we may readily believe, effected without a\nstruggle. In the Romish Church this latitudinarian system, patronized\nby the Jesuits, was manfully resisted by Jansenius, Arnauld, and\nPascal; in our own Church by the Bishops Davenant, Sanderson, Hall,\nand the Archbishops Usher and Leighton: and in the latter half of the\npreceding Aphorism the reader has a _specimen_ of the _reasonings_ by\nwhich Leighton strove to invalidate or counterpoise the _reasonings_\nof the innovators.\n\nPassages of this sort are, however, of rare occurrence in Leighton's\nworks. Happily for thousands, he was more usefully employed in making\nhis readers feel that the doctrines in question, _scripturally\ntreated, and taken as co-organized parts of a great organic whole_,\nneed no such reasonings. And better still would it have been, had he\nleft them altogether for those, who severally detaching the great\nfeatures of Revelation from the living context of Scripture, do by\nthat very act destroy their life and purpose. And then, like the eyes\nof the Indian spider,[73] they become clouded microscopes, to\nexaggerate and distort all the other parts and proportions.--No\noffence then will be occasioned, I trust, by the frank avowal that I\nhave given to the preceding passage a place among the Spiritual\nAphorisms for the sake of the Comment: the following Remarks having\nbeen the first marginal note I had pencilled on Leighton's pages, and\nthus (remotely, at least) the occasion of the present work.\n\nLeighton, I observed, throughout his inestimable work, avoids all\nmetaphysical views of Election, relatively to God, and confines\nhimself to the doctrine in its relation to Man: and in that sense too,\nin which every Christian may judge of it who strives to be sincere\nwith his own heart. The following may, I think, be taken as a safe and\nuseful Rule in religious inquiries. Ideas, that derive their origin\nand substance from the _Moral_ Being, and to the reception of which as\ntrue _objectively_ (that is, as corresponding to a _reality_ out of\nthe human mind) we are determined by a _practical_ interest\nexclusively, may not, like theoretical or speculative Positions, be\npressed onward into all their possible _logical_ consequences.[74] The\nLaw of Conscience, and not the Canons of discursive Reasoning, must\ndecide in such cases. At least, the latter have no validity, which the\nsingle _veto_ of the former is not sufficient to nullify. The most\npious conclusion is here the most legitimate.\n\nIt is too seldom considered though most worthy of consideration, how\nfar even those Ideas or Theories of pure Speculation, that bear the\nsame name with the Objects of Religious Faith, are indeed the same.\nOut of the principles necessarily presumed in all discursive thinking,\nand which being, in the first place _universal_, and secondly,\nantecedent to every particular exercise of the understanding, are\ntherefore referred to the reason, the human mind (wherever its powers\nare sufficiently developed, and its attention strongly directed to\nspeculative or theoretical inquiries,) forms certain essences, to\nwhich for its own purposes it gives a sort of notional _subsistence_.\nHence they are called _entia rationalia_: the conversion of which into\n_entia realia_, or real objects, by aid of the imagination, has in all\ntimes been the fruitful stock of empty theories, and mischievous\nsuperstitions, of surreptitious premises and extravagant conclusions.\nFor as these substantiated notions were in many instances expressed by\nthe same terms, as the objects of religious Faith; as in most\ninstances they were applied, though deceptively, to the explanation of\nreal experiences; and lastly, from the gratifications, which the pride\nand ambition of man received from the supposed extension of his\nknowledge and insight; it was too easily forgotten or overlooked, that\nthe stablest and most indispensable of these notional beings were but\nthe necessary _forms_ of thinking, taken abstractedly: and that like\nthe breadthless lines, depthless surfaces, and perfect circles of\ngeometry, they subsist wholly and solely in and for the mind, that\ncontemplates them. Where the evidence of the senses fails us, and\nbeyond the precincts of sensible experience, there is no _reality_\nattributable to any notion, but what is given to it by Revelation, or\nthe Law of Conscience, or the necessary interests of Morality.\n\nTake an instance:\n\nIt is the office, and, as it were, the instinct of Reason to bring a\nunity into all our conceptions and several knowledges. On this all\nsystem depends; and without this we could reflect connectedly neither\non nature nor our own minds. Now this is possible only on the\nassumption or hypothesis of a ONE as the ground and cause of the\nUniverse, and which in all succession and through changes is the\nsubject neither of Time nor Change. The ONE must be contemplated as\nEternal and Immutable.\n\nWell! the Idea, which is the basis of Religion, commanded by the\nConscience and required by Morality, contains the same truths, or at\nleast truths that can be expressed in no other terms; but this idea\npresents itself to our mind with additional attributes, and these too\nnot formed by mere Abstraction and Negation--with the attributes of\nHoliness, Providence, Love, Justice, and Mercy. It comprehends,\nmoreover, the independent (_extra-mundane_) existence and personality\nof the supreme ONE, as our Creator, Lord, and Judge.\n\nThe hypothesis of a _one_ Ground and Principle of the Universe\n(necessary as an _hypothesis_; but having only a _logical_ and\n_conditional_ necessity) is thus raised into the Idea of the LIVING\nGOD, the supreme Object of our Faith, Love, Fear, and Adoration.\nReligion and Morality do indeed constrain us to declare him Eternal\nand Immutable. But if from the Eternity of the Supreme Being a\nReasoner should deduce the impossibility of a Creation; or conclude\nwith Aristotle, that the Creation was co-eternal; or, like the latter\nPlatonists, should turn Creation into _Emanation_, and make the\nuniverse proceed from Deity, as the Sunbeams from the Solar Orb;--or\nif from the divine Immutability he should infer, that all prayer and\nsupplication must be vain and superstitious: then however evident and\nlogically necessary such conclusions may appear, it is scarcely worth\nour while to examine, whether they are so or not. The positions\nthemselves _must_ be false. For were they true, the Idea would lose\nthe sole ground of its _reality_. It would be no longer the Idea\nintended by the Believer in _his_ premise--in the premise, with which\nalone Religion and Morality are concerned. The very subject of the\ndiscussion would be changed. It would no longer be the God in whom we\n_believe_; but a stoical FATE, or the superessential ONE of Plotinus,\nto whom neither Intelligence, nor Self-consciousness, nor Life, nor\neven _Being_ can be attributed; nor lastly, the world itself, the\nindivisible one and only substance (_substantia una et unica_) of\nSpinoza, of which all _ph\u00e6nomena_, all particular and individual\nthings, lives, minds, thoughts, and actions are but modifications.\n\nLet the believer never be alarmed by objections wholly speculative,\nhowever plausible on speculative grounds such objections may appear,\nif he can but satisfy himself, that the _result_ is repugnant to the\ndictates of conscience, and irreconcilable with the interests of\nmorality. For to baffle the objector we have only to demand of him, by\nwhat right and under what authority he converts a thought into a\nsubstance, or asserts the existence of a real somewhat corresponding\nto a notion not derived from the experience of his senses. It will be\nof no purpose for him to answer, that it is a _legitimate_ notion. The\n_notion_ may have its mould in the understanding; but its realization\nmust be the work of the FANCY.\n\nA reflecting reader will easily apply these remarks to the subject of\nElection, one of the stumbling stones in the ordinary conceptions of\nthe Christian Faith, to which the infidel points in scorn, and which\nfar better men pass by in silent perplexity. Yet surely, from mistaken\nconceptions of the doctrine, I suppose the person, with whom I am\narguing, already so far a believer, as to have convinced himself, both\nthat a state of enduring bliss is attainable under certain conditions;\nand that these conditions consist in his compliance with the\ndirections given and rules prescribed in the Christian Scriptures.\nThese rules he likewise admits to be such, that, by the very law and\nconstitution of the human mind, a full and faithful compliance with\nthem cannot but have _consequences_, of some sort or other. But these\n_consequences_ are moreover distinctly described, enumerated, and\npromised in the same Scriptures, in which the conditions are recorded;\nand though some of them may be apparent to God only, yet the greater\nnumber of them are of such a nature that they cannot exist unknown to\nthe individual, in and for whom they exist. As little possible is it,\nthat he should find these consequences in himself, and not find in\nthem the sure marks and the safe pledges, that he is at the time in\nthe right road to the Life promised under these conditions. Now I dare\nassert, that no such man, however fervent his charity, and however\ndeep his humility may be, can peruse the records of History with a\nreflecting spirit, or look round the world with an observant eye, and\nnot find himself compelled to admit, that _all_ men are _not_ on the\nright road. He cannot help judging, that even in Christian countries,\nmany, a fearful many! have not their faces turned toward it.\n\nThis then is a mere matter of fact. Now comes the question. Shall the\nbeliever, who thus hopes on the appointed _grounds_ of hope, attribute\nthis distinction exclusively to his own resolves and strivings? or if\nnot exclusively, yet primarily and principally? Shall he refer the\nfirst movements and preparations to his own Will and Understanding,\nand bottom his claim to the promises on his own comparative\nexcellence? If not, if no man dare take this honour to himself, to\nwhom shall he assign it, if not to that Being in whom the promise\noriginated, and on whom its fulfilment depends? If he stop here, who\nshall blame him? By what argument shall his reasoning be invalidated,\nthat might not be urged with equal force against any essential\ndifference between obedient and disobedient, Christian and worldling?\nthat would not imply that both _sorts_ alike are, in the sight of God,\nthe Sons of God by adoption? If he stop here, I say, who shall drive\nhim from his position? For thus far he is practically concerned--this\nthe Conscience requires, this the highest interests of Morality\ndemand. It is a question of facts, of the will and the deed, to argue\nagainst which on the abstract notions and possibilities of the\nspeculative reason, is as unreasonable, as an attempt to decide a\nquestion of colours by pure Geometry, or to unsettle the classes and\nspecific characters of Natural History by the Doctrine of Fluxions.\n\nBut if the self-examinant will abandon this position, and exchange the\nsafe circle of Religion and practical Reason for the shifting\nsand-wastes and _mirages_ of Speculative Theology; if instead of\nseeking after the _marks_ of Election in himself he undertakes to\ndetermine the ground and origin, the possibility and mode of election\nitself _in relation to God_;--in this case, and whether he does it for\nthe satisfaction of curiosity, or from the ambition of answering\nthose, who would call God himself to account, why and by what right\ncertain souls were born in Africa instead of England:--or why (seeing\nthat it is against all reason and goodness to choose a worse, when\nbeing omnipotent He could have created a better) God did not create\nbeasts men, and men angels:--or why God created any men but with\nfore-knowledge of their obedience, and left any occasion for\nElection?--in this case, I say, we can only regret, that the inquirer\nhad not been better instructed in the nature, the bounds, the true\npurposes and proper objects of his intellectual faculties, and that he\nhad not previously asked himself, by what appropriate sense, or organ\nof knowledge, he hoped to secure an insight into a Nature which was\nneither an object of his senses, nor a part of his self-consciousness;\nand so leave him to ward off shadowy spears with the shadow of a\nshield, and to retaliate the nonsense of blasphemy with the\n_abracadabra_ of presumption. He that will fly without wings must fly\nin his dreams: and till he awakes, will not find out, that to fly in a\ndream is but to dream of flying.\n\nThus then the doctrine of Election is in itself a necessary inference\nfrom an undeniable fact--necessary at least for all who hold that the\nbest of men are what they are through the grace of God. In relation to\nthe believer it is a _hope_, which if it spring out of Christian\nprinciples, be examined by the tests and nourished by the means\nprescribed in Scripture, will become a _lively_, an _assured_ hope,\nbut which cannot in this life pass into _knowledge_, much less\ncertainty of fore-knowledge. The contrary belief does indeed make the\narticle of Election both tool and parcel of a mad and mischievous\nfanaticism. But with what force and clearness does not the Apostle\nconfute, disclaim, and prohibit the pretence, treating it as a\ndownright contradiction in terms! See Romans viii. 24.\n\nBut though I hold the doctrine handled as Leighton handles it (that is\npractically, morally, _humanly_) rational, safe, and of essential\nimportance, I see many[75] reasons resulting from the peculiar\ncircumstances, under which St. Paul preached and wrote, why a discreet\nminister of the Gospel should avoid the frequent use of the _term_,\nand express the _meaning_ in other words perfectly equivalent and\nequally Scriptural; lest in _saying_ truth he may convey error.\n\nHad my purpose been confined to one particular tenet, an apology might\nbe required for so long a Comment. But the reader will, I trust, have\nalready perceived, that my object has been to establish a general rule\nof interpretation and vindication applicable to _all_ doctrinal\ntenets, and especially to the (so called) mysteries of the Christian\nFaith: to provide a _Safety-lamp_ for religious inquirers. Now this I\nfind in the principle, that all Revealed Truths are to be judged of by\nus, as far as they are possible subjects of human conception, or\ngrounds of practice, or in some way connected with our moral and\nspiritual interests. In order to have a reason _for_ forming a\njudgment on any given article, we must be sure that we possess a\nreason, by and according to which a judgment may be formed. Now in\nrespect of all Truths, to which a _real_ independent existence is\nassigned, and which yet are not contained in, or to be imagined under,\nany form of space or time, it is strictly demonstrable, that the human\nreason, considered abstractly, as the source of positive _science_ and\ntheoretical _insight_, is _not_ such a reason. At the utmost, it has\nonly a _negative_ voice. In other words, nothing can be allowed as\ntrue for the human mind, which directly contradicts this reason. But\neven here, before we admit the existence of any such contradiction, we\nmust be careful to ascertain, that there is no equivocation in play,\nthat two different subjects are not confounded under one and the same\nword. A striking instance of this has been adduced in the difference\nbetween the notional ONE of the Ontologists, and the idea of the\nLiving God.\n\nBut if not the abstract or speculative reason, and yet a reason there\nmust be in order to a rational belief--then it must be the _practical_\nreason of man, comprehending the Will, the Conscience, the Moral Being\nwith its inseparable Interests and Affections--that Reason, namely,\nwhich is the Organ of _Wisdom_, and (as far as man is concerned) the\nsource of living and actual Truths.\n\nFrom these premises we may further deduce, that every doctrine is to\nbe interpreted in reference to those, to whom it has been revealed, or\nwho have or have had the means of knowing or hearing the same. For\ninstance: the Doctrine that _there is no name under Heaven, by which a\nman can be saved, but the name of Jesus_. If the word here rendered\n_name_, may be understood (as it well may, and as in other texts it\nmust be) as meaning the Power, or originating Cause, I see no\nobjection on the part of the practical reason to our belief of the\ndeclaration in its whole extent. It is true universally or not true at\nall. If there be any redemptive Power not contained in the Power of\nJesus, then Jesus is not _the_ Redeemer: not the Redeemer of the\n_World_, not the Jesus (_i.e._ Saviour) of man_kind_. But if with\nTertullian and Augustine we make the Text assert the condemnation and\nmisery of all who are not Christians by Baptism and explicit belief in\nthe Revelation of the New Covenant--then I say, the doctrine is true\n_to all intents and purposes_. It is true, in every respect, in which\nany practical, moral, or spiritual interest or end can be connected\nwith its truth. It is true in respect to every man who has had, or who\nmight have had, the Gospel preached to him. It is true and obligatory\nfor every Christian community and for every individual believer,\nwherever the opportunity is afforded of spreading the _Light_ of the\nGospel, and making _known_ the name of the only Saviour and Redeemer.\nFor even though the uninformed Heathens should _not_ perish, the\n_guilt_ of their perishing will attach to those who not only had no\ncertainty of their safety, but who are commanded to _act_ on the\nsupposition of the contrary. But if, on the other hand, a theological\ndogmatist should attempt to persuade me, that this text was intended\nto give us an historical knowledge of God's future actions and\ndealings--and for the gratification of our curiosity to inform us,\nthat Socrates and Phocion, together with all the savages in the woods\nand wilds of Africa and America, will be sent to keep company with the\ndevil and his angels in everlasting torments--I should remind him,\nthat the purpose of Scripture was to teach us our duty, not to enable\nus to sit in judgment on the souls of our fellow creatures.\n\nOne other instance will, I trust, prevent all misconception of my\nmeaning. I am clearly convinced, that the scriptural and only true[76]\nIdea of God will, in its development, be found to involve the Idea of\nthe Tri-unity. But I am likewise convinced, that previously to the\npromulgation of the Gospel the doctrine had no claim on the faith of\nmankind; though it might have been a legitimate contemplation for a\nspeculative philosopher, a theorem in metaphysics valid in the\nSchools.\n\nI form a certain notion in my mind, and say:--This is what _I_\nunderstand by the term, God. From books and conversation I find, that\nthe learned generally connect the same notion with the same word. I\nthen apply the rules, laid down by the masters of logic, for the\ninvolution and evolution of terms, and prove (to as many as agree with\nme in my premises) that the notion, God, involves the notion, Trinity.\nI now pass out of the Schools, and enter into discourse with some\nfriend or neighbour, unversed in the _formal_ sciences, unused to the\nprocess of abstraction, neither Logician nor Metaphysician; but\nsensible and single-minded, _an Israelite indeed_, trusting in _the\nLord God of his Fathers, even the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of\nJacob_. If I speak of God to _him_, what will _he_ understand me to be\nspeaking of? What does he mean, and suppose me to mean, by the word?\nAn accident or product of the reasoning faculty, or an abstraction\nwhich the human mind forms by reflecting on its own thoughts and forms\nof thinking? No. By God he understands me to mean an existing and\nself-subsisting reality,[77] a real and personal Being--even the\n_Person_, the I AM, who sent Moses to his forefathers in Egypt. Of the\nactual existence of the divine Being he has the same historical\nassurance as of theirs; confirmed indeed by the Book of Nature, as\nsoon and as far as that stronger and better light has taught him to\nread and construe it--confirmed by it, I say, but not derived from it.\nNow by what right can I require this man (and of such men the great\nmajority of serious believers consisted, previously to the light of\nthe Gospel) to receive a _notion_ of mine, wholly alien from his\nhabits of thinking, because it may be logically deduced from another\nnotion, with which he was almost as little acquainted, and not at all\nconcerned? Grant for a moment, that the latter (that is, the notion,\nwith which I first set out) as soon as it is combined with the\nassurance of a corresponding Reality becomes identical with the true\nand effective Idea of God! Grant, that in thus _realizing_ the notion\nI am warranted by Revelation, the Law of Conscience, and the interests\nand necessities of my Moral Being! Yet by what authority, by what\ninducement, am I entitled to attach the same reality to a second\nnotion, a notion drawn from a notion? It is evident, that if I have\nthe same right, it must be on the same grounds. Revelation must have\nassured it, my Conscience required it--or in some way or other I must\nhave an _interest_ in this belief. It must _concern_ me, as a moral\nand responsible Being. Now these grounds were first given in the\nRedemption of Mankind by Christ, the Saviour and Mediator: and by the\nutter incompatibility of these offices with a mere creature. On the\ndoctrine of Redemption depends the _Faith_, the _Duty_, of believing\nin the Divinity of our Lord. And this again is the strongest Ground\nfor the reality of that Idea, in which alone this Divinity can be\nreceived without breach of the faith in the unity of the Godhead. But\nsuch is the Idea of the Trinity. Strong as the motives are that induce\nme to defer the full discussion of this great Article of the Christian\ncreed, I cannot withstand the request of several divines, whose\nsituation and extensive services entitle them to the utmost deference,\nthat I should so far deviate from my first intention as at least to\nindicate the point on which I stand, and to prevent the misconception\nof my purpose: as if I held the doctrine of the Trinity for a truth\nwhich Men could be called on to believe by mere force of reasoning,\nindependently of any positive _Revelation_. In short, it had been\nreported in certain circles, that I considered this doctrine as a\ndemonstrable part of the Religion of Nature. Now though it might be\nsufficient to say, that I regard the very phrase \"_Revealed_ Religion\"\nas a pleonasm, inasmuch as a religion not revealed is, in my judgment,\nno religion at all; I have no objection to announce more particularly\nand distinctly what I do and what I do not maintain on this point:\nprovided that in the following paragraph, with this view inserted, the\nreader will look for nothing more than a plain _statement_ of my\nopinions. The grounds on which they rest, and the arguments by which\nthey are to be vindicated, are for another place.\n\nI hold then, it is true, that all the (so called) demonstrations of a\nGod either prove too little, as that from the order and apparent\npurpose in Nature; or too much, namely, that the World is itself God:\nor they clandestinely involve the conclusion in the premises, passing\noff the mere analysis or explication of an Assertion for the Proof of\nit,--a species of logical legerdemain not unlike that of the jugglers\nat a fair, who putting into their mouths what seems to be a walnut,\ndraw out a score yards of ribbon--as in the Postulate of a First\nCause. And lastly, in all these demonstrations the demonstrators\npresuppose the Idea or Conception of a God without being able to\nauthenticate it, that is, to give an account whence they obtained it.\nFor it is clear, that the proof first mentioned and the most natural\nand convincing of all (the Cosmological I mean, or that from the Order\nin Nature) presupposes the Ontological--that is, the proof of a God\nfrom the necessity and necessary _Objectivity_ of the Idea. _If_ the\nlatter can assure us of a God as an existing Reality, the former will\ngo far to prove his power, wisdom, and benevolence. All this I hold.\nBut I also hold, that this truth, the hardest to demonstrate, is the\none which of all others least needs to be demonstrated; that though\nthere may be no conclusive demonstrations of a good, wise, living, and\npersonal God, there are so many convincing reasons for it, within and\nwithout--a grain of sand sufficing, and a whole universe at hand to\necho the decision!--that for every mind not devoid of all reason, and\ndesperately conscience-proof, the Truth which it is the least possible\nto prove, it is little less than impossible not to believe! only\nindeed just so much short of impossible, as to leave some room for the\nwill and the moral election, and thereby to keep it a truth of\nReligion, and the possible subject of a Commandment.[80]\n\nOn this account I do not demand of a _Deist_, that he should adopt the\ndoctrine of the Trinity. For he might very well be justified in\nreplying, that he rejected the doctrine, _not_ because it could not be\n_demonstrated_, nor yet on the score of any incomprehensibilities and\nseeming contradictions that might be objected to it, as knowing that\nthese might be, and in fact had been, urged with equal force against a\npersonal God under any form capable of love and veneration; _but_\nbecause he had not the same theoretical necessity, the same interests\nand instincts of reason for the one hypothesis as for the other. It is\nnot enough, the Deist might justly say, that there is no cogent reason\nwhy I should _not_ believe the Trinity; you must show me some cogent\nreason why I _should_.\n\nBut the case is quite different with a Christian, who accepts the\nScriptures as the Word of God, yet refuses his assent to the plainest\ndeclarations of these Scriptures, and explains away the most express\ntexts into metaphor and hyperbole, _because_ the literal and obvious\ninterpretation is (according to _his_ notions) absurd and contrary to\nreason. _He_ is bound to show, that it is so in any sense, not equally\napplicable to the texts asserting the Being, Infinity, and Personality\nof God the Father, the Eternal and Omnipresent ONE, who _created_ the\nHeaven and the Earth. And the more is he bound to do this, and the\ngreater is my right to demand it of him, because the doctrine of\nRedemption from sin supplies the Christian with motives and reasons\nfor the divinity of the Redeemer far more _concerning_ and coercive\n_subjectively_, that is, in the economy of his own soul, than are all\nthe inducements that can influence the Deist _objectively_, that is,\nin the interpretation of Nature.\n\nDo I then utterly exclude the speculative Reason from Theology? No! It\nis its office and rightful privilege to determine on the _negative_\ntruth of whatever we are required to believe. The Doctrine must not\n_contradict_ any universal principle: for this would be a Doctrine\nthat contradicted itself. Or Philosophy? No. It may be and has been\nthe servant and pioneer of Faith by convincing the mind, that a\ndoctrine is cogitable, that the soul can present the _Idea_ to itself;\nand that _if_ we determine to contemplate, or _think_ of, the subject\nat all, so and in no other form can this be effected. So far are both\nlogic and philosophy to be received and trusted. But the _duty_, and\nin some cases and for some persons even the _right_, of thinking on\nsubjects beyond the bounds of sensible experience; the grounds of the\n_real_ truth; the _life_, the _substance_, the _hope_, the _love_, in\none word, the _Faith_: these are Derivatives from the practical,\nmoral, and spiritual Nature and Being of Man.\n\n[72] At a period, in which Doctors Marsh and Wordsworth have, by the\nZealous on one side, being charged with Popish principles on account\nof their _Anti-bibliolatry_, and the sturdy adherents of the doctrines\ncommon to Luther and Calvin, and the literal interpreters of the\nArticles and Homilies, are, (I wish I could say, altogether without\nany fault of their own) regarded by the Clergy generally as virtual\nSchismatics, dividers _of_, though not _from_, the Church, it is\nserving the cause of charity to assist in circulating the following\ninstructive passage from the Life of Bishop Hackett respecting the\ndispute between the Augustinians, or Luthero-Calvinistic divines and\nthe Grotians of his age: in which Controversy (says his biographer)\nhe, Hackett, \"was ever very moderate.\"\n\n\"But having been bred under Bishop Davenant and Dr. Ward in Cambridge,\nhe was addicted to their sentiments. Archbishop Usher would say, that\nDavenant understood those controversies better than ever any man did\nsince St. Augustine. But he (Bishop Hackett) used to say, that he was\n_sure_ he had _three_ excellent men of his mind in this controversy:\n1. _Padre Paolo_ (Father Paul) whose letter is extant in Heinsius,\n_anno_ 1604: 2. _Thomas Aquinas_: 3. St. Augustine. But besides and\nabove them all, he believed in his Conscience that St. Paul was of the\nsame mind likewise. Yet at the same time he would profess, that he\ndisliked no Arminians, but such as revile and defame every one who is\n_not so_: and he would often commend Arminius himself for his\nexcellent wit and parts, but only tax his want of reading and\nknowledge in Antiquity. And he ever held, it was the foolishest thing\nin the world to say the Arminians were _Popishly_ inclined, when so\nmany Dominicians and Jansenists were rigid followers of Augustine in\nthese points: and no less foolish to say that the _Anti-Arminians_\nwere Puritans or Presbyterians, when _Ward_, and _Davenant_, and\nPrideaux, and Brownrig, those stout champions for Episcopacy, were\ndecided Anti-Arminians; while Arminius himself was ever a\nPresbyterian. Therefore he greatly commended the moderation of our\nChurch, which extended equal Communion to both.\"\n\n[73] _Aranea prodigiosa._ See Baker's Microscopic Experiments.\n\n[74] May not this Rule be expressed more intelligibly (to a\nmathematician at least) thus:--Reasoning from _finite_ to _finite_, on\na basis of truth, also, reasoning from _infinite_ to _infinite_, on a\nbasis of truth, will always lead to truth, as intelligibly as the\nbasis on which such truths respectively rest.--While, reasoning from\n_finite_ to _infinite_, or from _infinite_ to _finite_, will lead to\napparent absurdity, although the basis be true: and is not _such_\napparent absurdity, another expression for \"truth unintelligible by a\n_finite_ mind\"?\n\n[75] For example: at the date of St. Paul's Epistles, the (Roman)\nworld may be resembled to a mass in the furnace in the first moment of\nfusion, here a speck and there a spot of the melted metal shining pure\nand brilliant amid the scum and dross. To have received the _name_ of\nChristian was a privilege, a high and distinguished favour. No wonder\ntherefore, that in St. Paul's writings the words, elect, and election,\noften, nay, most often, mean the same as _eccalumeni, ecclesia_, that\nis, those who have been _called out_ of the world: and it is a\ndangerous perversion of the Apostle's word to interpret it in the\nsense, in which it was used by our Lord, viz. in _opposition to the\ncalled_. (Many are _called_ but few _chosen_.) In St. Paul's sense and\nat that time the believers collectively formed a small and select\nnumber; and every Christian real or nominal, was one of the Elect. Add\ntoo, that this ambiguity is increased by the accidental circumstance,\nthat the _kyriak, \u00c6des Dominic\u00e6_, Lord's House, _kirk_; and\n_ecclesia_, the sum total of the _eccalumeni, evocati, called out_;\nare both rendered by the same word Church.\n\n[76] Or (I may add) _any_ Idea which does not either identify the\nCreator with the Creaton; or else represent the Supreme Being as a\nmere impersonal Law or _ordo ordinans_, differing from the Law of\nGravitation only by its _universality_.\n\n[77] I have elsewhere remarked on the assistance which those that\nlabour after distinct conceptions would receive from the\nre-introduction of the terms _objective_, and _subjective_,\n_objective_ and _subjective reality_, and the like, as substitutes for\n_real_ and _notional_, and to the exclusion of the false antithesis\nbetween _real_ and _ideal_. For the Student in that noblest of the\nsciences, the _scire teipsum_, the advantage would be especially\ngreat.[78] The few sentences that follow, in illustration of the terms\nhere advocated, will not, I trust, be a waste of the reader's time.\n\nThe celebrated Euler having demonstrated certain properties of arches,\nadds: \"All experience is in contradiction to this; but this is no\nreason for doubting its truth.\" The words _sound_ paradoxical; but\nmean no more than this--that the mathematical properties of figure and\nspace are not less certainly the properties of figure and space\nbecause they can never be perfectly realized in wood, stone, or iron.\nNow this assertion of Euler's might be expressed at once, briefly and\nsimply, by saying, that the properties in question were _subjectively_\ntrue, though not objectively--or that the mathematical arch possessed\na _subjective reality_ though incapable of being realized\n_objectively_.\n\nIn like manner if I had to express my conviction, that space was not\nitself a _thing_, but a _mode_ or _form_ of perceiving, or the inward\nground and condition in the percipient, in consequence of which things\nare seen as outward and co-existing, I convey this at once by the\nwords, space is _subjective_, or space is real in and for the\n_subject_ alone.\n\nIf I am asked, Why not say in and for the _mind_, which every one\nwould understand? I reply: we know indeed, that all minds are\nSubjects; but are by no means certain, that all subjects are minds.\nFor a mind is a subject that knows itself, or a subject that is its\nown object. The inward principle of Growth and individual Form in\nevery seed and plant is a _subject_, and without any exertion of\npoetic privilege poets may speak of the _soul_ of the flower. But the\nman would be a dreamer, who otherwise than poetically should speak of\nroses and lilies as _self-conscious_ subjects. Lastly, by the\nassistance of the terms, Object and Subject, thus used as\ncorrespondent opposites, or as negative and positive in physics (for\nexample, negative and positive electricity) we may arrive at the\ndistinct import and proper use of the strangely misused word, idea.\nAnd as the forms of logic are all borrowed from geometry\n(_Ratiocinatio discursiva formas suas sive canonas recipit ab\nintuitu_) I may be permitted to elucidate my present meaning. Every\nline may be, and by the ancient Geometricians _was_, considered as a\npoint _produced_, the two extremes being its poles, while the point\nitself remains in, or is at least represented by, the midpoint, the\nindifference of the two poles or correlative opposites. Logically\napplied, the two extremes or poles are named Thesis and Antithesis:\nthus in the line\n\n                I\n    T-----------------------A\n\nwe have T = Thesis, A = Antithesis, and I = Punctum Indifferens sive\n_amphotericum_, which latter is to be conceived as _both_ in as far as\nit may be _either_ of the two former. Observe: not both at the same\ntime in the same relation; for this would be the _identity_ of T and\nA, not the _indifference_:--but so, that relatively to A, I is equal\nto T, and relatively to T it becomes = A. For the purposes of the\nuniversal _Noetic_, in which we require terms of most comprehension\nand least specific import, might not the Noetic Pentad be,--\n\n                  1. Prothesis.\n    2. Thesis.    4. Mesothesis.    3. Antithesis.\n                  5. Synthesis.\n\n                  Prothesis.\n                    Sum.\n    Thesis.       Methosesis.          Antithesis.\n    Res.            Agere.           Ago, Patior.\n                  Synthesis.\n                    Agens.\n\n1. Verb Substantive = Prothesis, as expressing the _identity_ or\ncoinherence of Act and Being.\n\n2. Substantive = Thesis, expressing Being. 3. Verb = Antithesis,\nexpressing, Act. 4. Infinite = Mesothesis, as being either Substantive\nor Verb, or both at once, only in different relations. 5. Participle =\nSynthesis. Thus in Chemistry Sulphuretted Hydrogen is an Acid\nrelatively to the more powerful Alkalis, and an Alkali relatively to a\npowerful Acid. Yet one other remark, and I pass to the question. In\norder to render the constructions of pure Mathematics applicable to\nPhilosophy, the Pythagoreans, I imagine, represented the Line as\n_generated_, or, as it were, radiated, by a Point not contained in the\nLine but independent, and (in the language of that School)\ntranscendent to all production, which it caused but did not partake\nin. _Facit, non patitur._ This was the _punctum invisible, et\npresuppositum_: and in this way the Pythagoreans guarded against the\nerror of Pantheism, into which the later schools fell. The assumption\nof this Point I call the logical PROTHESIS. We have now therefore four\nRelations of Thought expressed: 1. Prothesis, or the Identity of T and\nA, which is neither, because in it, as the transcendent of both, both\nare contained and exist as one. Taken _absolutely_, this finds its\napplication in the Supreme Being alone, the Pythagorean TETRACTYS; the\nINEFFABLE NAME, to which no Image can be attached; the Point, which\nhas no (real) Opposite or Counter-point. But _relatively_ taken and\ninadequately, the germinal power of every seed[79] might be\ngeneralized under the relation of Identity. 2. Thesis, or position. 3.\nAntithesis, or Opposition. 4. Indifference. To which when we add the\nSynthesis or Composition, in its several forms of Equilibrium, as in\nquiescent Electricity; of Neutralization, as of Oxygen and Hydrogen in\nwater; and of Predominance, as of Hydrogen and Carbon with Hydrogen,\npredominant, in pure alcohol; or of Carbon and Hydrogen, with the\ncomparative predominance of the Carbon, in Oil; we complete the five\nmost general Forms or Preconceptions of Constructive Logic.\n\nAnd now for the answer to the question. What is an IDEA, if it mean\nneither an Impression on the Senses, nor a definite Conception, nor an\nabstract Notion? (And if it does mean either of these, the word is\nsuperfluous: and while it remains undetermined which of these is meant\nby the word, or whether it is not _which you please_, it is worse than\nsuperfluous. See the 'Statesman's Manual,' Appendix _ad finem_.) But\nsupposing the word to have a meaning of its own, what does it\nmean?--What is an IDEA?--In answer to this I commence with the\nabsolutely Real as the PROTHESIS; the _subjectively_ Real as the\nTHESIS; the _objectively_ Real as the ANTITHESIS: and I affirm, that\nIdea is the INDIFFERENCE of the two--so namely, that if it be\nconceived as in the Subject, the Idea is an Object, and possesses\nObjective Truth; but if in an Object, it is then a Subject and is\nnecessarily thought of as exercising the powers of a Subject. Thus an\nIDEA conceived as subsisting in an Object becomes a LAW; and a Law\ncontemplated _subjectively_ (in a mind) is an Idea.\n\n[78] See the 'Selection from Mr. Coleridge's Literary Correspondence'\nin _Blackwood's Magazine_, 1821, Letter II.--ED.\n\n[79] See Comment on Moral and Religious Aphorism VI., p. 40.--ED.\n\n[80] In a letter to a friend on the mathematical atheists of the\nFrench Revolution, La Lande and others, or rather on a young man of\ndistinguished abilities, but an avowed and proselyting partizan of\ntheir tenets, I concluded with these words: \"The man who will believe\nnothing but by force of demonstrative evidence (even though it is\nstrictly demonstrable that the demonstrability required would\ncountervene all the purposes of the truth in question, all that render\nthe belief of the same desirable or obligatory) is not in a state of\nmind to be reasoned with on any subject. But if he further denies the\n_fact_ of the Law of Conscience, and the essential difference between\nright and wrong, I confess, he puzzles me. I cannot without gross\ninconsistency appeal to his Conscience and Moral Sense, or I should\nadmonish him that, as an honest man, he ought to _advertize_ himself,\nwith a _Cavete omnes! Scelus sum._ And as an honest man myself, I dare\nnot advise him on prudential grounds to keep his opinions secret, lest\nI should make myself his accomplice, and _be helping him on with a\nwrap-rascal_.\"\n\n\nAPHORISM III.\n\nBURNET AND COLERIDGE.\n\nThat Religion is designed to improve the nature and faculties of man,\nin order to the right governing of our actions, to the securing the\npeace and progress, external and internal, of individuals and of\ncommunities, and lastly, to the rendering us capable of a more perfect\nstate, entitled the kingdom of God, to which the present life is\n_probationary_--this is a Truth, which all who have truth only in\nview, will receive on its own evidence. If such then be the main end\nof religion altogether (the improvement namely of our nature and\nfaculties), it is plain, that every part of religion is to be judged\nby its relation to this main end. And since the Christian scheme is\nreligion in its most perfect and effective form, a revealed religion,\nand therefore, in a _special_ sense proceeding from that Being who\nmade us and knows what we are, of course therefore adapted to the\nneeds and capabilities of human nature; nothing can be a part of this\nholy faith that is not duly proportioned to this end.[81]\n\nCOMMENT.\n\nThis Aphorism should be borne in mind, whenever a theological\n_Resolve_ is proposed to us as an article of Faith. Take, for\ninstance, the determinations passed at the Synod of Dort, concerning\nthe Absolute Decrees of God in connection with his Omniscience and\nFore-knowledge. Or take the decision in the Council of Trent on the\ndifference between the two kinds of Transubstantiation, the one in\nwhich both the substance and the accidents are changed, the same\nmatter remaining--as in the conversion of water to wine at Cana: the\nother, in which the matter and the substance are changed, the\naccidents remaining unaltered, as in the Eucharist--this latter being\nTransubstantiation _par eminence_! Or rather take the still more\ntremendous dogma, that it is indispensable to a saving faith carefully\nto distinguish the one kind from the other, and to believe both, and\nto believe the necessity of believing both in order to Salvation! For\neach or either of these _extra-scriptural_ Articles of Faith the\npreceding Aphorism supplies a safe criterion. Will the belief tend to\nthe improvement of any of my moral or intellectual faculties? But\nbefore I can be convinced that a faculty will be _improved_, I must be\nassured that it _exists_. On all these dark sayings, therefore, of\nDort or Trent, it is quite sufficient to ask, by what _faculty_,\n_organ_, or _inlet_ of knowledge, we are to assure ourselves that the\nwords _mean_ any thing, or correspond to any object out of our own\nmind or even in it: unless indeed the mere craving and striving to\nthink _on_, after all the materials for thinking have been exhausted,\ncan be called an _object_. When a number of trust-worthy persons\nassure me, that a portion of fluid which they saw to be water, by some\nchange in the fluid itself or in their senses, suddenly acquired the\ncolour, taste, smell, and exhilarating property of wine, I perfectly\nunderstand what they tell me, and likewise by what faculties they\nmight have come to the knowledge of the fact. But if any one of the\nnumber not satisfied with my acquiescence in the fact, should insist\non my believing, that the _matter_ remained the same, the substance\nand the accidents having been removed in order to make way for a\ndifferent substance with different accidents, I must entreat his\npermission to wait till I can discover in myself any faculty, by which\nthere can be presented to me a matter distinguishable from accidents,\nand a substance that is different from both. It is true, I have a\nfaculty of articulation; but I do not see that it can be _improved_ by\nmy using it for the formation of words without meaning, or at best,\nfor the utterance of thoughts, that mean only the act of so thinking,\nor of trying so to think. But the end of Religion is the improvement\nof our Nature and Faculties. _Ergo_, &c. I sum up the whole in one\ngreat practical Maxim. The Object of _religious_ Contemplation, and of\na truly Spiritual Faith, is \"THE WAYS OF GOD TO MAN.\" Of the Workings\nof the Godhead, God himself has told us, _My Ways are not as your\nWays, nor my Thoughts as your Thoughts_.\n\n[81] Slightly altered from Burnet's Preface to Part ii. of his\n'History of the Reformation.' See pp. 26, 27, v. ii. Clarendon Press\nedition, 1865.--ED.\n\n\nAPHORISM IV.\n\n _The characteristic Difference between the Discipline of the\n Ancient Philosophers and the Dispensation of the Gospel._\n\nBy undeceiving, enlarging, and informing the Intellect, Philosophy\nsought to purify, and to elevate the Moral Character. Of course, those\nalone could receive the latter and incomparably greater benefit, who\nby natural capacity and favourable contingencies of fortune were fit\nrecipients of the former. How small the number, we scarcely need the\nevidence of history to assure us. Across the night of Paganism,\nPhilosophy flitted on, like the lantern-fly of the Tropics, a light to\nitself, and an ornament, but alas! no more than an ornament of the\nsurrounding darkness.\n\nChristianity reversed the order. By means accessible to all, by\ninducements operative on all, and by convictions, the grounds and\nmaterials of which all men might find in themselves, her first step\nwas to cleanse the _heart_. But the benefit did not stop here. In\npreventing the rank vapours that steam up from the corrupt _heart_,\nChristianity restores the _intellect_ likewise to its natural\nclearness. By relieving the mind from the distractions and\nimportunities of the unruly passions, she improves the _quality_ of\nthe Understanding: while at the same time she presents for its\ncontemplations, objects so great and so bright as cannot but enlarge\nthe organ, by which they are contemplated. The fears, the hopes, the\nremembrances, the anticipations, the inward and outward Experience,\nthe belief and the Faith, of a Christian, form of themselves a\nphilosophy and a Sum of Knowledge, which a life spent in the Grove of\nAcademus, or the \"painted Porch,\" could not have attained or\ncollected. The result is contained in the fact of a wide and still\nwidening CHRISTENDOM.\n\nYet I dare not say, that the effects have been proportionate to the\ndivine wisdom of the scheme. Too soon did the Doctors of the Church\nforget that the _heart_, the _moral_ nature, was the beginning and the\nend; and that truth, knowledge, and insight were comprehended in its\nexpansion. This was the true and first apostasy--when in council and\nsynod the Divine Humanities of the Gospel gave way to speculative\nSystems, and Religion became a Science of Shadows under the name of\nTheology, or at best a bare Skeleton of Truth, without life or\ninterest, alike inaccessible and unintelligible to the majority of\nChristians. For these therefore there remained only rites and\nceremonies and spectacles, shows and semblances. Thus among the\nlearned _the substance of things hoped for_ (Heb. xi. 1.) passed off\ninto _Notions_; and for the unlearned the Surfaces of things\nbecame[82] Substance. The Christian world was for centuries divided\ninto the Many, that did not think at all, and the Few who did nothing\nbut think--both alike _unreflecting_, the one from defect of the\n_act_, the other from the absence of an _object_.\n\n[82] _Virium et proprietatum, qu\u00e6 non nisi de substantibus predicari\npossunt, formis superstantibus attributio, est_ SUPERSTITIO.\n\n\nAPHORISM V.\n\nThere is small chance of Truth at the goal where there is not a\nchild-like Humility at the starting-post.\n\nCOMMENT.\n\nHumility is the safest Ground of Docility: and Docility the surest\nPromise of Docibility. Where there is no working of self-love in the\nheart that secures a leaning before-hand; where the great magnet of\nthe planet is not overwhelmed or obscured by partial masses of Iron in\nclose neighbourhood to the compass of the judgment, though hidden or\nunnoticed; there will this great _desideratum_ be found of a\nchild-like Humility. Do I then say, that I am to be influenced by _no_\ninterest? Far from it! There is an Interest of Truth: or how could\nthere be a Love of Truth? And that a love of truth for its own sake,\nand merely as truth, is possible, my soul bears witness to itself in\nits inmost recesses. But there are other interests--those of goodness,\nof beauty, of utility. It would be a sorry proof of the humility I am\nextolling, were I to ask for angel's wings to overfly my own human\nnature. I exclude none of these. It is enough if the _lene clinamen_,\nthe gentle bias, be given by no interest that concerns myself other\nthan as I am a man, and included in the great family of mankind; but\nwhich does therefore especially concern me, because being a common\ninterest of _all_ men it must needs concern the very _essentials_ of\nmy being, and because these essentials, as existing in _me_, are\nespecially intrusted to my particular charge.\n\nWidely different from this social and truth-attracted bias, different\nboth in its nature and its effects, is the interest connected with the\ndesire of _distinguishing_ yourself from other men, in order to be\ndistinguished by them. Hoc revera _est inter_ te et veritatem. This\nInterest does indeed stand between thee and truth. I might add between\nthee and thy own soul. It is scarcely more at variance with the love\nof truth than it is unfriendly to the attainment that deserves that\nname. By your own act you have appointed the Many as your judges and\nappraisers: for the anxiety to be admired is a loveless passion, ever\nstrongest with regard to those by whom we are least known and least\ncared for, loud on the hustings, gay in the ball-room, mute and sullen\nat the family fireside. What you have acquired by patient thought and\ncautious discrimination, demands a portion of the same effort in those\nwho are to receive it from you. But applause and preference are things\nof barter; and if you trade in them, Experience will soon teach you\nthat there are easier and less unsuitable ways to win golden judgments\nthan by at once taxing the patience and humiliating the self-opinion\nof your judges. To obtain your end, your words must be as indefinite\nas their thoughts: and how vague and general these are even on objects\nof sense, the few who at a mature age have seriously set about the\ndiscipline of their faculties, and have honestly _taken stock_, best\nknow by recollection of their own state. To be admired you must make\nyour auditors believe at least that they understand what you say;\nwhich, be assured, they never will, under such circumstances, if it be\nworth understanding, or if you understand your own soul. But while\nyour prevailing motive is to be compared and appreciated, is it\ncredible, is it possible, that you should in earnest seek for a\nknowledge which is and must remain a hidden light, a secret treasure?\nHave you children, or have you lived among children, and do you not\nknow, that in all things, in food, in medicine, in all their doings\nand abstainings they must believe in order to acquire a reason for\ntheir belief? But so is it with religious truths for all men. These we\nmust all learn as children. The ground of the prevailing error on this\npoint is the ignorance, that in spiritual concernments to believe and\nto understand are not diverse things, but the same thing in different\nperiods of its growth. Belief is the seed, received into the will, of\nwhich the Understanding or Knowledge is the Flower, and the thing\nbelieved is the fruit. Unless ye believe ye cannot understand: and\nunless ye be humble as children, ye not only _will_ not, but ye\n_can_not believe. Of such therefore is the Kingdom of Heaven. Yea,\nblessed is the calamity that makes us humble: though so repugnant\nthereto is our nature, in our present state, that after a while, it is\nto be feared, a second and sharper calamity would be wanted to cure us\nof our pride in having become so humble.\n\nLastly, there are among us, though fewer and less in fashion than\namong our ancestors, persons who, like Shaftesbury, do not belong to\n\"the herd of Epicurus,\" yet prefer a philosophic Paganism to the\nmorality of the Gospel. Now it would conduce, methinks, to the\nchild-like humility, we have been discoursing of, if the use of the\nterm, Virtue, in that high, comprehensive, and _notional_ sense in\nwhich it was used by the ancient Stoics, were abandoned, as a relic of\nPaganism, to these modern Pagans: and if Christians restoring the word\nto its original import, namely, Manhood or Manliness, used it\nexclusively to express the quality of Fortitude; Strength of Character\nin relation to the resistance opposed by Nature and the irrational\nPassions to the Dictates of Reason; Energy of Will in preserving the\nLine of Rectitude tense and firm against the warping forces and\ntreacheries of temptation. Surely, it were far less unseemly to value\nourselves on this moral strength than on strength of body, or even\nstrength of intellect. But we will rather value _it_ for ourselves:\nand bearing in mind the old adage, _Quis custodiet ipsum\ncustodem?_--we will value it the more, yea, then only will we allow it\ntrue spiritual _worth_, when we possess it as a gift of _grace_, a\nboon of mercy undeserved, a fulfilment of a free _promise_ (1 Corinth.\nx. 13.). What more is meant in this last paragraph, let the venerable\nHOOKER say for me in the following.\n\n\nAPHORISM VI.\n\nHOOKER.\n\nWhat is virtue but a medicine, and vice but a wound?--Yea, we have so\noften deeply wounded ourselves with medicine, that God hath been fain\nto make wounds medicinable; to cure by vice where virtue hath\nstricken; to suffer the just man to fall, that being raised he may be\ntaught what power it was which upheld him standing. I am not afraid to\naffirm it boldly with St. Augustine, that men puffed up through a\nproud opinion of their own sanctity and holiness receive a benefit at\nthe hands of God, and are assisted with his grace when with his grace\nthey are _not_ assisted, but permitted (and that grievously) to\ntransgress. Whereby, as they were through over-great liking of\nthemselves supplanted (_tripped up_), so the dislike of that which did\nsupplant them may establish them afterwards the surer. Ask the very\nsoul of Peter, and it shall undoubtedly itself make you this answer:\nMy eager protestations made in the glory of my spiritual strength I am\nashamed of. But my shame and the tears, with which my presumption and\nmy weakness were bewailed, recur in the songs of my thanksgiving. My\nStrength had been my ruin, my Fall hath proved my stay.[83]\n\n[83] Hooker 'On the Nature of Pride,' Works, p. 521.--ED.\n\n\nAPHORISM VII.\n\nThe Being and Providence of One Living God, holy, gracious, merciful,\nthe creator and preserver of all things, and a father of the\nrighteous; the Moral Law in its[84] utmost height, breadth, and\npurity, a State of Retribution after Death; the[85] Resurrection of\nthe Dead; and a Day of Judgment--all these were known and received by\nthe Jewish people, as established articles of the national faith, at\nor before the proclaiming of Christ by the Baptist. They are the\nground-work of Christianity, and essentials in the Christian Faith,\nbut not its characteristic and peculiar Doctrines: except indeed as\nthey are confirmed, enlivened, realized and brought home to the _whole\nbeing_ of man, head, heart, and spirit, by the truths and influences\nof the Gospel.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nPeculiar to Christianity are:\n\nI. The belief that a Means of Salvation has been effected and provided\nfor the human race by the incarnation of the Son of God in the person\nof Jesus Christ; and that his life on earth, his sufferings, death,\nand resurrection, are not only proofs and manifestations, but likewise\nessential and effective parts of the great redemptive Act, whereby\nalso the Obstacle from the corruption of our Nature is rendered no\nlonger insurmountable.\n\nII. The belief in the possible appropriation of this benefit by\nRepentance and Faith, including the aids that render an effective\nfaith and repentance themselves possible.\n\nIII. The belief in the reception (by as many as _shall be heirs of\nsalvation_) of a living and spiritual principle, a seed of life\ncapable of surviving this natural life, and of existing in a divine\nand immortal state.\n\nIV. The belief in the awakening of the spirit[86] in them that truly\nbelieve, and in the communion of the spirit, thus awakened, with the\nHoly Spirit.\n\nV. The belief in the accompanying and consequent gifts, graces,\ncomforts, and privileges of the Spirit, which acting primarily on the\nheart and will, cannot but manifest themselves in suitable works of\nlove and obedience, that is, in right acts with right affections, from\nright principles.\n\nVI. Further, as Christians we are taught, that these WORKS are the\nappointed signs and evidences of our FAITH; and that, under limitation\nof the power, the means, and the opportunities afforded us\nindividually, they are the rule and measure, by which we are bound and\nenabled to judge, of _what spirit we are_.\n\nVII. All these, together with the doctrine of the Fathers\nre-proclaimed in the everlasting Gospel, we receive in the full\nassurance, that God beholds and will finally judge us with a merciful\nconsideration of our infirmities, a gracious acceptance of our sincere\nthough imperfect strivings, a forgiveness of our defects through the\nmediation, and a completion of our deficiencies by the perfect\nrighteousness, of the Man Christ Jesus, even the Word that was in the\nbeginning with God, and who, being God, became Man for the redemption\nof Mankind.\n\nCOMMENT.\n\nI earnestly entreat the reader to pause awhile, and to join with me in\nreflecting on the preceding Aphorism. It has been my aim throughout\nthis work to enforce two points: 1. That MORALITY arising out of the\nReason and Conscience of Men, and PRUDENCE, which in like manner flows\nout of the Understanding and the natural Wants and Desires of the\nIndividual, are two distinct things. 2. That Morality with Prudence as\nits instrument has, considered abstractedly, not only a value but a\n_worth_ in itself. Now the question is (and it is a question which\nevery man must answer for himself)--From what you know of yourself; of\nyour own heart and strength; and from what history and personal\nexperience have led you to conclude of mankind generally; dare you\n_trust_ to it? Dare _you_ trust to it? To _it_, and to it alone? If\nso, well! It is at your own risk. I judge you not. Before Him, who\ncannot be mocked, you stand or fall. But if not, if you have had too\ngood reason to know, that your heart is deceitful and your strength\nweakness: if you are disposed to exclaim with Paul--the Law indeed is\nholy, just, good, spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin: for that\nwhich I do, I allow not; and what I would, that I do not!--in this\ncase, there is a voice that says, _Come unto me: and I will give you\nrest_. This is the Voice of Christ: and the conditions, under which\nthe promise was given by him, are that you believe _in_ him, and\nbelieve his words. And he has further assured you, that _if_ you do\nso, you will obey him. You are, in short, to embrace the _Christian_\nFaith as your Religion--those Truths which St. Paul believed _after_\nhis conversion, and not those only which he believed no less\nundoubtingly while he was persecuting Christ, and an enemy of the\nChristian Religion. With what consistency could I offer you this\nvolume as Aids to Reflection, if I did not call on you to ascertain in\nthe first instance what these truths are? But these I could not lay\nbefore you without first enumerating certain other points of belief,\nwhich though truths, indispensable truths, and truths comprehended or\nrather presupposed in the Christian scheme, are yet not _these_\ntruths. (John i. 17.)\n\nWhile doing this, I was aware that the Positions, in the first\nparagraph of the preceding Aphorism, to which the numerical _marks_\nare affixed, will startle some of my Readers. Let the following\nsentences serve for the notes corresponding to the marks:\n\n1 _Be you holy: even as God is holy._--_What more does he require of\nthee, O man! than to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with the\nLord thy God?_[87] To these summary passages from Moses and the\nProphets (the first exhibiting the closed, the second the expanded,\nHand of the Moral Law) I might add the Authorities of Grotius and\nother more orthodox and not less learned Divines, for the opinion that\nthe Lord's Prayer was a _selection_, and the famous passage [The hour\nis now coming, &c., John v. 28, 29.] a _citation_ by our Lord from the\nliturgy of the Jewish Church. But it will be sufficient to remind the\nreader, that the apparent difference between the prominent _moral_\ntruths of the Old and those of the New Testament results from the\nlatter having been written in Greek; while the conversations recorded\nby the Evangelists took place in Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic or\nAramaic.--Hence it happened that where our Lord cited the original\ntext, his biographers substituted the Septuagint version, while our\nEnglish version is in _both_ instances immediate and literal--in the\nOld Testament from the Hebrew Original, in the New Testament from the\nfreer Greek translation. The text, _I give you a new commandment_, has\nno connection with the present subject.\n\n2 There is a current mistake on this point likewise, though this\narticle of the Jewish Belief is not only asserted by St. Paul, but is\nelsewhere spoken of as common to the Twelve Tribes. The mistake\nconsists in supposing the Pharisees to have been a distinct _sect_,\nand in strangely over-rating the number of the Sadducees. The former\nwere distinguished not by holding, as matters of religious belief,\narticles different from the Jewish Church at large; but by their\npretences to a more rigid orthodoxy, a more scrupulous performance.\nThey were, in short (if I may dare use a phrase which I dislike as\nprofane, and denounce as uncharitable), the _Evangelicals_ and strict\n_professors_ of the day. The latter, the Sadducees, whose opinions\nmuch more nearly resembled those of the _Stoics_ than the Epicureans\n(a remark that will appear paradoxical to those only who have\nabstracted their notions of the Stoic Philosophy from Epictetus, Mark\nAntonine, and certain brilliant inconsistencies of Seneca), were a\nhandful of rich men, _Romanized_ Jews, not more numerous than infidels\namong us, and holden by the People at large in at least equal\nabhorrence. Their great argument was: that the belief of a future\nstate of rewards and punishments injured or destroyed the purity of\nthe Moral Law for the more enlightened classes, and weakened the\ninfluence of the Laws of the Land for the people, the vulgar\nmultitude.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI will now suppose the reader to have thoughtfully re-perused the\nparagraph containing the tenets peculiar to Christianity, and if he\nhave his religious principles yet to form, I should expect to overhear\na troubled murmur: How can I comprehend this? How is this to be\nproved? To the first question I should answer: Christianity is not a\nTheory, or a Speculation; but a _Life_;--not a _Philosophy_ of Life,\nbut a Life and a living Process. To the second: TRY IT. It has been\neighteen hundred years in existence: and has one individual left a\nrecord, like the following? \"I tried it; and it did not answer. I made\nthe experiment faithfully according to the directions; and the result\nhas been, a conviction of my own credulity.\" Have you, in your own\nexperience, met with any one in whose words you could place full\nconfidence, and who has seriously affirmed:--\"I have given\nChristianity a fair trial. I was aware, that its promises were made\nonly _conditionally_. But my heart bears me witness, that I have to\nthe utmost of my power complied with these conditions. Both outwardly\nand in the discipline of my inward acts and affections, I have\nperformed the duties which it enjoins, and I have used the means,\nwhich it prescribes. Yet my assurance of its truth has received no\nincrease. Its promises have not been fulfilled: and I repent me of my\ndelusion!\" If neither your own experience nor the History of almost\ntwo thousand years has presented a single testimony to this purport;\nand if you have read and heard of many who have lived and died bearing\nwitness to the contrary: and if you have yourself met with some _one_,\nin whom on any other point you would place unqualified trust, who has\non his own experience made report to you, that He is faithful who\npromised, and what he promised He has proved Himself able to perform;\nis it bigotry, if I fear that the Unbelief, which prejudges and\nprevents the experiment, has its source elsewhere than in the\nuncorrupted judgment; that not the strong free mind, but the enslaved\nwill, is the true original infidel in this instance? It would not be\nthe first time, that a treacherous bosom-sin had suborned the\nunderstandings of men to bear false witness against its avowed enemy,\nthe right though unreceived owner of the house, who had long _warned\nit out_, and waited only for its ejection to enter and take possession\nof the same.\n\nI have elsewhere in the present work explained the difference between\nthe Understanding and the Reason, by reason meaning exclusively the\nspeculative or scientific power so called, the \u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 or _mens_ of the\nancients. And wider still is the distinction between the Understanding\nand the Spiritual Mind. But no gift of God does or can contradict any\nother gift, except by misuse or misdirection. Most readily therefore\ndo I admit, that there can be no contrariety between Revelation and\nthe Understanding; unless you call the fact, that the skin, though\nsensible of the warmth of the sun, can convey no notion of its figure\nor its joyous light, or of the colours, which it impresses on the\nclouds, a contrariety between the skin and the eye; or infer that the\ncutaneous and the optic nerves _contradict_ each other.\n\nBut we have grounds to believe, that there are yet other rays or\neffluences from the sun, which neither feeling nor sight can\napprehend, but which are to be inferred from the effects. And were it\neven so with regard to the Spiritual Sun, how would this contradict\nthe Understanding or the Reason? It is a sufficient proof of the\ncontrary, that the mysteries in question are not _in the direction_ of\nthe understanding or the (speculative) reason. They do not move on the\nsame line or plane with them, and therefore cannot contradict them.\nBut besides this, in the mystery that most immediately concerns the\nbeliever, that of the birth into a new and spiritual life, the common\nsense and experience of mankind come in aid of their faith. The\nanalogous facts, which we know to be true, not only facilitate the\napprehension of the facts promised to us, and expressed by the same\nwords in conjunction with a distinctive epithet; but being confessedly\nnot less incomprehensible, the certain _knowledge_ of the one disposes\nus to the _belief_ of the other. It removes at least all objections to\nthe truth of the doctrine derived from the mysteriousness of its\nsubject. The life, we seek after, is a mystery; but so both in itself\nand in its origin is the life we have. In order to meet this question,\nhowever, with minds duly prepared, there are two preliminary inquiries\nto be decided; the first respecting the _purport_, the second\nrespecting the _language_ of the Gospel.\n\nFirst then of the _purport_, namely, what the Gospel does _not_, and\nwhat it _does_ profess to be. The Gospel is not a system of Theology,\nnor a _syntagma_ of theoretical propositions and conclusions for the\nenlargement of speculative knowledge, ethical or metaphysical. But it\nis a history, a series of facts and events related or announced. These\ndo indeed involve, or rather I should say they at the same time _are_,\nmost important doctrinal Truths; but still _Facts_ and Declaration of\n_Facts_.\n\nSecondly of the _language_. This is a wide subject. But the point, to\nwhich I chiefly advert, is the necessity of thoroughly understanding\nthe distinction between _analogous_, and _metaphorical_ language.\n_Analogies_ are used in aid of _Conviction_: Metaphors, as means of\n_Illustration_. The language is analogous, wherever a thing, power, or\nprinciple in a higher dignity is expressed by the same thing, power,\nor principle in a lower but more known form. Such, for instance, is\nthe language of John iii. 6. _That which is born of the flesh, is\nflesh; that which is born of the Spirit, is Spirit._ The latter half\nof the verse contains the fact _asserted_; the former half the\n_analogous_ fact, by which it is rendered intelligible. If any man\nchoose to call this _metaphorical_ or figurative, I ask him whether\nwith Hobbes and Bolingbroke he applies the same rule to the moral\nattributes of the Deity? Whether he regards the divine Justice, for\ninstance, as a _metaphorical_ term, a mere figure of speech? If he\ndisclaims this, then I answer, neither do I regard the words, _born\nagain_, or _spiritual life_, as figures or metaphors. I have only to\nadd, that these analogies are the material, or (to speak chemically)\nthe _base_, of Symbols and symbolical expressions; the nature of which\nis always _tau_tegorical, that is, expressing the _same_ subject but\nwith a _difference_, in contra-distinction from metaphors and\nsimilitudes, that are always _alle_gorical, that is, expressing a\n_different_ subject but with a resemblance.\n\nOf _metaphorical_ language, on the other hand, let the following be\ntaken as instance and illustration. I am speaking, we will suppose, of\nan act, which in its own nature, and as a producing and efficient\n_cause_, is transcendent; but which produces sundry _effects_, each of\nwhich is the same in kind with an effect produced by a cause well\nknown and of ordinary occurrence. Now when I characterize or\ndesignate this transcendent act, in exclusive reference to these its\n_effects_, by a succession of names borrowed from their ordinary\ncauses; not for the purpose of rendering the act itself, or the manner\nof the agency, conceivable, but in order to show the nature and\nmagnitude of the benefits received from it, and thus to excite the due\nadmiration, gratitude, and love in the receivers; in this case I\nshould be rightly described as speaking _metaphorically_. And in this\ncase to confound _the similarity_, in respect of the effects\nrelatively to the recipients, with _an identity_ in respect of the\ncauses or modes of causation relatively to the transcendent act or the\nDivine Agent, is a confusion of metaphor with analogy, and of\nfigurative with literal; and has been and continues to be a fruitful\nsource of superstition or enthusiasm in believers, and of objections\nand prejudices to infidels and sceptics. But each of these points is\nworthy of a separate consideration: and apt occasions will be found of\nreverting to them severally in the following Aphorisms, or the\ncomments thereto attached.\n\n[84 and 85] These reference marks are the author's own, for which,\nhowever, he supplied no notes here; but further on, in the Comment, at\npp. 132-3, he gives them _in the text_.--ED.\n\n[86] See Comment on Moral and Religious Aphorism VI., p. 45.--ED.\n\n[87] Lev. xix. 2, and Micah vi. 8.--ED.\n\n\nAPHORISM VIII.\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nFAITH elevates the soul not only above sense and sensible things, but\nabove reason itself. As reason corrects the errors which sense might\noccasion, so supernatural faith corrects the errors of natural reason\njudging according to sense.\n\nCOMMENT.\n\nMy remarks on this Aphorism from Leighton cannot be better introduced,\nor their purport more distinctly announced, than by the following\nsentence from Harrington, with no other change than was necessary to\nmake the words express, without aid of the context, what from the\ncontext it is evident was the writer's meaning. \"The definition and\nproper character of Man--that, namely, which should contra-distinguish\nhim from the Animals--is to be taken from his reason rather than from\nhis understanding: in regard that in other creatures there may be\nsomething of understanding, but there is nothing of reason.\"[88]\n\nSir Thomas Browne, in his _Religio Medici_, complains, that there are\nnot impossibilities enough in Religion for his active faith; and\nadopts by choice and in free preference, such interpretations of\ncertain texts and declarations of Holy Writ, as place them in\nirreconcilable contradiction to the demonstrations of science\nand the experience of mankind, because (says he) \"I love to lose\nmyself in a mystery, and 'tis my solitary recreation to pose my\napprehension with those involved enigmas and riddles of the Trinity and\nIncarnation;\"--and because he delights (as thinking it no vulgar part\nof faith) to believe a thing not only above but contrary to reason,\nand against the evidence of our proper senses. For the worthy knight\ncould answer all the objections of the devil and reason \"with the odd\nresolution he had learnt of Tertullian: _Certum est quia impossibile\nest_. It is certainly true because it is quite impossible!\" Now this I\ncall ULTRAFIDIANISM.[89]\n\nAgain, there is a scheme constructed on the principle of retaining the\nsocial sympathies, that attend on the name of Believer, at the least\npossible expenditure of Belief; a scheme of picking and choosing\nScripture texts for the support of doctrines, that had been learned\nbeforehand from the higher oracle of Common Sense; which, as applied\nto the truths of Religion, means the popular part of the philosophy in\nfashion. Of course, the scheme differs at different times and in\ndifferent individuals in the number of articles excluded; but, it may\nalways be recognized by this permanent character, that its object is\nto draw religion down to the believer's intellect, instead of raising\nhis intellect up to religion. And this extreme I call MINIMIFIDIANISM.\n\nNow if there be one preventive of both these extremes more efficacious\nthan another, and preliminary to all the rest, it is the being made\nfully aware of the diversity of Reason and Understanding. And this is\nthe more expedient, because though there is no want of authorities\nancient and modern for the distinction of the faculties, and the\ndistinct appropriation of the terms, yet our best writers too often\nconfound the one with the other. Even Lord Bacon himself, who in his\n_Novum Organum_ has so incomparably set forth the nature of the\ndifference, and the unfitness of the latter faculty for the objects of\nthe former, does nevertheless in sundry places use the term Reason\nwhere he means the Understanding, and sometimes, though less\nfrequently, Understanding for Reason.[93] In consequence of thus\nconfounding the two terms, or rather of wasting both words for the\nexpression of one and the same faculty, he left himself no appropriate\nterm for the other and higher gift of Reason, and was thus under the\nnecessity of adopting fantastical and mystical phrases, for example,\nthe dry light (_lumen siccum_), the lucific vision, and the like,\nmeaning thereby nothing more than Reason in contra-distinction from\nthe Understanding. Thus too in the preceding Aphorism, by Reason\nLeighton means the human Understanding, the explanation annexed to it\nbeing (by a noticeable coincidence), word for word, the very\ndefinition which the founder of the Critical Philosophy gives of the\nUnderstanding--namely, \"the faculty judging according to sense.\"\n\n[88] See 'The Friend,' vol. i., p. 263; or p. 95 in Bohn's one vol.\nedition; and 'The Statesman's Manual,' Appendix (Note C.).--ED.\n\n[89] There is this advantage in the occasional use of a newly minted\nterm or title, expressing the doctrinal schemes of particular sects or\nparties, that it avoids the inconvenience that presses on either side,\nwhether we adopt the name which the party itself has taken up by which\nto express its peculiar tenets, or that by which the same party is\ndesignated by its opponents. If we take the latter, it most often\nhappens that either the persons are invidiously aimed at in the\ndesignation of the principles, or that the name implies some\nconsequence or occasional accompaniment of the principles denied by\nthe parties themselves, as applicable to them collectively. On the\nother hand, convinced as I am, that current appellations are never\nwholly indifferent or inert; and that, when employed to express the\ncharacteristic belief or object of a _religious_ confederacy, they\nexert on the many a great and constant, though insensible, influence;\nI cannot but fear that in adopting the former I may be sacrificing the\ninterests of Truth beyond what the duties of courtesy can demand or\njustify. I have elsewhere stated my objections to the word\n_Unitarians_: as a name which in its proper sense can belong only to\nthe maintainers of the truth impugned by the persons, who have chosen\nit as their designation. For _Unity_ or Unition, and indistinguishable\n_Unicity_ or Sameness, are incompatible terms. We never speak of the\nunity of attraction, or the unity of repulsion; but of the unity of\nattraction _and_ repulsion in each corpuscle. Indeed, the essential\ndiversity of the conceptions, Unity and Sameness, was among the\nelementary principles of the old logicians; and Leibnitz, in his\ncritique on Wissowatius, has ably exposed the sophisms grounded on the\nconfusion of the two terms. But in the exclusive sense, in which the\nname, Unitarian, is appropriated by the sect, and in which they mean\nit to be understood, it is a presumptuous boast, and an uncharitable\ncalumny. No one of the Churches to which they on this article of the\nChristian Faith stand opposed, Greek or Latin, ever adopted the term,\nTrini--or Tri-uni-tarians as their ordinary and proper name: and had\nit been otherwise, yet Unity is assuredly no logical Opposite to\nTri-unity, which expressly includes it. The triple alliance is _a\nfortiori_ alliance. The true designation of their characteristic\nTenet, and which would simply and inoffensively express a fact\nadmitted on all sides, is Psilanthropism, or the assertion of the\n_mere_ humanity of Christ.[90]\n\nI dare not hesitate to avow my regret, that any scheme of doctrines or\ntenets should be the subject of penal law: though I can easily\nconceive, that any scheme, however excellent in itself, may be\npropagated, and however false or injurious, may be assailed, in a\nmanner and by means that would make the advocate or assailant justly\npunishable. But then it is the _manner_, the _means_, that constitute\nthe _crime_. The merit or demerit of the opinions themselves depends\non their originating and determining causes, which may differ in every\ndifferent believer, and are certainly known to Him alone, who\ncommanded us, _Judge not, lest ye be judged_. At all events, in the\npresent state of the law, I do not see where we can begin, or where we\ncan stop, without inconsistency and consequent hardship. Judging by\nall that _we_ can pretend to know or are entitled to infer, who among\nus will take on himself to deny that the late Dr. Priestley was a good\nand benevolent man, as sincere in his love, as he was intrepid and\nindefatigable in his pursuit, of truth? Now let us construct three\nparallel tables, the first containing the Articles of Belief, moral\nand theological, maintained by the venerable Hooker, as the\nrepresentative of the Established Church, each article being\ndistinctly lined and numbered; the second the Tenets and Persuasions\nof Lord Herbert, as the representative of the platonizing Deists; and\nthe third, those of Dr. Priestley. Let the points, in which the second\nand third agree with or differ from the first, be considered as to the\ncomparative number modified by the comparative weight and importance\nof the several points--and let any competent and upright man be\nappointed the arbiter, to decide according to his best judgment,\nwithout any reference to the truth of the opinions, which of the two\ndiffered from the first the more widely. I say this, well aware that\nit would be abundantly more prudent to leave it unsaid. But I say it\nin the conviction, that the _liberality_ in the adoption of admitted\n_misnomers_ in the naming of doctrinal systems, if only they have been\nnegatively legalized, is but an equivocal proof of liberality towards\nthe _persons_ who dissent from us. On the contrary, I more than\nsuspect that the former liberality does in too many men arise from a\nlatent pre-disposition to transfer their reprobation and intolerance\nfrom the doctrines to the doctors, from the belief to the believers.\nIndecency, abuse, scoffing on subjects dear and awful to a multitude\nof our fellow-citizens, appeals to the vanity, appetites, and\nmalignant passions of ignorant and incompetent judges--these are\nflagrant overt-acts, condemned by the law written in the heart of\nevery honest man, Jew, Turk, and Christian. These are points\nrespecting which the humblest honest man feels it his duty to hold\nhimself infallible, and dares not hesitate in giving utterance to the\nverdict of his conscience, in the jury-box as fearlessly as by his\nfireside. It is far otherwise with respect to matters of faith and\ninward conviction: and with respect to _these_ I say--Tolerate no\nBelief, that you judge false and of injurious tendency: and arraign no\nBeliever. The Man is more and other than his Belief: and God only\nknows, how small or how large a part of him the Belief in question may\nbe, for good or for evil. Resist every false doctrine: and call no man\nheretic. The false doctrine does not necessarily make the man a\nheretic; but an evil heart can make any doctrine heretical.\n\nActuated by these principles, I have objected to a false and deceptive\ndesignation in the case of one System. Persuaded that the doctrines,\nenumerated in pp. 130-132, are not only _essential_ to the Christian\nReligion, but those which contra-distinguish the religion as\n_Christian_, I merely _repeat_ this persuasion in another form, when I\nassert, that (in _my_ sense of the word, Christian) Unitarianism is\nnot Christianity. But do I say, that those, who call themselves\nUnitarians, are not Christians? God forbid! I would not think, much\nless promulgate, a judgment at once so presumptuous and so\nuncharitable.[91] Let a friendly antagonist retort on _my_ scheme of\nfaith, in the like manner: I shall respect him all the more for his\nconsistency as a reasoner, and not confide the less in his kindness\ntowards me as his neighbour and fellow-Christian. This latter and most\nendearing name I scarcely know how to withhold even from my friend,\nHYMAN HURWITZ, as often as I read what every Reverer of Holy Writ and\nof the English Bible ought to read, his admirable VINDICI\u00c6 HEBRAIC\u00c6!\nIt has trembled on the verge, as it were, of my lips, every time I\nhave conversed with that pious, learned, strong-minded, and\nsingle-hearted Jew, an Israelite indeed, and without guile,--\n\n    _Cujus cura, sequi naturam, legibus uti,\n      Et mentem vitiis, ora negare dolis;\n    Virtutes opibus, verum pr\u00e6ponere falso\n      Nil vacuum sensu dicere, nil facere._\n\n    Post obitum vivam[92] secum, secum requiescam,\n    Nec fiat melior sors mea sorte su\u00e2!\n\n    _From a poem of Hildebert on his Master,\n    the persecuted Berengarius._\n\nUnder the same feelings I conclude this _Aid to Reflection_ by\napplying the principle to another misnomer not less inappropriate and\nfar more influential. Of those whom I have found most reason to\nrespect and value, many have been members of the Church of Rome: and\ncertainly I did not honour those the least, who scrupled even in\ncommon parlance to call our Church a reformed Church. A similar\nscruple would not, methinks, disgrace a Protestant as to the use of\nthe words, Catholic or Roman Catholic; and if (tacitly at least, and\nin thought) he remembered that the Romish Anti-catholic Church would\nmore truly express the fact.--_Romish_, to mark that the corruptions\nin discipline, doctrine, and practice do, for the larger part, owe\nboth their origin and perpetuation to the Romish _Court_, and the\nlocal Tribunals of the _City_ of Rome; and neither are or ever have\nbeen _Catholic_, that is, universal, throughout the Roman _Empire_, or\neven in the whole Latin or Western Church--and _Anti_-catholic,\nbecause no other Church acts on so narrow and excommunicative a\nprinciple, or is characterized by such a jealous spirit of monopoly.\nInstead of a Catholic (universal) spirit, it may be truly described as\na spirit of Particularism counterfeiting Catholicity by a _negative_\ntotality and heretical self-circumscription--in the first instances\ncutting off, and since then cutting herself off from, all the other\nmembers of Christ's body. For the rest, I think as that man of true\ncatholic spirit and apostolic zeal, Richard Baxter, thought; and my\nreaders will thank me for conveying my reflections in his own words,\nin the following golden passage from his Life, \"faithfully published\nfrom his own original MSS. by Matthew Silvester, 1696.\"\n\n\"My censures of the Papists do much differ from what they were at\nfirst. I then thought that their errors in the _doctrines of faith_\nwere their most dangerous mistakes. But now I am assured that their\nmisexpressions and misunderstanding us, with our mistakings of them\nand inconvenient expressing of our own opinions, have made the\ndifference in most points appear much greater than it is; and that in\nsome it is next to none at all. But the great and unreconcileable\ndifferences lie in their Church Tyranny; in the usurpations of their\nHierarchy, and Priesthood, under the name of spiritual authority\nexercising a temporal Lordship; in their corruptions and abasement of\nGod's Worship; but above all their systematic befriending of Ignorance\nand Vice.\n\n\"At first I thought that Mr. Perkins well proved, that a Papist cannot\ngo beyond a reprobate; but now I doubt not that God hath many\nsanctified ones among them, who have received the true doctrine of\nChristianity so practically, that their contradictory errors prevail\nnot against them, to hinder their love of God and their salvation: but\nthat their errors are like a conquerable dose of poison, which a\nhealthful nature doth overcome. _And I can never believe that a man\nmay not be saved by that religion, which doth but bring him to the\ntrue Love of God and to a heavenly mind and life; nor that God will\never cast a Soul into hell, that truly loveth him._ Also at first it\nwould disgrace any doctrine with me, if I did but hear it called\nPopery and Anti-Christian; but I have long learned to be more\nimpartial, and to know that Satan can use even the names of Popery and\nAntichrist, to bring a truth into suspicion and discredit.\"--Baxter's\nLife, part I. p. 131.\n\n[90] See the second 'Lay Sermon,' Bohn's edition, pp. 406-7.--ED.\n\n[91] See Coleridge's 'Table Talk,' April 4, 1832, On\nUnitarianism.--ED.\n\n[92] I do not answer for the corrupt Latin.\n\n[93] See 'The Friend,' Bohn's edition, pp. 95-100, and 319-27.--ED.\n\n\nON THE DIFFERENCE IN KIND OF REASON\n\nAND THE UNDERSTANDING.\n\nSCHEME OF THE ARGUMENT.\n\nOn the contrary, Reason is the Power of Universal and necessary\nConvictions, the Source and Substance of Truths above Sense, and\nhaving their evidence in themselves. Its presence is always marked by\nthe _necessity_ of the position affirmed: this necessity being\n_conditional_, when a truth of Reason is applied to Facts of\nExperience, or to the rules and maxims of the Understanding; but\n_absolute_, when the subject matter is itself the growth or offspring\nof the Reason. Hence arises a distinction in the Reason itself,\nderived from the different mode of applying it, and from the objects\nto which it is directed: accordingly as we consider one and the same\ngift, now as the ground of formal principles, and now as the origin of\n_ideas_. Contemplated distinctively in reference to _formal_ (or\nabstract) truth, it is the _speculative_ reason; but in reference to\n_actual_ (or moral) truth, as the fountain of ideas, and the _light_\nof the conscience, we name it the _practical_ reason. Whenever by\nself-subjection to this universal light, the will of the individual,\nthe _particular_ will, has become a will of reason, the man is\nregenerate: and reason is then the _spirit_ of the regenerated man,\nwhereby the person is capable of a quickening inter-communion with the\nDivine Spirit. And herein consists the mystery of Redemption, that\nthis has been rendered possible for us. _And so it is written: the\nfirst man Adam, was made a living soul, the last Adam a quickening\nSpirit._ (1 Cor. xv. 45.) We need only compare the passages in the\nwritings of the Apostles Paul and John, concerning the _spirit_ and\nspiritual Gifts, with those in the Proverbs and in the Wisdom of\nSolomon respecting _reason_, to be convinced that the terms are\nsynonymous.[94] In this at once most comprehensive and most\nappropriate acceptation of the word, reason is pre-eminently\nspiritual, and a spirit, even _our_ spirit, through an effluence of\nthe same grace by which we are privileged to say Our Father!\n\nOn the other hand, the Judgments of the Understanding are binding only\nin relation to the objects of our Senses, which we _reflect_ under the\nforms of the Understanding. It is, as Leighton rightly defines it,\n\"the faculty judging according to sense.\" Hence we add the epithet\n_human_, without tautology: and speak of the _human_ understanding, in\ndisjunction from that of beings higher or lower than man. But there\nis, in this sense, no _human_ reason. There neither is nor can be but\none reason, one and the same: even the light that lighteth every man's\nindividual Understanding (_Discursus_), and thus maketh it a\nreasonable understanding, _discourse of reason--one only_, yet\n_manifold: it goeth through all understanding, and remaining in itself\nregenerateth all other powers_. The same writer calls it likewise _an\ninfluence from the Glory of the Almighty_, this being one of the names\nof the Messiah, as the _Logos_, or co-eternal Filial Word. And most\nnoticeable for its coincidence is a fragment of Heraclitus, as I have\nindeed already noticed elsewhere;--\"To discourse rationally it behoves\nus to derive strength from that which is common to all men: for all\nhuman Understandings are nourished by the one DIVINE WORD.\"\n\nBeasts, we have said, partake of understanding. If any man deny this,\nthere is a ready way of settling the question. Let him give a careful\nperusal to H\u00fcber's two small volumes, on bees and ants (especially the\nlatter), and to Kirby and Spence's Introduction to Entomology; and one\nor other of two things must follow. He will either change his opinion\nas irreconcilable with the facts; or he must deny the facts, which yet\nI cannot suppose, inasmuch as the denial would be tantamount to the no\nless extravagant than uncharitable assertion, that H\u00fcber, and the\nseveral eminent naturalists, French and English, Swiss, German, and\nItalian, by whom H\u00fcber's observations and experiments have been\nrepeated and confirmed, had all conspired to impose a series of\nfalsehoods and fairy-tales on the world. I see no way at least, by\nwhich he can get out of this dilemma, but by over-leaping the admitted\nrules and fences of all legitimate discussion, and either transferring\nto the word, Understanding, the definition already appropriated to\nReason, or defining Understanding _in genere_ by the _specific_ and\n_accessional_ perfections which the _human_ understanding derives from\nits co-existence with reason and free-will in the same individual\nperson; in plainer words, from its being exercised by a self-conscious\nand responsible creature. And, after all, the supporter of\nHarrington's position would have a right to ask him, by what other\nname he would designate the faculty in the instances referred to? If\nit be not Understanding, what is it?\n\nIn no former part of this volume has the author felt the same anxiety\nto obtain a patient attention. For he does not hesitate to avow, that\non his success in establishing the validity and importance of the\ndistinction between Reason and Understanding, he rests his hopes of\ncarrying the reader along with him through all that is to follow. Let\nthe student but clearly see and comprehend the diversity in the things\nthemselves, the expediency of a correspondent distinction and\nappropriation of the _words_ will follow of itself. Turn back for a\nmoment to the Aphorism, and having re-perused the first paragraph of\nthis Comment thereon, regard the two following narratives as the\nillustration. I do not say proof: for I take these from a multitude of\nfacts equally striking for the one only purpose of placing my\n_meaning_ out of all doubt.\n\nI. H\u00fcber put a dozen bumble-bees under a bell-glass along with a comb\nof about ten silken cocoons so unequal in height as not to be capable\nof standing steadily. To remedy this two or three of the bumble-bees\ngot upon the comb, stretched themselves over its edge, and with their\nheads downwards fixed their fore-feet on the table on which the comb\nstood, and so with their hind-feet kept the comb from falling. When\nthese were weary, others took their places. In this constrained and\npainful posture, fresh bees relieving their comrades at intervals, and\neach working in its turn, did these affectionate little insects\nsupport the comb for nearly three days: at the end of which they had\nprepared sufficient wax to build pillars with. But these pillars\nhaving accidentally got displaced, the bees had recourse again to the\nsame man\u0153uvre till H\u00fcber, pitying their hard case, &c.\n\nII. \"I shall at present describe the operations of a single ant that I\nobserved sufficiently long to satisfy my curiosity. One rainy day, I\nobserved a labourer digging the ground near the aperture which gave\nentrance to the ant-hill. It placed in a heap the several fragments it\nhad scraped up, and formed them into small pellets, which it deposited\nhere and there upon the nest. It returned constantly to the same\nplace, and appeared to have a marked design, for it laboured with\nardour and perseverance. I remarked a slight furrow, excavated in the\nground in a straight line, representing the plan of a path or gallery.\nThe Labourer, the whole of whose movements fell under my immediate\nobservation, gave it greater depth and breadth, and cleared out its\nborders: and I saw at length, in which I could not be deceived, that\nit had the intention of establishing an avenue which was to lead from\none of the stories to the underground chambers. This path, which was\nabout two or three inches in length, and formed by a single ant, was\nopened above and bordered on each side by a buttress of earth; its\nconcavity _en forme de goutti\u00e8re_ was of the most perfect regularity,\nfor the architect had not left an atom too much. The work of this ant\nwas so well followed and understood, that I could almost to a\ncertainty guess its next proceeding, and the very fragment it was\nabout to remove. At the side of the opening where this path\nterminated, was a second opening to which it was necessary to arrive\nby some road. The same ant engaged in and executed alone this\nundertaking. It furrowed out and opened another path, parallel to the\nfirst, leaving between each a little wall of three or four lines in\nheight. Those ants who lay the foundation of a wall, chamber, or\ngallery, from working separately, occasion now and then a want of\ncoincidence in the parts of the same or different objects. Such\nexamples are of no unfrequent occurrence, but they by no means\nembarrass them. What follows proves that the workman, on discovering\nhis error, knew how to rectify it. A wall had been erected with the\nview of sustaining a vaulted ceiling, still incomplete, that had been\nprojected from the wall of the opposite chamber. The workman who began\nconstructing it, had given it too little elevation to meet the\nopposite partition upon which it was to rest. Had it been continued on\nthe original plan, it must infallibly have met the wall at about one\nhalf of its height, and this it was necessary to avoid. This state of\nthings very forcibly claimed my attention, when one of the ants\narriving at the place, and visiting the works, appeared to be struck\nby the difficulty which presented itself; but this it as soon\nobviated, by taking down the ceiling and raising the wall upon which\nit reposed. It then, in my presence, constructed a new ceiling with\nthe fragments of the former one.\"--_H\u00fcber's Natural History of Ants_,\np. 38-41.\n\nNow I assert, that the faculty manifested in the acts here narrated\ndoes not differ _in kind_ from Understanding, and that it _does_ so\ndiffer from Reason. What I conceive the former to be, physiologically\nconsidered, will be shown hereafter. In this place I take the\nunderstanding as it exists in _men_, and in exclusive reference to its\n_intelligential_ functions; and it is in this sense of the word that I\nam to prove the necessity of contra-distinguishing it from reason.\n\nPremising then, that two or more subjects having the same essential\ncharacters are said to fall under the same general definition, I lay\nit down, as a self-evident truth,--(it is, in fact, an identical\nproposition) that whatever subjects fall under one and the same\ngeneral definition are of one and the same kind: consequently, that\nwhich does _not_ fall under this definition, must differ in kind from\neach and all of those that _do_. Difference in degree does indeed\nsuppose sameness in kind; and difference in kind precludes distinction\nfrom difference of degree. _Heterogenea non comparari, ergo nec\ndistingui, possunt._ The inattention to this rule gives rise to the\nnumerous sophisms comprised by Aristotle under the head of \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c3\n\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, that is, transition into a new kind, or the falsely\napplying to X what had been truly asserted of A, and might have been\ntrue of X, had it differed from A in its degree only. The sophistry\nconsists in the omission to notice what not being noticed will be\nsupposed not to exist; and where the silence respecting the difference\nin kind is tantamount to an assertion that the difference is merely in\ndegree. But the fraud is especially gross, where the heterogeneous\nsubject, thus clandestinely _slipt in_, is in its own nature\ninsusceptible of degree: such as, for instance, Certainty, or\nCircularity, contrasted with Strength, or Magnitude.\n\nTo apply these remarks for our present purpose, we have only to\ndescribe Understanding and Reason, each by its characteristic\nqualities. The comparison will show the difference.\n\n    UNDERSTANDING.                      REASON.\n\n 1. Understanding is discursive.    1. Reason is fixed.\n\n 2. The Understanding in            2. The Reason in all its decisions\n all its judgments refers to        appeals to itself, as the ground\n some other Faculty as its          and _substance_ of their truth.\n ultimate Authority.                (Hebrews vi. 13.)\n\n 3. Understanding is the            3. Reason of Contemplation.\n Faculty of _Reflection_.           Reason indeed is much nearer to\n                                    SENSE than to Understanding:\n                                    for Reason (says our great\n                                    HOOKER) is a direct aspect\n                                    of Truth, an inward Beholding,\n                                    having a similar relation to\n                                    the Intelligible or Spiritual,\n                                    as SENSE has to the Material\n                                    or Phenomenal.\n\nThe Result is: that neither falls under the definition of the other.\nThey differ _in kind_: and had my object been confined to the\nestablishment of this fact, the preceding columns would have\nsuperseded all further disquisition. But I have ever in view the\nespecial interest of my youthful readers, whose reflective _power_ is\nto be cultivated, as well as their particular reflections to be called\nforth and guided. Now the main chance of their _reflecting_ on\nreligious subjects _aright_, and of their attaining to the\n_contemplation_ of spiritual truths _at all_, rests on their insight\ninto the _nature_ of this disparity still more than on their\nconviction of its existence. I now, therefore, proceed to a brief\nanalysis of the Understanding, in elucidation of the definitions\nalready given.\n\nThe Understanding then (considered exclusively as an organ of human\nintelligence,) is the faculty by which we reflect and generalize.\nTake, for instance, any objects consisting of many parts, a house, or\na group of houses: and if it be contemplated, as a Whole, that is, as\nmany constituting a one, it forms what in the technical language of\nPsychology, is called a _total impression_. Among the various\ncomponent parts of this, we direct our attention especially to such as\nwe recollect to have noticed in other total impressions. Then, by a\nvoluntary act, we withhold our attention from all the rest to reflect\nexclusively on these; and these we henceforward use as _common\ncharacters_, by virtue of which the several objects are referred to\none and the same sort.[95] Thus, the whole process may be reduced to\nthree acts, all depending on and supposing a previous impression on\nthe senses: first, the appropriation of our Attention; second, (and in\norder to the continuance of the first) Abstraction, or the voluntary\nwithholding of the Attention; and third, Generalization. And these are\nthe proper Functions of the Understanding: and the power of so doing,\nis what we mean, when we say we possess Understanding, or are created\nwith the faculty of Understanding.\n\n[It is obvious, that the third function includes the act of comparing\none object with another. In a note (for, not to interrupt the\nargument, I avail myself of this most useful contrivance,) I have\nshown, that the act of comparing supposes in the comparing faculty,\ncertain inherent forms, that is, modes of reflecting not referable to\nthe objects reflected on, but pre-determined by the constitution and\n(as it were) mechanism of the Understanding itself. And under some one\nor other of these forms,[96] the resemblances and differences must be\nsubsumed in order to be conceivable, and _a fortiori_ therefore in\norder to be comparable. The senses do not compare, but merely furnish\nthe materials for comparison. But this the reader will find explained\nin the note; and will now cast his eye back to the sentence\nimmediately preceding this parenthesis.]\n\nNow when a person speaking to us of any particular Object or\nAppearance refers it by means of some common character to a known\nclass (which he does in giving it a Name), we say, that we understand\nhim; that is, we understand his words. The Name of a thing, in the\noriginal sense of the word Name, (_nomen_, \u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c4\u03bf\n_intelligible_, _id quod intelligitur_) expresses that which is\n_understood_ in an appearance, that which we place (or make to\n_stand_) _under_ it, as the condition of its real existence, and in\nproof that it is not an accident of the senses, or affection of the\nindividual, not a phantom or _apparition_, that is, an appearance that\nis _only_ an appearance. (See Gen. ii. 19, 20, and in Psalm xx. 1, and\nin many other places of the Bible, the identity of _nomen_ with\n_numen_, that is, invisible power and presence, the _nomen\nsubstantivum_ of all real objects, and the ground of their reality,\nindependently of the affections of sense in the percipient). In like\nmanner, in a connected succession of names, as the speaker passes from\nthe one to the other, we say that we can understand his _discourse_\n(_discursio intellect\u00fbs, discursus_, his passing rapidly from one\nthing to another). Thus, in all instances, it is words, names, or, if\nimages, yet images used as words or names, that are the only and\nexclusive subjects of Understanding. In no instance do we understand a\nthing in itself; but only the name to which it is referred. Sometimes\nindeed, when several classes are recalled conjointly, we identify the\nwords with the object--though by courtesy of idiom rather than in\nstrict propriety of language. Thus we may say that we _understand_ a\nrainbow, when recalling successively the several Names for the several\nsorts of colours, we know that they are to be applied to one and the\nsame _phenomenon_, at once distinctly and simultaneously; but even in\ncommon speech we should not say this of a single colour. No one would\nsay he understands red or blue. He _sees_ the colour, and had seen it\nbefore in a vast number and variety of objects; and he understands the\n_word_ red, as referring his fancy or memory to this his collective\nexperience.\n\nIf this be so, and so it most assuredly is--if the proper functions of\nthe Understanding be that of generalizing the notices received from\nthe senses in order to the construction of _names_: of referring\nparticular notices (that is, impressions or sensations) to their\nproper names; and, _vice vers\u00e2_, names to their correspondent class or\nkind of notices--then it follows of necessity, that the Understanding\nis truly and accurately defined in the words of Leighton and Kant, a\n\"faculty judging according to sense.\"\n\nNow whether in defining the speculative Reason (that is, the Reason\nconsidered abstractedly as an _intellective_ power) we call it \"the\nsource of necessary and universal principles, according to which the\nnotices of the senses are either affirmed or denied;\" or describe it\nas \"the power by which we are enabled to draw from particular and\ncontingent appearances universal and necessary conclusions:\"[97] it is\nequally evident that the two definitions differ in their essential\ncharacters, and consequently the subjects differ in _kind_.\n\nThe dependence of the Understanding on the representations of the\nsenses, and its consequent posteriority thereto, as contrasted with\nthe independence and antecedency of Reason, are strikingly\nexemplified in the Ptolemaic System (that truly wonderful product and\nhighest boast of the faculty, judging according to the senses!)\ncompared with the Newtonian, as the offspring of a yet higher power,\narranging, correcting, and annulling the representations of the senses\naccording to its own inherent laws and constitutive ideas.\n\n[94] See Wisd. of Sol. vii. 22, 23, 27.--H. N. C.\n\n[95] Accordingly as we attend more or less to the differences, the\n_sort_ becomes, of course, more or less comprehensive. Hence there\narises for the systematic naturalist, the necessity of subdividing the\nsorts into orders, classes, families, &c.: all which, however, resolve\nthemselves for the mere logician into the conception of _genus_ and\n_species_, _i.e._ the comprehending and the comprehended.\n\n[96] Were it not so, how could the first comparison have been\npossible?--It would involve the absurdity of measuring a thing by\nitself. But if we think on some one thing, the length of our own foot,\nor of our hand and arm from the elbow joint, it is evident that in\n_order_ to do this, we must have the conception of measure. Now these\nantecedent and most general conceptions are what is meant by the\nconstituent _forms_ of the Understanding: we call them _constituent_\nbecause they are not _acquired_ by the Understanding, but are implied\nin its constitution. As rationally might a circle be said to acquire a\ncentre and circumference, as the Understanding to acquire these, its\ninherent _forms_, or ways of conceiving. This is what Leibnitz meant,\nwhen to the old adage of the Peripatetics, _Nihil in intellectu quod\nnon prius in sensu_ (There is nothing in the Understanding not derived\nfrom the Senses, or--There is nothing _con_ceived that was not\npreviously _per_ceived;) he replied--_pr\u00e6ter intellectum ipsum_\n(except the Understanding itself).\n\nAnd here let me remark for once and all: whoever would _reflect_ to\nany purpose--whoever is in earnest in his pursuit of Self-knowledge,\nand of one of the principal means to this, an insight into the meaning\nof the words he uses, and the different meanings properly or\nimproperly conveyed by one and the same word, accordingly as it is\nused in the schools or the market, accordingly as the _kind_ or a high\n_degree_ is intended (for example, heat, weight, and the like, as\nemployed scientifically, compared with the same word used\npopularly)--whoever, I say, seriously proposes this as his object,\nmust so far overcome his dislike of pedantry, and his dread of being\nsneered at as a pedant, as not to quarrel with an uncouth word or\nphrase, till he is quite sure that some other and more familiar one\nwould not only have expressed the _precise_ meaning with equal\nclearness, but have been as likely to draw attention to _this_ meaning\nexclusively. The ordinary language of a Philosopher in conversation or\npopular writings, compared with the language he uses in strict\nreasoning, is as his watch compared with the chronometer in his\nobservatory. He sets the former by the Town-clock, or even, perhaps,\nby the Dutch clock in his kitchen, not because he believes it right,\nbut because his neighbours and his cook _go_ by it. To afford the\nreader an opportunity for exercising the forbearance here recommended,\nI turn back to the phrase, \"most general conceptions,\" and observe,\nthat in strict and severe propriety of language I should have said\n_generalific_ or _generific_ rather than general, and concipiences or\nconceptive acts rather than conceptions.\n\nIt is an old complaint, that a man of genius no sooner appears, but\nthe host of dunces are up in arms to repel the invading alien. This\nobservation would have made more converts to its truth, I suspect, had\nit been worded more dispassionately, and with a less contemptuous\nantithesis. For \"dunces,\" let us substitute \"the many,\" or the \"\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2\" (_this world_) of the Apostle, and we shall perhaps find no\ngreat difficulty in accounting for the fact. To arrive at the _root_,\nindeed, and last ground of the problem, it would be necessary to\ninvestigate the nature and effects of the sense of difference on the\nhuman mind where it is not holden in check by reason and reflection.\nWe need not go to the savage tribes of North America, or the yet ruder\nnatives of the Indian Isles, to learn, how slight a degree of\ndifference will, in uncultivated minds, call up a sense of diversity,\nand inward perplexity and contradiction, as if the strangers were, and\nyet were not, of the same _kind_ with themselves. Who has not had\noccasion to observe the effect which the gesticulations and nasal\ntones of a Frenchman produce on our own vulgar? Here we may see the\norigin and primary import of our _unkindness_. It is a sense of\n_un_kind, and not the mere negation but the positive Opposite of the\nsense of _kind_. Alienation, aggravated now by fear, now by contempt,\nand not seldom by a mixture of both, aversion, hatred, enmity, are so\nmany successive shapes of its growth and metamorphosis.--In\napplication to the present case, it is sufficient to say, that\nPindar's remark on sweet music holds equally true of genius: as many\nas are not delighted by it are disturbed, perplexed, irritated. The\nbeholder either recognizes it as a projected form of his own Being,\nthat moves before him with a Glory round its head, or recoils from it\nas from a Spectre. But this speculation would lead me too far; I must\nbe content with having referred to it as the ultimate ground of the\nfact, and pass to the more obvious and proximate causes. And as the\nfirst, I would rank the person's _not_ understanding what yet he\nexpects to understand, and as if he had a right to do so. An original\nmathematical work, or any other that requires peculiar and (so to say)\ntechnical marks and symbols, will excite no uneasy feelings--not in\nthe mind of a competent reader, for he understands it; and not with\nothers, because they neither expect nor are expected to understand it.\nThe second place we may assign to the _mis_understanding, which is\nalmost sure to follow in cases where the incompetent person, finding\nno outward marks (diagrams, arbitrary signs, and the like) to inform\nhim at first sight, that the subject is one which he does not pretend\nto understand, and to be ignorant of which does not detract from his\nestimation as a man of abilities generally, _will_ attach some meaning\nto what he hears or reads; and as he is out of humour with the author,\nit will most often be such a meaning as he can quarrel with and\nexhibit in a ridiculous or offensive point of view.\n\nBut above all, the whole world almost of minds, as far as we regard\nintellectual efforts, may be divided into two classes of the\nBusy-indolent and Lazy-indolent. To both alike all Thinking is\npainful, and all attempts to rouse them to think, whether in the\nre-examination of their existing convictions, or for the reception of\nnew light, are irritating. \"It _may_ all be very deep and clever; but\nreally one ought to be quite sure of it before one wrenches one's\nbrain to find out what it is. I take up a Book as a Companion, with\nwhom I can have an easy cheerful chit-chat on what we both know\nbeforehand, or else matters of fact. In our leisure hours we have a\nright to relaxation and amusement.\"\n\nWell! but in their _studious_ hours, when their bow is to be bent,\nwhen they are _apud Musas_, or amidst the Muses? Alas! it is just the\nsame! The same craving for _amusement_, that is, to be away from the\nMuses! for relaxation, that is, the unbending of a bow which in fact\nhad never been strung! There are two ways of obtaining their applause.\nThe first is: Enable them to reconcile in one and the same occupation\nthe love of Sloth and the hatred of Vacancy! Gratify indolence, and\nyet save them from _ennui_--in plain English, from themselves! For,\nspite of their antipathy to _dry_ reading, the keeping company with\nthemselves is, after all, the insufferable annoyance: and the true\nsecret of their dislike to a work of thought and inquiry lies in its\ntendency to make them acquainted with their own permanent Being. The\nother road to their favour is, to introduce to them their own thoughts\nand predilections, tricked out in the _fine_ language, in which it\nwould gratify their vanity to express them in their own conversation,\nand with which they can imagine themselves _showing off:_ and this (as\nhas been elsewhere remarked) is the characteristic difference between\nthe second-rate writers of the last two or three generations, and the\nsame class under Elizabeth and the Stuarts. In the latter we find the\nmost far-fetched and singular thoughts in the simplest and most native\nlanguage; in the former, the most obvious and common-place thoughts in\nthe most far-fetched and motley language. But lastly, and as the _sine\nqu\u00e2 non_ of their patronage, a sufficient arc must be left for the\nReader's mind to _oscillate_ in--freedom of choice,\n\n    To make the shifting cloud be what you please,\n\nsave only where the attraction of curiosity determines the line of\nmotion. The attention must not be fastened down: and this every work\nof genius, not simply narrative, must do before it can be justly\nappreciated.\n\nIn former times a _popular_ work meant one that adapted the _results_\nof studious meditation or scientific research to the capacity of the\npeople, presenting in the concrete, by instances and examples, what\nhad been ascertained in the abstract and by discovery of the Law.\n_Now_, on the other hand, that is a popular work which gives back to\nthe people their own errors and prejudices, and flatters the many by\ncreating them, under the title of THE PUBLIC, into a supreme and\ninappellable Tribunal of intellectual Excellence. P.S. In a continuous\nwork, the frequent insertion and length of Notes would need an\nApology: in a book like this of Aphorisms and detached Comments none\nis necessary, it being understood beforehand, that the sauce and the\ngarnish are to occupy the greater part of the dish.\n\n[97] Take a familiar illustration. My sight and touch convey to me a\ncertain impression, to which my Understanding applies its\npre-conceptions (_conceptus antecedentes et generalissimi_) of\nquantity and relation, and thus refers it to the class and name of\nthree-cornered bodies--we will suppose it the iron of a turf-spade. It\ncompares the sides, and finds that any two measured as one are greater\nthan the third; and according to a law of the imagination, there\narises a presumption that in all other bodies of the same figure (that\nis, three-cornered and equilateral) the same proportion exists. After\nthis, the senses have been directed successively to a number of\nthree-cornered bodies of _unequal_ sides--and in these too the same\nproportion has been found without exception, till at length it becomes\na fact of _experience_, that in _all_ triangles hitherto seen, the two\nsides together are greater than the third: and there will exist no\nground or analogy for anticipating an exception to a rule, generalized\nfrom so vast a number of particular instances. So far and no farther\ncould the Understanding carry us: and as far as this \"the faculty,\njudging according to sense,\" conducts many of the _inferior_ animals,\nif not in the same, yet in instances analogous and fully equivalent.\n\nThe Reason supersedes the whole process, and on the first conception\npresented by the Understanding in consequence of the first sight of a\ntri-angular figure, of whatever sort it might chance to be, it affirms\nwith an assurance incapable of future increase, with a perfect\n_certainty_, that in all possible triangles any two of the inclosing\nlines _will_ and _must_ be greater than the third. In short,\nUnderstanding in its highest form of experience remains commensurate\nwith the experimental notices of the senses from which it is\ngeneralized. Reason, on the other hand, either predetermines\nExperience, or avails itself of a past Experience to supersede its\nnecessity in all future time; and affirms truths which no sense could\nperceive, nor experiment verify, nor experience confirm.\n\nYea, this is the test and character of a truth so affirmed, that in\nits own proper form it is _inconceivable_. For _to conceive_ is a\nfunction of the Understanding, which can be exercised only on subjects\nsubordinate thereto. And yet to the forms of the Understanding all\ntruth must be reduced, that is to be fixed as an object of reflection,\nand to be rendered _expressible_. And here we have a second test and\nsign of a truth so affirmed, that it can come forth out of the moulds\nof the Understanding only in the disguise of two contradictory\nconceptions, each of which is partially true, and the conjunction of\nboth conceptions becomes the representative or _expression_ (the\n_exponent_) of a truth _beyond_ conception and inexpressible.\nExamples: Before Abraham _was_, I _am_.--God is a Circle, the centre\nof which is everywhere, and circumference nowhere. The soul is all in\nevery part.\n\nIf this appear extravagant, it is an extravagance which no man can\nindeed learn from another, but which, (were this possible,) I might\nhave learnt from Plato, Kepler, and Bacon; from Luther, Hooker,\nPascal, Leibnitz, and F\u00e9n\u00e9lon. But in this last paragraph I have, I\nsee, unwittingly overstepped my purpose, according to which we were to\ntake Reason as a simply intellectual power. Yet even as such, and with\nall the disadvantage of a technical and arbitrary Abstraction, it has\nbeen made evident--1. that there is an _Intuition_ or _im_mediate\nBeholding, accompanied by a conviction of the necessity and\nuniversality of the truth so beholden not derived from the senses,\nwhich intuition, when it is _construed_ by _pure_ sense, gives birth\nto the Science of Mathematics, and when applied to objects\nsupersensuous or spiritual is the organ of Theology and\nPhilosophy:--and 2. that there is likewise a reflective and discursive\nfaculty, or _mediate_ Apprehension which, taken by itself and\nuninfluenced by the former, depends on the senses for the materials,\non which it is exercised, and is contained within the sphere of the\nsenses. And this faculty it is, which in generalizing the notices of\nthe senses constitutes Sensible Experience, and gives rise to Maxims\nor Rules which may become more and more _general_, but can never be\nraised into universal Verities, or beget a consciousness of absolute\nCertainty; though they may be sufficient to extinguish all doubt.\n(Putting Revelation out of view, take our first progenitor in the 50th\nor 100th year of his existence. His experience would probably have\nfreed him from all doubt, as the sun sank in the horizon that it would\nre-appear the next morning. But compare this state of assurance with\nthat which the same man would have had of the 37th Proposition of\nEuclid, supposing him, like Pythagoras, to have discovered the\n_Demonstration_.) Now is it expedient, I ask, or conformable to the\nlaws and purposes of language, to call two so altogether disparate\nsubjects by one and the same name? Or, having two names in our\nlanguage, should we call each of the two diverse subjects by\nboth--that is, by either name, as caprice might dictate? If not, then,\nas we have the two words, Reason and Understanding (as indeed what\nlanguage of cultivated man has not?) what should prevent us from\nappropriating the former to the Power distinctive of humanity? We need\nonly place the derivatives from the two terms in opposition (for\nexample, \"A and B are both rational beings; but there is no comparison\nbetween them in point of _intelligence_;\" or \"She always concludes\n_rationally_, though not a woman of much _understanding_\") to see that\nwe cannot reverse the order--_i.e._ call the higher gift\nUnderstanding, and the lower Reason. What _should_ prevent us? I\nasked. Alas! that which _has_ prevented us--the _cause_ of this\nconfusion in the terms--is only too obvious; namely, inattention to\nthe momentous distinction in the _things_, and (generally) to the duty\nand habit recommended in the fifth Introductory Aphorism of this\nvolume, (_see_ p. 2). But the cause of this, and of all its lamentable\neffects and subcauses, _false doctrine_, _blindness of heart and\ncontempt of the word_, is best declared by the philosophic Apostle:\n_they did not_ like _to retain God in their knowledge_, (Rom. i.28,)\nand though they could not _extinguish the light that lighteth every\nman_, and which _shone in the darkness_; yet because the darkness\ncould not _comprehend_ the light, they refused to bear witness of the\nlight, and worshipped, instead, the shaping mist, which the light had\ndrawn upward from _the ground_ (that is, from the mere animal nature\nand instinct), and which that light alone had made visible, that is,\nby superinducing on the animal instinct the principle of\nSelf-consciousness.\n\n\nAPHORISM IX.\n\nIn Wonder all Philosophy began: in Wonder it ends: and Admiration\nfills up the interspace. But the first Wonder is the offspring of\nIgnorance: the last is the parent of Adoration. The first is the\nbirth-throe of our knowledge: the last is its euthanasy and\n_apotheosis_.\n\n_Sequel\u00e6: or Thoughts suggested by the preceding Aphorism._\n\nAs in respect of the first wonder we are all on the same level, how\ncomes it that the philosophic mind should, in all ages, be the\nprivilege of a few? The most obvious reason is this: The wonder takes\nplace before the period of reflection, and (with the great mass of\nmankind) long before the individual is capable of directing his\nattention freely and consciously to the feeling, or even to its\nexciting causes. Surprise (the form and dress which the Wonder of\nIgnorance usually puts on) is worn away, if not precluded, by custom\nand familiarity. So is it with the objects of the senses, and the ways\nand fashions of the world around us; even as with the beat of our own\nhearts, which we notice only in moments of fear and perturbation. But\nwith regard to the concerns of our inward being, there is yet another\ncause that acts in concert with the power in custom to prevent a fair\nand equal exertion of reflective thought. The great fundamental truths\nand doctrines of religion, the existence and attributes of God, and\nthe life after death, are in Christian countries taught so early,\nunder such circumstances, and in such close and vital association with\nwhatever makes or marks _reality_ for our infant minds, that the words\never after represent sensations, feelings, vital assurances, sense of\nreality--rather than thoughts, or any distinct conception. Associated,\nI had almost said _identified_, with the parental voice, look, touch,\nwith the living warmth and pressure of the Mother, on whose lap the\nchild is first made to kneel, within whose palms its little hands are\nfolded, and the motion of whose eyes _its_ eyes follow and\nimitate--(yea, what the blue sky is to the mother, the mother's\nupraised eyes and brow are to the child, the Type and Symbol of an\ninvisible Heaven!)--from within and without, these great First Truths,\nthese good and gracious Tidings, these holy and humanizing Spells, in\nthe preconformity to which our very humanity may be said to consist,\nare so infused, that it were but a tame and inadequate expression to\nsay, we all take them for granted. At a later period, in youth or\nearly manhood, most of us, indeed, (in the higher and middle classes\nat least) read or hear certain PROOFS of these truths--which we\ncommonly listen to, when we listen at all, with much the same feelings\nas a popular Prince on his Coronation Day, in the centre of a fond and\nrejoicing nation, may be supposed to hear the Champion's challenge to\nall the non-existents, that deny or dispute his Rights and Royalty. In\nfact, the order of Proof is most often reversed or transposed. As far,\nat least as I dare judge from the goings on in my own mind, when with\nkeen delight I first read the works of Derham, Nieuwentiet, and\nLyonet, I should say, that the full and life-like conviction of a\ngracious Creator is the Proof (at all events, performs the office and\nanswers all the purpose of a Proof) of the wisdom and benevolence in\nthe construction of the Creature.\n\nDo I blame this? Do I wish it to be otherwise? God forbid! It is only\none of its accidental, but too frequent consequences, of which I\ncomplain, and against which I protest. I regret nothing that tends to\nmake the Light become the Life of men, even as the Life in the\neternal Word is their only and single true light. But I do regret,\nthat in after years--when by occasion of some new dispute on some old\nheresy, or any other accident, the attention has for the first time\nbeen distinctly attracted to the super-structure raised on these\nfundamental truths, or to truths of later revelation supplemental of\nthese and not less important--all the doubts and difficulties, that\ncannot but arise where the Understanding, _the mind of the flesh_, is\nmade the measure of spiritual things; all the sense of strangeness and\nseeming contradiction in terms; all the marvel and the mystery, that\nbelong equally to both, are first thought of and applied in objection\nexclusively to the latter. I would disturb no man's faith in the great\narticles of the (falsely so called) Religion of Nature. But before the\nman rejects, and calls on other men to reject, the revelations of the\nGospel and the Religion of all Christendom, I would have him place\nhimself in the state and under all the privations of a Simonides, when\nin the fortieth day of his meditation the sage and philosophic poet\nabandoned the problem in despair. Ever and anon he seemed to have hold\nof the truth; but when he asked himself what he meant by it, it\nescaped from him, or resolved itself into meanings, that destroyed\neach other. I would have the sceptic, while yet a sceptic only,\nseriously consider whether a doctrine, of the truth of which a\nSocrates could obtain no other assurance than what he derived from his\nstrong _wish_ that it should be true; and which Plato found a mystery\nhard to discover, and when discovered, communicable only to the fewest\nof men; can, consonantly with history or common sense, be classed\namong the articles, the belief of which is ensured to all men by their\nmere common sense? Whether, without gross outrage to fact, they can be\nsaid to constitute a Religion of Nature, or a Natural Theology\nantecedent to Revelation, or superseding its necessity? Yes! in\nprevention (for there is little chance, I fear, of a _cure_) of the\npugnacious dogmatism of _partial_ reflection, I would prescribe to\nevery man, who feels a commencing alienation from the Catholic Faith,\nand whose studies and attainments authorise him to argue on the\nsubject at all, a patient and thoughtful perusal of the arguments and\nrepresentations which Bayle supposes to have passed through the mind\nof Simonides. Or I should be fully satisfied if I could induce these\neschewers of mystery to give a patient, manly, and impartial perusal\nto the single Treatise of Pomponatius, _De Fato_.[98]\n\nWhen they have fairly and satisfactorily overthrown the objections and\ncleared away the difficulties urged by this sharp-witted Italian\nagainst the doctrines which they profess to retain, then let them\ncommence their attack on those which they reject. As far as the\nsupposed irrationality of the latter is the ground of argument, I am\nmuch deceived if, on reviewing their forces, they would not find the\nranks woefully thinned by the success of their own fire in the\npreceding engagement--unless, indeed, by pure heat of controversy, and\nto storm the lines of their antagonists, they can bring to life again\nthe arguments which they had themselves killed off in the defence of\ntheir own positions. In vain shall we seek for any other mode of\nmeeting the broad facts of the scientific Epicurean, or the\nrequisitions and queries of the all-analysing Pyrrhonist, than by\nchallenging the tribunal to which they appeal, as incompetent to try\nthe question. In order to _non-suit_ the infidel plaintiff, we must\nremove the cause from the faculty, that judges according to sense, and\nwhose judgments, therefore, are valid only on objects of sense, to the\nSuperior Courts of Conscience and intuitive Reason! _The words I speak\nunto you, are Spirit_, and such only _are life_, that is, have an\ninward and actual power abiding in them.\n\nBut the same truth is at once shield and bow. The shaft of Atheism\nglances aside from it to strike and pierce the breast-plate of the\nheretic. Well for the latter, if plucking the weapon from the wound he\nrecognizes an arrow from his own quiver, and abandons a cause that\nconnects him with such confederates! Without further rhetoric, the sum\nand substance of the argument is this:--an insight into the proper\nfunctions and subaltern rank of the Understanding may not, indeed,\ndisarm the Psilanthropist of his metaphorical glosses, or of his\n_versions_ fresh from the forge, and with no other stamp than the\nprivate mark of the individual manufacturer; but it will deprive him\nof the only rational pretext for having recourse to tools so liable to\nabuse, and of such perilous example.\n\nCOMMENT.\n\nSince the preceding pages were composed, and during an interim of\ndepression and disqualification, I heard with a delight and an\ninterest, that I might without hyperbole call medicinal, that the\ncontra-distinction of Understanding from Reason, for which during\ntwenty years I have been contending, _casting my bread upon the\nwaters_ with a perseverance, which in the existing state of the public\ntaste nothing but the deepest conviction of its importance could have\ninspired--has been lately adopted and sanctioned by the present\ndistinguished Professor of Anatomy, in the Course of Lectures given by\nhim at the Royal College of Surgeons, on the zoological part of\nNatural History; and, if I am rightly informed, in one of the eloquent\nand impressive introductory Discourses.[99] In explaining the Nature\nof Instinct, as deduced from the actions and tendencies of animals\nsuccessively presented to the observation of the comparative\nphysiologist in the ascending scale of organic life--or rather, I\nshould have said, in an attempt to determine that precise import of\nthe _term_, which is required by the facts[100]--the Professor\nexplained the nature of what I have elsewhere called the _adaptive\npower_, that is, the faculty of adapting means to proximate ends. [N.\nB. I mean here a _relative_ end--that which relatively to one thing is\nan _end_, though relatively to some other it is in itself a _mean_. It\nis to be regretted, that we have no single word to express those ends,\nthat are not _the_ end: for the distinction between those and an end\nin the proper sense of the term is an important one.] The Professor, I\nsay, not only explained, first, the nature of the adaptive power _in\ngenere_, and, secondly, the distinct character of the _same_ power as\nit exists _specifically_ and exclusively in the _human_ being, and\nacquires the name of Understanding; but he did it in a way which gave\nthe whole sum and substance of my convictions, of all I had so long\nwished, and so often, but with such imperfect success, attempted to\nconvey, free from all semblance of paradoxy, and from all occasion of\noffence--_omnem offendiculi_[101] _ansam pr\u00e6cidens_. It is, indeed,\nfor the _fragmentary_ reader only that I have any scruple. In those who\nhave had the patience to accompany me so far on the up-hill road to manly\nprinciples, I can have no reason to guard against that disposition to\nhasty offence from anticipation of _consequences_,--that faithless and\nloveless spirit of fear which plunged Galileo into a prison[102]--a\nspirit most unworthy of an educated man, who ought to have learnt that\nthe mistakes of scientific men have never injured Christianity, while\nevery new truth discovered by them has either added to its evidence,\nor prepared the mind for its reception.\n\n_On Instinct in Connection with the Understanding._\n\nIt is evident, that the definition of a Genus or class is an\n_adequate_ definition only of the lowest _species_ of that Genus: for\neach higher species is distinguished from the lower by some additional\ncharacter, while the general definition includes only the characters\ncommon to _all_ the species. Consequently it _describes_ the lowest\nonly. Now I distinguish a genus or _kind_ of Powers under the name of\nAdaptive power, and give as its generic definition--the power of\nselecting, and adapting means to proximate ends; and as an instance of\nthe lowest _species_ of this genus, I take the stomach of a\ncaterpillar. I ask myself, under what words I can generalize the\naction of this organ; and I see, that it selects and adapts the\nappropriate means (that is, the assimilable part of the vegetable\n_congesta_) to the proximate end, that is, the growth or reproduction\nof the insect's body. This we call VITAL POWER, or _vita propria_ of\nthe stomach; and this being the _lowest_ species, its definition is\nthe same with the definition of the _kind_.\n\nWell! from the power of the stomach, I pass to the power exerted by\nthe whole animal. I trace it wandering from spot to spot, and plant to\nplant, till it finds the appropriate vegetable; and again on this\nchosen vegetable, I mark it seeking out and fixing on the part of the\nplant, bark, leaf, or petal, suited to its nourishment: or (should the\nanimal have assumed the butterfly form), to the deposition of its\neggs, and the sustentation of the future _larva_. Here I see a power\nof selecting and adapting means to proximate ends _according to\ncircumstances_: and this higher species of Adaptive Power we call\nINSTINCT.\n\nLastly, I reflect on the facts narrated and described in the preceding\nextracts from H\u00fcber, and see a power of selecting and adapting the\nproper means to the proximate ends, according to _varying_\ncircumstances. And what shall we call this yet higher species? We name\nthe former, Instinct: we must call this INSTINCTIVE INTELLIGENCE.\n\nHere then we have three Powers of the same kind; Life, Instinct, and\ninstinctive Intelligence: the essential characters that define the\ngenus existing equally in all three. But in addition to these, I find\none other character common to the highest and lowest: namely, that the\npurposes are all manifestly predetermined by the peculiar organization\nof the animals; and though it may not be possible to discover any such\nimmediate dependency in all the actions, yet the actions being\ndetermined by the purposes, the _result_ is equivalent: and both the\nactions and the purposes are all in a necessitated reference to the\npreservation and continuance of the particular animal or the progeny.\nThere is selection, but not _choice_: volition rather than will. The\npossible _knowledge_ of a thing, or the desire to have that _thing_\nrepresentable by a distinct correspondent _thought_, does not, in the\nanimal, suffice to render the thing an _object_, or the ground of a\npurpose. I select and adapt the proper means to the separation of a\nstone from a rock, which I neither can, or desire to make use of, for\nfood, shelter, or ornament: because, perhaps, I wish to measure the\nangles of its primary crystals, or, perhaps, for no better reason\nthan the apparent _difficulty_ of loosening the stone--_sit pro\nratione voluntas_--and thus make a motive out of the absence of all\nmotive, and a reason out of the arbitrary will to act without any\nreason.\n\nNow what is the conclusion from these premises? Evidently this: that\nif I suppose the Adaptive Power in its highest _species_, or form of\nInstinctive Intelligence, to co-exist with Reason, _Free_ will, and\nSelf-consciousness, it instantly becomes UNDERSTANDING: in other\nwords, that Understanding differs indeed from the noblest form of\nInstinct, but not in itself or in its own essential properties, but in\nconsequence of its co-existence with far higher Powers of a diverse\nkind in one and the same subject. INSTINCT in a rational, responsible,\nand self-conscious Animal, is Understanding.\n\nSuch I apprehend to have been the Professor's view and Exposition of\nInstinct--and in confirmation of its truth, I would merely request my\nreaders, from the numerous well-authenticated instances on record, to\nrecall some one of the extraordinary actions of dogs for the\npreservation of their masters' lives, and even for the avenging of\ntheir deaths. In these instances we have the third _species_ of the\nAdaptive Power, in connexion with an apparently _moral_ end--with an\n_end_ in the proper sense of the word. _Here_ the Adaptive Power\nco-exists with a purpose apparently _voluntary_, and the action seems\nneither pre-determined by the organization of the animal, nor in any\ndirect reference to his own preservation, or to the continuance of his\nrace. It is united with an imposing semblance of gratitude, fidelity,\nand disinterested love. We not only _value_ the faithful brute: we\nattribute _worth_ to him. This, I admit, is a problem, of which I have\nno solution to offer. One of the wisest of uninspired men has not\nhesitated to declare the dog a great mystery, on account of this\ndawning of a _moral_ nature unaccompanied by any the least evidence of\n_reason_, in whichever of the two senses we interpret the\nword--whether as the _practical_ reason, that is, the power of\nproposing an _ultimate_ end, the determinability of the Will by IDEAS;\nor as the _sciential_ reason, that is, the faculty of concluding\nuniversal and necessary truths from particular and contingent\nappearances. But in a question respecting the possession of reason,\nthe absence of all truth is tantamount to a proof of the contrary. It\nis, however, by no means equally clear to me, that the dog may not\npossess an _analogon_ of WORDS, which I have elsewhere shown to be the\nproper objects of the \"faculty, judging according to sense.\"\n\nBut to return to my purpose: I intreat the reader to reflect on any\none fact of this kind, whether occurring in his own experience, or\nselected from the numerous anecdotes of the dog preserved in the\nwritings of zoologists. I will then confidently appeal to him, whether\nit is in his power not to consider the faculty displayed in these\nactions as the same _in kind_ with the Understanding, however inferior\n_in degree_.--Or should he even in these instances prefer calling it\n_Instinct_, and this in _contra_-distinction from _Understanding_, I\ncall on him to point out the boundary between the two, the chasm or\npartition-wall that divides or separates the one from the other. If he\ncan, he will have done what none before him have been able to do,\nthough many and eminent men have tried hard for it: and my recantation\nshall be among the first trophies of his success. If he cannot, I must\ninfer that he is controlled by his dread of the _consequences_, by an\napprehension of some injury resulting to Religion or Morality from\nthis opinion; and I shall console myself with the hope, that in the\nsequel of this work he will find proofs of the directly contrary\ntendency.--Not only is this view of the Understanding, as differing in\n_degree_ from Instinct and _in kind_ from Reason, innocent in its\npossible influences on the religious character, but it is an\nindispensable preliminary to the removal of the most formidable\nobstacles to an intelligent Belief of the _peculiar_ doctrines of the\nGospel, of the _characteristic_ Articles of the Christian Faith, with\nwhich the Advocates of the truth in Christ have to contend;--the evil\n_heart_ of Unbelief alone excepted.\n\n[98] The philosopher, whom the Inquisition would have burnt alive as\nan atheist, had not Leo X. and Cardinal Bembo decided that the work\nmight be formidable to those semi-pagan Christians who regarded\nRevelation as a mere make-weight to their boasted Religion of Nature;\nbut contained nothing dangerous to the Catholic Church or offensive to\na true believer. [He was born in 1462, and died in 1525.--H. N. C.]\n\n[99] A discourse by Prof. J. H. Green. This, \"On Instinct,\" was\nafterwards printed by Prof. Green with his 'Vital Dynamics,' 1840. We\ngive it as so published in the Appendix to the present edition;\nthough, of course, the \"report,\" apparently verbal, on which\nColeridge's remarks of 1825 are founded, may have differed somewhat\nfrom the Professor's text as published in 1840.--ED.\n\n[100] The word, Instinct, brings together a number of facts into one\nclass by the assertion of a common ground, the nature of which ground\nit determines _negatively_ only--that is, the word does not explain\n_what_ this common ground is; but simply indicates that there _is_\nsuch a ground, and that it is different in kind from that in which the\nresponsible and consciously voluntary actions of men originate. Thus,\nin its true and primary import, Instinct stands in antithesis to\nReason; and the perplexity and contradictory statements into which so\nmany meritorious naturalists, and popular writers on natural history\n(Priscilla Wakefield, Kirby, Spence, H\u00fcber, and even Reimarus) have\nfallen on this subject, arise wholly from their taking the word in\nopposition to Understanding. I notice this, because I would not lose\nany opportunity of impressing on the mind of my youthful readers the\nimportant truth that language (as the embodied and articulated Spirit\nof the Race, as the growth and emanation of a People, and not the work\nof any individual wit or will) is often inadequate, sometimes\ndeficient, but never false or delusive. We have only to master the\ntrue origin and original import of any native and abiding word, to\nfind in it, if not the _solution_ of the facts expressed by it, yet a\nfinger-mark pointing to the road on which this solution is to be\nsought.\n\n[101] _Neque quiquam addubito, quin ea candidis omnibus faciat satis.\nQuid autem facias istis qui vel ob ingenii pertinaciam sibi satisfieri\nnolint, vel stupidiores sint quam ut satisfactionem intelligant? Nam\nquemadmodum Simonides dixit, Thessalos hebetiores esse quam ut possint\na se decipi, ita quosdam videas stupidiores quam ut placari queant.\nAdhuc non mirum est invenire quod calumnietur qui nihil aliud qu\u00e6rit\nnisi quod calumnietur._ (Erasmi Epist. ad Dorpium.) At all events, the\nparagraph passing through the medium of my own prepossessions, if any\nfault be found with it, the fault probably, and the blame certainly,\nbelongs to the reporter.\n\n[102] And which (I may add) in a more enlightened age, and in a\nProtestant country, impelled more than one German University to\nanathematize Fr. Hoffman's discovery of carbonic acid gas, and of its\neffects on animal life, as hostile to religion, and tending to\natheism! Three or four students at the university of Jena, in the\nattempt to raise a spirit for the discovery of a supposed hidden\ntreasure, were strangled or poisoned by the fumes of the charcoal they\nhad been burning in a close garden-house of a vineyard near Jena,\nwhile employed in their magic fumigations and charms. One only was\nrestored to life: and from his account of the noises and spectres\n(_in_ his ears and eyes) as he was losing his senses, it was taken for\ngranted that _the bad spirit_ had destroyed them. Frederic Hoffman\nadmitted that it was a _very bad_ spirit that had _tempted_ them, the\nSpirit of Avarice and Folly; and that a very _noxious_ Spirit (gas, or\n_geist_,) was the immediate cause of their death. But he contended\nthat this latter spirit was the _spirit_ of charcoal, which would have\nproduced the same effect, had the young men been chaunting psalms\ninstead of incantations: and acquitted the devil of all _direct_\nconcern in the business. The Theological Faculty took the alarm: even\nphysicians pretended to be horror-stricken at Hoffman's audacity. The\ncontroversy and its appendages embittered several years of this great\nand good man's life.\n\n\n_Reflections Introductory to Aphorism X._\n\nThe most _momentous_ question a man can ask is, Have I a Saviour? And\nyet as far as the individual querist is concerned, it is premature\nand to no purpose, unless another question has been previously put and\nanswered, (alas! too generally put after the wounded conscience has\nalready given the answer!) namely, Have I any need of a Saviour? For\nhim who _needs_ none, (O bitter irony of the evil Spirit, whose\nwhispers the proud Soul takes for its own thoughts, and knows not how\nthe Tempter is scoffing the while!) there _is_ none, as long as he\nfeels no need. On the other hand, it is scarcely possible to have\nanswered this question in the affirmative, and not ask--first, _in\nwhat_ the necessity consists? secondly, _whence_ it proceeded? and,\nthirdly, how far the answer to this second question is or is not\ncontained in the answer to the first? I intreat the intelligent\nreader, who has taken me as his temporary guide on the straight, but\nyet, from the number of cross roads, difficult way of religious\nInquiry, to halt a moment, and consider the main points, that, in this\nlast division of my work, have been already offered for his\nreflection. I have attempted then to fix the proper meaning of the\nwords, Nature and Spirit, the one being the _antithesis_ to the other:\nso that the most general and _negative_ definition of Nature is,\nWhatever is not Spirit; and _vice vers\u00e2_ of Spirit, That which is not\ncomprehended in Nature: or in the language of our elder divines, that\nwhich transcends Nature. But nature is the term in which we comprehend\nall things that are representable in the forms of time and space, and\nsubjected to the relations of cause and effect: and the cause of the\nexistence of which, therefore, is to be sought for perpetually in\nsomething antecedent. The word itself expresses this in the strongest\nmanner possible: _Natura_, that which is _about to be_ born, that\nwhich is always _becoming_. It follows, therefore, that whatever\noriginates its own acts, or in any sense contains in itself the cause\nof its own state, must be _spiritual_, and consequently\n_super-natural_: yet not on that account necessarily _miraculous_. And\nsuch must the responsible WILL in us be, if it be at all.\n\nA prior step had been to remove all misconceptions from the subject;\nto show the reasonableness of a belief in the reality and real\ninfluence of a universal and divine Spirit; the compatibility and\npossible communion of such a Spirit with the Spiritual principle in\nindividuals; and the analogy offered by the most undeniable truths of\nNatural Philosophy.[103]\n\nThese views of the Spirit, and of the Will as Spiritual, form the\nground-work of my scheme. Among the numerous corollaries or\nappendents, the first that presented itself respects the question,\nWhether there is any faculty in man by which a knowledge of spiritual\ntruths, or of any truths not abstracted from nature, is rendered\npossible? and an Answer is attempted in the Comment on Aphorism VIII.\nAnd here I beg leave to remark, that in this comment the only novelty,\nand, if there be merit, the only merit is--that there being two very\ndifferent Meanings, and two different Words, I have here and in former\nWorks appropriated one meaning to one of the Words, and the other to\nthe other--instead of using the words indifferently and by haphazard:\na confusion, the ill effects of which in this instance are so great\nand of such frequent occurrence in the works of our ablest\nphilosophers and divines, that I should select it before all others in\nproof of Hobbes's Maxim:--that it is a short, downhill passage from\nerrors in words to errors in things. The difference of the Reason from\nthe Understanding, and the imperfection and limited sphere of the\nlatter, have been asserted by many both before and since Lord\nBacon;[104] but still the habit of using Reason and Understanding as\nsynonyms, acted as a disturbing force. Some it led into mysticism,\nothers it set on explaining away a clear difference _in kind_ into a\nmere superiority in degree: and it partially eclipsed the truth for\nall.\n\nIn close connexion with this, and therefore forming the Comment on the\nAphorism next following, is the subject of the legitimate exercise of\nthe Understanding and its limitation to Objects of Sense; with the\nerrors both of unbelief and of misbelief, which result from its\nextension beyond the sphere of possible Experience. Wherever the forms\nof reasoning appropriate only to the _natural_ world are applied to\n_spiritual_ realities, it may be truly said, that the more strictly\nlogical the reasoning is in all its _parts_, the more irrational it is\nas a _whole_.\n\nTo the reader thus armed and prepared, I now venture to present the so\ncalled mysteries of Faith, that is, the peculiar tenets and especial\nconstituents of Christianity, or Religion in spirit and in truth. In\nright order I must have commenced with the Articles of the Trinity and\nApostacy, including the question respecting the Origin of Evil, and\nthe Incarnation of the WORD. And could I have followed this order,\nsome difficulties that now press on me would have been obviated.--But\n(as has already been explained) the limits of the present volume rendered\nit alike impracticable and inexpedient; for the necessity of my argument\nwould have called forth certain hard though most true sayings, respecting\nthe hollowness and tricksy sophistry of the so called \"Natural Theology,\"\n\"Religion of Nature,\" \"Light of Nature,\" and the like, which a brief\nexposition could not save from innocent misconceptions, much less protect\nagainst plausible misinterpretation.--And yet both Reason and\nExperience have convinced me, that in the greater number of our ALOGI,\nwho feed on the husks of Christianity, the disbelief of the Trinity,\nthe Divinity of Christ included, has its origin and support in the\nassumed self-evidence of this Natural Theology, and in their ignorance\nof the insurmountable difficulties which (on the same mode of\nreasoning) press upon the fundamental articles of their own Remnant of\na Creed. But arguments, which would prove the falsehood of a known\ntruth, must themselves be false, and can prove the falsehood of no\nother position in _eodem genere_.\n\nThis _hint_ I have thrown out as a _spark_ that may perhaps fall where\nit will kindle. And worthily might the wisest of men make inquisition\ninto the three momentous points here spoken of, for the purposes of\nspeculative insight, and for the formation of enlarged and systematic\nviews of the destination of man, and the dispensation of God. But the\n_practical_ Inquirer (I speak not of those who inquire for the\ngratification of curiosity, and still less of those who labour as\nstudents only to shine as disputants; but of one, who seeks the truth,\nbecause he feels the want of it,) the practical Inquirer, I say, hath\nalready placed his foot on the rock, if he have satisfied himself that\nwhoever needs not a Redeemer is more than human. Remove for him the\ndifficulties and objections, that oppose or perplex his belief of a\ncrucified Saviour; convince him of the reality of sin, which is\nimpossible without a knowledge of its true nature and inevitable\nconsequences; and then satisfy him as to the _fact_ historically, and\nas to the truth spiritually, of a redemption therefrom by Christ; do\nthis for him, and there is little fear that he will permit either\nlogical quirks or metaphysical puzzles to contravene the plain dictate\nof his common sense, that the Sinless One that redeemed mankind from\nsin, must have been more than man; and that He who brought Light and\nImmortality into the world, could not in his own nature have been an\ninheritor of Death and Darkness. It is morally impossible that a man with\nthese convictions should suffer the objection of Incomprehensibility\n(and this on a subject of _Faith_) to overbalance the manifest\nabsurdity and contradiction in the notion of a mediator between God\nand the human race, at the same infinite distance from God as the race\nfor whom he mediates.\n\nThe origin of evil, meanwhile, is a question interesting only to the\nmetaphysician, and in a system of moral and religious philosophy. The\nman of sober mind, who seeks for truths that possess a moral and\npractical interest, is content to be _certain_, first, that evil must\nhave had a beginning, since otherwise it must either be God, or a\nco-eternal and co-equal rival of God; both impious notions, and the\nlatter foolish to boot:--secondly, that it could not originate in God;\nfor if so, it would be at once evil and not evil, or God would be at\nonce God (that is, infinite Goodness) and not God--both alike\nimpossible positions. Instead therefore of troubling himself with this\nbarren controversy, he more profitably turns his inquiries to _that_\nevil which most concerns himself, and of which he _may_ find the\norigin.\n\nThe entire Scheme of _necessary_ Faith may be reduced to two\nheads;--first, the object and occasion, and, secondly, the fact and\neffect,--of our redemption by Christ: and to this view does the order\nof the following Comments correspond. I have begun with ORIGINAL SIN,\nand proceeded in the following Aphorism to the doctrine of Redemption.\nThe Comments on the remaining Aphorisms are all subsidiary to these,\nor written in the hope of making the minor tenets of general belief be\nbelieved in a spirit worthy of these. They are, in short, intended to\nsupply a febrifuge against aguish scruples and horrors, the hectic of\nthe soul;--and \"for servile and thrall-like fear to substitute that\nadoptive and cheerful boldness, which our new alliance with God\nrequires of us as Christians.\" (_Milton._) NOT the Origin of Evil, NOT\nthe _Chronology_ of Sin, or the chronicles of the original Sinner; but\nSin originant, underived from without, and no passive link in the\nadamantine chain of Effects, each of which is in its turn an\n_instrument_ of Causation, but no one of them a Cause;--NOT with Sin\n_inflicted_, which would be a Calamity;--NOT with Sin (that is, an\nevil tendency) _implanted_, for which let the planter be responsible;\nbut I begin with _Original_ Sin. And for this purpose I have selected\nthe Aphorism from the ablest and most formidable antagonist of this\ndoctrine, Bishop JEREMY TAYLOR, and from the most eloquent work of\nthis most eloquent of divines.[106] Had I said, of men, Cicero would\nforgive me, and Demosthenes nod assent![107]\n\n\nAPHORISM X.\n\n_On Original Sin._\n\nJEREMY TAYLOR.\n\nIs there any such thing? That is not the question. For it is a fact\nacknowledged on all hands almost: and even those who will not confess\nit in words, confess it in their complaints. For my part I cannot but\nconfess that _to be_, which I feel and groan under, and by which all\nthe world is miserable.\n\nAdam turned his back on the sun, and dwelt in the dark and the shadow.\nHe sinned, and brought evil into his _supernatural_ endowments, and\nlost the Sacrament and Instrument of Immortality, the Tree of Life in\nthe centre of the garden.[108] He then fell under the evils of a\nsickly body, and a passionate and ignorant soul. His sin made him\nsickly, his sickness made him peevish: his sin left him ignorant, his\nignorance made him foolish and unreasonable. His sin left him to his\n_nature_: and by nature, whoever was to be born at all, was to be born\na child, and to do before he could understand, and to be bred under\nlaws to which he was always bound, but which could not always be\nexacted; and he was to choose when he could not reason, and had\npassions most strong when he had his understanding most weak; and the\nmore need he had of a curb, the less strength he had to use it! And\nthis being the case of all the world, what was _every_ man's evil\nbecame _all_ men's greater evil; and though alone it was very bad, yet\nwhen they came together it was made much worse. Like ships in a storm,\nevery one alone hath enough to do to outride it; but when they meet,\nbesides the evils of the storm, they find the intolerable calamity of\ntheir mutual concussion; and every ship that is ready to be oppressed\nwith the tempest, is a worse tempest to every vessel against which it\nis violently dashed. So it is in mankind. Every man hath evil enough\nof his own, and it is hard for a man to live up to the rule of his own\nreason and conscience. But when he hath parents and children, friends\nand enemies, buyers and sellers, lawyers and clients, a family and a\nneighbourhood--then it is that every man dashes against another, and\none relation requires what another denies; and when one speaks another\nwill contradict him; and that which is well spoken is sometimes\ninnocently mistaken; and that upon a good cause produces an evil\neffect; and by these, and ten thousand other concurrent causes, man is\nmade more than most miserable.[109]\n\nCOMMENT.\n\nThe first question we should put to ourselves, when we have to read a\npassage that perplexes us in a work of authority, is; What does the\nwriter _mean_ by all this? And the second question should be, What\ndoes he intend by all this? In the passage before us, Taylor's\n_meaning_ is not quite clear. A sin is an evil which has its ground or\norigin in the agent, and not in the compulsion of circumstances.\nCircumstances are compulsory from the absence of a power to resist or\ncontrol them: and if this absence likewise be the effect of\nCircumstance (that is, if it have been neither directly nor indirectly\ncaused by the agent himself) the evil _derives_ from the\ncircumstances; and therefore (in the Apostle's sense of the word, sin,\nwhen he speaks of the exceeding sinfulness of sin) such _evil_ is not\n_sin_; and the person who suffers it, or who is the compelled\ninstrument of its infliction on others, may feel _regret_, but cannot\nfeel _remorse_. So likewise of the word origin, original, or\noriginant. The reader cannot too early be warned that it is not\napplicable, and, without abuse of language, can never be applied, to a\nmere _link_ in a chain of effects, where each, indeed, stands in the\nrelation of a _cause_ to those that follow, but is at the same time\nthe _effect_ of all that precede. For in these cases a cause amounts\nto little more than an antecedent. At the utmost it means only a\n_conductor_ of the causative influence; and the old axiom, _causa\ncaus\u00e6 causa causati_, applies, with a never-ending regress to each\nseveral link, up the whole chain of nature. But this _is_ Nature: and\nno _natural_ thing or act can be called originant, or be truly said\nto have an _origin_[110] in any other. The moment we assume an origin\nin nature, a true _beginning_, an actual first--that moment we rise\n_above_ nature, and are compelled to assume a _supernatural_ power.\n(Gen. i. 1.)\n\nIt will be an equal convenience to myself and to my readers, to let\nit be agreed between us, that we will generalize the word\nCircumstance, so as to understand by it, as often as it occurs in this\nComment, all and every thing not connected with the Will, past or\npresent, of a Free Agent. Even though it were the blood in the\nchambers of his heart, or his own inmost sensations, we will regard\nthem as _circumstantial, extrinsic_, or _from without_.\n\nIn this sense of the word Original, and in the sense before given of\nSin, it is evident that the phrase, original sin, is a pleonasm, the\nepithet not adding to the thought, but only enforcing it. For if it be\nsin, it must be _original_; and a state or act, that has not its\norigin in the will, may be calamity, deformity, disease, or mischief;\nbut a _sin_ it cannot be. It is not enough that the act appears\nvoluntary, or that it is intentional; or that it has the most hateful\npassions or debasing appetite for its proximate cause and\naccompaniment. All these may be found in a mad-house, where neither\nlaw nor humanity permit us to condemn the actor of sin. The reason of\nlaw declares the maniac not a free-agent; and the verdict follows of\ncourse--Not guilty. Now mania, as distinguished from idiocy, frenzy,\ndelirium, hypochondria, and derangement (the last term used\nspecifically to express a suspension or disordered state of the\nunderstanding or adaptive power) is the occultation or eclipse of\nreason, as the power of ultimate ends. The maniac, it is well known,\nis often found clever and inventive in the selection and adaptation of\nmeans to _his_ ends; but his _ends_ are madness. He has lost his\nreason. For though Reason, in finite Beings, is not the Will--or how\ncould the Will be opposed to the Reason?--yet it is the _condition_,\nthe _sine qua non_ of a _Free_-will.\n\nWe will now return to the extract from Jeremy Taylor on a theme of\ndeep interest in itself, and trebly important from its _bearings_. For\nwithout just and distinct views respecting the Article of Original\nSin, it is impossible to understand aright any one of the peculiar\ndoctrines of Christianity. Now my first complaint is, that the\neloquent Bishop, while he admits the _fact_ as established beyond\ncontroversy by universal experience, yet leaves us wholly in the dark\nas to the main point, supplies us with no answer to the principal\nquestion--why he names it Original Sin. It cannot be said, We know\nwhat the Bishop _means_, and what matters the name? for the _nature_\nof the fact, and in what light it should be regarded by us, depends on\nthe nature of our answer to the question, whether Original Sin is or\nis not the right and proper designation. I can imagine the same\nquantum of _sufferings_, and yet if I had reason to regard them as\nsymptoms of a commencing change, as pains of growth, the temporary\ndeformity and misproportions of immaturity, or (as in the final\nsloughing of the caterpillar) the throes and struggles of the waxing\nor evolving PSYCHE, I should think it no Stoical flight to doubt, how\nfar I was authorized to declare the Circumstance an _evil_ at all.\nMost assuredly I would not express or describe the fact as an evil\nhaving an origin in the sufferers themselves or as sin.\n\nLet us, however, waive this objection. Let it be supposed that the\nBishop uses the word in a different and more comprehensive sense, and\nthat by sin he understands evil of all kind connected with or\nresulting from _actions_--though I do not see how we can represent the\nproperties even of inanimate bodies (of poisonous substances for\ninstance) except as _acts_ resulting from the constitution of such\nbodies. Or if this sense, though not unknown to the Mystic divines,\nshould be _too_ comprehensive and remote, we will suppose the Bishop\nto comprise under the term sin, the evil accompanying or consequent on\n_human_ actions and purposes:--though here too, I have a right to be\ninformed, for what reason and on what grounds Sin is thus limited to\n_human_ agency? And truly, I should be at no loss to assign the\nreason. But then this reason would instantly bring me back to my first\ndefinition; and any other reason, than that the human agent is\nendowed with Reason, and with a Will which can place itself either in\nsubjection or in opposition to his Reason--in other words, that man is\nalone of all known animals a responsible creature--I neither know nor\ncan imagine.\n\nThus, then, the sense which Taylor--and with him the antagonists generally\nof this Article as propounded by the first Reformers--attaches to the\nwords, Original Sin, needs only be carried on into its next\nconsequence, and it will be found to _imply_ the sense which I have\ngiven--namely, that Sin is Evil having an _Origin_. But inasmuch as it\nis _evil_, in God it cannot originate: and yet in some _Spirit_ (that\nis, in some _supernatural_ power) it _must_. For in _Nature_ there is\nno origin. Sin therefore is spiritual Evil: but the spiritual in man\nis the Will. Now when we do not refer to any particular sins, but to\nthat state and constitution of the Will, which is the ground,\ncondition, and common Cause of all Sins; and when we would further\nexpress the truth, that this corrupt _nature_ of the Will must in some\nsense or other be considered as its own act, that the corruption must\nhave been self-originated;--in this case and for this purpose we may,\nwith no less propriety than force, entitle this dire spiritual evil\nand source of all evil, that is absolutely such, Original Sin. I have\nsaid, \"the corrupt _nature_ of the Will.\" I might add, that the\nadmission of a _nature_ into a spiritual essence by its own act is a\ncorruption.\n\nSuch, I repeat, would be the inevitable conclusion, _if_ Taylor's\nsense of the term were carried on into its immediate consequences. But\nthe whole of his most eloquent Treatise makes it certain that Taylor\ndid not carry it on: and consequently Original Sin, according to his\nconception, is a calamity which being common to all men must be\nsupposed to result from their common nature: in other words, the\nuniversal Calamity of Human _Nature_.\n\nCan we wonder, then, that a mind, a heart like Taylor's should reject,\nthat he should strain his faculties to explain away, the belief that\nthis calamity, so dire in itself, should appear to the All-merciful\nGod a rightful cause and motive for inflicting on the wretched\nsufferers a calamity infinitely more tremendous; nay, that it should\nbe incompatible with Divine Justice _not_ to punish it by everlasting\ntorment? Or need we be surprised if he found nothing that could\nreconcile his mind to such a belief, in the circumstance that the acts\nnow _consequent_ on this calamity and either directly or indirectly\n_effects_ of the same, were, five or six thousand years ago in the\ninstance of a certain individual and his accomplice, _anterior_ to the\ncalamity, and the _Cause_ or _Occasion_ of the same;--that what in all\nother men is _disease_, in these two persons was _guilt_;--that what\nin us is _hereditary_, and consequently _nature_, in _them_ was\n_original_, and consequently _sin_? Lastly, might it not be presumed,\nthat so enlightened, and at the same time so affectionate, a divine,\nwould even fervently disclaim and reject the pretended justifications\nof God grounded on flimsy analogies drawn from the imperfections of\nhuman ordinances and human justice-courts--some of very doubtful\ncharacter even as human institutes, and all of them just only as far\nas they are necessary, and rendered necessary chiefly by the weakness\nand wickedness, the limited powers and corrupt passions, of mankind?\nThe more confidently might this be presumed of so acute and practised\na logician, as Taylor, in addition to his other extraordinary gifts,\nis known to have been, when it is demonstrable that the most current\nof these justifications rests on a palpable equivocation: namely, the\ngross misuse of the word right.[111] An instance will explain my\nmeaning. In as far as, from the known frequency of dishonest or\nmischievious persons, it may have been found _necessary_, in so far\nis the law _justifiable_ in giving landowners the right of proceeding\nagainst a neighbour or fellow-citizen for even a slight trespass on\nthat which the law has made their property:--nay, of proceeding in\nsundry instances criminally and even capitally. But surely, either\nthere is no religion in the world, and nothing obligatory in the\nprecepts of the Gospel, or there are occasions in which it would be\nvery _wrong_ in the proprietor to exercise the _right_, which yet it\nmay be highly _expedient_ that he should possess. On this ground it\nis, that Religion is the sustaining opposite of Law.\n\nThat Taylor, therefore, should have striven fervently against the\nArticle so interpreted and so vindicated, is, (for me, at least) a\nsubject neither of surprise nor of complaint. It is the doctrine which\nhe _substitutes_, it is the weakness and inconsistency betrayed in the\ndefence of this substitute; it is the unfairness with which he\nblackens the established Article--for to give it, as it has been\ncaricatured by a few Ultra-Calvinists during the fever of the (so\ncalled) Quinquarticular controversy, was in effect to blacken it--and\nthen imposes another scheme, to which the same objections apply with\neven increased force, a scheme which seems to differ from the former\nonly by adding fraud and mockery to injustice; these are the things\nthat excite my wonder; it is of these that I complain. For what does\nthe Bishop's scheme amount to?--God, he tells us, required of Adam a\nperfect obedience, and made it possible by endowing him \"with perfect\nrectitudes and super-natural heights of grace\" proportionate to the\nobedience which he required. As a _consequence_ of his disobedience,\nAdam lost this rectitude, this perfect sanity and proportionateness of\nhis intellectual, moral and corporeal state, powers and impulses; and\nas the _penalty_ of his crime, he was deprived of all super-natural\naids and graces. The death, with whatever is comprised in the\nScriptural sense of the word, death, began from that moment to work in\nhim, and this _consequence_ he conveyed to his offspring, and through\nthem to all his posterity, that is, to all mankind. They were _born_\ndiseased in mind, body and will. For what less than disease can we\ncall a necessity of error and a predisposition to sin and sickness?\nTaylor, indeed, _asserts_, that though perfect obedience became\nincomparably more difficult, it was not, however, absolutely\n_impossible_. Yet he himself admits that the contrary was _universal_;\nthat of the countless millions of Adam's posterity, not a single\nindividual ever realized, or approached to the realization of, this\npossibility; and (if my memory[113] does not deceive me) Taylor\nhimself has elsewhere exposed--and if he has not, yet Common Sense\nwill do it for him--the sophistry in asserting of a whole what may be\ntrue of the whole, but--is in fact true only, of each of its component\nparts. Any one may snap a horse-hair: therefore, any one may perform\nthe same feat with the horse's tail. On a level floor (on the hardened\nsand, for instance, of a sea-beach) I chalk two parallel straight\nlines, with a width of eight inches. It is _possible_ for a man, with\na bandage over his eyes, to keep within the path for two or three\npaces: therefore, it is _possible_ for him to walk blindfold for two\nor three leagues without a single deviation! And this _possibility_\nwould suffice to acquit me of _injustice_, though I had placed\nman-traps within an inch of one line, and knew that there were\npit-falls and deep wells beside the other!\n\nThis _assertion_, therefore, without adverting to its discordance\nwith, if not direct contradiction to, the tenth and thirteenth\nArticles of our Church, I shall not, I trust, be thought to rate below\nits true value, if I treat it as an _infinitesimal_ possibility that\nmay be safely dropped in the calculation:--and so proceed with the\nargument. The consequence then of Adam's crime was, by a natural\nnecessity, inherited by persons who could not (the Bishop affirms) in\nany sense have been accomplices in the crime or partakers in the\nguilt: and yet consistently with the divine holiness, it was not\npossible that the same perfect obedience should not be required of\nthem. Now what would the idea of equity, what would the law inscribed\nby the Creator in the heart of man, seem to dictate in this case?\nSurely, that the supplementary aids, the super-natural graces\ncorrespondent to a law above nature, should be increased in proportion\nto the diminished strength of the agents, and the increased resistance\nto be overcome by them. But no! not only the consequence of Adam's\nact, but the penalty due to his crime, was perpetuated. His\ndescendants were despoiled or left destitute of these aids and graces,\nwhile the obligation to perfect obedience was continued; an obligation\ntoo, the non-fulfilment of which brought with it death and the\nunutterable woe that cleaves to an immortal soul for ever alienated\nfrom its Creator.\n\nObserve, that all these _results_ of Adam's fall enter into Bishop\nTaylor's scheme of Original Sin equally as into that of the first\nReformers. In this respect the Bishop's doctrine is the same with that\nlaid down in the Articles and Homilies of the Established Church. The\nonly difference that has hitherto appeared, consists in the aforesaid\n_mathematical_ possibility of fulfilling the whole law, which in the\nBishop's scheme is affirmed to remain still in human nature, or (as it\nis elsewhere expressed) in the nature of the human Will.[114] But though\nit were possible to grant this existence of a power in all men, which in\nno man was ever exemplified, and where the _non_-actualization of such\npower is, _a priori_, so certain, that the belief or imagination of\nthe contrary in any individual is expressly given us by the Holy\nSpirit as a test, whereby it may be known that _the truth is not in\nhim_, as an infallible sign of imposture or self-delusion! Though it\nwere possible to grant this, which, consistently with Scripture and\nthe principles of reasoning which we apply in all other cases, it is\nnot possible to grant;--and though it were possible likewise to\noverlook the glaring sophistry of concluding in relation to a series\nof indeterminate length, that whoever can do any one, can therefore do\nall; a conclusion, the futility of which must force itself on the\ncommon-sense of every man who understands the proposition;--still the\nquestion will arise--Why, and on what principle of equity, were the\nunoffending sentenced to be born with so fearful a disproportion of\ntheir powers to their duties? Why were they subjected to a law, the\nfulfilment of which was all but impossible, yet the penalty on the\nfailure tremendous? Admit that for those who had never enjoyed a\nhappier lot, it was no punishment to be made to inhabit a ground which\nthe Creator had cursed, and to have been born with a body prone to\nsickness, and a soul surrounded with temptation, and having the worst\ntemptation within itself in its own _temptibility_;--to have the\nduties of a spirit with the wants and appetites of an animal! Yet on\nsuch imperfect Creatures, with means so scanty and impediments so\nnumerous, to impose the same task-work that had been required of a\nCreature with a pure and entire nature, and provided with super-natural\naids--if this be not to inflict a penalty;--yet to be placed under a\nlaw, the difficulty of obeying which is infinite, and to have momently\nto struggle with this difficulty, and to live momently in hazard of\nthese consequences--if this be no punishment;--words have no\ncorrespondence with thoughts, and thoughts are but shadows of each\nother, shadows that own no substance for their anti-type!\n\nOf such an outrage on common-sense, Taylor was incapable. He himself\ncalls it a penalty; he admits that in effect it is a punishment: nor\ndoes he seek to suppress the question that so naturally arises out of\nthis admission;--on what principle of equity were the innocent\noffspring of Adam _punished_ at all? He meets it, and puts-in an\nanswer. He states the problem, and gives his solution--namely, that\n\"God on Adam's account was so exasperated with mankind, that being\nangry he would still continue the punishment\"! \"The case\" (says the\nBishop) \"is this: Jonathan and Michal were Saul's children. It came to\npass, that seven of Saul's issue were to be hanged: all equally\ninnocent, equally culpable.\" [_Before I quote further, I feel myself\ncalled on to remind the reader, that these two last words were added\nby Jeremy Taylor without the least grounds in Scripture, according to\nwhich_, (2 Samuel, xxi.) _no crime was laid to their charge, no blame\nimputed to them_. _Without any pretence of culpable conduct on their\npart, they were arraigned as children of Saul, and sacrificed to a\npoint of state-expedience. In recommencing the quotation, therefore,\nthe reader ought to let the sentence conclude with the words--_] \"all\nequally innocent. David took the five sons of Michal, for she had\nleft him unhandsomely. Jonathan was his friend: and therefore he\nspared _his_ son, Mephibosheth. Here it was indifferent as to the\nguilt of the persons\" (_Bear in mind, reader, that no guilt was\nattached to either of them!_) \"whether David should take the sons of\nMichal or of Jonathan; but it is likely that as upon the kindness that\nDavid had to Jonathan, he spared his son; so upon the just provocation\nof Michal, he made that evil fall upon them, which, it may be, they\nshould not have suffered, if their mother had been kind. Adam was to\nGod, as Michal to David.\"[115]\n\nThis answer, this solution proceeding too from a divine so\npre-eminently gifted, and occurring (with other passages not less\nstartling) in a vehement refutation of the received doctrine on the\nexpress ground of its opposition to the clearest conceptions and best\nfeelings of mankind--this it is that surprises me! It is of this that\nI complain! The Almighty Father _exasperated_ with those, whom the\nBishop has himself in the same treatise described as \"innocent and\nmost unfortunate\"--the two things best fitted to conciliate love and\npity! Or though they did not remain innocent, yet those whose\nabandonment to a mere nature, while they were left amenable to a law\nabove nature, he affirms to be the irresistible cause, that they one\nand all _did_ sin! And this decree illustrated and justified by its\nanalogy to one of the worst actions of an imperfect mortal! From such\nof my readers as will give a thoughtful perusal to these works of\nTaylor, I dare anticipate a concurrence with the judgment which I here\ntranscribe from the blank space at the end of the _Deus Justificatus_\nin my own copy; and which, though twenty years[116] have elapsed since\nit was written, I have never seen reason to recant or modify. \"This\nmost eloquent Treatise may be compared to a statue of Janus, with the\none face, which we must suppose fronting the Calvinistic tenet, entire\nand fresh, as from the master's hand: beaming with life and force,\nwitty scorn on the lip, and a brow at once bright and weighty with\nsatisfying reason:--the other, looking toward the \"something to be put\nin its place,\" maimed, featureless, and weather-bitten into an almost\nvisionary confusion and indistinctness.\"[117]\n\nWith these expositions I hasten to contrast the _Scriptural_ article\nrespecting Original Sin, or the corrupt and sinful Nature of the Human\nWill, and the belief which alone is required of us, as Christians. And\nhere the first thing to be considered, and which will at once remove a\nworld of error, is; that this is no tenet first introduced or imposed\nby Christianity, and which, should a man see reason to disclaim the\nauthority of the Gospel, would no longer have any claim on his\nattention. It is no perplexity that a man may get rid of by ceasing to\nbe a Christian, and which has no existence for a philosophic Deist. It\nis a FACT, affirmed, indeed, in the Christian Scriptures alone with\nthe force and frequency proportioned to its consummate importance; but\na fact acknowledged in _every_ religion that retains the least\nglimmering of the patriarchal faith in a God infinite, yet\n_personal_--a Fact assumed or implied as the basis of every religion,\nof which any relics remain of earlier date than the last and total\napostacy of the Pagan world, when the faith in the great I AM, the\n_Creator_, was extinguished in the sensual Polytheism, which is\ninevitably the final result of Pantheism or the worship of nature; and\nthe only form under which the Pantheistic scheme--that, according to\nwhich the world is God, and the material universe itself the one only\n_absolute_ Being--can exist for a people, or become the popular creed.\nThus in the most ancient books of the Brahmins, the deep sense of this\nFact, and the doctrines grounded on obscure traditions of the promised\nremedy, are seen struggling, and now gleaming, now flashing, through\nthe mist of Pantheism, and producing the incongruities and gross\ncontradictions of the Brahmin Mythology: while in the rival sect--in\nthat most strange _ph\u00e6nomenon_, the religious atheism of the\nBuddhists: with whom God is only universal matter considered\nabstractedly from all particular forms--the Fact is placed among the\ndelusions natural to man, which, together with other superstitions\ngrounded on a supposed _essential_ difference between right and wrong,\n_the sage_ is to decompose and precipitate from the _menstruum_ of\n_his_ more refined apprehensions! Thus in denying the Fact, they\nvirtually acknowledge it.\n\nFrom the remote East turn to the mythology of Lesser Asia, to the\ndescendants of Javan who dwelt in the tents of Shem, and possessed the\nIsles. Here again, and in the usual form of an historic solution we\nfind the same _Fact_, and as characteristic of the human _race_,\nstated in that earliest and most venerable _mythus_ (or symbolic\nparable) of Prometheus--that truly wonderful Fable, in which the\ncharacters of the rebellious Spirit and of the Divine Friend of\nMankind (\u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2) are united in the same person; and\nthus in the most striking manner noting the forced amalgamation of the\nPatriarchal tradition with the incongruous scheme of Pantheism. This\nand the connected tale of Io, which is but the sequel of the\nPrometheus, stand alone in the Greek Mythology, in which elsewhere\nboth gods and men are mere powers and products of nature. And most\nnoticeable it is, that soon after the promulgation and spread of the\nGospel had awakened the moral sense, and had opened the eyes even of\nits wiser enemies to the necessity of providing some solution of this\ngreat problem of the Moral World, the beautiful Parable of Cupid and\nPsyche was brought forward as a _rival_ FALL OF MAN: and the fact of a\nmoral corruption connatural with the human race was again recognized.\nIn the assertion of ORIGINAL SIN the Greek Mythology rose and set.\n\nBut not only was the _fact_ acknowledged of a law in the nature of man\nresisting the law of God; (and whatever is placed in active and direct\noppugnancy to the good is, _ipso facto_, positive evil;) it was\nlikewise an acknowledged MYSTERY, and one which by the nature of the\nsubject must ever remain such--a problem, of which any other solution,\nthan the statement of the _Fact_ itself, was demonstrably\n_impossible_. That it is so, the least reflection will suffice to\nconvince every man, who has previously satisfied himself that he is a\nresponsible being. It follows necessarily from the postulate of a\nresponsible Will. Refuse to grant this, and I have not a word to say.\nConcede this and you concede all. For this is the essential attribute\nof a Will, and contained in the very _idea_, that whatever determines\nthe Will acquires this power from a previous determination of the Will\nitself. The Will is ultimately self-determined, or it is no longer a\n_Will_ under the law of perfect freedom, but a _nature_ under the\nmechanism of cause and effect. And if by an act, to which it had\ndetermined itself, it has subjected itself to the determination of\nnature (in the language of St. Paul, to the law of the flesh), it\nreceives a nature into itself, and so far it becomes a nature: and\nthis is a corruption of the Will and a corrupt nature. It is also a\n_Fall_ of Man, inasmuch as his Will is the condition of his\npersonality; the ground and condition of the attribute which\nconstitutes him _man_. And the ground work of _personal_ Being is a\ncapacity of acknowledging the Moral Law (the Law of the Spirit, the\nLaw of Freedom, the Divine Will) as that which should, of itself,\nsuffice to determine the Will to a free obedience of the law, the law\nworking therein by its own exceeding lawfulness.[118] This, and this\nalone, is _positive_ Good; good in itself, and independent of all\nrelations. Whatever resists, and, as a positive force, opposes _this_\nin the Will is therefore evil. But an evil in the Will is an evil\nWill; and as all moral evil (that is, all evil that is evil without\nreference to its contingent physical consequences) is _of_ the Will,\nthis evil Will must have its source in the Will. And thus we might go\nback from act to act, from evil to evil, _ad infinitum_, without\nadvancing a step.\n\nWe call an individual a _bad_ man, not because an action is contrary\nto the law, but because it has led us to conclude from it some\n_Principle_ opposed to the law, some private maxim, or by-law in the\nWill contrary to the universal law of right reason in the conscience,\nas the _ground_ of the action. But this evil principle again must be\ngrounded in some other principle which has been made determinant of\nthe Will by the Will's own self-determination. For if not, it must\nhave its ground in some necessity of nature, in some instinct or\npropensity imposed, not acquired, another's work not our own.\nConsequently, neither act nor principle could be imputed; and\nrelatively to the agent, not _original_, not _sin_.\n\nNow let the grounds on which the fact of an evil inherent in the Will\nis affirmable in the instance of any one man, be supposed equally\napplicable in _every_ instance, and concerning all men: so that the\nfact is asserted of the individual, _not_, because he has committed\nthis or that crime, or because he has shown himself to be _this_ or\n_that_ man, but simply because he is _a_ man. Let the evil be supposed\nsuch as to imply the impossibility of an individual's referring to any\nparticular time at which it might be conceived to have commenced, or\nto any period of his existence at which it was not existing. Let it be\nsupposed, in short, that the subject stands in no relation whatever to\ntime, can neither be called _in_ time nor _out of_ time; but that all\nrelations of time are as alien and heterogeneous in this question, as\nthe relations and attributes of space (north or south, round or\nsquare, thick or thin) are to our affections and moral feelings. Let\nthe reader suppose this, and he will have before him the precise\nimport of the Scriptural _doctrine_ of Original Sin; or rather of the\nFact acknowledged in all ages, and recognized but not originating, in\nthe Christian Scriptures.\n\nIn addition to this it will be well to remind the inquirer, that the\nstedfast conviction of the existence, personality, and moral\nattributes of God, is presupposed in the acceptance of the Gospel, or\nrequired as its indispensable preliminary. It is taken for granted as\na point which the hearer had already decided for himself, a point\nfinally settled and put at rest: not by the removal of all\ndifficulties, or by any such increase of insight as enabled him to\nmeet every objection of the Epicurean or the sceptic with a full and\nprecise answer; but because he had convinced himself that it was folly\nas well as presumption in so imperfect a creature to expect it; and\nbecause these difficulties and doubts disappeared at the beam, when\ntried against the weight and convictive power of the reasons in the\nother scale. It is, therefore, most unfair to attack Christianity, or\nany article which the Church has declared a Christian doctrine, by\narguments, which, if valid, are valid against all religion. Is there\na disputant who scorns a mere _postulate_, as the basis of any\nargument in support of the Faith; who is too high-minded _to beg_ his\nground, and will take it by a strong hand? Let him fight it out with\nthe Atheists, or the Manich\u00e6ans; but not stoop to pick up their\narrows, and then run away to discharge them at Christianity or the\nChurch!\n\nThe only true way is to state the doctrine, believed as well by Saul\nof Tarsus, _yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against_ the\nChurch of Christ, as by Paul the Apostle _fully preaching the Gospel\nof Christ_. A moral Evil is an evil that has its origin in a Will. An\nevil common to all must have a ground common to all. But the actual\nexistence of moral evil we are bound in conscience to admit; and that\nthere is an evil common to all is a fact; and this evil must therefore\nhave a common ground. Now this evil ground cannot originate in the\nDivine Will: it must therefore be referred to the will of man. And\nthis evil ground we call Original Sin. It is a _mystery_, that is, a\nfact, which we see, but cannot explain; and the doctrine a truth which\nwe apprehend, but can neither comprehend nor communicate. And such by\nthe quality of the subject (namely, a responsible _Will_) it must be,\nif it be truth at all.\n\nA sick man, whose complaint was as obscure as his sufferings were\nsevere and notorious, was thus addressed by a humane stranger: \"My\npoor Friend! I find you dangerously ill, and on this account only, and\nhaving certain information of your being so, and that you have not\nwherewithal to pay for a physician, I have come to you. Respecting\nyour disease, indeed, I can tell you nothing, that you are capable of\nunderstanding, more than you know already, or can only be taught by\nreflection on your own experience. But I have rendered the disease no\nlonger irremediable. I have brought the remedy with me: and I now\noffer you the means of immediate relief, with the assurance of gradual\nconvalescence, and a final perfect cure; nothing more being required\non your part, but your best endeavours to follow the prescriptions I\nshall leave with you. It is, indeed, too probable, from the nature of\nyour disease, that you will occasionally neglect or transgress them.\nBut even this has been calculated on in the plan of your cure, and\nthe remedies provided, if only you are sincere and in right earnest\nwith yourself, and have your _heart_ in the work. Ask me not how such\na disease can be conceived possible. Enough for the present that you\nknow it to be real: and I come to cure the disease not to explain it.\"\n\nNow, what if the patient or some of his neighbours should charge this\ngood Samaritan, with having given rise to the mischievous notion of an\ninexplicable disease, involving the honour of the King of the\ncountry;--should inveigh against _him_ as the author and first\nintroducer of the notion, though of the numerous medical works\ncomposed ages before _his_ arrival, and by physicians of the most\nvenerable authority, it was scarcely possible to open a single volume\nwithout finding some description of the disease, or some lamentation\nof its malignant and epidemic character:--and, lastly, what if certain\npretended friends of this good Samaritan, in their zeal to vindicate\nhim against this absurd charge, should assert that he was a perfect\nstranger to this disease, and boldly deny that he had ever said or\ndone any thing connected with it, or that implied its existence?\n\nIn this Apologue or imaginary case, reader, you have the true bearings\nof Christianity on the fact and doctrine of Original Sin. The doctrine\n(that is, the confession of a known fact) Christianity has only in\ncommon with every religion, and with every philosophy, in which the\nreality of a responsible Will and the _essential_ difference between\ngood and evil have been recognised. _Peculiar_ to the Christian\nreligion are the remedy and (for all purposes but those of a merely\nspeculative curiosity) the solution. By the annunciation of the remedy\nit affords all the solution which our _moral_ interests require; and\neven in that which remains, and must remain, unfathomable, the\nChristian finds a new motive to walk humbly with the Lord his God.\n\nShould a professed Believer ask you whether that, which is the ground\nof responsible action in _your_ will, could in any way be responsibly\npresent in the Will of Adam,--answer him in these words: \"_You_, Sir!\ncan no more demonstrate the negative, than I can conceive the\naffirmative. The corruption of my will may very warrantably be spoken\nof as a _consequence_ of Adam's fall, even as my birth of Adam's\nexistence; as a consequence, a link in the historic chain of\ninstances, whereof Adam is the first. But that it is _on account_ of\nAdam; or that this evil principle was, _a priori_, inserted or infused\ninto my Will by the will of another--which is indeed a contradiction\nin terms, my Will in such case being no _Will_--_this_ is nowhere\nasserted in Scripture explicitly or by implication.\" It belongs to the\nvery essence of the doctrine, that in respect of Original Sin _every_\nman is the adequate representative of _all_ men. What wonder, then,\nthat where no inward ground of preference existed, the choice should\nbe determined by outward relations, and that the first _in time_\nshould be taken as the diagram? Even in Genesis the word, Adam, is\ndistinguished from a proper name by an Article before it. It is _the_\nAdam, so as to express the _genus_, not the individual--or rather,\nperhaps, I should say, _as well as_ the individual. But that the word\nwith its equivalent, _the old man_, is used symbolically and\nuniversally by St. Paul, (1 Cor. xv. 22, 45. Eph. iv. 22. Col. iii. 9.\nRom. vi. 6.) is too evident to need any proof.\n\nI conclude with this remark. The doctrine of Original Sin concerns all\nmen. But it concerns Christians _in particular_ no otherwise than by\nits connexion with the doctrine of Redemption; and with the Divinity\nand Divine Humanity of the Redeemer as a corollary or necessary\ninference from both mysteries. BEWARE OF ARGUMENTS AGAINST\nCHRISTIANITY, WHICH CANNOT STOP THERE, AND CONSEQUENTLY OUGHT NOT TO\nHAVE COMMENCED THERE. Something I might have added to the clearness of\nthe preceding views, if the limits of the work had permitted me to\nclear away the several delusive and fanciful assertions respecting the\nstate[119] of our first parents, their wisdom, science, and angelic\nfaculties, assertions without the slightest ground in Scripture:--Or,\nif consistently with the wants and preparatory studies of those for\nwhose use the volume was especially intended, I could have entered\ninto the momentous subject of a Spiritual Fall or Apostacy\n_antecedent_ to the formation of man--a belief, the scriptural grounds\nof which are few and of diverse interpretation, but which has been\nalmost universal in the Christian Church. Enough, however, has been\ngiven, I trust, for the Reader to see and (as far as the subject is\ncapable of being understood) to understand this long controverted\nArticle, in the sense in which alone it is binding on his faith.\nSupposing him therefore, to know the meaning of original sin, and to\nhave decided for himself on the fact of its actual existence, as the\nantecedent ground and occasion of Christianity, we may now proceed to\nChristianity itself, as the Edifice raised on this ground, that is, to\nthe great Constituent Article of the Faith in Christ, as the Remedy of\nthe Disease--The Doctrine of Redemption.\n\nBut before I proceed to this momentous doctrine let me briefly remind\nthe young and friendly pupil, to whom I would still be supposed to\naddress myself, that in the following Aphorism the word science is\nused in its strict and narrowest sense. By a Science I here mean any\nchain of truths which are either absolutely certain, or necessarily\ntrue for the human mind, from the laws and constitution of the mind\nitself. In neither case is our conviction derived, or capable of\nreceiving any addition, from outward experience, or empirical\n_data_--that is, matters of fact _given_ to us through the medium of\nthe senses--though these _data_ may have been the occasion, or may\neven be an indispensable condition, of our reflecting on the former,\nand thereby becoming _conscious_ of the same. On the other hand, a\nconnected series of conclusions grounded on empirical _data_, in\ncontra-distinction from science, I beg leave (no better term\noccurring) in this place and for this purpose, to denominate a scheme.\n\n[103] It has in its consequences proved no trifling evil to the\nChristian world, that Aristotle's Definitions of Nature are all\ngrounded on the petty and rather rhetorical than philosophical\nAntithesis of Nature to Art--a conception inadequate to the demands\neven of _his_ philosophy. Hence in the progress of his reasoning, he\nconfounds the _natura naturata_ (that is, the sum total of the facts\nand ph\u00e6nomena of the Senses) with an hypothetical _natura naturans_, a\n_Goddess_ Nature, that has no better claim to a place in any sober\nsystem of Natural Philosophy than the Goddess _Multitudo_; yet to\nwhich Aristotle not rarely gives the name and attributes of the\nSupreme Being. The result was, that the idea of God thus identified\nwith this hypothetical _Nature_ becomes itself but an _hypothesis_, or\nat best but a precarious inference from incommensurate premises and on\ndisputable principles: while in other passages, God is confounded with\n(and every where, in Aristotle's _genuine_ works, _included in_) the\nUniverse: which most grievous error it is the great and characteristic\nmerit of Plato to have avoided and denounced.\n\n[104] Take one passage among many from the posthumous Tracts (1660) of\nJohn Smith,[105] not the least star in that bright constellation of\nCambridge men, the contemporaries of Jeremy Taylor. \"While we reflect\non our idea of Reason, we know that our Souls are not it, but only\npartake of it; and that we have it \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u03bd and not \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03b7\u03bd.\nNeither can it be called a Faculty, but far rather a Light, which we\nenjoy, but the Source of which is not in ourselves, nor rightly by any\nindividual to be denominated _mine_.\" This _pure_, intelligence he\nthen proceeds to contrast with the _Discursive_ Faculty, that is, the\nUnderstanding.\n\n[105] There is a Note on John Smith and his 'Select Discourses' in\nColeridge's 'Literary Remains,' 1838, v. iii. pp. 415-19.--ED.\n\n[106] See Coleridge on Jeremy Taylor: 'Literary Remains,' 1838, v.\niii. pp. 295-334, &c.--ED.\n\n[107] We have the assurance of Bishop Horsley, that the Church of\nEngland does not demand the literal understanding of the document\ncontained in the second (from verse 8) and third Chapters of Genesis\nas a point of faith, or regard a different interpretation as affecting\nthe orthodoxy of the interpreter; divines of the most unimpeachable\northodoxy, and the most averse to the allegorizing of Scripture\nhistory in general, having from the earliest ages of the Christian\nChurch adopted or permitted it in this instance. And indeed no\nunprejudiced man can pretend to doubt, that if in any other work of\nEastern origin he met with Trees of Life and of Knowledge; talking and\nconversable snakes:\n\n    Inque rei signum _serpentem serpere_ jussum;\n\nhe would want no other proofs that it was an allegory he was reading,\nand intended to be understood as such. Nor, if we suppose him\nconversant with Oriental works of any thing like the same antiquity,\ncould it surprise him to find events of true history in connexion\nwith, or historical personages among the actors and interlocutors of,\nthe parable. In the temple-language of Egypt the serpent was the\nsymbol of the understanding in its twofold function, namely as the\nfaculty of _means_ to _proximate_ or _medial_, ends, analogous to the\n_instinct_ of the more intelligent animals, ant, bee, beaver, and the\nlike, and opposed to the practical reason, as the determinant of the\n_ultimate_ end; and again, it typifies the understanding as the\ndiscursive and logical faculty possessed individually by each\nindividual--the \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03bd \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9, in distinction from the \u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2,\nthat is, intuitive reason, the source of ideas and ABSOLUTE Truths,\nand the principle of the necessary and the universal in our\naffirmations and conclusions. Without or in contra-vention to the\nreason (_i.e._ _the spiritual mind_ of St. Paul, and _the light that\nlighteth every man_ of St. John) this understanding (\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\n\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, or carnal mind) becomes the _sophistic_ principle, the wily\ntempter to evil by counterfeit good; the pander and advocate of the\npassions and appetites; ever in league with, and always first applying\nto, the _Desire_, as the inferior nature in man, the _woman_ in our\nhumanity; and through the DESIRE prevailing on the WILL (the\n_Man_-hood, _Vir_tus) against the command of the universal reason, and\nagainst the light of reason in the WILL itself. This essential\ninherence of an intelligential principle (\u03c6\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd) in the Will\n(\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7 \u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b7) or rather the Will itself thus considered, the\nGreeks expressed by an appropriate word \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b7. This, but little\ndiffering from Origen's interpretation or hypothesis, is supported and\nconfirmed by the very old tradition of the _homo androgynus_, that is,\nthat the original man, the individual first created, was bi-sexual: a\nchim\u00e6ra, of which and of many other mythological traditions the most\nprobable explanation is, that they were originally symbolical _glyphs_\nor sculptures, and afterwards translated into _words_, yet\n_literally_, that is into the common names of the several figures and\nimages composing the symbol, while the symbolic _meaning_ was left to\nbe deciphered as before, and sacred to the initiate. As to the\nabstruseness and subtlety of the conceptions, this is so far from\nbeing an objection to this oldest _gloss_ on this venerable relic of\nSemitic, not impossibly ante-diluvian, philosophy, that to those who\nhave carried their researches farthest back into Greek, Egyptian,\nPersian, and Indian antiquity, it will seem a strong confirmation. Or\nif I chose to address the sceptic in the language of the day, I might\nremind him, that as alchemy went before chemistry, and astrology\nbefore astronomy, so in all countries of civilized man have\nmetaphysics outrun common sense. Fortunately for us that they have so!\nFor from all we know of the _un_metaphysical tribes of New Holland and\nelsewhere, a common sense not preceded by metaphysics is no very\nenviable possession. O be not cheated, my youthful reader, by this\nshallow prate! The creed of true common sense is composed of the\n_results_ of scientific meditation, observation, and experiment, as\nfar as they are _generally_ intelligible. It differs therefore in\ndifferent countries and in every different age of the same country.\nThe common sense of a people is the moveable _index_ of its average\njudgment and information. Without metaphysics science could have had\nno language, and common sense no materials.\n\nBut to return to my subject. It cannot be denied, that the Mosaic\nNarrative thus interpreted gives a just and faithful exposition of the\nbirth and parentage and successive moments of _ph\u00e6nomenal_ sin\n(_peccatum ph\u00e6nomenon; crimen primarium et commune_), that is, of sin\nas it reveals itself _in time_, and is an immediate object of\nconsciousness. And in this sense most truly does the Apostle assert,\nthat in Adam we all fell. The first human sinner is the adequate\nrepresentative of all his successors. And with no less truth may it be\nsaid, that it is the same Adam that falls in every man, and from the\nsame reluctance to abandon the too dear and undivorceable Eve: and the\nsame EVE tempted by the same serpentine and perverted understanding,\nwhich, framed originally to be the interpreter of the reason and the\nministering angel of the Spirit, is henceforth sentenced and bound\nover to the service of the Animal Nature, its needs and its cravings,\ndependent on the senses for all its materials, with the World of Sense\nfor its appointed sphere: _Upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust\nshalt thou eat all the days of thy life._ I have shown elsewhere, that\nas the Instinct of the mere intelligence differs in degree not in\nkind, and circumstantially, not essentially, from the _vis vit\u00e6_, or\nvital power in the assimilative and digestive functions of the stomach\nand other organs of nutrition, even so the Understanding, in itself\nand distinct from the Reason and Conscience, differs in degree only\nfrom the Instinct in the animal. It is still but _a beast of the\nfield_, though _more subtle than any beast of the field_, and\ntherefore in its corruption and perversion _cursed above any_--a\npregnant word! of which, if the reader wants an exposition or\nparaphrase, he may find one more than two thousand years old among the\nfragments of the poet Menander. (See Cumberland's Observer, No. CL.\nvol. iii. p. 289, 290.) This is the _Understanding_ which in its\n_every thought_ is to be brought _under obedience to Faith_; which it\ncan scarcely fail to be, if only it be first subjected to the Reason,\nof which spiritual Faith is even the blossoming and the fructifying\nprocess. For it is indifferent whether I say that Faith is the\ninterpenetration of the Reason and the Will, or that it is at once the\nAssurance and the Commencement of the approaching Union between the\nReason and the _intelligible_ realities, the _living_ and\n_substantial_ truths, that are even in this life its most proper\nobjects.\n\nI have thus put the reader in possession of my own opinions respecting\nthe narrative in Gen. ii. and iii. \u0395\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03b4\u03b7, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03b3\u03b5 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9,\n\u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1, \u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u00b7 \u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd \u1f11\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9. Or\nI might ask with Augustine, Why not both? Why not at once symbol and\nhistory? or rather how should it be otherwise? Must not of necessity\nthe FIRST MAN be a SYMBOL of Mankind, in the fullest force of the\nword, Symbol, rightly defined--that is, a sign included in the idea,\nwhich it represents;--an actual _part_ chosen to represent the\n_whole_, as a lip with a chin prominent is a symbol of man; or a\n_lower_ form or species used as the representative of a higher in the\nsame _kind_: thus Magnetism is the Symbol of Vegetation, and of the\nvegetative and reproductive power in animals; the Instinct of the\nant-tribe, or the bee, is a symbol of the human understanding. And\nthis definition of the word is of great practical importance, inasmuch\nas the symbolical is hereby distinguished _toto genere_ from the\nallegoric and metaphorical. But, perhaps, parables, allegories, and\nallegorical or typical applications, are incompatible with _inspired_\nScripture! The writings of St. Paul are sufficient proof of the\ncontrary. Yet I readily acknowledge, that allegorical _applications_\nare one thing, and allegorical _interpretation_ another: and that\nwhere there is no ground for supposing such a sense to have entered\ninto the intent and purpose of the sacred penman, they are not to be\ncommended. So far, indeed, am I from entertaining any predilection for\nthem, or any favourable opinion of the Rabbinical commentators and\ntraditionists, from whom the fashion was derived, that in carrying it\nas far as our own Church has carried it, I follow her judgment, not my\nown. But in the first place, I know but one other part of the\nScriptures not universally held to be parabolical, which, not without\nthe sanction of great authorities, I am disposed to regard as an\nApologue or Parable, namely, the book of Jonah; the reasons for\nbelieving the Jewish nation collectively to be therein impersonated,\nseeming to me unanswerable. Secondly, as to the Chapters now in\nquestion--that such interpretation is at least tolerated by our\nChurch, I have the word of one of her most zealous champions. And\nlastly it is my deliberate and conscientious conviction, that the\nproofs of such having been the intention of the inspired writer or\ncompiler of the book of Genesis, lie on the face of the narrative\nitself.\n\n[108] Rom. v. 14. Who were they, who _had_ not _sinned after the\nsimilitude of Adam's transgression_; and over whom, notwithstanding,\n_death reigned_?\n\n[109] Slightly altered from Jeremy Taylor's 'Deus Justificatus; or a\nVindication of the Glory of the Divine Attributes in the Question of\nOriginal Sin, Against the Presbyterian way of Understanding it.' See\nHeber's edition of Taylor's works, 1822, v. ix. pp. 315-16.--ED.\n\n[110] This sense of the word is implied even in its metaphorical or\nfigurative use. Thus we may say of a _river_ that it _originates_ in\nsuch or such a _fountain_; but the water of a _canal_ is _derived_\nfrom such or such a river. The Power which we call Nature, may be thus\ndefined: A Power subject to the Law of Continuity (_lex continui; nam\nin natur\u00e2 non datur saltus_) which law the human understanding, by a\nnecessity arising out of its own constitution, can _conceive_ only\nunder the form of Cause and Effect. That this _form_ (or law) of Cause\nand Effect is (relatively to the world _without_, or to things as they\nsubsist independently of our perceptions) only a form or mode of\n_thinking_; that it is a law inherent in the Understanding itself\n(just as the symmetry of the miscellaneous objects seen by the\nkaleidoscope inheres in, or results from, the mechanism of the\nkaleidoscope itself)--this becomes evident as soon as we attempt to\napply the pre-conception directly to any operation of nature. For in\nthis case we are forced to represent the cause as being at the same\ninstant the effect, and _vice vers\u00e2_ the effect as being the cause--a\nrelation which we seek to express by the terms Action and Re-action;\nbut for which the term Reciprocal Action or the law of Reciprocity\n(_Wechselwirkung_) would be both more accurate and more expressive.\n\nThese are truths which can scarcely be too frequently impressed on the\nmind that is in earnest in the wish to _reflect_ aright. Nature is a\nline in constant and continuous evolution. Its _beginning_ is lost in\nthe super-natural: and _for our understanding_, therefore, it must\nappear as a continuous line without beginning or end. But where there\nis no discontinuity there can be no origination, and every appearance\nof origination in _nature_ is but a shadow of our own casting. It is a\nreflection from our own _Will_ or Spirit. Herein, indeed, the Will\nconsists. This is the essential character by which WILL is _opposed_ to\nNature, as _Spirit_, and raised _above_ Nature, as _self-determining_\nSpirit--this namely, that it is a power of _originating_ an act or\nstate.\n\nA young friend or, as he was pleased to describe himself, _a pupil of\nmine, who is beginning to learn to think_, asked me to explain by an\ninstance what is meant by \"_originating_ an act or state.\" My answer\nwas--This morning I awoke with a dull pain, which I knew from\nexperience the getting up would remove; and yet by adding to the\ndrowsiness and by weakening or depressing the _volition (voluntas\nsensorialis seu mechanica_) the very pain seemed to _hold me back_, to\nfix me (as it were) to the bed. After a peevish ineffectual quarrel\nwith this painful disinclination, I said to myself: Let me count\ntwenty, and the moment I come to nineteen I will leap out of bed. So\nsaid, and so done. Now should you ever find yourself in the same or in\na similar state, and should attend to _the goings-on_ within you, you\nwill learn what I mean by _originating_ an act. At the same time you\nwill see that it belongs _exclusively_ to the Will (_arbitrium_); that\nthere is nothing analogous to it in outward experiences; and that I\nhad, therefore, no way of explaining it but by referring you to an\n_act_ of your own, and to the peculiar self-consciousness preceding\nand accompanying it. As we know what Life is by _Being_, so we know\nwhat Will is by _Acting_. That in _willing_ (replied my young friend)\nwe _appear_ to ourselves to constitute an actual _Beginning_ and that\nthis seems _unique_, and without any example in our _sensible_\nexperience, or in the ph\u00e6nomena of nature, is an undeniable _fact_.\nBut may it not be an illusion arising from our ignorance of the\nantecedent causes? You _may_ suppose this (I rejoined):--that the soul\nof every man should impose a _Lie_ on itself; and that this Lie, and\nthe acting on the faith of its being the most important of all truths\nand the most real of all realities, should form the main\ncontra-distinctive character of Humanity, and the only basis of that\ndistinction between Things and Persons on which our whole moral and\ncriminal Law is grounded;--you may suppose this; I cannot, as I could\nin the case of an arithmetical or geometrical proposition, render it\n_impossible_ for you to suppose it. Whether you can reconcile such a\nsupposition with the belief of an all-wise Creator, is another\nquestion. But, taken singly, it is doubtless in your power to suppose\nthis. Were it not, the belief of the contrary would be no subject of a\n_command_, no part of a moral or religious _duty_. You would not,\nhowever, suppose it _without a reason_. But all the pretexts that ever\nhave been or ever can be offered for this supposition, are built on\ncertain _notions_ of the Understanding that have been generalized from\n_conceptions_; which conceptions, again, are themselves generalized or\nabstracted from objects of sense. Neither the one nor the other,\ntherefore, have any force except in application to objects of sense\nand within the sphere of sensible Experience. What but absurdity can\nfollow, if you decide on Spirit by the laws of Matter? if you judge\nthat which, if it be at all, must be _super_-sensual, by that faculty\nof your mind, the very definition of which is \"the faculty judging\n_according_ to sense\"? These then are unworthy the name of _reasons_:\nthey are only pretexts. But _without_ reason to contradict your own\nconsciousness in defiance of your own conscience, is _contrary_ to\nreason. Such and such writers, you say, have made a great _sensation_.\nIf so, I am sorry for it; but the fact I take to be this. From a\nvariety of causes the more austere Sciences have fallen into\ndiscredit, and impostors have taken advantage of the general ignorance\nto give a sort of mysterious and terrific importance to a parcel of\ntrashy sophistry, the authors of which would not have employed\nthemselves more irrationally in submitting the works of Raffaelle or\nTitian to canons of criticism deduced from the sense of smell. Nay,\nless so. For here the objects and the organs are only disparate: while\nin the other case they are absolutely diverse. I conclude this note by\nreminding the reader, that my first object is to make myself\n_understood_. When he is in full possession of my _meaning_, then let\nhim consider whether it deserves to be received as _the truth_. Had it\nbeen my immediate purpose to make him _believe_ me as well as\n_understand_ me, I should have thought it necessary to warn him that a\n_finite_ Will does indeed originate an _act_, and may originate a\n_state_ of being; but yet only _in_ and _for_ the Agent himself. A\nfinite Will _constitutes_ a true Beginning; but with regard to the\nseries of motions and chants by which the free act is manifested and\nmade _effectual_, the _finite_ Will _gives_ a beginning only by\nco-incidence with that _absolute_ WILL, which is at the same time\n_Infinite_ POWER! Such is the language of Religion, and of Philosophy\ntoo in the last instance. But I express the same truth in ordinary\nlanguage when I say, that a finite Will, or the Will of a finite\nfree-agent, acts outwardly by confluence with the laws of nature.\n\n[111] It may conduce to the readier comprehension of this point if I\nsay, that the equivoque consists in confounding the almost technical\nsense of the _noun substantive_, right, (a sense most often determined\nby the genitive case following, as the right of property, the right of\nhusbands to chastise their wives, and so forth) with the popular sense\nof the _adjective_, right: though this likewise has, if not a double\nsense, yet a double application;--the first, when it is used to\nexpress the fitness of a mean to a relative end, for example, \"the\n_right_ way to obtain the _right_ distance at which a picture should\nbe examined,\" and the like; and the other, when it expresses a perfect\nconformity and commensurateness with the immutable idea of equity, or\nperfect rectitude. Hence the close connexion between the words\nrighteousness and _god_liness, that is, godlikeness.\n\nI should be tempted to subjoin a few words on a predominating doctrine\nclosely connected with the present argument--the Paleyan principle of\nGENERAL CONSEQUENCES; but the inadequacy of this Principle as a\ncriterion of Right and Wrong, and above all its utter unfitness as a\nMoral _Guide_ have been elsewhere so fully stated ('The Friend,' vol.\nii. Essay xi.[112]), that even in again referring to the subject, I\nmust shelter myself under Seneca's rule, that what we cannot too\nfrequently think of, we cannot too often be made to recollect. It is,\nhowever, of immediate importance to the point in discussion, that the\nreader should be made to see how altogether incompatible the principle\nof judging by General Consequences is with the Idea of an Eternal,\nOmnipresent, and Omniscient Being;--that he should be made aware of\nthe absurdity of attributing _any_ form of Generalization to the\nAll-perfect Mind. To _generalize_ is a faculty and function of the\nhuman understanding, and from the imperfection and limitation of the\nunderstanding are the use and the necessity of generalizing derived.\nGeneralization is a Substitute for Intuition, for the power of\n_intuitive_ (that is, immediate) knowledge. As a substitute, it is a\ngift of inestimable value to a finite intelligence, such as _man_ in\nhis present state is endowed with and capable of exercising; but yet a\n_substitute_ only, and an imperfect one to boot. To attribute it to\nGod is the grossest anthropomorphism: and grosser instances of\nanthropomorphism than are to be found in the controversial writings on\nOriginal Sin and Vicarious Satisfaction, the records of superstition\ndo not supply.\n\n[112] Essay xv. p. 204, Bohn's edition.--ED.\n\n[113] I have since this page was written, met with several passages in\nthe Treatise on Repentance, the Holy Living and Dying, and the Worthy\nCommunicant, in which the Bishop asserts without scruple the\n_impossibility_ of total obedience; and on the same grounds as I have\ngiven. [See Taylor's 'Doctrine and Practice of Repentance,' c. I. sec.\nii., \"On the Possibility or Impossibility of Keeping the Precepts of\nthe Gospel;\" Heber's ed. of the 'Works,' v. 8, p. 265.--ED.]\n\n[114] Availing himself of the equivocal sense and (I most readily\nadmit) the injudicious use, of the word \"free\" in the--even on this\naccount--_faulty_ phrase, \"_free only to sin_,\" Taylor treats the\nnotion of a power in the Will of determining itself to evil without an\nequal power of determining itself to good, as a \"_foolery_.\" I would\nthis had been the only instance in his \"Deus Justificatus\" of that\ninconsiderate contempt so frequent in the polemic treatises of minor\ndivines, who will have ideas of reason, spiritual truths that can only\nbe spiritually discerned, translated for them into adequate\nconceptions of the understanding. The great articles of Corruption and\nRedemption are _propounded_ to us as spiritual mysteries; and every\ninterpretation, that pretends to explain them into comprehensible\nnotions, does by its very success furnish presumptive proof of its\nfailure. The acuteness and logical dexterity, with which Taylor has\nbrought out the falsehood or semblance of falsehood in the Calvinistic\nscheme, are truly admirable. Had he next concentered his thoughts in\ntranquil meditation, and asked himself: What then _is_ the truth? If a\nWill _be_ at all, what must a will be?--he might, I think, have seen\nthat a nature in a Will implies already a _corruption_ of that Will;\nthat a _nature_ is as inconsistent with _freedom_ as free choice with\nan incapacity of choosing aught but evil. And lastly, a free power in\na _nature_ to fulfil a law _above_ nature!--I, who love and honour\nthis good and great man with all the reverence that can dwell \"on this\nside idolatry,\" dare not retort on this assertion the charge of\n_foolery_; but I find it a paradox as startling to my _reason_ as any\nof the hard sayings of the Dort divines were to his _understanding_.\n\n[115] Vol. ix. pp. 5, 6, Heber's edit. ['Doctrine and Practice of\nRepentance,' c. vi. sec. I.--ED.]\n\n[116] This passage appears as here in the first edition of the 'Aids,'\n1825.--ED.\n\n[117] The same, slightly different, appears in Coleridge's 'Literary\nRemains,' 1838, v. iii., p. 328.--ED.\n\n[118] If the Law worked _on_ the Will, it would be the working of an\nextrinsic and alien force, and, as St. Paul profoundly argues, would\nprove the Will sinful.\n\n[119] For a specimen of these Rabbinical dotages I refer, not to the\nwritings of mystics and enthusiasts, but to the shrewd and witty Dr.\nSouth, one of whose most elaborate sermons stands prominent among the\nmany splendid extravaganzas on this subject.\n\n\nAPHORISM XI.\n\nIn whatever age and country it is the prevailing mind and character of\nthe nation to regard the present life as subordinate to a life to\ncome, and to mark the present state, _the World of their Senses_, by\nsigns, instruments, and mementos of its connexion with a future state\nand a spiritual world;--where the Mysteries of Faith are brought\nwithin the _hold_ of the people at large, not by being explained away\nin the vain hope of accommodating them to the average of their\nunderstanding, but by being made the objects of love by their\ncombination with events and epochs of history, with national\ntraditions, with the monuments and dedications of ancestral faith and\nzeal, with memorial and symbolical observances, with the realizing\ninfluences of social devotion, and above all, by early and habitual\nassociation with Acts of the Will, _there_ Religion is. _There_,\nhowever obscured by the hay and straw of human Will-work, the\nfoundation is safe. In _that_ country, and under the predominance of\nsuch maxims the National Church is no mere State-_Institute_. It is\nthe State itself in its intensest federal union; yet at the same\nmoment the Guardian and Representative of all personal Individuality.\nFor the Church is the Shrine of Morality; and in Morality alone the\ncitizen asserts and reclaims his personal independence, his\n_integrity_. Our outward acts are efficient, and most often possible,\nonly by coalition. As an efficient power, the agent, is but _a\nfraction_ of unity: he becomes an _integer_ only in the recognition\nand performance of the Moral Law. Nevertheless it is most true (and a\ntruth which cannot with safety be overlooked) that morality _as_\nmorality, has no existence for _a people_. It is either absorbed and\nlost in the quicksands of prudential _calculus_, or it is taken up and\ntransfigured into the duties and mysteries of religion. And no wonder:\nsince morality (including the _personal_ being, the I AM, as its\nsubject) is itself a mystery, and the ground and _suppositum_ of all\nother mysteries, relatively to man.\n\n\nAPHORISM XII.\n\n_Paley not a Moralist._\n\nSchemes of conduct, grounded on calculations of self-interest; or on\nthe average consequences of actions, supposing them _general_; form a\nbranch of Political Economy, to which let all due honour be given.\nTheir utility is not here questioned. But however estimable within\ntheir own sphere, such schemes, or any one of them in particular, may\nbe, they do not belong to Moral Science, to which both in kind and\npurpose, they are in all cases _foreign_, and, when substituted for\nit, _hostile_. Ethics, or the _Science_ of Morality, does indeed in no\nwise exclude the consideration of _action_; but it contemplates the\nsame in its originating spiritual _source_, without reference to space\nor time or sensible existence. Whatever springs out of _the perfect\nlaw of freedom_, which exists only by its unity with the will of God,\nits inherence in the Word of God, and its communion with the Spirit of\nGod--_that_ (according to the principles of Moral Science) is GOOD--it\nis light and righteousness and very truth. Whatever seeks to separate\nitself from the Divine Principle, and proceeds from a false centre in\nthe agent's particular will, is EVIL--a work of darkness and\ncontradiction. It is sin and essential falsehood. Not the outward\ndeed, constructive, destructive, or neutral,--not the deed as a\npossible object of the senses,--is the object of Ethical Science. For\nthis is no compost, _collectorium_ or inventory of single duties; nor\ndoes it seek in the multitudinous sea, in the pre-determined waves,\nand tides and currents of _nature_ that freedom, which is exclusively\nan attribute of _spirit_. Like all other pure sciences, whatever it\nenunciates, and whatever it concludes, it enunciates and concludes\n_absolutely_. Strictness is its essential character: and its first\nProposition is, _Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in\none point, he is guilty of all_. For as the Will or Spirit, the Source\nand Substance of Moral Good, is one and all in every part; so must it\nbe the totality, the whole articulated series of single acts, taken as\nunity, that can alone, in the severity of science, be recognised as\nthe proper counterpart and adequate representative of a good Will. Is\nit in this or that limb, or not rather in the whole body, the entire\n_organismus_ that the law of life reflects itself?--Much less, then,\ncan the law of the Spirit work in fragments.\n\n\nAPHORISM XIII.\n\nWherever there exists a permanent[120] learned class, having authority\nand possessing the respect and confidence of the country; and wherever\nthe Science of Ethics is acknowledged, and taught in _this_ class as a\nregular part of a learned education, to its future members generally,\nbut as the special study and indispensable ground-work of such as are\nintended for holy orders;--_there_ the Article of Original Sin will be\nan AXIOM of Faith in _all_ classes. Among the learned an undisputed\n_truth_, and with the people a fact, which no man imagines it possible\nto deny: and the doctrine, thus inwoven in the faith of all, and\ncoeval with the consciousness of each, will for each and all, possess\na reality, _subjective_ indeed, yet virtually equivalent to that which\nwe intuitively give to the objects of our senses.\n\nWith the learned this will be the case, because the Article is the\nfirst--I had almost said, _spontaneous_--product of the application of\nmoral science to history, of which it is the interpreter. A mystery in\nits own right, and by the necessity and essential character of its\nsubject--(for the Will, like the Life, in every act and product\npre-supposes to itself, a Past always present, a Present that evermore\nresolves itself into a Past)--the doctrine of Original Sin gives to\nall the other mysteries of religion a common basis, a connection of\ndependency, an intelligibility of relation, and total harmony, that\nsupersede extrinsic proof. There is here that same proof from unity of\npurpose, that same evidence of symmetry, which, in the contemplation\nof a human skeleton, flashed conviction on the mind of Galen, and\nkindled meditation into a hymn of praise.\n\nMeanwhile the People, not goaded into doubt by the lessons and\nexamples of their teachers and superiors; not drawn away from the\nfixed stars of heaven, the form and magnitude of which are the same\nfor the naked eye of the shepherd as for the telescope of the\nsage--from the immediate truths, I mean, of Reason and Conscience to\nan exercise to which they have not been trained,--of a faculty which\nhas been imperfectly developed,--on a subject not within the sphere of\nthe faculty, nor in any way amenable to its judgment;--the PEOPLE will\nneed no arguments to receive a doctrine confirmed by their own\nexperience from within and from without, and intimately blended with\nthe most venerable traditions common to all races, and the traces of\nwhich linger in the latest twilight of civilization.\n\nAmong the revulsions consequent on the brute bewilderments of a\nGodless revolution, a great and active zeal for the interests of\nreligion may be one. I dare not trust it, till I have seen what it is\nthat gives religion this interest, till I am satisfied that it is not\nthe interests of this world; necessary and laudable interests,\nperhaps, but which may, I dare believe, be secured as effectually and\nmore suitably by the prudence of this world, and by this world's\npowers and motives. At all events, I find nothing in the fashion of\nthe day to deter me from adding, that the reverse of the\npreceding--that where religion is valued and patronized as a\nsupplement of law, or an aid extraordinary of police; where Moral\nSCIENCE is exploded as the mystic jargon of dark ages; where a lax\nSystem of Consequences, by which every iniquity on earth may be (and\nhow many _have_ been!) denounced and defended with equal plausibility,\nis publicly and authoritatively taught as Moral Philosophy; where the\nmysteries of religion, and truths supersensual, are either cut and\nsquared for the comprehension of the understanding, \"the faculty\njudging according to sense,\" or desperately torn asunder from the\nreason, nay, fanatically opposed to it; lastly, where Private[121]\nInterpretation is every thing and the Church nothing--_there_ the\nmystery of Original Sin will be either rejected, or evaded, or\nperverted into the monstrous fiction of Hereditary Sin,--guilt\ninherited; in the mystery of Redemption metaphors will be obtruded for\nthe reality; and in the mysterious appurtenants and symbols of\nRedemption (Regeneration, Grace, the Eucharist, and Spiritual\nCommunion) the realities will be evaporated into metaphors.\n\n[120] A learned order must be supposed to consist of three classes.\nFirst, those who are employed in adding to the existing sum of power\nand knowledge. Second, and most numerous class, those whose office it\nis to diffuse through the community at large the practical Results of\nscience, and that kind and degree of knowledge and cultivation, which\nfor all is requisite or clearly useful. Third, the formers and\ninstructors of the second--in schools, halls, and universities, or\nthrough the medium of the press. The second class includes not only\nthe parochial clergy, and all others duly ordained to the ministerial\noffice; but likewise all the members of the legal and medical\nprofessions, who have received a learned education under accredited\nand responsible teachers. [See 'The Church and State,' p. 45, &c.,\nthird edition--H. N. C.]\n\n[121] The author of 'The Statesman's Manual' must be the most\ninconsistent of men, if he can be justly suspected of a leaning to the\nRomish Church; or if it be necessary for him to repeat his fervent\nAmen to the wish and prayer of our late good old King, that \"every\nadult in the British Empire should be able to read his Bible, and have\na Bible to read!\" Nevertheless, it may not be superfluous to declare,\nthat in thus protesting against the _license_ of private\ninterpretation, I do not mean to condemn the exercise or deny the\nright of individual judgment. I condemn only the pretended right of\nevery individual, competent and incompetent, to interpret Scripture in\na sense of his own, in opposition to the judgment of the Church,\nwithout knowledge of the originals or of the languages, the history,\nthe customs, opinions, and controversies of the age and country in\nwhich they were written; and where the interpreter judges in ignorance\nor contempt of uninterrupted tradition, the unanimous consent of\nFathers and Councils, and the universal Faith of the Church in all\nages. It is not the attempt to form a judgment, which is here called\nin question; but the grounds, or rather the _no-grounds_ on which the\njudgment is formed and relied on.\n\nMy fixed principle is: that A CHRISTIANITY WITHOUT A CHURCH EXERCISING\nSPIRITUAL AUTHORITY IS VANITY AND DISSOLUTION. And my _belief_ is,\nthat when Popery is rushing in on us like an inundation, the nation\nwill find it to be so. I say _Popery_; for this too I hold for a\ndelusion, that Romanism or _Roman_ Catholicism is separable from\nPopery. Almost as readily could I suppose a circle without a centre.\n\n\nAPHORISM XIV.\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\nAs in great maps or pictures you will see the border decorated with\nmeadows, fountains, flowers, and the like, represented in it, but in\nthe middle you have the main design: so amongst the works of God is it\nwith the foreordained Redemption of Man. All his other works in the\nworld, all the beauty of the creatures, the succession of ages, and\nthe things that come to pass in them, are but as the border to this as\nthe mainpiece. But as a foolish unskilful beholder, not discerning\nthe excellency of the principal piece in such maps or pictures, gazes\nonly on the fair border, and goes no farther--thus do the greatest\npart of us as to this great Work of God, the redemption of our\npersonal Being, and the re-union of the Human with the Divine, by and\nthrough the Divine Humanity of the Incarnate Word.\n\n\nAPHORISM XV.\n\nLUTHER.\n\nIt is a hard matter, yea, an impossible thing for thy human strength,\nwhosoever thou art (without God's assistance), at such a time when\nMoses setteth on thee with the Law (see Aphorism XII.),--when the holy\nLaw written in thy heart accuseth and condemneth thee, forcing thee to\na comparison of thy heart therewith, and convicting thee of the\nincompatibleness of thy will and nature with Heaven and holiness and\nan immediate God--that then thou shouldest be able to be of such a\nmind as if no Law nor sin had ever been! I say it is in a manner\nimpossible that a human creature, when he feeleth himself assaulted\nwith trials and temptations, and the conscience hath to do with God,\nand the tempted man knoweth that the root of temptation is within him,\nshould obtain such mastery over his thoughts as then to think no\notherwise than that from everlasting nothing hath been but only and\nalone Christ, altogether Grace and Deliverance!\n\nCOMMENT.\n\nIn irrational agents, namely, the brute animals, the will is hidden or\nabsorbed in the law. The law is their _nature_. In the original purity\nof a rational agent the uncorrupted will is identical with the law.\nNay, inasmuch as a Will perfectly identical with the Law is one with\nthe _divine_ Will, we may say, that in the unfallen rational agent the\nWill _constitutes_ the Law.[122] But it is evident that the holy and\nspiritual power and light, which by a _prolepsis_ or anticipation we\nhave _named_ law, is a grace, an inward perfection, and without the\ncommanding, binding and menacing character which belongs to a law,\nacting as a master or sovereign distinct from, and existing, as it\nwere, externally for, the agent who is bound to obey it. Now this is\nSt. Paul's sense of the word; and on this he grounds his whole\nreasoning. And hence too arises the obscurity and apparent paradoxy of\nseveral texts. That the Law is a _Law_ for you; that it acts _on_ the\nWill not _in_ it; that it exercises an agency _from without_, by fear\nand coercion; proves the corruption of your Will, and presupposes it.\nSin in this sense came by the law: for it has its essence, as sin, in\nthat counter-position of the holy principle to the will, which\noccasions this principle to be a LAW. Exactly (as in all other points)\nconsonant with the Pauline doctrine is the assertion of John, when\nspeaking of the re-adoption of the redeemed to be sons of God, and the\nconsequent resumption (I had almost said re-absorption) of the Law\ninto the Will (\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2, James i. 25.,)--he\nsays--_For the law was given by Moses, but Grace and Truth came by\nJesus Christ_. That by the Law St. Paul meant only the _ceremonial_\nlaw, is a notion that could originate only in utter inattention to the\nwhole strain and bent of the Apostle's argument.\n\n[122] In fewer words thus: For the brute animals, their nature is\ntheir law;--for what other third law can be imagined, in addition to\nthe law of nature, and the law of reason? Therefore: in irrational\nagents the law constitutes the will. In moral and rational agents the\nwill constitutes, or ought to constitute, the law: I speak of moral\nagents, unfallen. For the personal Will comprehends the _idea_, as a\nReason, and it gives causative force to the Idea, as a _practical_\nReason. But Idea with the power of realizing the same is a Law; or\nsay:--the Spirit comprehends the Moral Idea, by virtue of its\nrationality, and it gives to the Idea causative Power, as a Will: In\nevery sense therefore, it _constitutes_ the Law, supplying both the\nElements of which it consists--namely, the Idea, and the realizing\nPower.\n\n\nAPHORISM XVI.\n\nLEIGHTON AND COLERIDGE.\n\nChrist's death was both voluntary and violent. There was external\nviolence: and that was the accompaniment, or at most the occasion, of\nhis death. But there was internal willingness, the spiritual Will,\nthe Will of the Spirit, and this was the proper cause. By this Spirit\nhe was restored from death: neither indeed _was it possible for him to\nbe holden of it; being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the\nSpirit_, says St. Peter. But he is likewise declared elsewhere to have\ndied by that same Spirit, which here, in opposition to the violence,\nis said to quicken him. Thus Hebrews ix. 14. _Through the eternal\nSpirit he offered himself._ And even from Peter's words, and without\nthe epithet, eternal, to aid the interpretation, it is evident that\n_the Spirit_, here opposed to the flesh, body or animal life, is of a\nhigher nature and power than the individual _soul_, which cannot of\nitself return to re-inhabit or quicken the body.\n\nIf these points were niceties, and an over-refining in doctrine, is it\nto be believed that the Apostles, John, Peter and Paul, with the\nauthor of the Epistle to the Hebrews, would have laid so great stress\non them? But the true life of Christians is to eye Christ in every\nstep of his life--not only as their Rule but as their Strength:\nlooking to him as their Pattern both in doing and in suffering, and\ndrawing power from him for going through both: being _without him_\nable for nothing. Take comfort then, thou that believest! _It is he\nthat lifts up the Soul from the Gates of Death_: and he hath said, _I\nwill raise thee up at the last day_. Thou that believest _in_ him,\nbelieve him and take comfort. Yea, when thou art most sunk in thy sad\napprehensions, and he far off to thy thinking, then is he nearest to\nraise and comfort thee: as sometimes it grows darkest immediately\nbefore day.\n\n\nAPHORISM XVII.\n\nLEIGHTON AND COLERIDGE.\n\nWould any of you be cured of that common disease, the fear of death?\nYet this is not the right name of the disease, as a mere reference to\nour armies and navies is sufficient to prove: nor can the fear of\ndeath, either as loss of life or pain of dying, be justly held a\n_common_ disease. But would you be cured of the fear and fearful\nquestionings connected with the approach of death? Look this way, and\nyou shall find more than you seek. Christ, the Word that was from the\nbeginning and was made flesh and dwelt among men, died. And he, who\ndying conquered death in his own person, conquered Sin, and Death\nwhich is the Wages of Sin, for thee. And of this thou mayest be\nassured, if only thou believe in him, and love him. I need not add,\nkeep his commandments: since where Faith and Love are, Obedience in\nits threefold character, as Effect, Reward, and Criterion, follows by\nthat moral necessity which is the highest form of freedom. The Grave\nis thy bed of rest, and no longer the _cold_ bed: for thy Saviour has\nwarmed it, and made it fragrant.\n\nIf then it be health and comfort to the Faithful that Christ descended\ninto the grave, with especial confidence may we meditate on his return\nfrom thence, _quickened by the Spirit_: this being to those who are in\nhim the certain pledge, yea, the effectual cause of that blessed\nresurrection, for which they themselves hope. There is that union\nbetwixt them and their Redeemer, that they shall rise by the\ncommunication and virtue of his rising: not simply by his _power_--for\nso the _wicked_ likewise to their grief shall be raised: but _they by\nhis life as their life_.\n\nCOMMENT.\n\n_On the three Preceding Aphorisms._\n\nTo the reader, who has consented to submit his mind to my temporary\nguidance, and who permits me to regard him as my pupil, or junior\nfellow-student, I continue to address myself. Should he exist only in\nmy imagination, let the bread float on the waters! If it be the Bread\nof Life, it will not have been utterly cast away.\n\nLet us pause a moment, and review the road we have passed over since\nthe transit from Religious Morality to Spiritual Religion. My first\nattempt was to satisfy you, that there _is_ a Spiritual principle in\nMan,[123] and to expose the sophistry of the arguments in support of\nthe contrary. Our next step was to clear the road of all counterfeits,\nby showing what is _not_ the Spirit, what is _not_ Spiritual\nReligion.[124] And this was followed by an attempt to establish a\ndifference in kind between religious truths and the deductions of\nspeculative science; yet so as to prove, that the former are not only\nequally rational with the latter, but that they alone appeal to reason\nin the fulness and living reality of their power. This and the state\nof mind requisite for the formation of right convictions respecting\nspiritual truths, afterwards employed our attention. Having then\nenumerated the Articles of the Christian Faith _peculiar_ to\nChristianity, I entered on the great object of the present work;\nnamely, the removal of all valid objections to these articles on\ngrounds of right reason or conscience. But to render this practicable\nit was necessary, first, to present each article in its true\nScriptural purity, by exposure of the caricatures of misinterpreters;\nand this, again, could not be satisfactorily done till we were agreed\nrespecting the faculty entitled to sit in judgment on such questions.\nI early foresaw, that my best chance (I will not say, of giving an\n_insight_ into the surpassing worth and transcendent reasonableness of\nthe Christian scheme, but) of rendering the very question\nintelligible, depended on my success in determining the true nature\nand limits of the human UNDERSTANDING, and in evincing its _diversity_\nfrom REASON. In pursuing this momentous subject, I was tempted in two\nor three instances into disquisitions, which if not beyond the\ncomprehension, were yet unsuited to the taste, of the persons for whom\nthe work was principally intended. These, however, I have separated\nfrom the running text, and compressed into notes. The reader will at\nworst, I hope, pass them by as a leaf or two of waste paper, willingly\ngiven by him to those for whom it may not be paper _wasted_.\nNevertheless, I cannot conceal, that the subject itself supposes, on\nthe part of the reader, a steadiness in _self-questioning_, a pleasure\nin referring to his own inward experience for the facts asserted by\nthe author, which can only be expected from a person who has fairly\nset his heart on arriving at clear and fixed conclusions in matters of\nFaith. But where this interest is felt, nothing more than a common\ncapacity, with the ordinary advantages of education, is required for\nthe complete comprehension both of the argument and the result. Let\nbut one thoughtful hour be devoted to the pages 143-165. In all that\nfollows, the reader will find no difficulty in _understanding_ the\nauthor's meaning, whatever he may have in _adopting_ it.\n\nThe two great moments of the Christian Religion are, Original Sin and\nRedemption; _that_ the Ground, _this_ the Superstructure of our faith.\nThe former I have exhibited, first, according to the scheme of the\nWestminster Divines and the Synod of Dort; then, according to the[125]\nscheme of a contemporary Arminian divine; and lastly, in contrast\nwith both schemes, I have placed what I firmly believe to be the\n_Scriptural_ sense of this article, and vindicated its entire\nconformity with reason and experience. I now proceed to the other\nmomentous article--from the necessitating _Occasion_ of the Christian\nDispensation to Christianity itself. For Christianity and Redemption\nare equivalent terms. And here my Comment will be comprised in a few\nsentences: for I confine my views to the one object of clearing this\nawful mystery from those too current misrepresentations of its nature\nand import that have laid it open to scruples and objections, not to\nsuch as shoot forth from an unbelieving heart--(against these a sick\nbed will be a more effectual antidote than all the argument in the\nworld)--but to such scruples as have their birth-place in the reason\nand moral sense. Not that it is a mystery--not that _it passeth all\nunderstanding_;--if the doctrine be more than an hyperbolical phrase,\nit must do so;--but that it is at variance with the Law revealed in\nthe conscience; that it contradicts our moral instincts and\nintuitions--_this_ is the difficulty, which alone is worthy of an\nanswer. And what better way is there of correcting the misconceptions\nthan by laying open the source and occasion of them? What surer way of\nremoving the scruples and prejudices, to which these misconceptions\nhave given rise, than by propounding the mystery itself--namely THE\nREDEMPTIVE ACT, as the transcendent _Cause_ of Salvation--in the\nexpress and definite words, in which it was enunciated by the Redeemer\nhimself?\n\nBut here, in addition to the three Aphorisms preceding, I interpose a\nview of redemption as appropriated by faith, coincident with\nLeighton's, though for the greater part expressed in my own words.\n_This_ I propose as the right view. Then follow a few sentences\ntranscribed from Field (an excellent divine of the reign of James I.,\nof whose work on the Church it would be difficult to speak too\nhighly)[127] containing the questions to be solved, and which is\nnumbered, as an Aphorism, rather to preserve the uniformity of\nappearance, than as being strictly such. Then follows the Comment: as\npart and commencement of which the Reader will consider the two\nparagraphs of pp. 135, 136, written for this purpose and in the\nforesight of the present inquiry: and I entreat him therefore to begin\nthe Comment by re-perusing these.\n\n[123] Elements of Religious Philosophy, _ante_, p. 88--ED.\n\n[124] See _ante_, pp. 96-101.--ED.\n\n[125] To escape the consequences of this scheme, some Arminian divines\nhave asserted that the penalty inflicted on Adam, and continued in his\nposterity, was simply the loss of immortality, Death as the utter\nextinction of personal Being: immortality being regarded by them (and\nnot, I think, without good reason) as a supernatural attribute, and\nits loss therefore involved in the forfeiture of supernatural graces.\nThis theory has its golden side; and as a private opinion, is said to\nhave the countenance of more than one dignitary of our Church, whose\ngeneral orthodoxy is beyond impeachment. For here the _penalty_\nresolves itself into the _consequence_, and this the natural and\n_naturally_ inevitable consequence of Adam's crime. For Adam, indeed,\nit was a _positive_ punishment: a punishment of his guilt, the justice\nof which who could have dared arraign? While for the Offspring of Adam\nit was simply a _not_ super-adding to their nature the privilege by\nwhich the original man was contra-distinguished from the brute\ncreation--a mere negation, of which they had no more right to complain\nthan any other species of animals. God in this view appears only in\nhis attribute of mercy, as averting by supernatural interposition a\nconsequence naturally inevitable. This is the golden side of the\ntheory. But if we approach to it from the opposite direction, it first\nexcites a just scruple, from the countenance it seems to give to the\ndoctrine of Materialism. The supporters of this scheme do not, I\npresume, contend, that Adam's offspring would not have been born\n_men_, but have formed a new species of beasts! And if not, the notion\nof a rational, and self-conscious soul, perishing utterly with the\ndissolution of the organized body, seems to require, nay, almost\ninvolves, the opinion that the soul is a quality or accident of the\nbody--a mere harmony resulting from organization.\n\nBut let this pass unquestioned. Whatever else the descendants of Adam\nmight have been without the intercession of Christ, yet (this\nintercession having been effectually made) they are now endowed with\nsouls that are not extinguished together with the material body. Now\nunless these divines teach likewise the Romish figment of Purgatory,\nand to an extent in which the Church of Rome herself would denounce\nthe doctrine as an impious heresy: unless they hold, that a punishment\ntemporary and remedial is the _worst_ evil that the impenitent have to\napprehend in a future state; and that the spiritual Death declared and\nforetold by Christ, _the death eternal where the worm never dies_, is\nneither Death nor eternal, but a certain _quantum_ of suffering in a\nstate of faith, hope, and progressive amendment--unless they go these\nlengths (and the divines here intended are orthodox Churchmen, men who\nwould not knowingly advance even a step on the road towards\nthem)--then I fear, that any advantage their theory might possess over\nthe Calvinistic scheme in the article of Original Sin, would be dearly\npurchased by increased difficulties, and an ultra-Calvinistic\nnarrowness in the article of Redemption. I at least find it\nimpossible, with my present human feelings, not to imagine otherwise\nthan that even in heaven it would be a fearful thing to know, that in\norder to my elevation to a lot infinitely more desirable than by\nnature it would have been, the lot of so vast a multitude had been\nrendered infinitely more calamitous; and that my felicity had been\npurchased by the everlasting misery of the majority of my fellow-men,\nwho if no redemption had been provided, after inheriting the pains and\npleasures of earthly existence during the numbered hours, and the few\nand evil--evil yet _few_--days of the years of their mortal life,\nwould have fallen asleep to wake no more,--would have sunk into the\ndreamless sleep of the grave, and have been as the murmur and the\nplaint, and the exulting swell and the sharp scream, which the unequal\ngust of yesterday snatched from the strings of a wind-harp!\n\nIn another place I have ventured to question the spirit and tendency\nof Taylor's work on Repentance.[126] But I ought to have added, that\nto discover and keep the true medium in expounding and applying the\nEfficacy of Christ's Cross and Passion, is beyond comparison the most\ndifficult and delicate point of practical divinity--and that which\nespecially needs a guidance from above.\n\n[126] Perhaps in his \"Unum Necessarium; or the Doctrine and Practice\nof Repentance,\" part of his \"Notes on Jeremy Taylor,\" pp. 295-325, v.\niii., of the 'Remains,' 1838.--ED.\n\n[127] See also \"Notes on Field on the Church\" (1628), in Coleridge's\n'Remains,' 1838, v. iii., pp. 57-92.--ED.\n\n\nAPHORISM XVIII.\n\n_Stedfast by Faith._ This is absolutely necessary for resistance to\nthe Evil Principle. There is no standing out without some firm ground\nto stand on: and this Faith alone supplies. By Faith in the Love of\nChrist the power of God becomes ours. When the soul is beleaguered by\nenemies, weakness on the walls, treachery at the gates, and corruption\nin the citadel, then by Faith she says--Lamb of God, slain from the\nfoundation of the World! thou art my strength! I look to thee for\ndeliverance! And thus she overcomes. The pollution (_miasma_) of sin\nis precipitated by his blood, the power of sin is conquered by his\nSpirit. The Apostle says not--stedfast by your own resolutions and\npurposes; but--_stedfast by faith_. Nor yet stedfast in your Will, but\n_stedfast in the faith_. We are not to be looking to, or brooding over\nourselves, either for accusation or for confidence, or (by a deep yet\ntoo frequent self-delusion) to obtain the latter by making a _merit_\nto ourselves of the former. But we are to look to CHRIST and _him\ncrucified_. The Law _that is very nigh to thee, even in thy heart_;\nthe Law that condemneth and hath no promise; that stoppeth the guilty\nPAST in its swift flight, and maketh it disown its name; the Law will\naccuse thee enough. Linger not in the Justice-court, listening to thy\nindictment! Loiter not in waiting to hear the Sentence! No! Anticipate\nthe verdict! _Appeal to C\u00e6sar!_ Haste to the King for a pardon!\nStruggle thitherward, though in fetters; and cry aloud, and collect\nthe whole remaining strength of thy Will in the outcry--_I believe!\nLord! help my unbelief!_ Disclaim all right of property in thy\nfetters. Say, that they belong to the _old man_, and that thou dost\nbut carry them to the Grave, to be buried with their owner! Fix thy\nthought on what _Christ_ did, what _Christ_ suffered, what _Christ_\nis--as if thou wouldst fill the hollowness of thy Soul with Christ! If\nhe emptied himself of glory to become sin for thy salvation, must not\nthou be emptied of thy sinful Self to become Righteousness in and\nthrough his agony and the effective merits of his Cross? [128] By what\nother means, in what other form, is it _possible_ for thee to stand\nin the presence of the Holy One? With _what_ mind wouldst thou come\nbefore God, if not with the mind of Him, in whom _alone_ God loveth\nthe world? With good advice, perhaps, and a little assistance, thou\nwouldst rather cleanse and patch up a mind of thy own, and offer it as\nthy _admission-right_, thy _qualification_, to Him who _charged his\nangels with folly_![129] Oh! take counsel of thy Reason! It will show\nthee how impossible it is, that even a world should merit the love of\nEternal Wisdom and all sufficing Beatitude, otherwise than as it is\ncontained in that all-perfect Idea, in which the Supreme Spirit\ncontemplateth itself and the plenitude of its infinity--the\nOnly-Begotten before all ages! _the beloved Son, in whom the Father\nis_ indeed _well pleased_!\n\nAnd as the Mind, so the Body with which it is to be clothed! as the\nIndweller, so the House in which it is to be the Abiding-place![130]\nThere is but one wedding-garment, in which we can sit down at the\nmarriage-feast of Heaven: and that is the Bridegroom's own gift, when\nhe gave himself for us that we might live in him and he in us. There\nis but one robe of Righteousnes, even the Spiritual Body, formed by\nthe assimilative power of faith for whoever eateth the flesh of the\nSon of Man and drinketh his blood. Did Christ come from Heaven, did\nthe Son of God leave the glory _which he had with his Father before\nthe world began_, only to _show_ us a way to life, to _teach_ truths,\nto _tell_ us of a resurrection? Or saith he not, I _am_ the way--I\n_am_ the truth--I _am_ the Resurrection and the Life?\n\n[128] _God manifested in the flesh_ is Eternity in the form of Time. But\nEternity in relation to Time is the absolute to the conditional, or the\nreal to the apparent, and Redemption must partake of both;--always\nperfected, for it is a _Fiat_ of the Eternal;--continuous, for it is a\nprocess in relation to man; the former, the alone objectively, and\ntherefore universally, true. That Redemption in an _opus perfectum_, a\nfinished work, the claim to which is conferred in Baptism; that a\nChristian cannot speak or think as if his Redemption by the blood, and\nhis Justification by the Righteousness of Christ alone, were future or\ncontingent events, but must both say and think, I _have been_\nredeemed, I am justified; lastly, that for as many as are received\ninto his Church by baptism, Christ has condemned sin in the flesh, has\nmade it _dead in law_, that is, no longer imputable as _guilt_, has\ndestroyed the _objective reality_ of sin:--these are truths, which all\nthe Reformed Churches, Swedish, Danish, Evangelical, (or Lutheran,)\nthe Reformed (the Calvinistic in mid-Germany, France, and Geneva, so\ncalled,) lastly, the Church of England, and the Church of\nScotland--nay, the best and most learned divines of the Roman Catholic\nChurch have united in upholding as most certain and necessary articles\nof faith, and the effectual preaching of which Luther declares to be\nthe appropriate criterion, _stantis vel cadentis Ecclesi\u00e6_. The Church\nis standing or falling, according as this doctrine is supported, or\noverlooked, or countervened. Nor has the contrary doctrine, according\nto which the baptized are yet, each individually, to be called,\nconverted, and chosen, with all the corollaries from this assumption,\nthe watching for signs and sensible assurances, \"the frames,\" and \"the\nstates,\" and \"the feelings,\" and \"the sudden conversions,\" the\ncontagious fever-boils, of the (most unfitly, so called) Evangelicals,\nand Arminian Methodists of the day, been in any age taught or\ncountenanced by any known and accredited Christian Church, or by any\nbody and succession of learned divines. On the other hand it has\nrarely happened, that the Church has not been troubled by pharisaic\nand fanatical individuals, who have sought, by working on the fears\nand feelings of the weak and unsteady that celebrity, which they could\nnot obtain by learning and orthodoxy: and alas! so subtle is the\npoison, and so malignant in its operation, that it is almost hopeless\nto attempt the cure of any person, once infected, more particularly\nwhen, as most often happens, the patient is a woman. Nor does Luther\nin his numerous and admirable discourses on this point, conceal or\npalliate the difficulties, which the carnal mind, that works under\nmany and different disguises, throws in the way to prevent the laying\nfirm hold of the truth. One most mischievous and very popular\nmis-belief must be cleared away in the first instance--the\npresumption, I mean, that whatever is not _quite_ simple, and what any\nplain body can understand at the first hearing, cannot be of necessary\nbelief, or among the fundamental articles or essentials of Christian\nfaith. A docile, child-like mind, a deference to the authority of the\nChurches, a presumption of the truth of doctrines that have been\nreceived and taught as true by the whole Church in all times; reliance\non the positive declarations of the Apostle--in short, all the\nconvictions of the truth of a doctrine that are previous to a perfect\n_insight_ into its truth, because these convictions, with the\naffections and dispositions accompanying them, are the very means and\nconditions of attaining to that insight--and study of, and quiet\nmeditation on, them, with a gradual growth of spiritual knowledge, and\nearnest prayer for its increase; all these, to each and all of which\nthe young Christian is so repeatedly and fervently exhorted by St.\nPaul, are to be superseded, because, forsooth, truths needful for all\nmen, must be quite simple and easy, and adapted to the capacity of\nall, even of the plainest and dullest understanding! What cannot be\npoured all at once on a man, can only be supererogatory drops from the\nemptied shower-bath of religious instruction! But surely, the more\nrational inference would be, that the faith, which is to save the\nwhole man, must have its roots and justifying grounds in the very\ndepths of our being. And he who can read the Writings of the Apostles,\nJohn and Paul, without finding in almost every page a confirmation of\nthis, must have looked at them, as at the sun in an eclipse, through\nblackened glasses.\n\n[129] Job. iv. 18.--ED.\n\n[130] St. Paul blends both forms of expression, and asserts the same\ndoctrine when speaking of the _celestial body_ provided for _the new\nman_ in the spiritual flesh and blood, (that is, the informing power\nand vivific life of the incarnate Word: for the Blood is the Life, and\nthe Flesh the Power)--when speaking, I say, of this _celestial body_,\nas a _house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens_, yet brought\ndown to us, made appropriable by faith, and _ours_--he adds, _for in\nthis earthly house_ (that is, this mortal life, as the inward\nprinciple or energy of our Tabernacle, or outward and sensible body)\n_we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which\nis from heaven: not that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that\nmortality might be swallowed up of life_. 2 Cor. v. 1-4.\n\nThe four last words of the first verse (_eternal in the heavens_)\ncompared with the conclusion of v. 2, (_which is from heaven_) present\na coincidence with John iii. 13, \"And no man hath ascended up to\nheaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man, which\nis in heaven.\" [Would not the coincidence be more apparent, if the\nwords of John had been rendered word for word, even to a disregard of\nthe English idiom, and with what would be servile and superstitious\nfidelity in the translation of a common classic? I can see no reason\nwhy the \u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, so frequent in St. John, should not be rendered\nliterally, _no one_; and there may be a reason why it should. I have\nsome doubt likewise respecting the omission of the definite articles\n\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c4\u03c9--and a greater, as to the \u1f41 \u03c9\u03bd, both in this\nplace and in John i. 18, being _adequately_ rendered by our _which\nis_. What sense some of the Greek Fathers attached to, or inferred\nfrom, St. Paul's _in the Heavens_, the theological student (and to\ntheologians is this note principally addressed) may find in\nWaterland's Letters to a Country Clergyman--a divine, whose judgment\nand strong sound sense are as unquestionable as his learning and\northodoxy. A clergyman in full orders, who has never read the works of\nBull and Waterland, has a duty yet to perform.]\n\nLet it not be objected, that, forgetful of my own professed aversion\nto allegorical interpretations, I have, in this note, fallen into \"the\nfond humour of the mystic divines, and _allegorizers_ of Holy\nWrit.\"[131] There is, believe me, a wide difference between\n_symbolical_ and _allegorical_. If I say that the flesh and blood\n(_corpus noumenon_) of the Incarnate Word are power and life, I say\nlikewise that this mysterious power and life are _verily_ and\n_actually_ the flesh and blood of Christ. _They_ are the allegorizers,\nwho turn the 6th chapter of the Gospel according to St. John,--_the\nhard saying,--who can hear it?_--after which time many of Christ's\ndisciples, who had been eye-witnesses of his mighty miracles, who had\nheard the sublime morality of his Sermon on the Mount, had glorified\nGod for the wisdom which they had heard, and had been prepared to\nacknowledge, _This is indeed the Christ_,--went back and walked no\nmore with him!--the hard sayings, which even THE TWELVE were not yet\ncompetent to understand farther than that they were to be spiritually\nunderstood; and which the chief of the Apostles was content to receive\nwith an implicit and anticipative faith!--_they_, I repeat, are the\nallegorizers who moralize these hard sayings, these high words of\nmystery, into a hyperbolical metaphor _per catachresin_, which only\nmeans a belief of the doctrine which Paul believed, an obedience to\nthe law, respecting which Paul _was blameless_, before the voice\ncalled him on the road to Damascus! What every parent, every humane\npreceptor, would do when a child had misunderstood a metaphor or\napologue in a literal sense, we all know. But the meek and merciful\nJesus suffered _many_ of HIS disciples to fall off from eternal life,\nwhen, to retain them, he had only to say,--O ye simple-ones! why are\nye offended? My words, indeed, sound strange; but I mean no more than\nwhat you have often and often heard from me before, with delight and\nentire acquiescence!--_Credat Jud\u00e6us! Non ego._ It is sufficient for\nme to know that I have used the language of Paul and John, as it was\nunderstood and interpreted by Justin Martyr. Tertullian, Iren\u00e6us, and\n(if he does not err) by the whole Christian Church then existing.\n\n[131] See Introductory Aphorisms, xxix., p. 19.--ED.\n\n\nAPHORISM XIX.\n\nFIELD.\n\nThe _Romanists_ teach that sins committed after baptism (that is, for\nthe immense majority of Christians having Christian parents, all their\nsins from the cradle to the grave) are not so remitted for Christ's\nsake, but that we must suffer that extremity of punishment which they\ndeserve: and therefore either we must afflict ourselves in such sort\nand degree of extremity as may answer the demerit of our sins, or be\npunished by God, here or in the world to come, in such degree and sort\nthat his Justice may be satisfied. [_As the encysted venom, or\npoison-bag, beneath the Adder's fang, so does this doctrine lie\nbeneath the tremendous power of the Romish Hierarchy. The demoralizing\ninfluence of this dogma, and that it curdled the very life-blood in\nthe veins of Christendom, it was given to Luther beyond all men since\nPaul to see, feel, and promulgate. And yet in his large Treatise on\nRepentance, how near to the spirit of this doctrine--even to the very\nwalls and gates of Babylon--was Jeremy Taylor driven, in recoiling\nfrom the fanatical extremes of the opposite error!_] But they that are\northodox, teach that it is injustice to require the payment of one\ndebt twice. * * * It is no less absurd to say, as the Papists do, that\n_our_ satisfaction is required as a condition, without which\n_Christ's_ satisfaction is not applicable unto us, than to say, Peter\nhath paid the debt of John, and He, to whom it was due, accepteth of\nthe same payment on the condition that John pay it himself also. * * *\nThe satisfaction of Christ is communicated and applied unto us without\nsuffering the punishment that sin deserveth, [_and essentially_\n_involveth_,] upon the condition of our faith and repentance. [To\nwhich I would add: Without faith there is no power of repentance:\nwithout a commencing repentance no power to faith: and that it is in\nthe power of the will either to repent or to have faith in the Gospel\nsense of the words, is itself a consequence of the redemption of\nmankind, a free gift of the Redeemer: the guilt of its rejection, the\nrefusing to avail ourselves of the power, being all that we can\nconsider as exclusively attributable to our own act.][132]\n\nCOMMENT.\n\n(_Containing an Application of the Principles laid down in pp. 135,\n136._)\n\nForgiveness of sin, the abolition of guilt, through the redemptive\npower of Christ's love, and of his perfect obedience during his\nvoluntary assumption of humanity, is expressed, on account of the\nresemblance of the consequences in both cases, by the payment of a\ndebt for another, which debt the payer had not himself incurred. Now\nthe _impropriation_ of this metaphor--(that is, the taking it\n_literally_) by transferring the sameness from the consequents to the\nantecedents, or inferring the identity of the causes from a\nresemblance in the effects--this is the point on which I am at issue:\nand the view or scheme of redemption grounded on this confusion I\nbelieve to be altogether un-Scriptural.\n\nIndeed, I know not in what other instance I could better exemplify the\nspecies of sophistry noticed in p. 147, as the Aristotelean \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, or clandestine passing over into a diverse kind. The\npurpose of a metaphor is to illustrate a something less known by a\npartial identification of it with some other thing better understood,\nor at least more familiar. Now the article of Redemption may be\nconsidered in a two-fold relation--in relation to the _antecedent_,\nthat is, the Redeemer's act as the efficient cause and condition of\nredemption; and in relation to the _consequent_, that is, the effects\nin and for the Redeemed. Now it is the latter relation, in which the\nsubject is treated of, set forth, expanded, and enforced by St. Paul.\nThe mysterious act, the operative cause is _transcendent_. _Factum\nest_: and beyond the information contained in the enunciation of the\n_Fact_, it can be characterized only by the _consequences_. It is the\n_consequences_ of the Act of Redemption, which the zealous Apostle\nwould bring home to the minds and affections both of Jews and\nGentiles. Now the Apostle's opponents and gainsayers were principally\nof the former class. They were Jews: not only Jews unconverted, but\nsuch as had partially received the Gospel, and who, sheltering their\nnational prejudices under the pretended authority of Christ's original\napostles and the Church in Jerusalem, set themselves up against Paul\nas followers of Cephas. Add too, that Paul himself was _a Hebrew of\nthe Hebrews_; intimately versed _in the Jews' religion above many, his\nequals, in his own nation, and above measure zealous of the traditions\nof his fathers_. It might, therefore, have been anticipated, that his\nreasoning would receive its outward forms and language, that it would\ntake its predominant colours, from his own _past_, and his opponents'\npresent, habits of thinking; and that his figures, images, analogies,\nand references would be taken preferably from objects, opinions,\nevents, and ritual observances ever uppermost in the imaginations of\nhis own countrymen. And such we find them;--yet so judiciously\nselected, that the prominent forms, the figures of most frequent\nrecurrence, are drawn from points of belief and practice, forms, laws,\nrites and customs, that then prevailed through the whole Roman world,\nand were common to Jew and Gentile.\n\nNow it would be difficult if not impossible to select points better\nsuited to this purpose, as being equally familiar to all, and yet\nhaving a special interest for the Jewish converts, than those are from\nwhich the learned Apostle has drawn the four principal metaphors, by\nwhich he illustrates the blessed _consequences_ of Christ's redemption\nof mankind. These are: 1. Sin-offerings, sacrificial expiation. 2.\nReconciliation, atonement, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03b7.[133] 3. Ransom from slavery,\nRedemption, the buying back again, or being bought back. 4.\nSatisfaction of a creditor's claims by a payment of the debt. To one\nor other of these four heads all the numerous forms and exponents of\nChrist's mediation in St. Paul's writings may be referred. And the\nvery number and variety of the words or _periphrases_ used by him to\nexpress one and the same thing furnish the strongest presumptive\nproof, that all alike were used _metaphorically_. [In the following\nnotation, let the small letters represent the _effects_ or\n_consequences_, and the capitals the efficient _causes_ or\n_antecedents_. Whether by causes we mean acts or agents, is\nindifferent. Now let X signify a _transcendent_, that is, a cause\nbeyond our comprehension and not within the sphere of sensible\nexperience; and on the other hand, let A, B, C, and D represent each\nsome one known and familiar cause, in reference to some single and\ncharacteristic effect: namely, A in reference to k, B to l, C to m,\nand D to n. Then I say X + k l m n is in different places expressed by\nA + k; B + l; C + m; D + n.--And these I should call _metaphorical_\nexponents of X.]\n\nNow John, the beloved Disciple, who leaned on the Lord's bosom, the\nEvangelist \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1, that is, according to the _Spirit_, the\ninner and substantial truth of the Christian creed--John, recording\nthe Redeemer's own words, enunciates the fact itself, to the full\nextent in which it is enunciable for the human mind, simply and\n_without any metaphor_, by identifying it _in kind_ with a fact of\nhourly occurrence--_expressing_ it, I say, by a familiar fact the same\n_in kind_ with that intended, though of a far lower _dignity_;--by a\nfact of every man's experience, _known_ to all, yet not better\n_understood_ than the fact described by it. In the Redeemed it is a\nre-_generation_, a _birth_, a spiritual seed impregnated and evolved,\nthe germinal principle of a higher and enduring life, of a _spiritual_\nlife--that is, a life the actuality of which is not dependent on the\nmaterial body, or limited by the circumstances and processes\nindispensable to its organization and subsistence. Briefly, it is the\n_differential_ of immortality, of which the assimilative power of\nfaith and love is the _integrant_, and the life in Christ the\n_integration_.\n\nBut even this would be an imperfect statement, if we omitted the awful\ntruth, that besides that dissolution of our earthly tabernacle which\nwe call death, there is another death, not the mere negation of life,\nbut its positive opposite. And as there is a mystery of life and an\nassimilation to the principle of life, even to him who is _the_ Life;\nso is there a mystery of death and an assimilation to the principle of\nevil; a fructifying of the corrupt seed, of which death is the\ngermination. Thus the regeneration to spiritual life is at the same\ntime a redemption from the spiritual death.\n\nRespecting the redemptive act itself, and the Divine Agent, we know\nfrom revelation that he _was made a quickening_ (\u03b6\u03c9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd,\n_life-making_) _spirit_: and that in order to this it was necessary,\nthat God should be _manifested in the flesh_, that the Eternal Word,\nthrough whom and by whom the world (\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, the order, beauty, and\nsustaining law of visible natures) was and is, should be made flesh,\nassume our humanity personally, fulfil all righteousness, and so\nsuffer and so die for us as in dying to conquer death for as many as\nshould receive him. More than this, the mode, the possibility, we are\nnot competent to know. It is, as hath been already observed concerning\nthe primal act of apostacy, a mystery by the necessity of the\nsubject--a mystery, which at all events it will be time enough for us\nto seek and expect to understand, when we understand the mystery of\nour _natural_ life, and _its_ conjunction with mind and will and\npersonal identity. Even the truths that are given to us to know, we\ncan know only through faith in the spirit. They are spiritual things\nwhich must be spiritually discerned. Such, however, being the means\nand the effects of our Redemption, well might the fervent Apostle\nassociate it with whatever was eminently dear and precious to erring\nand afflicted mortals, and (where no expression could be commensurate,\nno single title be other than imperfect) seek from similitude of\n_effect_ to describe the superlative boon by successively transferring\nto it, as by a superior claim, the name of each several act and\nordinance, habitually connected in the minds of _all_ his hearers with\nfeelings of joy, confidence, and gratitude.\n\nDo you rejoice when the atonement made by the priest has removed the\ncivil stain from your name, restored you to your privileges as a son\nof Abraham, and replaced you in the respect of your brethren?--Here is\nan atonement which takes away a deeper and worse stain, an eating\ncanker-spot in the very heart of your personal being. This, to as many\nas receive it, gives the privilege to become sons of God (John i. 12);\nthis will admit you to the society of angels, and insure to you the\nrights of brotherhood with spirits made perfect.--(Heb. xii. 22.) Here\nis a sacrifice, a sin-offering for the whole world: and a High Priest,\nwho is indeed a Mediator, who not in type or shadow but in very truth\nand in his own right stands in the place of Man to God, and of God to\nMan; and who receives as a Judge what he offered as an Advocate.\n\nWould you be grateful to one who had ransomed you from slavery under a\nbitter foe, or who brought you out of captivity? Here is redemption\nfrom a far direr slavery, the slavery of sin unto death; and he, who\ngave himself for the ransom, has taken captivity captive.\n\nHad you by your own fault alienated yourself from your best, your only\nsure friend;--had you, like a prodigal, cast yourself out of your\nfather's house;--would you not love the good Samaritan, who should\nreconcile you to your friend? Would you not prize above all price the\nintercession, which had brought you back from husks, and the tending\nof swine, and restored you to your father's arms, and seated you at\nyour father's table?\n\nHad you involved yourself in a heavy DEBT for certain gew-gaws, for\nhigh seasoned meats, and intoxicating drinks, and glistering apparel,\nand in default of payment had made yourself over as a bondsman to a\nhard creditor, who it was foreknown, would enforce the bond of\njudgment to the last tittle;--with what emotions would you not receive\nthe glad tidings, that a stranger, or a friend whom in the days of\nyour wantonness you had neglected and reviled, had paid the DEBT for\nyou, had made SATISFACTION to your creditor? But you have incurred a\ndebt of Death to the EVIL NATURE! you have sold yourself over to SIN!\nand relatively to _you_, and to all _your_ means and resources, the\nseal on the bond is the seal of necessity! Its stamp is the _nature_\nof evil. But the stranger has appeared, the forgiving friend has come,\neven the Son of God from heaven: and to as many as have faith in his\nname, I say--the Debt is paid for you. The Satisfaction has been made.\n\nNow to simplify the argument and at the same time to bring the\nquestion to the test, we will confine our attention to the figure last\nmentioned, viz. the satisfaction of a debt. Passing by our modern\n_Alogi_ who find nothing but metaphors in either Apostle, let us\nsuppose for a moment with certain divines, that our Lord's words,\nrecorded by John, and which in all places repeat and assert the same\nanalogy, are to be regarded as metaphorical; and that it is the varied\nexpressions of St. Paul that are to be literally interpreted:--for\nexample, that sin is, or involves, an infinite debt, (in the proper\nand law-court sense of the word debt)--a debt owing by us to the\nvindictive justice of God the Father, which can only be liquidated by\nthe everlasting misery of Adam and all his posterity, or by a sum of\nsuffering equal to this. Likewise, that God the Father by his\nabsolute decree, or (as some divines teach) through the necessity of\nhis unchangeable justice, had determined to exact the full sum; which\nmust, therefore, be paid either by ourselves or by some other in our\nname and behalf. But besides the debt which _all_ mankind contracted\nin and through Adam, as a _homo publicus_, even as a nation is bound\nby the acts of its head or its plenipotentiary, every man (say these\ndivines) is an insolvent debtor on his own score. In this fearful\npredicament the Son of God took compassion on mankind, and resolved to\npay the debt for us, and to satisfy the divine justice by a perfect\nequivalent. Accordingly, by a strange yet strict _consequence_, it has\nbeen holden by more than one of these divines, that the agonies\nsuffered by Christ were equal in amount to the sum total of the\ntorments of all mankind here and hereafter, or to the infinite debt,\nwhich in an endless succession of instalments we should have been\npaying to the divine justice, had it not been paid in full by the Son\nof God incarnate!\n\nIt is easy to say--\"O but I do not hold this, or _we_ do not make this\nan article of our belief!\" The true question is: \"Do you take any\n_part_ of it: and can you reject the rest without being\n_inconsequent_?\" Are debt, satisfaction, payment in full, creditor's\n_rights_, and the like, _nomina propria_, by which the very nature of\nRedemption and its occasion is expressed;--or are they, with several\nothers, figures of speech for the purpose of illustrating the nature\nand extent of the consequences and effects of the redemptive Act, and\nto excite in the receivers a due sense of the magnitude and manifold\noperation of the Boon, and of the Love and gratitude due to the\nRedeemer? If still you reply, the former: _then_, as your whole theory\nis grounded on a notion of _justice_, I ask you--Is this justice a\n_moral_ attribute? But morality commences with, and begins in, the\nsacred distinction between thing and person: on this distinction all\nlaw human and divine is grounded: consequently, the law of justice. If\nyou attach any meaning to the term justice, as applied to God, it must\nbe the same to which you refer when you affirm or deny it of any other\npersonal agent--save only, that in its attribution to God, you speak\nof it as unmixed and perfect. For if not, what _do_ you mean? And why\ndo you call it by the same name? I may, therefore, with all right and\nreason, put the case as between man and man. For should it be found\nirreconcilable with the justice, which the light of reason, made _law_\nin the conscience, dictates to _man_, how much more must it be\nincongruous with the all-perfect justice of God! Whatever case I\nshould imagine would be felt by the reader as below the dignity of the\nsubject, and in some measure jarring with his feelings; and in other\nrespects the more familiar the case, the better suited to the present\npurpose.\n\nA sum of \u00a31,000 is owing from James to Peter, for which James has\ngiven a bond. He is insolvent, and the bond is on the point of being\nput in suit against him, to James's utter ruin. At this moment Matthew\nsteps in, pays Peter the thousand pounds and discharges the bond. In\nthis case, no man would hesitate to admit, that a complete\n_satisfaction_ had been made to Peter. Matthew's \u00a31,000 is a perfect\nequivalent for the sum which James was bound to have paid, and which\nPeter had lent. _It is the same thing_: and this is altogether a\nquestion of _things_. Now instead of James's being indebted to Peter\nfor a sum of money, which (he having become insolvent) Matthew pays\nfor him, we will put the case, that James had been guilty of the\nbasest and most hard-hearted ingratitude to a most worthy and\naffectionate mother, who had not only performed all the duties and\ntender offices of a mother, but whose whole heart was bound up in this\nher only child--who had foregone all the pleasures and amusements of\nlife in watching over his sickly childhood, had sacrificed her health\nand the far greater part of her resources to rescue him from the\nconsequences of his follies and excesses during his youth and early\nmanhood; and to procure for him the means of his present rank and\naffluence--all which he had repaid by neglect, desertion, and open\nprofligacy. Here the mother stands in the relation of the creditor:\nand here too I will suppose the same generous friend to interfere, and\nto perform with the greatest tenderness and constancy all those duties\nof a grateful and affectionate son, which James ought to have\nperformed. Will this satisfy the Mother's claims on James, or entitle\nhim to her esteem, approbation, and blessing? Or what if Matthew, the\nvicarious son, should at length address her in words to this\npurpose:--\"Now, I trust, you are appeased, and will be henceforward\nreconciled to James. I have satisfied all your claims on him. I have\npaid his debt in full: and you are too just to require the same debt\nto be paid twice over. You will therefore regard him with the same\ncomplacency, and receive him into your presence with the same love, as\nif there had been no difference between him and you. For I have _made\nit up_.\" What other reply could the swelling heart of the mother\ndictate than this? \"O misery! and is it possible that _you_ are in\nleague with my unnatural child to insult me? Must not the very\nnecessity of _your_ abandonment of your proper sphere form an\nadditional evidence of _his_ guilt? Must not the sense of your\ngoodness teach me more fully to comprehend, more vividly to feel, the\nevil in him? Must not the contrast of your merits magnify his demerit\nin his mother's eye, and at once recall and embitter the conviction of\nthe canker-worm in his soul?\"\n\nIf indeed by the force of Matthew's example, by persuasion or by\nadditional and more mysterious influences, or by an inward co-agency,\ncompatible with the existence of a personal will, James should be led\nto repent; if through admiration and love of this great goodness\ngradually assimilating his mind to the mind of his benefactor, he\nshould in his own person become a grateful and dutiful child--_then_\ndoubtless the mother would be wholly satisfied! But then the case is\nno longer a question of _things_, or a matter of _debt_ payable by\nanother. Nevertheless, the _effect_,--and the reader will remember,\nthat it is the _effects_ and _consequences_ of Christ's mediation, on\nwhich St. Paul is dilating--the effect to _James_ is similar in both\ncases, that is, in the case of James the debtor, and of James the\nundutiful son. In both cases, James is liberated from a grievous\nburthen; and in both cases he has to attribute his liberation to the\nact and free grace of another. The only _difference is_, that in the\nformer case (namely, the payment of the debt) the beneficial act is\n_singly_, and without requiring any re-action or co-agency on the part\nof James, the efficient _cause_ of his liberation: while in the latter\ncase (namely, that of Redemption) the beneficial act is the _first_,\nthe indispensable _condition_, and _then_ the _coefficient_.\n\nThe professional student of theology will, perhaps, understand the\ndifferent positions asserted in the preceding argument more readily if\nthey are presented _synoptically_, that is, brought at once within his\nview, in the form of answers to four questions, comprising the\nconstituent parts of the Scriptural Doctrine of Redemption. And I\ntrust that my lay readers of both sexes will not allow themselves to\nbe scared from the perusal of the following short catechism by half a\ndozen Latin words, or rather words with Latin endings, that translate\nthemselves into English, when I dare assure them, that they will\nencounter no other obstacle to their full and easy comprehension of\nthe contents.\n\n_Synopsis of the Constituent Points in the Doctrine of Redemption, in\nFour Questions, with Correspondent Answers._\n\n_Questions._\n\n                       {  1. _Agens Causator?_\n Who (or What) is the  {  2. _Actus Causativus?_\n                       {  3. _Effectum Causatum?_\n                       {  4. _Consequentia ab Effecto?_\n\n_Answers._\n\nI. The Agent and Personal Cause of the Redemption of Mankind is--the\nco-eternal Word and only begotten Son of the Living God, incarnate,\ntempted, agonizing (_agonistes_ \u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2), crucified, submitting\nto death, resurgent, communicant of his Spirit, ascendent, and\nobtaining for his Church the Descent, and Communion of the Holy\nSpirit, the Comforter.\n\nII. The causative act is--a spiritual and transcendent Mystery, _that\npasseth all understanding_.\n\nIII. The Effect caused is--the being born anew: as before in the\n_flesh_ to the world, so now born in the _spirit_ to Christ.\n\nIV. The Consequences from the Effect are--Sanctification from Sin, and\nLiberation from the inherent and penal consequences of Sin in the\nWorld to come, with all the means and processes of Sanctification by\nthe Word and the Spirit: these Consequents being the same for the\nSinner relatively to God and his own Soul, as the satisfaction of a\ndebt for a debtor relatively to his creditor; as the sacrificial\natonement made by the priest for the transgressor of the Mosaic Law;\nas the reconciliation to an alienated parent for a son who had\nestranged himself from his father's house and presence; and as a\nredemptive ransom for a slave or captive.\n\nNow I complain that this metaphorical _naming_ of the transcendent\ncausative act through the _medium_ of its proper effects from actions\nand causes of familiar occurrence connected with the former by\nsimilarity of result, has been mistaken for an intended designation of\nthe essential character of the causative act itself; and that thus\ndivines have interpreted _de omni_ what was spoken _de singulo_, and\nmagnified a _partial equation_ into a _total identity_.\n\nI will merely hint, to my more _learned_ readers, and to the\nprofessional students of theology, that the origin of this error is to\nbe sought for in the discussions of the Greek Fathers, and (at a later\nperiod) of the Schoolmen, on the obscure and _abysmal_ subject of the\ndivine _A-seity_, and the distinction between the \u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 and the\n\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b7, that is, the Absolute Will, as the universal _ground_ of\n_all_ Being, and the election and purpose of God in the personal idea,\nas the Father. And this view would have allowed me to express what I\nbelieve to be the true import and scriptural idea of Redemption in\nterms much more nearly resembling those used ordinarily by the\nCalvinistic divines, and with a conciliative _show_ of coincidence.\nBut this motive was outweighed by the reflection, that I could not\nrationally have expected to be understood by those to whom I most wish\nto be intelligible: _et si non vis intelligi, cur vis legi?_\n\nNot to countervene the purpose of a Synopsis, I have detached the\nconfirmative or explanatory remarks from the Answers to Questions II.\nand III., and place them below as _scholia_. A single glance of the\neye will enable the reader to re-connect each with the sentence it is\nsupposed to follow.\n\nSCHOLIUM TO ANSWER II.\n\nNevertheless, _the fact or actual truth having been assured to us by\nRevelation_, it is not impossible, by stedfast meditation on the idea\nand super-natural character of a personal WILL, for a mind spiritually\ndisciplined to satisfy itself, that the redemptive act _supposes_ (and\nthat our redemption is even negatively _conceivable_ only on the\nsupposition of) an agent who can at once act _on_ the Will as an\nexciting cause, _quasi ab extra_; and _in_ the Will, as the\n_condition_ of its potential, and the _ground_ of its actual, being.\n\nSCHOLIUM TO ANSWER III.\n\nWhere two subjects, that stand to each other in the relation of\n_antithesis_ or contradistinction, are connected by a middle term\ncommon to _both_, the sense of this middle term is indifferently\ndeterminable by _either_; the preferability of the one or the other in\nany given case being decided by the circumstance of our more frequent\nexperience of, or greater familiarity with, the Term, in _this_\nconnexion. Thus, if I put hydrogen and oxygen gas, as opposite poles,\nthe term _gas_ is common to both; and it is a matter of indifference,\nby which of the two bodies I ascertain the sense of the term. But if\nfor the conjoint purposes of connexion and contrast, I oppose\ntransparent crystallized alumen to opaque derb, or uncrystallized\nalumen;--it may easily happen to be far more _convenient_ for me to\nshow the sense of the middle term, that is, alumen, by a piece of\npipe-clay than by a sapphire or ruby; especially if I should be\ndescribing the beauty and preciousness of the latter to a peasant\nwoman, or in a district where a ruby was a rarity which the fewest\nonly had an opportunity of seeing. This is a plain rule of common\nlogic directed in its application by common sense.\n\nNow let us apply this to the case in hand. The two opposites _here_\nare Flesh and Spirit, _this_ in relation to _Christ_, _that_ in\nrelation to the _World_; and these two opposites are connected by the\nmiddle term, _Birth_, which is of course common to both. But for the\nsame reason, as in the instance last mentioned, the interpretation of\nthe common term is to be ascertained from its known sense, in the\nmore familiar connexion--birth, namely, in relation to our natural\nlife and to the organized body, by which we belong to the present\nworld.--Whatever the word signifies in this connexion, the same\n_essentially_ (in _kind_ though not in dignity and value) must be its\nsignification in the other. How else could it be (what yet in this\ntext it undeniably _is_), the _punctum indifferens_, or _nota\ncommunis_, of the _thesis_, Flesh; or the World, and the _antithesis_\nSpirit; or Christ? We might therefore, upon the supposition of a\nwriter having been speaking of river-water in distinction from\nrain-water, as rationally pretend that in the latter phrase the term,\nwater, was to be understood metaphorically, as that the word, birth,\nis a metaphor, and means only so and so, in the Gospel according to\nSt. John.\n\nThere is, I am aware, a numerous and powerful party in our Church, so\nnumerous and powerful as not seldom to be entitled _the_ Church, who\nhold and publicly teach, that \"Regeneration is only Baptism.\" Nay, the\nwriter of the article on the Lives of Scott and Newton in our ablest\nand most respectable Review[134] is but one among many who do not\nhesitate to brand the contrary opinion as heterodoxy, and schismatical\nsuperstition. I trust, that I think as seriously as most men, of the\nevil of schism; but with every disposition to pay the utmost deference\nto an acknowledged majority including, it is said, a very large\nproportion of the present dignitaries of our Church, I cannot but\nthink it a sufficient reply, that if Regeneration means Baptism,\nBaptism must mean Regeneration; and this too, as Christ himself has\ndeclared, a Regeneration in the Spirit. Now I would ask these divines\nthis simple question: Do they believingly suppose a spiritual\nregenerative power and agency inhering in or accompanying the\nsprinkling a few drops of water on an infant's face? They cannot evade\nthe question by saying that Baptism is a _type_ or _sign_. For this\nwould be to supplant their own assertion, that Regeneration means\nBaptism, by the contradictory admission, that Regeneration is the\n_significatum_, of which Baptism is the significant. Unless, indeed,\nthey would incur the absurdity of saying, that Regeneration is a type\nof Regeneration, and Baptism a type of itself--or that Baptism only\nmeans Baptism! And this indeed is the plain consequence to which they\nmight be driven, should they answer the above question in the\nnegative.\n\nBut if their answer be, \"Yes! we do suppose and believe this\nefficiency in the Baptismal act\"--I have not another word to say.\nOnly, perhaps, I might be permitted to express a hope, that for\nconsistency's sake they would speak less slightingly of the\n_insufflation_, and _extreme unction_, used in the Romish Church;\nnotwithstanding the not easily to be answered arguments of our\nChristian Mercury, the all-eloquent Jeremy Taylor, respecting the\nlatter, which, \"since it is used when the man is above half dead, when\nhe can exercise no act of understanding, it must needs be nothing; for\nno rational man can think that any ceremony can make a spiritual\nchange without a spiritual act of him that is to be changed; nor work\nby way of nature, or by charm, but morally and after the manner of\nreasonable creatures.\"[135]\n\nIt is too obvious to require suggestion, that these words here quoted\napply with yet greater force and propriety to the point in question:\nas the babe is an unconscious subject, which the dying man need not be\nsupposed to be. My avowed convictions respecting Regeneration with the\nspiritual Baptism, as its condition and initiative (Luke iii. 16;\nMatt. i. 7; Matt. iii. 11), and of which the sacramental rite, the\nBaptism of John, was appointed by Christ to remain as the sign and\nfigure; and still more, perhaps, my belief respecting the Mystery of\nthe Eucharist, (concerning which I hold the same opinions as\nBucer,[136] Peter Martyr, and presumably Cranmer himself)--these\nconvictions and this belief will, I doubt not, be deemed by the\nOrthodox _de more Grotii_, who improve the _letter_ of Arminius with\nthe _spirit_ of Socinus, sufficient data to bring me in guilty of\nirrational and Superstitious Mysticism. But I abide by a maxim, which\nI learnt at an early period of my theological studies, from Benedict\nSpinoza:--Where the alternative lies between the Absurd and the\nIncomprehensible, no wise man can be at a loss which of the two to\nprefer. To be _called_ irrational, is a trifle; to _be_ so, and in\nmatters of religion, is far otherwise: and whether the irrationality\nconsists in men's believing (that is, in having persuaded themselves\nthat they believe) _against_ reason, or _without_ reason, I have been\nearly instructed to consider it as a sad and serious evil, pregnant\nwith mischiefs, political and moral. And by none of my numerous\ninstructors so impressively, as by that great and shining light of our\nChurch in the \u00e6ra of our intellectual splendour, Bishop Jeremy Taylor:\nfrom one of whose works, and that of especial authority for the safety\nas well as for the importance of the principle, inasmuch as it was\nwritten expressly _ad populum_, I will now, both for its own intrinsic\nworth, and to relieve the attention, wearied, perhaps, by the length\nand argumentative character of the preceding _discussion_, interpose\nthe following Aphorism.[137]\n\n[132] Dr. Richard Field's \"Of the Church,\" folio ed., Oxford, 1628, p.\n58.--ED.\n\n[133] This word occurs but once in the New Testament, Romans v. 11,\nthe marginal rendering being _reconciliation_. The personal noun,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, is still in use with the modern Greeks for a\nmoney-changer, or one who takes the debased currency, so general in\ncountries under a despotic or other dishonest government, in exchange\nfor sterling coin or bullion; the purchaser paying the _catallage_,\nthat is, the difference. In the elder Greek writers, the verb means\n_to exchange for an opposite_, as, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b5\u03c7\u03b8\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2.--He exchanged within himself enmity for friendship, (that\nis, he reconciled himself) with his party;--or, as we say, _made it\nup_ with them, an idiom which (with whatever loss of dignity) gives\nthe exact force of the word. He made _up the difference_. The Hebrew\nword of very frequent occurrence in the Pentateuch, which we render by\nthe substantive, _atonement_, has its radical or visual image, in\n_copher_, pitch. Gen. vi. 14: _Thou shalt pitch it within and without\nwith pitch_. Hence to unite, to fill up a breach, or leak, the word\nexpressing both the _act_, namely, the bringing together what had been\npreviously separated, and the _means_, or material, by which the\nre-union is effected, as in our English verbs, _to caulk_, _to\nsolder_, _to poy_ or _pay_ (from _poix_, pitch), and the French\n_suiver_. Thence, metaphorically, _expiation_, the _piacula_ having\nthe same root, and being grounded on another property or use of gums\nand resins, the supposed _cleansing_ powers of their fumigation.\nNumbers viii. 21: _made atonement for the Levites to cleanse\nthem_.--Lastly (or if we are to believe the Hebrew Lexicons,\n_properly_ and most _frequently_) it means _ransom_. But if by\n_proper_ the Interpreters mean _primary_ and _radical_, the assertion\ndoes not need a confutation: all radicals belonging to one or other of\nthree classes. 1. Interjections, or sounds expressing sensations or\npassions. 2. Imitations of sounds, as splash, roar, whiz, &c. 3. and\nprincipally, visual images, objects of sight. But as to _frequency_,\nin all the numerous (fifty, I believe,) instances of the word in the\nOld Testament, I have not found one in which it can, or at least need,\nbe rendered by _ransom_: though beyond all doubt _ransom_ is used in\nthe Epistle to Timothy, as an _equivalent_ term.\n\n[134] Review of the Memoirs of the Rev. J. Scott and Rev. J. Newton,\n'Quarterly Review,' April, 1824.--ED.\n\n[135] Dedication to Taylor's 'Holy Dying,' p. 295, Bohn's Standard\nLibrary edition.--ED.\n\n[136] Appendix to Strype's 'Life of Cranmer.'--ED.\n\n[137] Slightly altered from the 'Worthy Communicant,' chap. iii. sect.\nv.; p. 523, vol. xv. of Heber's edition of Jeremy Taylor's works.--ED.\n\n\nAPHORISM XX.\n\nJEREMY TAYLOR.\n\nWhatever is against right reason, that no faith can oblige us to\nbelieve. For though reason is not the positive and affirmative measure\nof our faith, and our faith ought to be larger than our\n[_speculative_] reason, and _take_ something into her heart, that\nreason can never take into her eye; yet in all our creed there can be\nnothing _against_ reason. If reason justly contradicts an article, it\nis not \"of the household of Faith.\" In this there is no difficulty,\nbut that in practice we take care that we do not call _that_ reason,\nwhich is not so (_see_ p. 122). For although reason is a right\njudge,[138] yet it ought not to pass sentence in an inquiry of faith,\nuntil all the information be brought in; all that is within, and all\nthat is without, all that is above, and all that is below; all that\nconcerns it in experience, and all that concerns it in act: whatsoever\nis of pertinent observation and whatsoever is revealed. For else\nreason may argue very well and yet conclude falsely. It may conclude\nwell in logic, and yet infer a false proposition in theology (p. 115).\nBut when our judge is fully and truly informed in all that whence she\nis to make her judgment, we may safely follow her whithersoever she\ninvites us.\n\n[138] Which it could not be, in respect of spiritual truths and\nobjects super-sensuous, if it were the same with, and merely another\nname for \"the faculty judging according to sense\"--that is, the\nUnderstanding, or (as Taylor most often calls it in distinction from\nReason) _Discourse_ (_discursus seu facultas discursiva vel\ndiscursoria_). The Reason, so instructed and so actuated as Taylor\nrequires in the sentences immediately following, is what I have called\nthe Spirit. [See also note near the end of Aphorism VIII.--ED.]\n\n\nAPHORISM XXI.\n\nJEREMY TAYLOR.\n\nHe that speaks against his own reason, speaks against his own\nconscience: and therefore it is certain, no man serves God with a good\nconscience, who serves him against his reason.\n\n\nAPHORISM XXII.\n\nJEREMY TAYLOR.\n\nBy the eye of reason through the telescope of faith, that is,\nRevelation, we may see what without this telescope we could never have\nknown to exist. But as one that shuts the eye hard, and with violence\ncurls the eye-lid, forces a fantastic fire from the crystalline\nhumour, and espies a light that never shines, and sees thousands of\nlittle fires that never burn; so is he that blinds the eye of reason,\nand pretends to see by an eye of faith. He makes little images of\nnotions, and some atoms dance before him; but he is not guided by the\nlight, nor instructed by the proposition, but sees like a man in his\nsleep. IN NO CASE CAN TRUE REASON AND A RIGHT FAITH OPPOSE EACH OTHER.\n\n\nNOTE PREFATORY TO\n\nAPHORISM XXIII.--Less on my own account, than in the hope of\nfore-arming my youthful friends, I add one other transcript from\nBishop Taylor, as from a writer to whose name no taint or suspicion of\nCalvinistic or schismatical tenets can attach, and for the purpose of\nsoftening the offence which, I cannot but foresee, will be taken at\nthe positions asserted in paragraph the first of Aphorism VII., and\nthe documental proofs of the same in the next pages; and this by a\nformidable party composed of men ostensibly of the most dissimilar\ncreeds, _regular_ Church-divines, voted orthodox by a great majority\nof suffrages, and the so-called Free-thinking Christians, and\nUnitarian divines. It is the _former_ class alone that I wish to\nconciliate: so far at least as it may be done by removing the\naggravation of _novelty_ from the offensive article. And surely the\nsimple re-assertion of one of \"the two great things,\" which Bishop\nTaylor could assert as a fact,--which, he took for granted, that no\nChristian would think of controverting,--should at least be\ncontroverted without bitterness by his successors in the Church. That\nwhich was perfectly safe and orthodox in 1657, in the judgment of a\ndevoted Royalist and Episcopalian, ought to be at most but a venial\nheterodoxy in 1825. For the rest, I am prepared to hear in\nanswer--what has already been so often, and with such theatrical\neffect dropped, as an _extinguisher_, on my arguments--the famous\nconcluding period of one of the chapters in Paley's Moral and\nPolitical Philosophy, declared by Dr. Parr to be the _finest_ prose\npassage in English literature.[139] Be it so. I bow to so great an\nauthority. But if the learned Doctor would impose it on me as the\n_truest_ as well as the finest, or expect me to admire the logic\nequally with the rhetoric--\u03b1\u03c6\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9--I start off! As I have been\n_un-English_ enough to find in Pope's tomb-epigram on Sir Isaac Newton\nnothing better than a gross and wrongful falsehood, conveyed in an\nenormous and irreverent hyperbole; so with regard to this passage in\nquestion, free as it is from all faults of taste, I have yet the\nhardihood to confess, that in the sense in which the words _discover_\nand _prove_, are here used and intended, I am not convinced of the\ntruth of the principle, (that he alone discovers who proves), and I\nquestion the correctness of the particular case, brought as instance\nand confirmation. I _doubt_ the validity of the assertion as a\n_general_ rule; and I _deny_ it, as applied to matters of _faith_, to\nthe verities of religion, in the belief of which there must always be\nsomewhat of moral election, \"an act of the _Will_ in it as well as of\nthe Understanding, as much _love_ in it as discursive power. True\nChristian Faith must have in it something of in-evidence, something\nthat must be made up by duty and by obedience.\"[140] But most readily\ndo I admit, and most fervently do I contend, that the miracles worked\nby Christ, both as miracles and as fulfilments of prophecy, both as\nsigns and as wonders, made plain discovery, and gave unquestionable\nproof, of his divine character and authority; that they were to the\nwhole Jewish nation true and appropriate evidences, that HE was indeed\ncome who had promised and declared to their forefathers, _Behold your\nGod will come with vengeance, even God with a recompense_. _He will\ncome and save you._[141] I receive them as proofs, therefore, of the\ntruth of every word, which he taught who was himself THE WORD: and as\nsure evidences of the final victory over death and of the life to\ncome, in that they were manifestations of HIM, who said: _I am the\nresurrection and the Life!_\n\nThe obvious inference from the passage in question, if not its express\nimport, is: _Miracula experimenta crucis esse, quibus solis probandum\nerat, homines non, pecudum instar, omnino perituros esse_. Now this\ndoctrine I hold to be altogether alien from the _spirit_, and without\nauthority in the _letter_, of Scripture. I can recall nothing in the\nhistory of human belief, that should induce me, I find nothing in my\nown moral being that enables me, to understand it. I can, however,\nperfectly well understand, the readiness of _those_ divines in _hoc\nPaleii dictum ore pleno jurare, qui nihil aliud in toto Evangelio\ninvenire posse profitentur_. The most unqualified admiration of this\nsuperlative passage I find perfectly in character for those, who while\nSocinianism and Ultra-Socinianism are spreading like the roots of an\nelm, on and just below the surface, through the whole land, and _here\nand there_ at least have even dipped under the garden-fence of the\nChurch, and blunted the edge of the labourer's spade in the gayest\n_parterres_ of our Baal-hamon, who,--while heresies, to which the\nframers and compilers of our Liturgy, Homilies, and Articles would\nhave refused the very name of Christianity, meet their eyes on the\nlist of religious denominations for every city and large town\nthroughout the kingdom--can yet congratulate themselves with Dr.\nPaley, in his book on the Evidences, that _the rent has not reached\nthe foundation_[142]--that is, that the corruption of man's will; that\nthe responsibility of man in any sense in which it is not equally\npredicable of dogs and horses; that the divinity of our Lord, and even\nhis pre-existence; that sin, and redemption through the merits of\nChrist; and grace; and the especial aids of the Spirit; and the\nefficacy of prayer; and the subsistency of the Holy Ghost; may all be\nextruded without breach or rent in the essentials of Christian\nFaith;--that a man may deny and renounce them all, and remain a\n_fundamental_ Christian, notwithstanding. But there are many who\ncannot keep up with Latitudinarians of such a stride; and I trust that\nthe majority of serious believers are in this predicament. Now for all\nthese it would seem more in character to be of Bishop Taylor's\nopinion, that the belief in question is _presupposed_ in a convert to\nthe Truth in Christ--but at all events not to circulate in the great\nwhispering gallery of the religious public suspicions and hard\nthoughts of those who, like myself, are of this opinion; who do not\ndare decry the religious instincts of humanity as a baseless dream;\nwho hold, that to excavate the ground under the faith of all mankind,\nis a very questionable method of building up our faith, as Christians;\nwho fear, that instead of adding to, they should detract from, the\nhonour of the Incarnate Word by disparaging the light of the Word,\nthat was in the beginning, and which lighteth _every_ man; and who,\nunder these convictions, can tranquilly leave it to be disputed, in\nsome new Dialogues in the shades, between the fathers of the Unitarian\nChurch on the one side, and Maimonides, Moses Mendelssohn, and Lessing\non the other, whether the famous passage in Paley does or does not\ncontain the three dialectic flaws, _petitio principii_, _argumentum in\ncirculo_, and _argumentum contra rem a premisso rem ipsam includente_.\n\nYes! fervently do I contend, that to satisfy the understanding, that\nthere is a future state, was not the _specific_ Object of the\nChristian Dispensation; and that neither the belief of a future state,\nnor the _rationality_ of this belief, is the _exclusive_ attribute of\nthe Christian religion. An _essential_, a _fundamental_, article of\n_all_ religion it is, and therefore of the Christian; but otherwise\nthan as in connexion with the salvation of mankind from the _terrors_\nof that state among the essential articles _peculiar_ to the Gospel\nCreed (those, for instance, by which it is _contra_-distinguished from\nthe creed of a religious Jew) I do not place it. And before sentence\nis passed against me, as heterodox, on this ground, let not my judges\nforget, who it was that assured us, that if a man did not believe in a\nstate of retribution after death, previously and on other grounds,\n_neither would he believe, though a man should be raised from the\ndead_.\n\nAgain, I am questioned as to my _proofs_ of a future state by men who\nare so far, and _only_ so far, professed believers, that they admit a\nGod, and the existence of a Law from God: I give them: and the\nquestioners turn from me with a scoff or incredulous smile. Now should\nothers of a less scanty Creed infer the weakness of the reasons\nassigned by me from their failure in convincing _these_ men; may I not\nremind them, WHO it was, to whom a similar question was proposed by\nmen of the same class? But at all events it will be enough for my own\nsupport to remember it; and to know that HE held such questioners, who\ncould not find a sufficing proof of this great all-concerning verity\nin the words, _The God of Abraham_, _the God of Isaac_, _and the God\nof Jacob_ unworthy of any other answer--men not to be satisfied by\n_any_ proof--by any such proofs, at least, as are compatible with the\nends and purposes of all religious conviction; by any proofs, that\nwould not destroy the faith they were intended to confirm, and reverse\nthe whole character and quality of its effects and influences. But if,\nnotwithstanding all here offered in defence of my opinion, I must\nstill be adjudged heterodox and in error,--what can I say, but that\n_malo cum Platone errare_, and take refuge behind the ample shield of\nBISHOP JEREMY TAYLOR.\n\nAPHORISM XXIII.\n\nJEREMY TAYLOR.\n\nIn order to his own glory, and for the manifestation of his goodness,\nand that the accidents of this world might not overmuch trouble those\ngood men who suffered evil things, God was pleased to do TWO GREAT\nTHINGS. The one was: that he sent his Son into the world to take upon\nhim our nature, that every man might submit to a necessity, from which\nGod's own Son was not exempt, when it behoved even _Christ to suffer_,\nand so to enter into glory. The other great thing was: that God did\n_not only by Revelation_ and the Sermons of the Prophets _to his\nChurch_, but even to ALL MANKIND _competently_ teach, and\n_effectively_ persuade, that the soul of man does not die; that though\nthings were ill here, yet to the good who usually feel most of the\nevils of this life, they should end in honour and advantages. And\ntherefore Cicero had reason on his side to conclude, that there is a\ntime and place after this life, wherein the wicked shall be punished,\nand the virtuous rewarded; when he considered that Orpheus and\nSocrates, and many others, just men and benefactors of mankind, were\neither slain or oppressed to death by evil men. _And all these\nreceived not the promise._ But when virtue made men poor; and free\nspeaking of brave truths made the wise to lose their liberty; when an\nexcellent life hastened an opprobrious death, and the obeying Reason\nand our Conscience lost us our lives, or at least all the means and\nconditions of enjoying them: it was but time to look about for\n_another_ state of things, where justice should rule, and virtue find\nher own portion. And therefore men cast out every line, and turned\nevery stone, and tried every argument: _and sometimes proved it well,\nand when they did not, yet they believed strongly_; _and_ THEY WERE\nSURE OF THE THING, WHEN THEY WERE NOT SURE OF THE ARGUMENT.[143]\n\nCOMMENT.\n\nA fact may be truly stated, and yet the Cause or Reason assigned for\nit mistaken; or inadequate; or _pars pro toto_--one only or few of\nmany that might or should have been adduced. The preceding Aphorism is\nan instance in point. The phenomenon here brought forward by the\nBishop, as the ground and occasion of men's belief of a future\nstate--viz. the frequent, not to say ordinary, disproportion between\nmoral worth and worldly prosperity--must, indeed, at all times and in\nall countries of the civilized world have led the observant and\nreflecting few, the men of meditative habits and strong feelings of\nnatural equity, to a nicer consideration of the current belief,\nwhether instinctive or traditional. By forcing the Soul in upon\nherself, this enigma of saint and sage, from Job, David and Solomon to\nClaudian and Boetius,--this perplexing disparity of success and\ndesert, has, I doubt not, with such men been the occasion of a\nsteadier and more distinct consciousness of a _something_ in man\ndifferent _in kind_, and which not merely distinguishes but\ncontra-distinguishes, him from brute animals--at the same time that it\nhas brought into closer view an enigma of yet harder solution--the\nfact, I mean, of a _contradiction_ in the human being, of which no\ntraces are observable elsewhere, in animated or inanimate nature. A\nstruggle of jarring impulses; a mysterious diversity between the\ninjunctions of the mind and the elections of the will; and (last not\nleast) the utter incommensurateness and the unsatisfying qualities of\nthe things around us, that yet are the only objects which our senses\ndiscover, or our appetites require us to pursue:--hence for the finer\nand more contemplative spirits the ever-strengthening suspicion, that\nthe two phenomena must in some way or other stand in close connexion\nwith each other, and that the Riddle of Fortune and Circumstance is\nbut a form or effluence of the Riddle of Man:--and hence again, the\npersuasion, that the solution of both problems is to be sought\nfor--hence the presentiment, that this solution will be found--in the\n_contra_-distinctive constituent of humanity, in the _something_ of\nhuman nature which is exclusively human;--and--as the objects\ndiscoverable by the senses, as all the bodies and substances that we\ncan touch, measure, and weigh, are either mere totals, the unity of\nwhich results from the parts, and is of course only apparent; or\nsubstances, the unity of action of which is owing to the nature or\narrangement of the partible bodies which they actuate or set in\nmotion, (steam for instance, in a steam-engine); as on the one hand\nthe conditions and known or conceivable properties of all the objects\nwhich perish and utterly _cease_ to be, together with all the\nproperties which we ourselves have in common with these perishable\nthings, differ _in kind_ from the acts and properties peculiar to our\nhumanity, so that the former cannot even be conceived, cannot without\na contradiction in terms be predicated, of the proper and immediate\nsubject of the latter--(for who would not smile at an ounce of Truth,\nor a square foot of Honour?)--and as, on the other hand, whatever\nthings in visible nature _have_ the character of Permanence, and\nendure amid continual flux unchanged like a rainbow in a fast-flying\nshower, (for example, Beauty, Order, Harmony, Finality, Law,) are all\nakin to the _peculia_ of humanity, are all _congenera_ of Mind and\nWill, without which indeed they would not only exist in vain, as\npictures for moles, but actually not _exist_ at all;--hence, finally,\nthe conclusion, that the soul of man, as the subject of Mind and Will,\nmust likewise possess a principle of permanence, and be destined to\nendure. And were these grounds lighter than they are, yet as a small\nweight will make a scale descend, where there is nothing in the\nopposite scale, or _painted_ weights, which have only an illusive\nrelief or prominence; so in the scale of immortality slight reasons\nare in effect weighty, and sufficient to determine the judgment, there\nbeing no counter-weight, no reasons against them, and no facts in\nproof of the contrary, that would not prove equally well the cessation\nof the eye on the removal or diffraction of the eye-glass, and the\ndissolution or incapacity of the musician on the fracture of his\ninstrument or its strings.\n\nBut though I agree with Taylor so far, as not to doubt that the\nmisallotment of worldly goods and fortunes was one principal occasion,\nexciting well-disposed and spiritually-awakened natures by reflections\nand reasonings, such as I have here supposed, to mature the\npresentiment of immortality into full consciousness, into a principle\nof action and a well-spring of strength and consolation; I cannot\nconcede to this circumstance any thing like the importance and\n_extent_ of efficacy which he in this passage attributes to it. I am\npersuaded, that as the belief of all mankind, of all[144] tribes, and\nnations, and languages, in all ages, and in all states of social\nunion, it must be referred to far deeper grounds, common to man as\nman; and that its fibres are to be traced to the _tap-root_ of\nhumanity. I have long entertained, and do not hesitate to avow, the\nconviction, that the argument, from Universality of belief, urged by\nBarrow and others in proof of the first article of the Creed, is\nneither in point of _fact_--for two very different objects may be\nintended, and two, or more, diverse and even contradictory conceptions\nmay be expressed, by the same _name_--nor in legitimacy of conclusion\nas strong and unexceptionable, as the argument from the same ground\nfor the continuance of our personal being after death. The bull-calf\n_butts_ with smooth and unarmed brow. Throughout animated nature, of\neach characteristic organ and faculty there exists a pre-assurance, an\ninstinctive and practical anticipation; and no pre-assurance common to\na whole species does in any instance prove delusive.[145] All other\nprophecies of nature have their exact fulfilment--in every other\n_ingrafted word_ of promise, nature is found true to her word; and is\nit in her noblest creature, that she tells her first lie?--(The\nreader will, of course, understand, that I am here speaking in the\nassumed character of a mere naturalist, to whom no light of revelation\nhad been vouchsafed; one, who\n\n    ---- with gentle heart\n    Had worshipp'd Nature in the hill and valley,\n    Not knowing what he loved, but loved it all!)\n\nWhether, however, the introductory part of the Bishop's argument is to\nbe received with more or less qualification, the _fact_ itself, as\nstated in the concluding sentence of the Aphorism, remains unaffected,\nand is beyond exception true.\n\nIf other argument and yet higher authority were required, I might\nrefer to St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, and to the Epistle to the\nHebrews, which whether written by Paul or, as Luther conjectured, by\nApollos, is out of all doubt the work of an Apostolic man filled with\nthe Holy Spirit, and composed while the Temple and the glories of the\nTemple worship were yet in existence. Several of the Jewish and still\nJudaizing converts had begun to vacillate in their faith, and to\n_stumble at the stumbling-stone_ of the contrast between the pomp and\nsplendour of the old Law and the simplicity and humility of the\nChristian Church. To break this sensual charm, to unfascinate these\nbedazzled brethren, the writer to the Hebrews institutes a comparison\nbetween the two religions, and demonstrates the superior spiritual\ngrandeur, the greater intrinsic worth and dignity of the religion of\nChrist. On the other hand, at Rome where the Jews formed a numerous,\npowerful, and privileged class (many of them, too, by their\nproselyting zeal and frequent disputations with the priests and\nphilosophers trained and exercised polemics) the recently-founded\nChristian Church was, it appears, in greater danger from the\nreasonings of the Jewish doctors and even of its own Judaizing\nmembers, respecting the _use_ of the new revelation. Thus the object\nof the Epistle to the Hebrews was to prove the _superiority_ of the\nChristian Religion; the object of the Epistle to the Romans to prove\nits _necessity_. Now there was one argument extremely well calculated\nto stagger a faith newly transplanted and still loose at its roots,\nand which, if allowed, seemed to preclude the _possibility_ of the\nChristian religion, as an especial and immediate revelation from\nGod--on the high grounds, at least, on which the Apostle of the\nGentiles placed it, and with the exclusive rights and _superseding_\ncharacter, which _he_ claimed for it. \"You admit\" (said they) \"the\ndivine origin and authority of the Law given to Moses, proclaimed with\nthunders and lightnings and the voice of the Most High heard by all\nthe people from Mount Sinai, and introduced, enforced, and perpetuated\nby a series of the most stupendous miracles. Our religion then was\ngiven by God: and can God give a perishable imperfect religion? If not\nperishable, how can it have a successor? If perfect, how can it need\nto be superseded?--The entire argument is indeed comprised in the\nlatter attribute of our Law. We know, from an authority which you\nyourselves acknowledge for divine, that our religion is perfect. _He\nis the Rock, and his Work is perfect._ (Deuter. xxxii. 4.) If then the\nreligion revealed by God himself to our forefathers is _perfect_, what\nneed have we of another?\"--This objection, both from its importance\nand from its extreme plausibility, for the persons at least, to whom\nit was addressed, required an answer in both Epistles. And\naccordingly, the answer is included in the one (that to the Hebrews)\nand it is the especial purpose and main subject of the other. And how\ndoes the Apostle answer it? Suppose--and the case is not\nimpossible[146]--a man of sense, who had studied the evidences of\nPriestley and Paley with Warburton's Divine Legation, but who should\nbe a perfect stranger to the Writings of St. Paul: and that I put\n_this_ question to him:--\"What do _you_ think, will St. Paul's answer\nbe?\" \"Nothing,\" he would reply, \"can be more obvious. It is in vain,\nthe Apostle will urge, that you bring your notions of probability and\ninferences from the arbitrary interpretation of a word in an absolute\nrather than a relative sense, to invalidate a known _fact_. It is a\n_fact_, that your Religion is (in _your_ sense of the word) _not_\nperfect: for it is deficient in one of the two essential constituents\nof all true religion, the belief of a future state on solid and\nsufficient grounds. Had the doctrine indeed been revealed, the\nstupendous miracles, which you most truly affirm to have accompanied\nand attested the first promulgation of your religion, would have\nsupplied the requisite proof. But the doctrine was not revealed; and\nyour belief of a future state rests on no solid grounds. You believe\nit (as far as you believe it, and as many of you as profess this\nbelief) without revelation, and without the only proper and sufficient\nevidence of its truth. Your religion, therefore, though of divine\nOrigin is, (if taken in disjunction from the new revelation, which I\nam commissioned to proclaim) but a _religio dimidiata_; and the main\npurpose, the proper character, and the paramount object of Christ's\nmission and miracles, is to supply the missing half by a clear\ndiscovery of a future state;--and (since \"he alone discovers who\nproves\") by proving the truth of the doctrine, now for the first time\ndeclared with the requisite authority, by the requisite, appropriate,\nand alone satisfactory _evidences_.\"\n\nBut _is_ this the Apostle's answer to the Jewish oppugners, and the\nJudaizing false brethren, of the Church of Christ?--It is _not_ the\nanswer, it does not resemble the answer returned by the Apostle. It is\nneither parallel nor corradial with the line of argument in either of\nthe two Epistles, or with any one line; but it is a _chord_ that\ntraverses them all, and only touches where it cuts across. In the\nEpistle to the Hebrews the directly contrary position is repeatedly\n_asserted_: and in the Epistle to the Romans it is every where\n_supposed_. The death to which the Law sentenced all sinners (and\nwhich even the Gentiles without the _revealed_ Law had announced to\nthem by their consciences, _the judgment of God having been made known\neven to them_) must be the same death, from which they were saved by\nthe faith of the Son of God; or the Apostle's reasoning would be\nsenseless, his antithesis a mere equivoque, a play on a word, _quod\nidem sonat, aliud vult_. Christ _redeemed mankind from the curse of\nthe Law_: and we all know, that it was not from temporal death, or the\npenalties and afflictions of the present life, that believers have\nbeen redeemed. The Law, of which the inspired sage of Tarsus is\nspeaking, from which no man can plead excuse; the Law miraculously\ndelivered in thunders from Mount Sinai, which was inscribed on tables\nof stone for the _Jews_, and written in the hearts of _all_ men (Rom.\nii. 15.)--the Law _holy and spiritual_! what was the great point, of\nwhich this Law, in its own name, offered no solution? the mystery,\nwhich it left behind the veil, or in the cloudy tabernacle of types\nand figurative sacrifices? Whether there was a judgment to come, and\nsouls to suffer the dread sentence? Or was it not far rather--what are\nthe means of escape; where may grace be found, and redemption? St.\nPaul says, the latter. The Law brings condemnation: but the\nconscience-sentenced transgressor's question, \"What shall I do to be\nsaved? Who will intercede for me?\" she dismisses as beyond the\njurisdiction of her court, and takes no cognizance thereof, save in\nprophetic murmurs or mute outshadowings of mystic ordinances and\nsacrificial types.--Not, therefore, _that_ there is a Life to come,\nand a future state; but _what_ each individual Soul may hope for\nitself therein; and on what grounds; and that this state has been\nrendered an object of aspiration and fervent desire, and a source of\nthanksgiving and exceeding great joy; and by whom, and through whom,\nand for whom, and by what means and under what conditions--_these_ are\nthe _peculiar_ and _distinguishing_ fundamentals of the Christian\nFaith! These are the revealed Lights and obtained Privileges of the\nChristian Dispensation! Not alone the knowledge of the boon, but the\nprecious inestimable Boon itself, is the _Grace and Truth that came by\nJesus Christ_! I believe Moses, I believe Paul; but I believe _in_\nChrist.\n\n[139] Coleridge quotes this passage in his Conclusion.--ED.\n\n[140] J. Taylor's 'Worthy Communicant.'--H.N.C.\n\n[141] Isaiah xxxiv. compared with Matt. x. 34, and Luke xii.\n49.--H.N.C.\n\n[142] Conclusion, Part III. ch. 8.--H.N.C.\n\n[143] Sermon at the Funeral of Sir George Dalston.--H.N.C.\n\n[144] I say, _all_: for the accounts of one or two travelling French\n_philosophers_, professed atheists and partizans of infidelity,\nrespecting one or two African hordes, Caffres, and poor outlawed\nBoschmen, hunted out of their humanity, ought not to be regarded as\nexceptions. And as to Hearne's assertion respecting the non-existence\nand rejection of the belief among the Copper-Indians, it is not only\nhazarded on very weak and insufficient grounds, but he himself, in\nanother part of his work, unconsciously supplies data, from whence the\ncontrary may safely be concluded. Hearne, perhaps, put down his friend\nMotannabbi's _Fort_-philosophy for the opinion of his tribe; and from\nhis high appreciation of the moral character of this murderous\ngymnosophist, it might, I fear, be inferred, that Hearne himself was\nnot the very person one would, of all others, have chosen for the\npurpose of instituting the inquiry.\n\n[145] See Baron Field's Letters from New South Wales. The poor\nnatives, the lowest in the scale of humanity, evince no symptom of any\nreligion, or the belief of any superior power as the maker of the\nworld; but yet have no doubt that the spirits of their ancestors\nsurvive in the form of porpoises, and mindful of their descendants\nwith imperishable affection, drive the whales ashore for them to feast\non.\n\n[146] The case here supposed actually occurred in my own experience in\nthe person of a Spanish refugee, of English parents, but from his\ntenth year resident in Spain, and bred in a family of wealthy, but\nignorant and bigoted, Roman Catholics. In mature manhood he returned\nto England, disgusted with the conduct of the priests and monks, which\nhad indeed for some years produced on his mind its so common effect\namong the better-informed natives of the South of Europe--a tendency\nto Deism. The results, however, of the infidel system in France, with\nhis opportunities of observing the effects of irreligion on the French\nofficers in Spain, on the one hand; and the undeniable moral and\nintellectual superiority of Protestant Britain on the other; had not\nbeen lost on him: and here he began to think for himself and resolved\nto _study_ the subject. He had gone through Bishop Warburton's Divine\nLegation, and Paley's Evidences; but had never read the New Testament\nconsecutively, and the Epistles not at all.\n\n\n\n\nAPHORISM.\n\nON BAPTISM.\n\nLEIGHTON.\n\n\n_In those days came John the Baptist, preaching._--It will suffice for\nour present purpose, if by these[147] words we direct the attention to\nthe origin, or at least first Scriptural record, of BAPTISM, and to\nthe combinement of PREACHING therewith; their aspect each to the\nother, and their concurrence to one excellent end: the Word unfolding\nthe Sacrament, and the Sacrament sealing the Word; the Word as a\nLight, informing and clearing the sense of the Seal; and this again,\nas a Seal, confirming and ratifying the truth of the Word; as you see\nsome significant seals, or engraven signets, have a word about them\nexpressing their sense.\n\nBut truly the word is a light and the sacraments have in them of the\nsame light illuminating them. This _sacrament_ of Baptism, the\nancients do particularly express by _light_. Yet are they both nothing\nbut darkness to us, till the same light shine in our hearts; for till\nthen we are nothing but darkness ourselves, and therefore the most\nluminous things are so to us. Noonday is as midnight to a blind man.\nAnd we see these ordinances, the word and the sacrament, without\nprofit or comfort for the most part, because we have not of that\nDivine Light within us. And we have it not, because we ask it not.\n\nCOMMENT.\n\n _Or an Aid to Reflection in the forming of a sound Judgment\n respecting the purport and purpose of the Baptismal Rite, and a just\n appreciation of its value and importance._\n\nA born and bred Baptist, and paternally descended from the old\northodox Non-conformists, and both in his own and in his father's\nright a very dear friend of mine, had married a member of the National\nChurch. In consequence of an anxious wish expressed by his lady for\nthe baptism of their first child, he solicited me to put him in\npossession of my Views respecting this controversy; though principally\nas to the degree of importance which I attached to it. For as to the\npoint itself, his natural prepossession in favour of the persuasion in\nwhich he was born, had been confirmed by a conscientious examination\nof the arguments on both sides. As the Comment on the preceding\nAphorism, or rather as an expansion of its subject matter, I will give\nthe substance of the conversation: and amply shall I have been\nremunerated, should it be read with the interest and satisfaction with\nwhich it was heard. More particularly, should any of my readers find\nthemselves under the same or similar circumstances.\n\nOur discussion is rendered shorter and more easy by our perfect\nagreement in certain preliminary points. We both disclaim alike every\nattempt to explain any thing _into_ Scripture, and every attempt to\nexplain any thing _out of_ Scripture. Or if we regard either with a\nlivelier aversion, it is the latter, as being the more fashionable and\nprevalent. I mean the practice of both high and low _Grotian_ Divines\nto _explain away_ positive assertions of Scripture on the pretext,\nthat the _literal sense_ is not agreeable to reason, that is, THEIR\n_particular_ reason. And inasmuch as (in the only right sense of the\nword), there is no such thing as a _particular_ reason, they must, and\nin fact they _do_, mean, that the literal sense is not accordant to\ntheir _understanding_, that is, to the _notions_ which _their_\nunderstandings have been taught and accustomed to form in _their_\nschool of philosophy. Thus a Platonist who should become a Christian,\nwould at once, even in texts susceptible of a different\ninterpretation, recognize, because he would expect to find, several\ndoctrines which the disciple of the Epicurean or mechanic school will\nnot receive on the most positive declarations of the Divine Word. And\nas we agree in the opinion, that the _Minimi-fidian_ party[148] err\ngrievously in the latter point, so I must concede to you, that too\nmany P\u00e6do-baptists (_assertors of Infant Baptism_) have erred, though\nless grossly, in the former. I have, I confess, no eye for these\nsmoke-like wreaths of inference, this ever widening spiral _ergo_ from\nthe narrow aperture of perhaps a single text; or rather an\ninterpretation forced into it by construing an idiomatic phrase in an\nartless narrative with the same absoluteness, as if it had formed part\nof a mathematical problem. I start back from these inverted Pyramids,\nwhere the apex is the base. If I should inform any one that I had\ncalled at a friend's house, but had found nobody at home, the family\nhaving all gone to the play; and if he on the strength of this\ninformation, should take occasion to asperse my friend's wife for\nunmotherly conduct in taking an infant, six months old, to a crowded\ntheatre; would you allow him to press on the words \"_nobody_\" and\n\"_all_\" the family, in justification of the slander? Would you not\ntell him, that the words were to be interpreted by the nature of the\nsubject, the purpose of the speaker, and their ordinary acceptation;\nand that he must, or might have known, that infants of that age would\nnot be admitted into the theatre? Exactly so, with regard to the\nwords, _he and all his household_. Had Baptism of infants at that\nearly period of the Gospel been a known practice, or had this been\npreviously demonstrated,--then indeed the argument, that in all\nprobability there were one or more infants or young children in so\nlarge a family, would be no otherwise objectionable than as being\nsuperfluous, and a sort of anticlimax in logic. But if the words are\ncited as the proof, it would be a clear _petitio principii_, though\nthere had been nothing else against it. But when we turn back to the\nScriptures preceding the narrative, and find repentance and belief\ndemanded as the terms and indispensable conditions of Baptism--_then_\nthe case above imagined applies in its full force. Equally vain is the\npretended analogy from Circumcision, which was no Sacrament at all;\nbut the means and mark of national distinction. In the first instance\nit was, doubtless, a privilege or mark of superior rank conferred on\nthe descendants of Abraham. In the Patriarchal times this rite was\nconfined (the first governments being Theocracies) to the priesthood,\nwho were set apart to that office from their birth. At a later period\nthis token of the _premier class_ was extended to Kings. And thus,\nwhen it was re-ordained by Moses for the whole Jewish nation, it was\nat the same time said--Ye are _all_ Priests and Kings; ye are a\nconsecrated People. In addition to this, or rather in aid of this,\nCircumcision was intended to distinguish the Jews by some indelible\nsign: and it was no less necessary, that Jewish children should be\nrecognizable as Jews, than Jewish adults--not to mention the greater\nsafety of the rite in infancy. Nor was it ever pretended that any\nGrace was conferred with it, or that the rite was significant of any\ninward or spiritual operation. In short, an unprejudiced and competent\nreader need only peruse the first thirty-three paragraphs of the\neighteenth section of Taylor's Liberty of Prophesying; and then\ncompare with these the remainder of the Section added by him after the\nRestoration: those, namely, in which he _attempts_ to overthrow his\nown arguments. I had almost said, _affects_: for such is the\nfeebleness, and so palpable the sophistry of his answers, that I find\nit difficult to imagine, that Taylor himself could have been satisfied\nwith them. The only plausible arguments apply with equal force to\nBaptist and P\u00e6do-baptist; and would prove, if they proved any thing,\nthat both were wrong, and the Quakers only in the right.\n\nNow, in the first place, it is obvious, that nothing conclusive can be\ndrawn from the silence of the New Testament respecting a practice,\nwhich, if we suppose it already in use, must yet, from the character\nof the first converts, have been of comparatively rare occurrence; and\nwhich from the predominant, and more concerning, objects and functions\nof the Apostolic writers (1 Corinth. i. 17.) was not likely to have\nbeen mentioned otherwise than incidentally, and very probably\ntherefore might not have occurred to them to mention at all. But,\nsecondly, admitting that the practice was introduced at a later period\nthan that in which the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles were\ncomposed: I should yet be fully satisfied, that the Church exercised\nherein a sound[149] discretion. On either supposition, therefore, it\nis never without regret that I see a divine of our Church attempting\nto erect forts on a position so evidently commanded by the strong-hold\nof his antagonists. I dread the use which the Socinians may make of\ntheir example, and the Papists of their failure. Let me not, however,\ndeceive you. (_The reader understands, that I suppose myself\nconversing with a Baptist._) I am of opinion, that the divines on your\nside are chargeable with a far more grievous mistake, that of giving a\ncarnal and _Judaizing_ interpretation to the various Gospel texts in\nwhich the terms, _baptism_ and _baptize_, occur, contrary to the\nexpress and earnest admonitions of the Apostle Paul. And this I say,\nwithout in the least retracting my former concession, that the texts\nappealed to, as commanding or authorizing Infant Baptism, are all\nwithout exception made to bear a sense neither contained nor\ndeducible: and likewise that (historically considered) there exists no\nsufficient _positive_ evidence, that the Baptism of infants was\ninstituted by the Apostles in the practice of the Apostolic age.[150]\n\nLastly, we both coincide in the full conviction, that it is neither\nthe outward ceremony of Baptism, under any form or circumstances, nor\nany other ceremony, but such a faith in Christ as tends to produce a\nconformity to his holy doctrines and example in heart and life, and\nwhich faith is itself a declared mean and condition of our partaking\nof his spiritual body, and of being _clothed upon_ with his\nrighteousness,--that properly makes us Christians, and can alone be\nenjoined as an Article of Faith necessary to Salvation, so that the\ndenial thereof may be denounced as a damnable heresy. In the strictest\nsense of essential, this alone is the essential in Christianity, that\nthe same spirit should be growing in us which was in the fulness of\nall perfection in Christ Jesus. Whatever else is named essential is\nsuch because, and only as far as, it is instrumental to this, or\nevidently implied herein. If the Baptists hold the _visible rite_ to\nbe indispensable to salvation, with what terror must they not regard\nevery disease that befalls their children between youth and infancy!\nBut if they are saved by the faith of the parent, then the outward\nrite is not essential to salvation, otherwise than as the omission\nshould arise from a spirit of disobedience: and in this case it is the\ncause, not the effect, the wilful and unbaptized heart, not the\nunbaptizing hand, that perils it. And surely it looks very like an\n_inconsistency_ to admit the vicarious faith of the parents and the\ntherein implied promise, that the child shall be Christianly bred up,\nand as much as in them lies prepared for the communion of saints--to\nadmit this, as safe and sufficient in their own instance, and yet to\ndenounce the same belief and practice as hazardous and unavailing in\nthe Church--the same, I say, essentially, and only differing from\ntheir own by the presence of two or three Christian friends as\nadditional securities, and by the promise being expressed!\n\nBut you, my filial friend! have studied Christ under a better\nteacher--the Spirit of Adoption, even the spirit that was in Paul, and\nwhich still speaks to us out of his writings. You remember and admire\nthe saying of an old divine, that a ceremony duly instituted was a\nChain of Gold round the Neck of Faith; but if in the wish to make it\nco-essential and consubstantial, you draw it closer and closer, it may\nstrangle the Faith it was meant to deck and designate. You are not so\nunretentive a scholar as to have forgotten the _pateris et auro_ of\nyour Virgil: or if you were, you are not so inconsistent a reasoner,\nas to translate the Hebraism, spirit and fire in one place by\nspiritual fire, and yet to refuse to translate water and spirit by\nspiritual water in another place: or if, as I myself think, the\ndifferent position marks a different sense, yet that the former must\nbe _ejusdem generis_ with the latter--the Water of Repentance,\nreformation in _conduct_; and the Spirit that which purifies the\ninmost _principle_ of action, as fire purges the metal substantially\nand not cleansing the surface only!\n\nBut in this instance, it will be said, the ceremony, the outward and\nvisible sign, is a Scripture ordinance. I will not reply, that the\nRomish priest says the same of the anointing of the sick with oil and\nthe imposition of hands. No, my answer is: that this is a very\nsufficient reason for the continued observance of a ceremonial rite so\nderived and sanctioned, even though its own beauty, simplicity, and\nnatural significancy had pleaded less strongly in its behalf. But it\nis no reason why the Church should forget, that the perpetuation of a\nthing does not alter the nature of the thing, and that a ceremony to\nbe perpetuated is to be perpetuated as a _ceremony_. It is no reason\nwhy, knowing and experiencing even in the majority of her own members\nthe proneness of the human mind to[151] superstition, the Church\nmight not rightfully and piously adopt the measures best calculated to\ncheck this tendency, and to correct the abuse, to which it had led in\nany particular rite. But of superstitious notions respecting the\nbaptismal ceremony, and of abuse resulting, the instances were\nflagrant and notorious. Such, for instance, was the frequent deferring\nof the baptismal rite to a late period of life, and even to the\ndeath-bed, in the belief that the mystic water would cleanse the\nbaptized person from all sin and (if he died immediately after the\nperformance of the ceremony) send him pure and spotless into the other\nworld.\n\nNor is this all. The preventive remedy applied by the Church is\nlegitimated as well as additionally recommended by the following\nconsideration. Where a ceremony answered and was intended to answer\nseveral purposes, which purposes at its first institution were blended\nin respect of _the time_, but which afterwards, by change of\ncircumstances (as when, for instance, a large and ever-increasing\nproportion of the members of the Church, or those who at least bore\nthe Christian name, were of Christian parents), were necessarily\ndis-united--_then_ either the Church has no power or authority\ndelegated to her (which is shifting the ground of controversy)--or she\nmust be authorized to choose and determine, to which of the several\npurposes the ceremony should be attached.--Now one of the purposes of\nBaptism was--the making it _publicly manifest_, first, what\nindividuals were to be regarded by the _world_ (Phil. ii. 15.) as\nbelonging to the visible communion of Christians: inasmuch as by their\ndemeanour and apparent condition, the general estimation of _the city\nset on a hill and not to be hid_ (Matth. v. 14.) could not but be\naffected--the city that even _in the midst of a crooked and perverse\nnation_ was bound not only to give no cause, but by all innocent means\nto prevent every occasion, of _rebuke_. Secondly, to mark out, for the\nChurch itself, those that were entitled to that _especial_ dearness,\nthat watchful and disciplinary love and loving-kindness, which _over\nand above_ the affections and duties of philanthropy and universal\ncharity, Christ himself had enjoined, and with an emphasis and in a\nform significant of its great and especial importance,--_A New\nCommandment I give unto you, that ye love_ one another. By a charity\nwide as sunshine, and comprehending the whole human race, the body of\nChristians was to be placed in contrast with the proverbial\nmisanthropy and bigotry of the Jewish Church and people: while yet\nthey were to be distinguished and known to all men, by the peculiar\nlove and affection displayed by them towards the members of their own\ncommunity; thus exhibiting the intensity of sectarian attachment, yet\nby the no less notorious and exemplary practice of the duties of\nuniversal benevolence, secured from the charge so commonly brought\nagainst it, of being narrow and exclusive. \"How _kind_ these\nChristians are to the poor and afflicted, without distinction of\nreligion or country; but how they _love each other_!\"\n\nNow combine with this the consideration before urged--the duty, I\nmean, and necessity of checking the superstitious abuse of the\nbaptismal rite: and I then ask, with confidence, in what way could the\nChurch have exercised a sound discretion more wisely, piously, or\neffectively, than by fixing, from among the several ends and purposes\nof Baptism, the outward ceremony to the purposes here mentioned? How\ncould the great body of Christians be more plainly instructed as to\nthe true nature of all outward ordinances? What can be conceived\nbetter calculated to prevent the ceremony from being regarded as other\nand more than a ceremony, if not the administration of the same on an\n_object_, (yea, a dear and precious _object_) of spiritual duties,\nthough the _conscious_ subject of spiritual operations and graces only\nby anticipation and in hope;--a subject unconscious as a flower of the\ndew falling on it, or the early rain, and thus emblematic of the\nmyriads who (as in our Indian empire, and henceforward, I trust, in\nAfrica) are temporally and even morally benefited by the outward\nexistence of Christianity, though as yet ignorant of its saving truth!\nAnd yet, on the other hand, what more reverential than the application\nof this, the common initiatory rite of the East sanctioned and\nappropriated by Christ--its application, I say, to the very subjects,\nwhom he himself commanded to be _brought_ to him--the children _in\narms_, respecting whom _Jesus was much displeased with his disciples,\nwho had rebuked those that brought them_! What more expressive of the\ntrue character of that originant yet _generic_ stain, from which the\nSon of God, by his mysterious incarnation and agony and death and\nresurrection, and by the Baptism of the Spirit, came to cleanse the\nchildren of Adam, than the exhibition of the outward element to\ninfants free from and incapable of _crime_, in whom the evil principle\nwas present only as _potential_ being, and whose outward semblance\nrepresented the kingdom of Heaven? And can it--to a man, who would\nhold himself deserving of _anathema maranatha_ (1 Cor. xvi. 22.) if he\ndid not _love the Lord Jesus_--can it be nothing to such a man, that\nthe introduction and commendation of a new inmate, a new spiritual\nward, to the assembled brethren in Christ (--and this, as I have shown\nabove, was _one_ purpose of the baptismal ceremony) does in the\nbaptism of an infant recall our Lord's own presentation in the Temple\non the eighth day after his birth? Add to all these considerations the\nknown fact of the frequent exposure and the general light regard of\ninfants, at the time when Infant Baptism is by the Baptists supposed\nto have been first _ruled_ by the Catholic Church, not overlooking the\nhumane and charitable motives, that influenced Cyprian's decision in\nits favour. And then make present to your imagination, and\nmeditatively contemplate the still continuing tendency, the\nprofitable, the _beautiful_ effects, of this ordinance _now_ and for\nso many centuries back, on the great mass of the population throughout\nChristendom--the softening, elevating exercise of faith and the\nconquest over the senses, while in the form of a helpless crying babe\nthe presence, and the unutterable worth and value, of an immortal\nbeing made capable of everlasting bliss are solemnly proclaimed and\ncarried home to the mind and heart of the hearers and beholders! Nor\nwill you forget the probable influence on the future education of the\nchild, the opportunity of instructing and impressing the friends,\nrelatives, and parents in their best and most docile mood. These are,\nindeed, the _mollia tempora fandi_.\n\nIt is true, that by an unforeseen accident, and through the propensity\nof all zealots to caricature partial truth into total falsehood--it is\ntoo true, that a tree the very contrary in quality of that shown to\nMoses (Exod. xv. 25.) was afterwards _cast into the sweet waters from\nthis fountain_, and made them like _the waters of Marah_, too bitter\nto be drunk. I allude to the Pelagian controversy, the perversion of\nthe article of Original Sin by Augustine, and the frightful\nconclusions which this _durus pater infantum_ drew from the article\nthus perverted. It is not, however, to the predecessors of this\nAfrican, whoever they were that authorized P\u00e6do-baptism, and at\nwhatever period it first became general--it is not to the Church at\nthe time being, that these consequences are justly imputable. She had\ndone her best to preclude every superstition, by allowing in urgent\ncases any and every adult, man and woman, to administer the ceremonial\npart, the outward rite, of baptism: but reserving to the highest\nfunctionary of the Church (even to the exclusion of the co-presbyters)\nthe more proper and spiritual purpose, namely, the declaration of\nrepentance and belief, the free Choice of Christ, as his Lord, and the\nopen profession of the Christian title by an individual in his own\nname and by his own deliberate act. _This_ office of religion, the\nessentially moral and spiritual nature of which could not be mistaken,\nthis most _solemn_ office the Bishop alone was to perform.\n\nThus--as soon as the _purposes_ of the ceremonial rite were by change\nof circumstances divided, that is, took place at different periods of\nthe believer's life--to the _outward_ purposes, where the effect was\nto be produced on the consciousness of others, the Church continued to\naffix the _outward rite_; while to the substantial and spiritual\npurpose, where the effect was to be produced on the individual's own\nmind, she gave its beseeming dignity by an ordinance not figurative,\nbut standing in the direct cause and relation of _means_ to the _end_.\n\nIn fine, there are two great purposes to be answered, each having its\nown subordinate purposes, and desirable consequences. The Church\nanswers both, the Baptists one only. If, nevertheless, you would still\nprefer the union of the Baptismal rite with the Confirmation, and that\nthe Presentation of Infants to the assembled Church had formed a\nseparate institution, avowedly prospective--I answer: first, that such\nfor a long time and to a late period was my own judgment. But even\nthen it seemed to me a point, as to which an indifference would be\nless inconsistent in a lover of truth, than a zeal to separation in a\nprofessed lover of peace. And secondly, I would revert to the history\nof the Reformation, and the calamitous accident of the Peasants' War:\nwhen the poor ignorant multitude, driven frantic by the intolerable\noppressions of their feudal lords, rehearsed all the outrages that\nwere acted in our own times by the Parisian populace headed by Danton,\nMarat, and Robespierre; and on the same outrageous principles, and in\nassertion of the same RIGHTS OF BRUTES to the subversion of all the\nDUTIES OF MEN. In our times, most fortunately for the interest of\nreligion and morality, or of their prudential substitutes at least,\nthe name of Jacobin was every where associated with that of Atheist\nand Infidel. Or rather, Jacobinism and Infidelity were the two heads\nof the Revolutionary Geryon--connatural misgrowths of the same\nmonster-trunk. In the German Convulsion, on the contrary, by a mere\nbut most unfortunate _accident_, the same code of _Caliban_\njurisprudence, the same sensual and murderous excesses, were connected\nwith the name of Anabaptist. The abolition of magistracy, community of\ngoods, the right of plunder, polygamy, and whatever else was fanatical\nwere comprised in the word, Anabaptism. It is not to be imagined, that\nthe Fathers of the Reformation could, without a miraculous influence,\nhave taken up the question of Infant Baptism with the requisite\ncalmness and freedom of spirit. It is not to be wished, that they\nshould have entered on the discussion. Nay, I will go farther. Unless\nthe abolition of Infant Baptism can be shown to be involved in some\nfundamental article of faith, unless the practice could be proved\nfatal or imminently perilous to salvation, the Reformers would not\nhave been justified in exposing the yet tender and struggling cause of\nProtestantism to such certain and violent prejudices as this\ninnovation would have excited. Nothing less than the whole substance\nand efficacy of the Gospel faith was the prize, which they had\nwrestled for and won; but won from enemies still in the field, and on\nthe watch to retake, at all costs, the sacred treasure, and consign it\nonce again to darkness and oblivion. If there be a _time for all\nthings_, this was not the time for an innovation, that would and must\nhave been followed by the triumph of the enemies of Scriptural\nChristianity, and the alienation of the governments, that had espoused\nand protected it.\n\nRemember, I say this on the supposition of the question's not being\nwhat you do not pretend it to be, an essential of the Faith, by which\nwe are saved. But should it likewise be conceded, that it is a\n_disputable_ point--and that in point of fact it is and has been\ndisputed by divines, whom no pious Christian of any denomination will\ndeny to have been faithful and eminent servants of Christ; should it,\nI say, be likewise conceded that the question of Infant Baptism is a\npoint, on which two Christians, who perhaps differ on this point only,\nmay differ without giving just ground for impeaching the piety or\ncompetence of either--in this case I am obliged to infer, that the\nperson who _at any time_ can regard this difference as _singly_\nwarranting a separation from a religious Community, must think of\nschism under another point of view, than that in which I have been\ntaught to contemplate it by St. Paul in his Epistles to the\nCorinthians.\n\nLet me add a few words on a diversity of doctrine closely connected\nwith this: the opinions of Doctors Mant and D'Oyly as opposed to those\nof the (so called) Evangelical clergy. \"The Church of England\" (says\nWall)[152] \"does not require assent and consent\" to either opinion\n\"in order to _lay_ communion.\" But I will suppose the person a\n_minister_: but minister of a Church which has expressly disclaimed\nall pretence to infallibility; a Church which in the construction of\nits Liturgy and Articles is known to have worded certain passages for\nthe purpose of rendering them subscribable by both A and Z--that is,\nthe opposite parties as to the points in controversy. I suppose this\nperson's convictions those of Z, and that out of five passages there\nare three, the more natural and obvious sense of which is in his\nfavour; and two of which, though not absolutely _precluding_ a\ndifferent sense, yet the more probable interpretation is in favour of\nA, that is, of those who do not consider the Baptism of an Infant as\n_prospective_, but hold it to be an _opus operans et in pr\u00e6senti_.\nThen I say, that if such a person regards these two sentences or\nsingle passages as obliging or warranting him to abandon the flock\nentrusted to his charge, and either to join such, as are the avowed\nEnemies of the Church on the double ground of its particular\nConstitution and of its being an Establishment, or to set up a\nseparate Church for himself--I cannot avoid the conclusion, that\neither his conscience is morbidly sensitive in one speck to the\nexhaustion of the sensibility in a far larger portion; or that he must\nhave discovered some mode, beyond the reach of my conjectural powers,\nof interpreting the Scriptures enumerated in the following excerpt\nfrom the popular tract before cited, in which the writer expresses an\nopinion, to which I assent with my whole heart: namely,\n\n\"That all Christians in the world that hold the same fundamentals\nought to make one Church, though differing in lesser opinions; and\nthat the sin, the mischief, and danger to the souls of men, that\ndivide into those many sects and parties among us, does (for the most\nof them) consist not so much in the opinions themselves, as in their\ndividing and separating for them. And in support of this tenet, I will\nrefer you to some plain places of Scripture, which if you please now\nto peruse, I will be silent the while. See what our Saviour himself\nsays, John x. 16. John xvii. 11. And what the primitive Christians\npractised, Acts ii. 46, and iv. 32. And what St. Paul says, 1 Cor. i.\n10, 11, 12, and 2, 3, 4; also the whole 12th chapter: Eph. ii. 18, &c.\nto the end. Where the Jewish and Gentile Christians are showed to be\n_one body, one household, one temple fitly framed together_: and yet\nthese were of different opinions in several matters.--Likewise chap.\niii. 6, iv. 1-13. Phil. ii. 1, 2, where he uses the most solemn\nadjurations to this purpose. But I would more especially recommend to\nyou the reading of Gal. v. 20, 21. Phil. iii. 15, 16, the 14th chapter\nto the Romans, and part of the 15th, to verse 7, and also Rom. xv. 17.\n\n\"Are not these passages plain, full, and earnest? Do you find any of\nthe controverted points to be determined by Scripture in words nigh so\nplain or pathetic?\"\n\n _Marginal Note written (in 1816) by the Author in his own copy of\n Wall's work._\n\n This and the two following pages are excellent. If I addressed the\n ministers recently seceded, I would first prove from Scripture and\n Reason the justness of their doctrines concerning Baptism and\n Conversion. 2. I would show, that even in respect of the Prayer-book,\n Homilies, &c. of the Church of England, taken as a whole, their\n opponents were comparatively as ill off as themselves, if not worse.\n 3. That the few mistakes or inconvenient phrases of the Baptismal\n Service did not impose on the conscience the necessity of resigning\n the pastoral office. 4. That even if they did, this would by no means\n justify schism from Lay-membership: or else there could be no schism\n except from an immaculate and infallible Church. Now, as our Articles\n have declared that no Church is or ever was such, it would follow\n that there is no such sin as that of Schism--that is, that St. Paul\n wrote falsely or idly. 5. That the escape through the channel of\n Dissent is from the frying-pan to the fire--or, to use a less worn\n and vulgar simile, the escape of a leech from a glass-jar of water\n into the naked and open air. But never, never, would I in one breath\n allow my Church to be fallible, and in the next contend for her\n absolute freedom from all error--never confine inspiration and\n perfect truth to the Scriptures, and then scold for the perfect truth\n of each and every word in the Prayer-book. Enough for me, if in my\n heart of hearts, free from all fear of man and all lust of\n preferment, I believe (as I do) the Church of England to be the\n _most_ Apostolic Church; that its doctrines and ceremonies contain\n nothing dangerous to Righteousness or Salvation; and that the\n imperfections in its Liturgy are spots indeed, but spots on the sun,\n which impede neither its light nor its heat, so as to prevent the\n good seed from growing in a good soil and producing fruits of\n Redemption.[154]\n\n * * * The author had written and intended to insert a similar\n exposition on the Eucharist. But as the leading view has been given\n in the Comment on Redemption, its length induces him to defer it,\n together with the Articles on Faith and the philosophy of Prayer, to\n a small supplementary volume.[155]\n\n[147] By certain Biblical philologists of the Teutonic school (men\ndistinguished by learning, but still more characteristically by\nhardihood in conjecture, and who suppose the Gospels to have undergone\nseveral successive _revisions and enlargements_ by, or under the\nauthority of, the sacred historians) these words are contended to have\nbeen, in the first delivery, the common commencement of all the\nGospels \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1 (that is, _according to the flesh_), in\ndistinction from St. John's or the Gospel \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1 (that is,\n_according to the Spirit_).\n\n[148] See Comment to Aphorism VIII., par. 3.--ED.\n\n[149] That every the least _permissible_ form and ordinance, which at\ndifferent times it might be expedient for the Church to enact, are\npre-enacted in the New Testament; and that whatever is not to be found\n_there_, ought to be allowed _no where_--this has been _asserted_. But\nthat it has been _proved_, or that the tenet is not to be placed among\nthe _revulsionary_ results of the Scripture-slighting Will-worship of\nthe Romish Church; it will be more sincere to say, I disbelieve, than\nthat I doubt. It was chiefly, if not exclusively, in reference to the\nextravagances built on this tenet, that the great Selden ventured to\ndeclare, that the words, _Scrutamini Scripturas_, had set the world in\nan uproar.\n\nExtremes _appear_ to generate each other; but if we look steadily,\nthere will most often be found some common error, that produces both\nas its positive and negative poles. Thus superstitions go _by pairs_,\nlike the two Hungarian sisters, always quarrelling and _inveterately\naverse_, but yet joined at the trunk.\n\n[150] More than this I do not consider as necessary for the argument.\nAnd as to Robinson's assertions in his History of Baptism, that infant\nBaptism did not commence till the time of Cyprian, who condemning it\nas a general practice, allowed it in particular cases by a\ndispensation of charity; and that it did not actually become the\nordinary rule of the Church, till Augustine in the fever of his\nAnti-Pelagian dispute had introduced the Calvinistic interpretation of\nOriginal Sin, and the dire state of Infants dying unbaptized--I am so\nfar from acceding to them, that I reject the whole statement as rash,\nand not only unwarranted by the authorities he cites, but unanswerably\nconfuted by Baxter, Wall, and many other learned P\u00e6do-baptists before\nand since the publication of his work. I confine myself to the\nassertion--not that Infant Baptism was _not_; but--that there exist no\nsufficient proofs that it _was_ the practice of the Apostolic age.\n\n[151] Let me be permitted to repeat and apply the _note_ in a former\npage. Superstition may be defined as _super_stantium (_cujusmodi sunt\nceremoni\u00e6 et signa externa qu\u00e6, nisi in significando nihili sunt et\np\u00e6ne nihil_) _sub_stantiatio.\n\n[152] Conference between Two Men that had Doubts about Infant Baptism.\nBy W. Wall, Author of the History of Infant Baptism, and Vicar of\nShoreham in Kent. A very sensible little tract, and written in an\nexcellent spirit: but it failed, I confess, in satisfying my mind as\nto the existence of any decisive proofs or documents of Infant Baptism\nhaving been an Apostolic usage, or specially intended in any part of\nthe New Testament: though deducible _generally_ from many passages,\nand in perfect accordance with the _spirit_ of the whole.\n\nA mighty wrestler in the cause of Spiritual Religion and _Gospel_\nmorality, in whom more than in any other contemporary I seem to see\nthe spirit of Luther revived, expressed to me his doubts whether we\nhave a right to deny that an infant is capable of a spiritual\ninfluence. To such a man I could not feel justified in returning an\nanswer _ex tempore_, or without having first submitted my convictions\nto a fresh revisal. I owe him, however, a deliberate answer; and take\nthis opportunity of discharging the debt.\n\nThe objection supposes and assumes the very point which is denied, or\nat least disputed--namely, that Infant Baptism is specially injoined\nin the Scriptures. If an express passage to this purport _had_ existed\nin the New Testament--the other passages, which evidently imply a\nspiritual operation under the condition of a preceding spiritual act\non the part of the person baptized, remaining as now--_then_ indeed,\nas the only way of removing the apparent contradiction, it _might_ be\nallowable to call on the Anti-p\u00e6dobaptist to prove the negative--namely,\nthat an infant a week old is not a subject capable or susceptible of\nspiritual agency. And, _vice versa_, should it be made known to us, that\ninfants are not without reflection and self-consciousness--_then_,\ndoubtless, we should be entitled to infer that they were capable of a\nspiritual operation, and consequently of that which is signified in\nthe baptismal rite administered to adults. But what does this prove\nfor those, who (as D. D. Mant and D'Oyly) not only cannot show, but\nwho do not themselves profess to believe, the self-consciousness of a\nnew-born babe, but who rest the defence of Infant Baptism on the\n_assertion_, that God was pleased to affix the performance of this\nrite to his offer of Salvation, as the indispensable, though\narbitrary, condition of the infant's salvability?--As Kings in former\nages, when they conferred lands in perpetuity, would sometimes, as the\ncondition of the tenure, exact from the beneficiary a hawk, or some\ntrifling ceremony, as the putting on or off of their sandals, or\nwhatever else royal caprice or the whim of the moment might suggest.\nBut _you_, honoured IRVING, are as little disposed, as myself, to\nfavour _such_ doctrine!\n\n    Friend, pure of heart and fervent! we have learnt\n    A different lore! We may not thus profane\n    The Idea and Name of Him whose absolute Will\n    _Is_ Reason--Truth Supreme!--Essential Order![153]\n\n[153] For a further opinion upon Edward Irving see note at pp. 153-4\nof the 1839 edition of Coleridge's 'Church and State.'--ED.\n\n[154] Here the editor of the 1843 edition was able to give two pages\nof additional matter by the author, tending, as Coleridge said, to the\n\"clearing up\" of \"the chapter on Baptism,\" and the proving \"the\nsubstantial accordance of my scheme with that of our Church.\" The\naddition is from Coleridge's MS. Note-books, and bears date May 8,\n1828.--ED.\n\n[155] This note appeared in the early editions only. The\n\"supplementary volume\" was never published, though the \"Essay on\nFaith,\" at p. 425, v. 4, of Coleridge's \"Remains\" (1838), and \"Notes\non the Book of Common Prayer\" (p. 5, v. 3, the same), may be the parts\nhere mentioned as written to appear in it. We republish these two\nfragments at the end of the present volume, pp. 341 and 350.--ED.\n\n\n\n\nCONCLUSION.\n\n\nI am not so ignorant of the temper and tendency of the age in which I\nlive, as either to be unprepared for the _sort_ of remarks which the\nliteral interpretation of the Evangelist will call forth, or to\nattempt an answer to them. Visionary ravings, obsolete whimsies,\ntranscendental trash, and the like, I leave to pass at the price\ncurrent among those who are willing to receive abusive phrases as\nsubstitutes for argument. Should any suborner of anonymous criticism\nhave engaged some literary bravo or buffoon beforehand, to vilify this\nwork, as in former instances, I would give a friendly hint to the\noperative critic that he may compile an excellent article for the\noccasion, and with very little trouble, out of Warburton's tract on\nGrace and the Spirit, and the Preface to the same. There is, however,\none objection which will so often be heard from men, whose talents and\nreputed moderation must give a weight to their words, that I owe it\nboth to my own character and to the interests of my readers, not to\nleave it unnoticed. The charge will probably be worded in this\nway:--There is nothing new in all this! (_as if novelty were any merit\nin questions of Revealed Religion!_) It is _Mysticism_, all taken out\nof William Law, after he had lost his senses, poor man! in brooding\nover the visions of a delirious German cobbler, Jacob Behmen.\n\nOf poor Jacob Behmen I have delivered my sentiments at large in\nanother work. Those who have condescended to look into his writings\nmust know, that his characteristic errors are; first, the mistaking\nthe accidents and peculiarities of his own over-wrought mind for\nrealities and modes of thinking common to all minds: and secondly, the\nconfusion of nature, that is, the active powers communicated to\nmatter, with God the Creator. And if the same persons have done more\nthan merely looked into the present volume, they must have seen, that\nto eradicate, and, if possible, to preclude both the one and the\nother stands prominent among its avowed objects.[156]\n\nOf William Law's works I am acquainted with the \"Serious Call;\" and\nbesides this I remember to have read a small tract on Prayer, if I\nmistake not, as I easily may, it being at least six-and-twenty\nyears[157] since I saw it. He may in this or in other tracts have\nquoted the same passages from the fourth Gospel as I have done. But\nsurely this affords no presumption that my conclusions are the same\nwith his; still less, that they are drawn from the same premisses: and\nleast of all, that they were adopted from his writings. Whether Law\nhas used the phrase, assimilation by faith, I know not; but I know\nthat I should expose myself to a just charge of an idle parade of my\nreading, if I recapitulated the tenth part of the authors, ancient,\nand modern, Romish and Reformed, from Law to Clemens Alexandrinus and\nIren\u00e6us, in whose works the same phrase occurs in the same sense. And\nafter all, on such a subject how worse than childish is the whole\ndispute!\n\nIs the fourth Gospel authentic? And is the interpretation I have\ngiven, true or false? These are the only questions which a wise man\nwould put, or a Christian be anxious to answer. I not only believe it\nto be the true sense of the texts; but I assert that it is the only\ntrue, rational, and even _tolerable_ sense. And this position alone I\nconceive myself interested in defending. I have studied with an open\nand fearless spirit the attempts of sundry learned critics of the\nContinent, to invalidate the authenticity of this Gospel, before and\nsince Eichhorn's Vindication. The result has been a clearer assurance\nand (as far as this was possible) a yet deeper conviction of the\ngenuineness of _all_ the writings, which the Church has attributed to\nthis Apostle. That those, who have formed an opposite conclusion,\nshould object to the use of expressions which they had ranked among\nthe most obvious marks of spuriousness, follows as a matter of course.\nBut that men, who with a clear and cloudless assent receive the sixth\nchapter of this Gospel as a faithful, nay, _inspired_ record of an\nactual discourse, should take offence at the repetition of words which\nthe Redeemer himself, in the perfect foreknowledge that they would\nconfirm the disbelieving, alienate the unsteadfast, and transcend the\npresent capacity even of his own Elect, had chosen as the _most_\nappropriate; and which, after the most decisive proofs, that they\n_were_ misinterpreted by the greater number of his hearers, and not\nunderstood by any, he nevertheless repeated with stronger emphasis and\n_without comment_ as the _only_ appropriate symbols of the great truth\nhe was declaring, and to realize which \u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03be;[158]--that in\ntheir own discourses these men should hang back from all express\nreference to these words, as if they were afraid or ashamed of them,\nthough the earliest recorded ceremonies and liturgical forms of the\nprimitive Church are absolutely inexplicable, except in connexion with\nthis discourse, and with the _mysterious_ and _spiritual_, not\nallegorical and merely ethical, import of the same; and though this\nimport is solemnly and in the most unequivocal terms asserted and\ntaught by their own Church, even in her Catechism, or compendium of\ndoctrines necessary for all her members;--_this_ I may, perhaps,\n_understand_; but _this_ I am not able to vindicate or excuse.\n\nThere is, however, one opprobrious phrase which it may be profitable\nfor my younger readers that I should explain, namely, Mysticism. And\nfor this purpose I will quote a sentence or two from a Dialogue which,\nhad my prescribed limits permitted, I should have attached to the\npresent work; but which with an Essay on the Church, as instituted by\nChrist, and as an establishment of the State, and a series of letters\non the right and the superstitious use and estimation of the Bible,\nwill appear in a small volume by themselves, should the reception\ngiven to the present volume encourage or permit the publication.[159]\n\n\nMYSTICS AND MYSTICISM.\n\n_Antin\u00f6us._--\"What do you call Mysticism? And do you use the word in a\ngood or a bad sense?\"\n\n_N\u00f6us._--\"In the latter only; as far, at least, as we are now\nconcerned with it. When a man refers to _inward feelings_ and\n_experiences_, of which mankind at large are not conscious, as\nevidences of the truth of any opinion--such a man I call a Mystic: and\nthe grounding of any theory or belief on accidents and anomalies of\nindividual sensations or fancies, and the use of peculiar terms\ninvented, or perverted from their ordinary significations, for the\npurpose of expressing these _idiosyncrasies_ and pretended facts of\ninterior consciousness, I name Mysticism. Where the error consists\nsimply in the Mystic's attaching to these anomalies of his individual\ntemperament the character of _reality_, and in receiving them as\npermanent truths, having a subsistence in the Divine Mind, though\nrevealed to himself alone; but entertains this persuasion without\ndemanding or expecting the same faith in his neighbours--I should\nregard it as a species of enthusiasm, always indeed to be deprecated,\nbut yet capable of co-existing with many excellent qualities both of\nhead and heart. But when the Mystic by ambition or still meaner\npassions, or (as sometimes is the case) by an uneasy and self-doubting\nstate of mind which seeks confirmation in outward sympathy, is led to\nimpose his faith, as a duty, on mankind generally: and when with such\nviews he asserts that the same experiences would be vouchsafed, the\nsame truths revealed, to _every man_ but for his secret wickedness and\nunholy will--such a Mystic is a Fanatic, and in certain states of the\npublic mind a dangerous member of society. And most so in those ages\nand countries in which Fanatics of elder standing are allowed to\npersecute the fresh competitor. For under these predicaments,\nMysticism, though originating in the singularities of an individual\nnature, and therefore essentially anomalous, is nevertheless highly\n_contagious_. It is apt to collect a swarm and cluster _circum fana_,\naround the new _fane_: and therefore merits the name of Fanaticism, or\nas the Germans say, _Schw\u00e4rmerey_, that is, _swarm-making_.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWe will return to the harmless species--the enthusiastic Mystics;--a\nspecies that may again be subdivided into two ranks. And it will not\nbe other than germane to the subject, if I endeavour to describe them\nin a sort of allegory, or parable. Let us imagine a poor pilgrim\nbenighted in a wilderness or desert, and pursuing his way in the\nstarless dark with a lantern in his hand. Chance or his happy genius\nleads him to an Oasis or natural Garden, such as in the creations of\nmy youthful fancy I supposed Enos[160] the Child of Cain to have\nfound. And here, hungry and thirsty, the way-wearied man rests at a\nfountain; and the taper of his lantern throws its light on an\nover-shadowing tree, a boss of snow-white blossoms, through which the\ngreen and growing fruits peeped, and the ripe golden fruitage glowed.\nDeep, vivid, and faithful are the impressions, which the lovely\nImagery comprised within the scanty circle of light, makes and leaves\non his memory! But scarcely has he eaten of the fruits and drunk of\nthe fountain, ere scared by the roar and howl from the desart he\nhurries forward: and as he passes with hasty steps through grove and\nglade, shadows and imperfect beholdings and vivid fragments of things\ndistinctly seen blend with the past and present shapings of his brain.\nFancy modifies sight. His dreams transfer their forms to real objects;\nand these lend a substance and an _outness_ to his dreams. Apparitions\ngreet him; and when at a distance from this enchanted land, and on a\ndifferent track, the dawn of day discloses to him a caravan, a troop\nof his fellow-men, his memory, which is itself half fancy, is\ninterpolated afresh by every attempt to recall, connect, and _piece\nout_ his recollections. His narration is received as a madman's tale.\nHe shrinks from the rude laugh and contemptuous sneer, and retires\ninto himself. Yet the craving for sympathy, strong in proportion to\nthe intensity of his convictions, impels him to unbosom himself to\nabstract auditors; and the poor Quietist becomes a Penman, and, all\ntoo poorly stocked for the writer's trade, he borrows his phrases and\nfigures from the only writings to which he has had access, the sacred\nbooks of his religion. And thus I shadow out the enthusiast Mystic of\nthe first sort; at the head of which stands the illuminated Teutonic\ntheosopher and shoemaker, honest Jacob Behmen, born near Gorlitz, in\nUpper Lusatia, in the 17th of our Elizabeth's reign, and who died in\nthe 22nd of her successor's.\n\nTo delineate a Mystic of the second and higher order, we need only\nendow our pilgrim with equal gifts of nature, but these developed and\ndisplayed by all the aids and arts of education and favourable\nfortune. _He_ is on his way to the Mecca of his ancestral and national\nfaith, with a well-guarded and numerous procession of merchants and\nfellow-pilgrims, on the established track. At the close of day the\ncaravan has halted: the full moon rises on the desert: and he strays\nforth alone, out of sight but to no unsafe distance; and chance leads\n_him_ too, to the same oasis or Islet of Verdure on the Sea of Sand.\nHe wanders at leisure in its maze of beauty and sweetness, and thrids\nhis way through the odorous and flowering thickets into open spots of\ngreenery, and discovers statues and memorial characters, grottos, and\nrefreshing caves. But the moonshine, the imaginative poesy of nature,\nspreads its soft shadowy charm over all, conceals distances, and\nmagnifies heights, and modifies relations: and fills up vacuities with\nits own whiteness, counterfeiting substance; and where the dense\nshadows lie, makes solidity imitate hollowness; and gives to all\nobjects a tender visionary hue and softening. Interpret the moonlight\nand the shadows as the peculiar genius and sensibility of the\nindividual's own spirit: and here you have the other sort: a Mystic,\nan Enthusiast of a nobler breed--a Fenelon. But the residentiary, or\nthe frequent visitor of the favoured spot, who has scanned its\nbeauties by steady day-light, and mastered its true proportions and\nlineaments, he will discover that both pilgrims have indeed been\nthere. _He_ will know, that the delightful dream, which the latter\ntells, is a dream of truth; and that even in the bewildered tale of\nthe former there is truth mingled with the dream.\n\nBut the Source, the Spring-head, of the Charges which I anticipate,\nlies deep. Materialism, conscious and avowed Materialism, is in ill\nrepute: and a confessed Materialist therefore a rare character. But if\nthe faith be ascertained by the fruits: if the predominant, though\nmost often unsuspected, persuasion is to be learnt from the\ninfluences, under which the thoughts and affections of the man move\nand take their direction; I must reverse the position. ONLY NOT ALL\nARE MATERIALISTS. Except a few individuals, and those for the most\npart of a single sect: every one, who calls himself a Christian, holds\nhimself to have a soul as well as a body. He distinguishes mind from\nmatter, the _subject_ of his consciousness from the _objects_ of the\nsame. The former is his mind: and he says, it is immaterial. But\nthough _subject_ and _substance_ are words of kindred roots, nay,\nlittle less than equivalent terms, yet nevertheless it is exclusively\nto sensible _objects_, to bodies, to modifications of matter, that he\nhabitually attaches the attributes of reality, of substance. Real and\ntangible, substantial and material, are synonyms for him. He never\nindeed asks himself, what he means by Mind? But if he did, and tasked\nhimself to return an honest answer--as to what, at least, he had\nhitherto meant by it--he would find, that he had described it by\nnegatives, as the opposite of bodies, for example, as a somewhat\nopposed to solidity, to visibility, and the like, as if you could\nabstract the capacity of a vessel, and conceive of it as a somewhat by\nitself, and then give to the emptiness the properties of containing,\nholding, being entered, and so forth. In short, though the proposition\nwould perhaps be angrily denied in words, yet _in fact_ he thinks of\nhis _mind_, as a _property_, or _accident_ of a something else, that\nhe calls a _soul_ or _spirit_: though the very same difficulties must\nrecur, the moment he should attempt to establish the difference. For\neither this soul or spirit is nothing but a thinner body, a finer mass\nof matter: or the attribute of self-subsistency vanishes from the soul\non the same grounds, on which it is refused to the mind.\n\nI am persuaded, however, that the dogmatism of the Corpuscular School,\nthough it still exerts an influence on men's notions and phrases, has\nreceived a mortal blow from the increasingly _dynamic_ spirit of the\nphysical sciences now highest in public estimation. And it may safely\nbe predicted that the results will extend beyond the intention of\nthose, who are gradually effecting this revolution. It is not\nchemistry alone that will be indebted to the genius of Davy, Oersted,\nand their compeers: and not as the founder of physiology and\nphilosophic anatomy alone, will mankind love and revere the name of\nJohn Hunter. These men have not only _taught_, they have compelled us\nto admit, that the immediate objects of our _senses_, or rather the\ngrounds of the visibility and tangibility of all objects of sense,\nbear the same _relation_ and similar proportion to the _intelligible_\nobject--that is, to the object which we actually _mean_ when we say,\n\"It is such or such a thing,\" or \"I have seen this or that,\"--as the\npaper, ink, and differently combined straight and curved lines of an\nedition of Homer bear to what we understand by the words Iliad and\nOdyssey. Nay, nothing would be more easy than so to construct the\npaper, ink, painted capitals, and the like, of a printed disquisition\non the eye, or the muscles and cellular texture (the flesh) of the\nhuman body, as to bring together every one of the sensible and\nponderable _stuffs_ or elements, that are _sensuously_ perceived in\nthe eye itself, or in the flesh itself. Carbon and nitrogen, oxygen\nand hydrogen, sulphur, phosphorus, and one or two metals and metallic\nbases, constitute the whole. It cannot be these, therefore, that we\nmean by an _eye_, by our _body_. But perhaps it may be a particular\n_combination_ of these? But here comes a question: In this term do you\nor do you not include the _principle_, the _operating cause_, of the\ncombination? If _not_, then detach this eye from the body. Look\nsteadily at it--as it might lie on the marble slab of a dissecting\nroom. Say it were the eye of a murderer, a Bellingham: or the eye of a\nmurdered patriot, a Sidney!--Behold it, handle it, with its various\naccompaniments or constituent parts, of tendon, ligament, membrane,\nblood-vessel, gland, humours; its nerves of sense, of sensation, and\nof motion. Alas! all these names like that of the organ itself, are so\nmany Anachronisms, figures of speech to express that which has been:\nas when the Guide points with his finger to a heap of stones, and\ntells the traveller, \"That is Babylon, or Persepolis.\"--Is this cold\njelly _the light of the body_? Is this the _Micranthropos_ in the\nmarvellous microcosm? Is this what you _mean_ when you well define the\neye as the telescope and the mirror of the soul, the seat and agent of\nan almost magical power?\n\nPursue the same inquisition with every other part of the body, whether\nintegral or simply ingredient; and let a Berzelius or a Hatchett be\nyour interpreter, and demonstrate to you what it is that in each\nactually meets your senses. And when you have heard the scanty\ncatalogue, ask yourself if _these_ are indeed the living _flesh_, the\n_blood_ of life? Or not far rather--I speak of what, as a man of\ncommon sense, you really _do_, not what, as a philosopher, you _ought_\nto believe--is it not, I say, far rather the distinct and\nindividualized agency that by the given combinations utters and\nbespeaks its presence? Justly and with strictest propriety of\nlanguage may I say, _speaks_. It is to the coarseness of our senses,\nor rather to the defect and limitation of our percipient faculty, that\nthe _visible_ object appears the same even for a moment. The\ncharacters, which I am now shaping on this paper, abide. Not only the\nforms remain the same, but the particles of the colouring stuff are\nfixed, and, for an indefinite period at least, remain the same. But\nthe particles that constitute the _size_, the visibility of an organic\nstructure[162] are in perpetual flux. They are to the combining and\nconstitutive power as the pulses of air to the voice of a discourser;\nor of one who sings a roundelay. The same words may be repeated; but\nin each second of time the articulated air hath passed away, and each\nact of articulation appropriates and gives momentary form to a new and\nother portion. As the column of blue smoke from a cottage chimney in\nthe breathless summer noon, or the steadfast-seeming cloud on the\nedge-point of a hill in the driving air-current, which momently\ncondensed and recomposed is the common phantom of a thousand\nsuccessors;--such is the flesh, which our _bodily_ eyes transmit to\nus; which our palates taste; which our hands touch.\n\nBut perhaps the material particles possess this combining power by\ninherent reciprocal attractions, repulsions, and elective affinities;\nand are themselves the joint artists of their own combinations? I will\nnot reply, though well I might, that this would be to solve one\nproblem by another, and merely to shift the mystery. It will be\nsufficient to remind the thoughtful querist, that ever herein consists\nthe essential difference, the contra-distinction, of an organ from a\nmachine; that not only the characteristic shape is evolved from the\ninvisible central power, but the material mass itself is acquired by\nassimilation. The germinal power of the plant transmutes the fixed air\nand the elementary base of water into grass or leaves; and on these\nthe organific principle in the ox or the elephant exercises an alchemy\nstill more stupendous. As the unseen agency weaves its magic eddies,\nthe foliage becomes indifferently the bone and its marrow, the pulpy\nbrain, or the solid ivory. That what you see _is_ blood, _is_ flesh,\nis itself the work, or shall I say, the translucence, of the invisible\nEnergy, which soon surrenders or abandons them to inferior powers (for\nthere is no pause nor chasm in the activities of Nature), which repeat\na similar metamorphosis according to _their_ kind;--these are not\nfancies, conjectures, or even hypotheses, but _facts_; to deny which\nis impossible, not to reflect on which is ignominious. And we need\nonly reflect on them with a calm and silent spirit to learn the utter\nemptiness and unmeaningness of the vaunted Mechanico-corpuscular\nPhilosophy, with both its twins, Materialism on the one hand, and\nIdealism, rightlier named _Subjective Idolism_, on the other: the one\nobtruding on us a World of Spectres and Apparitions; the other a mazy\nDream!\n\nLet the Mechanic or Corpuscular Scheme, which in its absoluteness and\nstrict consistency was first introduced by Des Cartes, be judged by\nthe results. By its fruits shall it be known.\n\nIn order to submit the various phenomena of moving bodies to\ngeometrical construction, we are under the necessity of abstracting\nfrom corporeal substance all its _positive_ properties, and obliged to\nconsider bodies as differing from equal portions of space[163] only by\nfigure and mobility. And as a _fiction of science_, it would be\ndifficult to overvalue this invention. It possesses the same merits in\nrelation to Geometry that the atomic theory has in relation to\nalgebraic calculus. But in contempt of common sense, and in direct\nopposition to the express declarations of the inspired historian\n(_Genesis i._) and to the tone and spirit of the Scriptures\nthroughout, Des Cartes propounded it as _truth of fact_: and instead\nof a World _created_ and filled with productive forces by the Almighty\n_Fiat_, left a lifeless Machine whirled about by the dust of its own\nGrinding: as if Death could come from the living Fountain of Life;\nNothingness and Phantom from the Plenitude of Reality! the\nAbsoluteness of Creative Will!\n\nHoly! Holy! Holy! let me be deemed mad by all men, if such be thy\nordinance: but, O! from _such_ madness save and preserve me, my God!\n\nWhen, however, after a short interval, the genius of Kepler, expanded\nand organized in the soul of Newton, and there (if I may hazard so\nbold an expression) refining itself into an almost celestial\nclearness, had expelled the Cartesian _vortices_;[164] then the\nnecessity of an active power, of positive forces present in the\nmaterial universe, forced itself on the conviction. For as a Law\nwithout a Law-giver is a mere abstraction; so a _Law_ without an Agent\nto realize it, a _Constitution_ without an abiding Executive, is, in\nfact, not a Law but _an Idea_. In the profound emblem of the great\ntragic poet, it is the powerless Prometheus fixed on a barren Rock.\nAnd what was the result? How was this necessity provided for? God\nhimself--my hand trembles as I write! Rather, then, let me employ the\nword, which the religious feeling, in its perplexity suggested as the\nsubstitute--the _Deity itself_ was declared to be the real agent, the\nactual gravitating power! The law and the law-giver were identified.\nGod (says Dr. Priestley) not only does, but _is_ every thing. _Jupiter\nest quodcunque vides._ And thus a system, which commenced by excluding\nall life and immanent activity from the visible universe and\nevacuating the natural world of all nature, ended by substituting the\nDeity, and reducing the Creator to a mere anima mundi: a scheme that\nhas no advantage over Spinosism but its inconsistency, which does\nindeed make it suit a certain Order of intellects, who, like the\n_pleuronect\u00e6_ (or flat fish) in ichthyology which have both eyes on\nthe same side, never see but half of a subject at one time, and\nforgetting the one before they get to the other are sure not to detect\nany inconsistency between them.\n\nAnd what has been the consequence? An increasing unwillingness to\ncontemplate the Supreme Being in his _personal_ attributes: and thence\na distaste to all the peculiar doctrines of the Christian Faith, the\nTrinity, the Incarnation of the Son of God, and Redemption. The young\nand ardent, ever too apt to mistake the inward triumph in the\ndetection of error for a positive love of truth, are among the first\nand most frequent victims to this epidemic _fastidium_. Alas! even the\nsincerest seekers after light are not safe from the contagion. Some\nhave I known, constitutionally religious--I speak feelingly; for I\nspeak of that which for a brief period was my own state--who under\nthis unhealthful influence have been so estranged from the heavenly\n_Father_, the _Living_ God, as even to shrink from the personal\npronouns as applied to the Deity. But many do I know, and yearly meet\nwith, in whom a false and sickly _taste_ co-operates with the\nprevailing fashion: many, who find the God of Abraham, Isaac, and\nJacob, far too _real_, too substantial; who feel it more in harmony\nwith their indefinite sensations\n\n    To worship Nature in the hill and valley,\n    Not knowing what they love:--\n\nand (to use the language, but not the sense or purpose of the great\npoet of our age) would fain substitute for the Jehovah of their Bible\n\n                            A sense sublime\n    Of something far more deeply interfused,\n    Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,\n    And the round ocean and the living air;\n    A motion and a spirit, that impels\n    All thinking things, all objects of all thought,\n    And rolls through all things!\n\n    WORDSWORTH.\n\nAnd this from having been educated to understand the Divine\nOmnipresence in any sense rather than the alone safe and legitimate\none, the presence of all things to God!\n\nBe it, however, that the number of such men is _comparatively_ small!\nAnd be it (as in fact it often _is_) but a brief stage, a transitional\nstate, in the process of intellectual Growth! Yet among a numerous and\nincreasing class of the higher and middle ranks, there is an inward\nwithdrawing from the Life and Personal Being of God, a turning of the\nthoughts exclusively to the so-called physical attributes, to the\nOmnipresence in the counterfeit form of ubiquity, to the Immensity,\nthe Infinity, the Immutability;--the attributes of space with a notion\nof Power as their _substratum_, a FATE, in short, not a Moral Creator\nand Governor! Let intelligence be imagined, and wherein does the\nconception of God differ essentially from that of Gravitation\n(conceived as the cause of Gravity) in the understanding of those, who\nrepresent the Deity not only as a necessary but as a _necessitated_\nBeing; those, for whom justice is but a scheme of general laws; and\nholiness, and the divine hatred of sin, yea and sin itself, are words\nwithout meaning or accommodations to a rude and barbarous race? Hence,\nI more than fear, the prevailing taste for books of Natural Theology,\nPhysico-Theology, Demonstrations of God from Nature, Evidences of\nChristianity, and the like. _Evidences_ of Christianity! I am weary of\nthe word. Make a man feel the _want_ of it; rouse him, if you can, to\nthe self-knowledge of his _need_ only the express declaration of\nChrist himself: _No man cometh to me, unless the Father leadeth him_.\nWhatever more is desirable--I speak now with reference to Christians\ngenerally, and not to professed students of theology--may, in my\njudgment, be far more safely and profitably taught, without\ncontroversy or the supposition of infidel antagonists, in the form of\nEcclesiastical history.\n\nThe last fruit of the mechanico-corpuscular philosophy, say rather of\nthe mode and direction of feeling and thinking produced by it on the\neducated class of society; or that result, which as more immediately\nconnected with my present theme I have reserved for the last--is the\nhabit of attaching all our conceptions and feelings, and of applying\nall the words and phrases expressing reality, to the objects of the\nsenses: more accurately speaking, to the images and sensations by\nwhich their presence is made known to us. Now I do not hesitate to\nassert, that it was one of the great purposes of Christianity, and\nincluded in the process of our Redemption, to rouse and emancipate the\nsoul from this debasing slavery to the outward senses, to awaken the\nmind to the true _criteria_ of reality, namely, Permanence, Power,\nWill manifested in Act, and Truth operating as Life. _My words_, said\nChrist, _are spirit_: and they (that is, the spiritual powers\nexpressed by them) _are truth_; that is, _very_ Being. For this end\nour Lord, who came from heaven to _take captivity captive_, chose the\nwords and names, that designate the familiar yet most important\nobjects of sense, the nearest and most concerning things and incidents\nof corporeal nature:--Water, Flesh, Blood, Birth, Bread! But he used\nthem in senses, that could not without absurdity be supposed to\nrespect the mere _ph\u00e6nomena_, water, flesh, and the like, in\nsenses that by no possibility could apply to the colour, figure,\nspecific mode of touch or taste produced on ourselves, and by which we\nare made aware of the presence of the things, and _understand_\nthem--_res, qu\u00e6 sub apparitionibus istis statuend\u00e6 sunt_. And this\nawful recalling of the drowsed soul from the dreams and phantom world\nof sensuality to _actual_ reality,--how has it been evaded! These\nwords, that were Spirit! these Mysteries, which even the Apostles must\nwait for the Paraclete, in order to comprehend,--these spiritual\nthings which can only be _spiritually_ discerned,--were mere\nmetaphors, figures of speech, oriental hyperboles! \"All this means\n_only_ Morality!\" Ah! how far nearer to the truth would these men have\nbeen, had they said that Morality means all this!\n\nThe effect, however, has been most injurious to the best interests of\nour Universities, to our incomparably constituted Church, and even to\nour national character. The few who have read my two Lay Sermons are\nno strangers to my opinions on this head; and in my Treatise on the\nChurch and Churches, I shall, if Providence vouchsafe, submit them to\nthe Public, with their grounds and historic evidences in a more\nsystematic form.\n\nI have, I am aware, in this present work furnished occasion for a\ncharge of having expressed myself with slight and irreverence of\ncelebrated Names, especially of the late Dr. Paley. O, if I were fond\nand ambitious of literary honour, of public applause, how well content\nshould I be to excite but one third of the admiration which, in my\ninmost being, I feel for the head and heart of Paley! And how gladly\nwould I surrender all hope of contemporary praise, could I even\napproach to the incomparable grace, propriety, and persuasive facility\nof his writings! But on this very account I believe myself bound in\nconscience to throw the whole force of my intellect in the way of this\ntriumphal car, on which the tutelary genius of modern Idolatry is\nborne, even at the risk of being crushed under the wheels! I have at\nthis moment before my eyes the eighteenth of his Posthumous\nDiscourses: the amount of which is briefly this,--that all the words\nand passages in the New Testament which express and contain the\n_peculiar_ doctrines of Christianity, the paramount objects of the\nChristian Revelation, all those which speak so strongly of the value,\nbenefit, and efficacy, of the death of Christ, assuredly mean\n_something_; but _what_ they mean, nobody, it seems can tell! But\ndoubtless we shall discover it, and be convinced that there is a\nsubstantial sense belonging to these words--in a future state! Is\nthere an enigma, or an absurdity, in the Koran or the Vedas which\nmight not be defended on the same pretence? A similar impression, I\nconfess, was left on my mind by Dr. Magee's statement or exposition\n(_ad normam Grotianam_) of the doctrine of Redemption; and deeply did\nit disappoint the high expectations, sadly did it chill the fervid\nsympathy, which his introductory chapter, his manly and masterly\ndisquisition on the sacrificial rites of Paganism, had raised in my\nmind.\n\nAnd yet I cannot read the pages of Paley, here referred to, aloud,\nwithout the liveliest sense, how plausible and popular they will sound\nto the great majority of readers. Thousands of sober, and in their way\npious, Christians, will echo the words, together with Magee's kindred\ninterpretation of the death of Christ, and adopt the doctrine for\ntheir _Make-faith_; and why? It is feeble. And whatever is feeble is\nalways plausible: for it favours mental indolence. It is feeble: and\nfeebleness, in the disguise of confessing and condescending strength,\nis always popular. It flatters the reader by removing the apprehended\ndistance between him and the superior author; and it flatters him\nstill more by enabling him to transfer to himself, and to appropriate,\nthis superiority; and thus to make his very weakness the mark and\nevidence of his strength. Ay, quoth the _rational_ Christian--or with\na sighing, self-soothing sound between an Ay and an Ah!--_I_ am\ncontent to think, with the great Dr. Paley, and the learned Archbishop\nof Dublin----\n\nMan of Sense! Dr. Paley _was_ a great man, and Dr. Magee _is_ a\nlearned and exemplary prelate; but YOU do not _think_ at all!\n\nWith regard to the convictions avowed and enforced in my own Work, I\nwill continue my address to the man of sense in the words of an old\nphilosopher:--Tu vero crassis auribus et obstinato corde respuis qu\u00e6\nforsitan vere perhibeantur. Minus hercule calles, pravissimis\nopinionibus _ea putari mendacia, qu\u00e6 vel auditu nova, vel visu rudia,\nvel certe supra captum cogitationis (extemporane\u00e6 tu\u00e6) ardua\nvideantur_: qu\u00e6 si paulo accuratius exploraris, non modo compertu\nevidentia, sed etiam factu facilia, senties.[165]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn compliance with the suggestion of a judicious friend, the\ncelebrated conclusion of the fourth Book of Paley's Moral and\nPolitical Philosophy, referred to in p. 230 of this volume, is here\ntransprinted for the convenience of the reader:--\n\n\"Had Jesus Christ delivered no other declaration than the\nfollowing--'The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the grave\nshall hear his voice, and shall come forth: they that have done good,\nunto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the\nresurrection of damnation:'--he had pronounced a message of\ninestimable importance, and well worthy of that splendid apparatus of\nprophecy and miracles with which his mission was introduced and\nattested: a message in which the wisest of mankind would rejoice to\nfind an answer to their doubts, and rest to their inquiries.--It is\nidle to say, that a future state had been discovered already:--it had\nbeen discovered as the Copernican system was;--it was one guess among\nmany. He alone discovers, who proves; and no man can prove this point,\nbut the teacher who testifies by miracles that his doctrine comes from\nGod.\"\n\nP\u00e6dianus says of Virgil,--_Usque adeo expers invidi\u00e6, ut siquid\nerudite dictum inspiceret alterius, non minus gauderet ac si suum\nesset_. My own heart assures me, that this is less than the truth:\nthat Virgil would have read a beautiful passage in the work of another\nwith a higher and purer delight than in a work of his own, because\nfree from the apprehension of his judgment being warped by self-love,\nand without that repressive modesty akin to shame, which in a delicate\nmind holds in check a man's own secret thoughts and feelings, when\nthey respect himself. The cordial admiration with which I peruse the\npreceding passage, as _a master-piece of composition_, would, could I\nconvey it, serve as a measure of the vital importance I attach to the\nconvictions which impelled me to animadvert on the same passage as\n_doctrine_.\n\n[156] See Preliminary to Aphorisms on Spiritual Religion, &c.--ED.\n\n[157] So in first edition, 1825.--ED.\n\n[158] Of which our _he was made flesh_, is an inadequate\ntranslation.--The Church of England in this as in other doctrinal\npoints, has preserved the golden mean between the superstitious\nreverence of the Romanists, and the avowed contempt of the Sectarians,\nfor the writings of the Fathers, and the authority and unimpeached\ntraditions of the Church during the first three or four centuries. And\nhow, consistently with this honourable characteristic of our Church, a\nminister of the same could, on the Sacramentary scheme now in fashion,\nreturn even a plausible answer to Arnauld's great work on\nTransubstantiation (not without reason the boast of the Romish\nChurch), exceeds my powers of conjecture.\n\n[159] These were the afterwards published 'On the Church and State,\naccording to the Idea of Each,' 1830, and 'Confessions of an Inquiring\nSpirit,' 1840. The latter we republish in the present volume; see p.\n285.--ED.\n\n[160] Will the reader forgive me if I attempt at once to illustrate\nand relieve the subject by annexing the first stanza of the poem\ncomposed in the same year in which I wrote the Ancient Mariner and the\nfirst book of Christabel?\n\n    \"Encinctur'd with a twine of leaves,\n    That leafy twine his only dress!\n    A lovely boy was plucking fruits\n    In a moonlight wilderness.[161]\n    The moon was bright, the air was free,\n    And fruits and flowers together grew\n    On many a shrub and many a tree:\n    And all put on a gentle hue,\n    Hanging in the shadowy air\n    Like a picture rich and rare.\n    It was a climate where, they say,\n    The night is more belov'd than day.\n    But who that beauteous boy beguil'd,\n    That beauteous boy to linger here?\n    Alone, by night, a little child,\n    In place so silent and so wild--\n    Has he no friend, no loving mother near?\"\n\n    WANDERINGS OF CAIN.\n\n[161] \"By moonlight, in a wilderness.\"--'Poetical Works,' edit.\n1863.--ED.\n\n[162] See p. 40.--ED.\n\n[163] Such is the conception of body in Des Cartes' own system, _body_\nis every where confounded with _matter_, and might in the Cartesian\nsense be defined, Space or Extension, with the attribute of\nVisibility. As Des Cartes at the same time zealously asserted the\nexistence of intelligential beings, the reality and independent\nSelf-subsidence of the soul, Berkeleyanism or Spinosism was the\nimmediate and necessary consequence. Assume a _plurality_ of\nself-subsisting souls, and we have Berkeleyanism; assume one only\n(_unam et unicam substantiam_), and you have Spinosism, that is, the\nassertion of one infinite self-subsistent, with the two attributes of\nthinking and appearing. _Cogitatio infinita sine centro, et omniformis\napparitio._ How far the Newtonian _vis inerti\u00e6_ (interpreted any\notherwise than as an arbitrary term = x y z, to represent the unknown\nbut necessary supplement or integration of the Cartesian notion of\nbody) has patched up the flaw, I leave for more competent judges to\ndecide. But should any one of my Readers feel an interest in the\nspeculative principles of Natural Philosophy, and should be master of\nthe German language, I warmly recommend for his perusal the earliest\nknown publication of the great founder of the Critical Philosophy\n(written in the twenty-second year of his age!), on the then eager\ncontroversy between the Leibnitzian and the French and English\nMathematicians, respecting the living forces--_Gedanken von der wahren\nSch\u00e4tzung der lebendigen Kr\u00e4fte_: 1747--in which Kant demonstrates the\n_right reasoning_ to be with the latter; but the Truth of _Fact_, the\nevidence of _Experience_, with the former; and gives the explanation,\nnamely: Body, or Corporeal Nature, is something else and more than\ngeometrical extension, even with the addition of a _vis inerti\u00e6_. And\nLeibnitz, with the Bernouillis, erred in the attempt to demonstrate\ngeometrically a problem not susceptible of geometrical construction.--The\ntract, with the succeeding _Himmels-system_, may with propriety be\nplaced, after the _Principia_ of Newton, among the striking instances\nof early Genius; and as the first product of the Dynamic Philosophy in\nthe Physical Sciences, from the time, at least, of Giordano Bruno,\nwhom the idolaters burnt for an Atheist, at Rome, in the year 1600.\nSee the 'Friend,' pp. 151-55. [Or pp. 69, 70, Bohn's edition.--ED.]\n\n[164] For Newton's own doubtfully suggested ether, or _most_ subtle\nfluid, as the ground and immediate Agent in the phenomena of universal\ngravitation, was either not adopted or soon abandoned by his\ndisciples; not only as introducing, against his own canons of right\nreasoning, an _ens imaginarium_ into physical science, a suf_fiction_\nin the place of a legitimate sup_position_; but because the substance\n(assuming it to exist) must itself form part of the problem, it was\nmeant to solve. Meantime Leibnitz's pre-established harmony, which\noriginated in Spinosa, found no acceptance; and, lastly, the notion of\na corpuscular substance, with properties _put_ into it, like a\npincushion hidden by the pins, could pass with the unthinking only for\nany thing more than a confession of ignorance, or technical terms\nexpressing a hiatus of scientific insight.\n\n[165] _Apul. Metam._ 1.--H. N. C.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX A.\n\nA SYNOPTICAL SUMMARY OF THE SCHEME OF THE ARGUMENT TO PROVE THE\nDIVERSITY IN KIND[166] OF THE REASON AND THE UNDERSTANDING.\nSEE P. 143.\n\n\nThe Position to be proved is the _difference in kind_ of the\nUnderstanding from the Reason.\n\nThe Axiom, on which the Proof rests, is: Subjects, which require\nessentially different General Definitions, differ _in kind_ and not\nmerely _in degree_. For difference _in degree_ forms the ground of\n_specific_ definitions, but not of _generic_ or general.\n\nNow Reason is considered either in relation to the Will and Moral\nBeing, when it is termed the[167] Practical Reason = A: or relatively,\nto the intellective and Sciential Faculties, when it is termed\nTheoretic or Speculative Reason = _a_. In order therefore to be\ncompared with the Reason; the Understanding must in like manner be\ndistinguished into the Understanding as a Principle of _Action_, in\nwhich relation I call it the Adaptive Power, or the faculty of\nselecting and adapting Means and Medial of proximate ends = B: and the\nUnderstanding, as a mode and faculty of thought, when it is called\nReflection = _b_. Accordingly, I give the General Definitions of\nthese four: that is, I describe each severally by its _essential\ncharacters_: and I find, that the definition of A differs _toto\ngenere_ from that of B, and the definition of _a_ from that of _b_.\n\nNow subjects that require essentially different definitions do\nthemselves differ in kind. But Understanding and Reason require\nessentially different definitions. Therefore Understanding and Reason\ndiffer in kind.\n\n[166] This summary did not appear in the first edition.--ED.\n\n[167] N. B. The Practical Reason alone _is_ Reason in the full and\nsubstantive sense. It is reason in its own sphere of _perfect\nfreedom_; as the source of _IDEAS_, which Ideas, in their conversion\nto the responsible Will, become Ultimate Ends. On the other hand,\nTheoretic Reason, as the ground of the Universal and Absolute in all\nlogical _conclusion_ is rather the _Light_ of Reason in the\n_Understanding_, and known to be such by its contrast with the\ncontingency and particularity which characterize all the proper and\nindigenous growths of the Understanding.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX B.\n\nON INSTINCT:\n\nBY PROFESSOR J. H. GREEN.\n\n[This is the discourse an early report of which was the foundation of\nColeridge's remarks upon instinct, &c., which appear at pp. 160-164.\nIt was first added as an Appendix to the \"Aids to Reflection,\" in the\nedition of 1843; being extracted from an Appendix to Professor Green's\n\"Vital Dynamics\"[168] 1840, where it appears at pp. 88-96. It was\nthen given without the Professor's introductory words, which we now\nadd.--ED.]\n\n\nThe following remarks on the import of instinct are those to which\nColeridge refers in the \"Aids to Reflection\" (p. 177, last\nedition[169]) as in accordance with his view of the understanding,\ndiffering in degree from instinct, and in kind from reason; and\nwhatever merit they possess must have been derived from his\ninstructive conversation. They are here inserted in the hope that they\nmay interest the reader in connexion both with the passages of the\npreceding discourse, and with the writings of Coleridge on this\nimportant subject.\n\nWhat is Instinct? As I am not quite of Bonnet's opinion \"that\nphilosophers will in vain torment themselves to define instinct, until\nthey have spent some time in the head of the animal without actually\nbeing that animal,\" I shall endeavour to explain the use of the term.\nI shall not think it necessary to controvert the opinions which have\nbeen offered on this subject, whether the ancient doctrine of\nDescartes, who supposed that animals were mere machines; or the modern\none of Lamarck, who attributes instincts to habits impressed upon the\norgans of animals, by the constant efflux of the nervous fluid to\nthese organs, to which it has been determined in their efforts to\nperform certain actions, to which their necessities have given birth.\nAnd it will be here premature to offer any refutation of the opinions\nof those who contend for the identity of this faculty with reason, and\nmaintain that all the actions of animals are the result of invention\nand experience;--an opinion maintained with considerable plausibility\nby Dr. Darwin.\n\nPerhaps the most ready and certain mode of coming to a conclusion in\nthis intricate enquiry will be by the apparently circuitous route of\ndetermining first, what we do not mean by the word. Now we certainly\ndo not mean, in the use of the term, any act of the vital power in the\nproduction or maintenance of an organ: nobody thinks of saying that\nthe teeth grow by instinct, or that when the muscles are increased in\nvigour and size in consequence of exercise, it is from such a cause or\nprinciple. Neither do we attribute instinct to the direct functions of\nthe organs in providing for the continuance and sustentation of the\nwhole co-organized body. No one talks of the liver secreting bile, or\nof the heart acting for the propulsion of the blood, by instinct.\nSome, indeed, have maintained that breathing, even voiding the\nexcrement and urine, are instinctive operations; but surely these, as\nwell as the former, are automatic, or at least are the necessary\nresult of the organization of the parts in and by which the actions\nare produced. These instances seem to be, if I may so say, below\ninstinct. But again, we do not attribute instinct to any actions\npreceded by a will conscious of its whole purpose, calculating its\neffects, and predetermining its consequences, nor to any exercise of\nthe intellectual powers, of which the whole scope, aim, and end are\nintellectual. In other terms, no man, who values his words, will talk\nof the instinct of a Howard, or of the instinctive operations of a\nNewton or Leibnitz, in those sublime efforts, which ennoble and cast a\nlustre, not less on the individuals than on the whole human race.\n\nTo what kind or mode of action shall we then look for the legitimate\napplication of the term? In answer to this query, we may, I think,\nwithout fear of the consequences, put the following cases as\nexemplifying and justifying the use of the term Instinct in an\nappropriate sense. First: when there appears an action, not included\neither in the mere functions of life, acting within the sphere of its\nown organismus; nor yet an action attributable to the intelligent will\nor reason; yet, at the same time, not referable to any particular\norgan,--we then declare the presence of an Instinct. We might\nillustrate this in the instance of a bull-calf butting before he has\nhorns, in which the action can have no reference to its internal\neconomy, to the presence of a particular organ, or to an intelligent\nwill. Secondly, likewise (if it be not indeed included in the first),\nwe attribute Instinct where the organ is present; if only the act is\nequally anterior to all possible experience on the part of the\nindividual agent, as for instance, when the beaver employs its tail\nfor the construction of its dwelling; the tailor-bird its bill for the\nformation of its pensile habitation; the spider its spinning organ for\nfabricating its artfully woven nets, or the viper its poison fang for\nits defence. And lastly, generally, where there is an act of the whole\nbody as one animal, not referable to a will conscious of its purpose,\nnor to its mechanism, nor to a habit derived from experience, nor\nprevious frequent use. Here with most satisfaction, and without doubt\nof the propriety of the word, we declare an Instinct; as examples of\nwhich, we may adduce the migratory habits of birds; the social\ninstincts of the bees, the construction of their habitations, composed\nof cells formed with geometrical precision, adapted in capacity to\ndifferent orders of the society, and forming storehouses for\ncontaining a supply of provisions;--not to mention similar instances\nin wasps, ants, termites; and the endless contrivances for protecting\nthe future progeny.\n\nBut if it be admitted that we have rightly stated the application of\nthe term, what, we may ask, is contained in the examples adduced, or\nwhat inferences are we to make as to the nature of Instinct itself, as\na source and principle of action? We shall, perhaps, best aid\nourselves in the enquiry by an example, and let us take a very\nfamiliar one of a caterpillar taking its food. The caterpillar seeks\nat once the plant which furnishes the appropriate aliment, and this\neven as soon as it creeps from the ovum; and the food being taken into\nthe stomach, the nutritious part is separated from the innutritious,\nand is disposed of for the support of the animal. The question then\nis, what is contained in this instance of instinct? In the first place\nwhat does the vital power in the stomach do, if we generalize the\naccount of the process, or express it in its most general terms?\nManifestly it selects and applies appropriate means to an immediate\nend, prescribed by the constitution;--first, of the particular organ,\nand then of the whole body or organismus. This we have admitted is not\ninstinct. But what does the caterpillar do? Does it not also select\nand apply appropriate means to an immediate end, prescribed by its\nparticular organization and constitution? But there is something more;\nit does this according to circumstances;--and this we call Instinct.\nBut may there not be still something more involved? What shall we say\nof H\u00fcber's humble-bees? A dozen of these were put under a bell glass\nalong with a comb of about ten silken cocoons, so unequal in height as\nnot to be capable of standing steadily. To remedy this, two or three\nof the humble-bees got upon the comb, stretched themselves over its\nedge, and with their heads downwards, fixed their forefeet on the\ntable on which the comb stood, and so with their hindfeet kept the\ncomb from falling. When these were weary others took their places. In\nthis constrained and painful posture, fresh bees relieving their\ncomrades at intervals, and each working in its turn, did these\naffectionate little insects support the comb for nearly three days;\nat the end of which time they had prepared sufficient wax to build\npillars with it. And what is still further curious, the first pillars\nhaving got displaced, the bees had again recourse to the same\nman\u0153uvre. What then is involved in this case? Evidently the same\nselection and appropriation of means to an immediate end as before;\nbut observe! according to varying circumstances.\n\nAnd here we are puzzled;--for this becomes Understanding. At least no\nnaturalist, however predetermined to contrast and oppose Instinct to\nUnderstanding, but ends at last in facts in which he himself can make\nout no difference. But are we hence to conclude that the instinct is\nthe same, and identical with the human understanding? Certainly\nnot;--though the difference is not in the essential of the definition,\nbut in an addition to, or modification of, that which is essentially\nthe same in both. In such cases, namely, as that which we have last\nadduced, in which instinct assumes the semblance of understanding, the\nact indicative of instinct is not clearly prescribed by the\nconstitution or laws of the animal's peculiar organization, but arises\nout of the constitution and previous circumstances of the animal, and\nthose habits, wants, and that predetermined sphere of action and\noperation which belong to the race, and beyond the limits of which it\ndoes not pass. If this be the case, I may venture to assert that I\nhave determined an appropriate sense for instinct:----namely, that it\nis a Power of selecting and applying appropriate means to an immediate\nend, according to circumstances, and the changes of circumstances,\nthese being variable and varying; but yet so as to be referable to the\ngeneral habits, arising out of the constitution and previous\ncircumstances of the animal considered not as an individual, but as a\nrace.\n\nWe may here, perhaps, most fitly explain the error of those who\ncontend for the identity of Reason and Instinct, and believe that the\nactions of animals are the result of invention and experience. They\nhave, no doubt, been deceived, in their investigation of Instinct, by\nan efficient cause simulating a final cause; and the defect in their\nreasoning has arisen in consequence of observing in the instinctive\noperations of animals the adaptation of means to a relative end, from\nthe assumption of a deliberate purpose. To this freedom or choice in\naction and purpose, instinct, in any appropriate sense of the word,\ncannot apply, and to justify and explain its introduction, we must\nhave recourse to other and higher faculties than any manifested in the\noperations of instinct. It is evident, namely, in turning our\nattention to the distinguishing character of human actions, that there\nis, as in the inferior animals, a selection and appropriation of means\nto ends--but it is (not only according to circumstances, not only\naccording to varying circumstances, but it is) according to varying\nPurposes. But this is an attribute of the intelligent will, and no\nlonger even mere understanding.\n\nAnd here let me observe that the difficulty and delicacy of this\ninvestigation are greatly increased by our not considering the\nunderstanding (even our own) in itself, and as it would be were it not\naccompanied with, and modified by, the co-operation of the will, the\nmoral feeling, and that faculty, perhaps best distinguished by the\nname of Reason, of determining that which is universal and necessary,\nof fixing laws and principles whether speculative or practical, and of\ncontemplating a final purpose or end. This intelligent will,--having a\nself-conscious purpose, under the guidance and light of the reason, by\nwhich its acts are made to bear as a whole upon some end in and for\nitself, and to which the understanding is subservient as an organ or\nthe faculty of selecting and appropriating the means--seems best to\naccount for that progressiveness of the human race, which so evidently\nmarks an insurmountable distinction and impassable barrier between man\nand the inferior animals; but which would be inexplicable were there\nno other difference than in the degree of their intellectual\nfaculties.\n\nMan doubtless has his instincts, even in common with the inferior\nanimals, and many of these are the germs of some of the best feelings\nof his nature. What, amongst many, might I present as a better\nillustration, or more beautiful instance, than the _storg\u00e8_ or\nmaternal instinct? But man's instincts are elevated and ennobled by\nthe moral ends and purposes of his being. He is not destined to be the\nslave of blind impulses, a vessel purposeless, unmeant. He is\nconstituted by his moral and intelligent will, to be the first freed\nbeing, the master-work and the end of nature; but this freedom and\nhigh office can only co-exist with fealty and devotion to the service\nof truth and virtue. And though we may even be permitted to use the\nterm Instinct, in order to designate those high impulses, which in the\nminority of man's rational being, shape his acts unconsciously to\nultimate ends, and which in constituting the very character and\nimpress of the humanity reveal the guidance of Providence; yet the\nconvenience of the phrase, and the want of any other distinctive\nappellation for an influence _de supra_, working unconsciously in and\non the whole human race, should not induce us to forget that the term\ninstinct is only strictly applicable to the Adaptive Power, as the\nfaculty, even in its highest proper form, of selecting and adapting\nappropriate means to proximate ends according to varying\ncircumstances,--a faculty which however, only differs from human\nunderstanding in consequence of the latter being enlightened by\nreason,--and that the principles which actuate man as ultimate ends,\nand are designed for his conscious possession and guidance, are best\nand most properly named Ideas.\n\n[168] 'Vital Dynamics: The Hunterian Oration before the Royal College\nof Surgeons in London, 14th February, 1840; by Joseph Henry Green,\nF.R.S., Late Professor of Anatomy to the College: Professor of Anatomy\nto the Royal Academy: One of the Surgeons to St. Thomas's Hospital.'\n8vo. William Pickering, 1840.--ED.\n\n[169] This must have been the 4th edition, 1839, the latest corrected\nby the author, and that which supplies our text in the main.\nColeridge's reference is at pp. 166-170 of the present edition.--ED.\n\n\n\n\nCONFESSIONS OF AN INQUIRING SPIRIT.\n\n(_Letters on the Inspiration of the Scriptures._)\n\nBY SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE.\n\n\n\n\nADVERTISEMENT TO THE FIRST EDITION.\n\n\nThe following Letters on the Inspiration of the Scriptures were left\nby Mr. Coleridge in MS. at his death. The Reader will find in them a\nkey to most of the Biblical criticism scattered throughout the\nAuthor's own writings, and an affectionate, pious, and, as the Editor\nhumbly believes, a profoundly wise attempt to place the study of the\nWritten Word on its only sure foundation,--a deep sense of God's\nholiness and truth, and a consequent reverence for that Light--the\nimage of Himself--which He has kindled in every one of his rational\ncreatures.--[HENRY NELSON COLERIDGE.]\n\nLINCOLN'S INN, _September 22, 1840_.\n\n\n\n\nBeing persuaded of nothing more than of this, that whether it be\nmatter of speculation or of practice, no untruth can possibly avail\nthe patron and defender long, and that things most truly are likewise\nmost behovefully spoken.--_Hooker._\n\nAny thing will be pretended rather than admit the necessity of\ninternal evidence, or acknowledge, among the external proofs, the\nconvictions and experiences of Believers, though they should be common\nto all the faithful in every age of the Church. But in all\nsuperstition there is a heart of unbelief; and, _vice vers\u00e2_, where a\nman's belief is but a superficial acquiescence, credulity is the\nnatural result and accompaniment, if only he be not required to sink\ninto the depths of his being, where the sensual man can no longer draw\nbreath.--[COLERIDGE'S _Literary Remains_.]\n\nFaith subsists in the _synthesis_ of the Reason and the individual\nWill. By virtue of the latter, therefore, it must be an energy, and,\ninasmuch as it relates to the whole moral man, it must be exerted in\neach 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\nTruth. In the incomparable words of the Evangelist, therefore,--_Faith\nmust be a Light originating in the Logos, or the substantial Reason,\nwhich is co-eternal and one with the Holy Will, and which Light is at\nthe same time the Life of men._ Now, as _Life_ is here the sum or\ncollective of all moral and spiritual acts, in suffering, doing, and\nbeing, so is Faith the source and the sum, the energy and the\nprinciple of the fidelity of Man to God, by the subordination of his\nhuman Will, in all provinces of his nature, to his Reason, as the sum\nof spiritual Truth, representing and manifesting the Will\nDivine.--[COLERIDGE'S _Essay on Faith: Literary Remains_, vol. iv.\npage 437. We reprint the entire essay at the end of the present\nvolume. See p. 339.--ED.]\n\n\n\n\nTHE PENTAD OF OPERATIVE CHRISTIANITY\n\n\n                        _Prothesis_\n                       Christ, the Word.\n\n _Thesis_          _Mesothesis_,     _Antithesis_\n                       or the Indifference,\n\n The Scriptures.         The Holy Spirit.           The Church.\n\n                         _Synthesis_\n                         The Preacher.[170]\n\nThe Scriptures, the Spirit, and the Church, are co-ordinate; the\nindispensable conditions and the working causes of the perpetuity, and\ncontinued renascence and spiritual life of Christ still militant. The\nEternal Word, Christ from everlasting, is the _Prothesis_, or\nidentity;--the Scriptures and the Church are the two poles, or\n_Thesis_ and _Antithesis_; and the Preacher in direct line under the\nSpirit, but likewise the point of junction of the Written Word and the\nChurch, is the _Synthesis_.\n\nThis is God's Hand in the World.\n\n[170] Coleridge gives this same \"Pentad\" in his \"Notes on Donne,\"\n\"Literary Remains,\" v. iii. pp. 92-153.--ED.\n\n\n\n\nSeven Letters to a Friend concerning the bounds between the right, and\nthe superstitious, use and estimation of the Sacred Canon; in which\nthe Writer submissively discloses his own private judgment on the\nfollowing Questions:--\n\nI. Is it necessary, or expedient, to insist on the belief of the\ndivine origin and authority of all, and every part of the Canonical\nBooks as the Condition, or first principle, of Christian Faith?--\n\nII. Or, may not the due appreciation of the Scriptures collectively be\nmore safely relied on as the result and consequence of the belief in\nChrist; the gradual increase--in respect of particular passages--of\nour spiritual discernment of their truth and authority supplying a\ntest and measure of our own growth and progress as individual\nbelievers, without the servile fear that prevents or overclouds the\nfree honour which cometh from love? 1 John iv. 18.\n\n\n\n\nLETTERS ON THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.\n\n\nLETTER I.\n\nMY DEAR FRIEND,\n\nI employed the compelled and most unwelcome leisure of severe\nindisposition in reading _The Confessions of a fair Saint_ in Mr.\nCarlyle's recent translation of the _Wilhelm Meister_, which might, I\nthink, have been better rendered literally _The Confessions of a\nBeautiful Soul_.[171] This, acting in conjunction with the concluding\nsentences of your Letter, threw my thoughts inward on my own religious\nexperience, and gave the immediate occasion to the following\nConfessions of one, who is neither fair nor saintly, but who--groaning\nunder a deep sense of infirmity and manifold imperfection--feels the\nwant, the necessity, of religious support;--who cannot afford to lose\nany the smallest buttress, but who not only loves Truth even for\nitself, and when it reveals itself aloof from all interest, but who\nloves it with an indescribable awe, which too often withdraws the\ngenial sap of his activity from the columnar trunk, the sheltering\nleaves, the bright and fragrant flower, and the foodful or medicinal\nfruitage, to the deep root, ramifying in obscurity and labyrinthine\nway-winning--\n\n    In darkness there to house unknown,\n    Far underground,\n    Pierc'd by no sound\n    Save such as live in Fancy's ear alone.\n    That listens for the uptorn mandrake's parting groan!\n\nI should, perhaps, be a happier--at all events a more useful--man if\nmy mind were otherwise constituted. But so it is: and even with regard\nto Christianity itself, like certain plants, I creep towards the\nlight, even though it draw me away from the more nourishing warmth.\nYea, I should do so, even if the light had made its way through a rent\nin the wall of the Temple. Glad, indeed, and grateful am I, that not\nin the Temple itself, but only in one or two of the side chapels--not\nessential to the edifice, and probably not coeval with it--have I\nfound the light absent, and that the rent in the wall has but admitted\nthe free light of the Temple itself.\n\nI shall best communicate the state of my faith by taking the creed,\nor system of _credenda_, common to all the Fathers of the\nReformation--overlooking, as non-essential, the differences between\nthe several Reformed Churches--according to the five main classes or\nsections into which the aggregate distributes itself to my\napprehension. I have then only to state the effect produced on my mind\nby each, of these, or the _quantum_ of recipiency and coincidence in\nmyself relatively thereto, in order to complete my Confession of\nFaith.\n\nI. The Absolute; the innominable \u0391\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1 et _Causa Sui_, in whose\ntranscendant I AM, as the Ground, _is_ whatever _verily_ is:--the\nTriune God, by whose Word and Spirit, as the transcendant Cause,\n_exists_ whatever _substantially_ exists:--God Almighty--Father, Son,\nand Holy Ghost, undivided, unconfounded, co-eternal. This class I\ndesignate by the word, \u03a3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2.\n\nII. The Eternal Possibilities; the actuality of which hath not its\norigin in God: _Chaos spirituale:_--\u0391\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2.\n\nIII. The Creation and Formation of the heaven and earth by the Redemptive\nWord:--The Apostasy of Man:--The Redemption of Man:--the Incarnation of\nthe Word in the Son of Man:--the Crucifixion and Resurrection\nof the Son of Man:--the Descent of the Comforter:--Repentance\n(\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1):--Regeneration:--Faith:--Prayer:--Grace: Communion\nwith the Spirit: Conflict: Self-abasement: Assurance through the\nrighteousness of Christ: Spiritual Growth: Love: Discipline:\nPerseverance: Hope in death:--\u039c\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2--\u0391\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2.\n\nIV. But these offers, gifts, and graces are not for one, or for a\nfew. They are offered to all. Even when the Gospel is preached to a\nsingle individual, it is offered to him as to one of a great\nHousehold. Not only Man, but, says St. Paul, the whole Creation is\nincluded in the consequences of the Fall--\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2--; so also\nin those of the Change at the Redemption--\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\n\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. We too shall be raised _in the Body_. Christianity is\nfact no less than truth. It is spiritual, yet so as to be historical;\nand between these two poles there must likewise be a midpoint, in\nwhich the historical and spiritual meet. Christianity must have its\nhistory--a history of itself, and likewise the history of its\nintroduction, its spread, and its outward-becoming; and, as the\nmidpoint above-mentioned, a portion of these facts must be miraculous,\nthat is, _ph\u00e6nomena_ in nature that are beyond nature. Furthermore,\nthe history of all historical nations must in some sense be its\nhistory;--in other words, all history must be providential, and this a\nprovidence, a preparation, and a looking forward to Christ.\n\nHere, then, we have four out of the five classes. And in all these the\nsky of my belief is serene, unclouded by a doubt. Would to God that my\nfaith, that faith which works on the whole man, confirming and\nconforming, were but in just proportion to my belief, to the full\nacquiescence of my intellect, and the deep consent of my conscience!\nThe very difficulties argue the truth of the whole scheme and system\nfor my understanding, since I see plainly that so must the truth\nappear, if it be the truth.\n\nV. But there is a Book, of two parts,--each part consisting of several\nbooks. The first part--(I speak in the character of an uninterested\ncritic or philologist)--contains the reliques of the literature of the\nHebrew people, while the Hebrew was still the living language. The\nsecond part comprises the writings, and, with one or two\ninconsiderable and doubtful exceptions, all the writings of the\nfollowers of Christ within the space of ninety years from the date of\nthe Resurrection. I do not myself think that any of these writings\nwere composed as late as A.D. 120; but I wish to preclude all dispute.\nThis Book I resume, as read, and yet unread,--read and familiar to my\nmind in all parts, but which is yet to be perused as a whole;--or\nrather, a work, _cujus particulas et sententiolas omnes et singulas\nrecogniturus sum_, but the component integers of which, and their\nconspiration, I have yet to study. I take up this work with the\npurpose to read it for the first time as I should read any other\nwork,--as far at least as I can or dare. For I neither can, nor dare,\nthrow off a strong and awful prepossession in its favour--certain as I\nam that a large part of the light and life, in and by which I see,\nlove, and embrace the truths and the strengths co-organized into a\nliving body of faith and knowledge in the four preceding classes, has\nbeen directly or indirectly derived to me from this sacred\nvolume,--and unable to determine what I do not owe to its influences.\nBut even on this account, and because it has these inalienable claims\non my reverence and gratitude, I will not leave it in the power of\nunbelievers to say, that the Bible is for me only what the Koran is\nfor the deaf Turk, and the Vedas for the feeble and acquiescent\nHindoo. No; I will retire _up into the mountain_, and hold secret\ncommune with my Bible above the contagious blastments of prejudice,\nand the fog-blight of selfish superstition. _For fear hath torment._\nAnd what though _my_ reason be to the power and splendour of the\nScriptures but as the reflected and secondary shine of the moon\ncompared with the solar radiance:--yet the sun endures the occasional\nco-presence of the unsteady orb, and leaving it visible seems to\nsanction the comparison. There is a Light higher than all, even _the\nWord that was in the beginning_;--the Light, of which light itself is\nbut the _shechinah_ and cloudy tabernacle;--the Word that is light for\nevery man, and life for as many as give heed to it. If between this\nWord and the written Letter I shall any where seem to myself to find a\ndiscrepance, I will not conclude that such there actually is; nor on\nthe other hand will I fall under the condemnation of them that would\n_lie for God_, but seek as I may, be thankful for what I have--and\nwait.\n\nWith such purposes, with such feelings, have I perused the books of\nthe Old and New Testaments,--each book as a whole, and also as an\nintegral part. And need I say that I have met every where more or less\ncopious sources of truth, and power, and purifying impulses;--that I\nhave found words for my inmost thoughts, songs for my joy, utterances\nfor my hidden griefs, and pleadings for my shame and my feebleness? In\nshort whatever _finds_ me, bears witness for itself that it has\nproceeded from a Holy Spirit, even from the same Spirit, _which\nremaining in itself, yet regenerateth all other powers, and in all\nages entering into holy souls maketh them friends of God, and\nprophets_. (Wisd. vii.) And here, perhaps, I might have been content\nto rest, if I had not learned that, as a Christian, I cannot,--must\nnot--stand alone; or if I had not known that more than this was holden\nand required by the Fathers of the Reformation, and by the Churches\ncollectively, since the Council of Nice at latest;--the only\nexceptions being that doubtful one of the corrupt Romish Church\nimplied, though not avowed, in its equalization of the Apocryphal\nBooks with those of the Hebrew Canon,[172] and the irrelevant one of\nthe few and obscure Sects who acknowledge no historical Christianity.\nThis somewhat more, in which Jerome, Augustine, Luther, and Hooker,\nwere of one and the same judgment, and less than which not one of them\nwould have tolerated--would it fall within the scope of my present\ndoubts and objections? I hope it would not. Let only their general\nexpressions be interpreted by their treatment of the Scriptures in\ndetail, and I dare confidently trust that it would not. For I can no\nmore reconcile the Doctrine which startles my belief with the practice\nand particular declarations of these great men, than with the\nconvictions of my own understanding and conscience. At all events--and\nI cannot too early or too earnestly guard against any misapprehension\nof my meaning and purpose--let it be distinctly understood that my\narguments and objections apply exclusively to the following Doctrine\nor Dogma. To the opinions which individual divines have advanced in\nlieu of this doctrine, my only objection, as far as I object, is--that\nI do not understand them. The precise enunciation of this doctrine I\ndefer to the commencement of the next Letter. Farewell.\n\n[171] _Bekenntnisse einer sch\u00f6nen Seele_.--H. N. C.\n\n[172] _Si quis--(Esdr\u00e6 primum et secundum, Tobiam, Judith, Esther,\n&c.)--pro sacris et canonicis non susceperit, ... anathema sit._ Conc.\nTrid. Decr. Sess. IV.--H. N. C.\n\n\nLETTER II.\n\nMY DEAR FRIEND,\n\nIn my last Letter I said that in the Bible there is more that _finds_\nme than I have experienced in all other books put together; that the\nwords of the Bible find me at greater depths of my being; and that\nwhatever finds me brings with it an irresistible evidence of its\nhaving proceeded from the Holy Spirit. But the Doctrine in question\nrequires me to believe, that not only what finds me, but that all that\nexists in the sacred volume, and which I am bound to find therein,\nwas--not alone inspired by, that is, composed by, men under the\nactuating influence of the Holy Spirit, but likewise--dictated by an\nInfallible Intelligence;--that the writers, each and all, were\ndivinely informed as well as inspired. Now here all evasion, all\nexcuse, is cut off. An Infallible Intelligence extends to all things,\nphysical no less than spiritual. It may convey the truth in any one of\nthe three possible languages,--that of Sense, as objects appear to the\nbeholder on this earth; or that of Science, which supposes the\nbeholder placed in the centre;--or that of Philosophy, which resolves\nboth into a supersensual reality. But whichever be chosen--and it is\nobvious that the incompatibility exists only between the first and\nsecond, both of them being indifferent and of equal value to the\nthird--it must be employed consistently; for an Infallible\nIntelligence must intend to be intelligible, and not to deceive. And,\nmoreover, whichever of these three languages be chosen, it must be\ntranslatable into Truth. For this is the very essence of the Doctrine,\nthat one and the same Intelligence is speaking in the unity of a\nPerson; which unity is no more broken by the diversity of the pipes\nthrough which it makes itself audible, than is a tune by the different\ninstruments on which it is played by a consummate musician, equally\nperfect in all. One instrument may be more capacious than another, but\nas far as its compass extends, and in what it sounds forth, it will be\ntrue to the conception of the master. I can conceive no softening here\nwhich would not nullify the Doctrine, and convert it to a cloud for\neach man's fancy to shift and shape at will. And this Doctrine, I\nconfess, plants the vineyard of the Word with thorns for me, and\nplaces snares in its pathways. These may be delusions of an evil\nspirit; but ere I so harshly question the seeming angel of light--my\nreason, I mean, and moral sense in conjunction with my clearest\nknowledge--I must inquire on what authority this Doctrine rests. And\nwhat other authority dares a truly catholic Christian admit as\ncoercive in the final decision, but the declarations of the Book\nitself,--though I should not, without struggles and a trembling\nreluctance, gainsay even a universal tradition?\n\nI return to the Book. With a full persuasion of soul respecting all\nthe articles of the Christian Faith, as contained in the first four\nClasses, I receive willingly also the truth of the history, namely,\nthat the Word of the Lord did come to Samuel, to Isaiah, to\nothers;--and that the words which gave utterance to the same are\nfaithfully recorded. But though the origin of the words, even as of\nthe miraculous acts, be supernatural--yet the former once uttered--the\nlatter once having taken their place among the _ph\u00e6nomena_ of the\nsenses, the faithful recording of the same does not of itself imply,\nor seem to require, any supernatural working, other than as all truth\nand goodness are such. In the books of Moses, and once or twice in the\nprophecy of Jeremiah, I find it indeed asserted that not only the\nwords were given, but the recording of the same enjoined by the\nspecial command of God, and doubtless executed under the special\nguidance of the Divine Spirit. As to all such passages, therefore,\nthere can be no dispute; and all others in which the words are by the\nsacred historian declared to have been the Word of the Lord\nsupernaturally communicated, I receive as such with a degree of\nconfidence proportioned to the confidence required of me by the writer\nhimself, and to the claims he himself makes on my belief.\n\nLet us, therefore, remove all such passages, and take each Book by\nitself; and I repeat that I believe the writer in whatever he himself\nrelates of his own authority, and of its origin. But I cannot find any\nsuch claim, as the Doctrine in question supposes, made by these\nwriters, explicitly or by implication. On the contrary, they refer to\nother documents, and in all points express themselves as sober minded\nand veracious writers under ordinary circumstances are known to do.\nBut, perhaps, they bear testimony, the successor to his\npredecessor?--Or some one of the number has left it on record, that by\nespecial inspiration _he_ was commanded to declare the plenary\ninspiration of all the rest?--The passages, which can without violence\nbe appealed to as substantiating the latter position, are so few, and\nthese so incidental,[173]--the conclusion drawn from them involving\nlikewise so obviously a _petitio principii_, namely, the supernatural\ndictation, word by word, of the book in which the question is found;\n(for until this is established, the utmost that such a text can prove,\nis the current belief of the writer's age and country concerning the\ncharacter of the books, then called the Scriptures;)--that it cannot\nbut seem strange, and assuredly is against all analogy of Gospel\nRevelation, that such a Doctrine--which, if true, must be an article\nof faith, and a most important, yea, essential article of\nfaith,--should be left thus faintly, thus obscurely, and, if I may so\nsay, _obitaneously_, declared and enjoined. The time of the formation\nand closing of the Canon unknown;--the selectors and compilers\nunknown, or recorded by known fabulists;--and (more perplexing still,)\nthe belief of the Jewish Church--the belief, I mean, common to the\nJews of Palestine and their more cultivated brethren in Alexandria, (no\nreprehension of which is to be found in the New Testament)--concerning\nthe nature and import of the \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1 attributed to the precious\nremains of their Temple Library;--these circumstances are such,\nespecially the last, as in effect to evacuate the Tenet, of which I am\nspeaking, of the only meaning in which it practically means any thing\nat all, tangible, steadfast, or obligatory. In infallibility there are\nno degrees. The power of the High and Holy One is one and the same,\nwhether the sphere, which it fills, be larger or smaller;--the area\ntraversed by a comet, or the oracle of the house, the holy place\nbeneath the wings of the Cherubim;--the Pentateuch of the Legislator,\nwho drew near to the thick darkness where God was, and who spake in\nthe cloud whence the thunderings and lightnings came, and whom God\nanswered by a voice;--or but a Letter of thirteen verses from the\naffectionate _Elder to the elect lady and her children, whom he loved\nin the truth_. But at no period was this the judgment of the Jewish\nChurch respecting all the canonical books. To Moses alone--to Moses in\nthe recording no less than in the receiving of the Law--and to all and\nevery part of the five books, called the Books of Moses, the Jewish\nDoctors of the generation before, and coeval with, the Apostles\nassigned that unmodified and absolute _theopneusty_, which our\ndivines, in words at least, attribute to the Canon collectively. In\nfact it was from the Jewish Rabbis,--who, in opposition to the\nChristian scheme, contended for a perfection in the Revelation by\nMoses, which neither required nor endured any addition, and who\nstrained their fancies in expressing the transcendency of the books of\nMoses in aid of their opinion,--that the founders of the Doctrine\nborrowed their notions and phrases respecting the Bible throughout.\nRemove the metaphorical drapery from the doctrine of the Cabbalists,\nand it will be found to contain the only intelligible and consistent\nidea of that plenary inspiration, which later divines extend to all\nthe canonical books; as thus:--\"The Pentateuch is but _one Word_, even\nthe Word of God; and the letters and articulate sounds, by which this\nWord is communicated to our human apprehensions, are likewise divinely\ncommunicated.\"\n\nNow, for 'Pentateuch' substitute 'Old and New Testament,' and then I\nsay that this is the doctrine which I reject as superstitious and\nunscriptural. And yet as long as the conceptions of the Revealing Word\nand the Inspiring Spirit are identified and confounded, I assert that\nwhatever says less than this, says little more than nothing. For how\ncan absolute infallibility be blended with fallibility? Where is the\ninfallible criterion? How can infallible truth be infallibly conveyed\nin defective and fallible expressions? The Jewish teachers confined\nthis miraculous character to the Pentateuch. Between the Mosaic and\nthe Prophetic inspiration they asserted such a difference as amounts\nto a diversity; and between both the one and the other, and the\nremaining books comprised under the title of _Hagiographa_, the\ninterval was still wider, and the inferiority in kind, and not only in\ndegree, was unequivocally expressed. If we take into account the\nhabit, universal with the Hebrew Doctors, of referring all excellent\nor extraordinary things to the great First Cause, without mention of\nthe proximate and instrumental causes,--a striking illustration of\nwhich may be obtained by comparing the narratives of the same event in\nthe Psalms and in the Historical Books; and if we further reflect that\nthe distinction of the Providential and the Miraculous did not enter\ninto their forms of thinking,--at all events not into their mode of\nconveying their thoughts,--the language of the Jews respecting the\n_Hagiographa_ will be found to differ little, if at all, from that of\nreligious persons among ourselves, when speaking of an author\nabounding in gifts, stirred up by the Holy Spirit, writing under the\ninfluence of special grace, and the like.\n\nBut it forms no part of my present purpose to discuss the point\nhistorically, or to speculate on the formation of either Canon.\nRather, such inquiries are altogether alien from the great object of\nmy pursuits and studies, which is, to convince myself and others, that\nthe Bible and Christianity are their own sufficient evidence. But it\nconcerns both my character and my peace of mind to satisfy\nunprejudiced judges, that if my present convictions should in all\nother respects be found consistent with the faith and feelings of a\nChristian,--and if in many and those important points they tend to\nsecure that faith and to deepen those feelings--the words of the\nApostle,[174] rightly interpreted, do not require their condemnation.\nEnough, if what has been stated above respecting the general doctrine\nof the Hebrew Masters, under whom the Apostle was bred, shall remove\nany misconceptions that might prevent the right interpretation of his\nwords. Farewell.\n\n[173] With only one seeming exception, the texts in question refer to\nthe Old Testament alone. That exception is 2 Peter iii. 16. The word\n\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2 (\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u03c2) is, perhaps, not necessarily so to be interpreted;\nand this very text formed one of the objections to the Apostolic\nantiquity of the Epistle itself.\n\n[174] 2 Tim. iii. 16.\n\n\nLETTER III.\n\nMY DEAR FRIEND,\n\nHaving in the former two Letters defined the doctrine which I reject,\nI am now to communicate the views that I would propose to substitute\nin its place.\n\nBefore, however, I attempt to lay down on the theological chart the\nroad-place, to which my bark has drifted, and to mark the spot and\ncircumscribe the space, within which I swing at anchor, let me, first,\nthank you for, and then attempt to answer, the objections,--or at\nleast the questions,--which you have urged upon me.\n\n\"The present Bible is the Canon, to which Christ and the Apostles\nreferred?\"\n\nDoubtless.\n\n\"And in terms which a Christian must tremble to tamper with?\"\n\nYea. The expressions are as direct as strong; and a true believer will\nneither attempt to divert nor dilute their strength.\n\n\"The doctrine which is considered as the orthodox view seems the\nobvious and most natural interpretation of the text in question?\"\n\nYea, and Nay. To those whose minds are prepossessed by the Doctrine\nitself,--who from earliest childhood have always meant this doctrine\nby the very word, Bible,--the doctrine being but its exposition and\nparaphrase--Yea. In such minds the words of our Lord and the\ndeclarations of St. Paul can awaken no other sense. To those on the\nother hand, who find the doctrine senseless and self-confuting, and\nwho take up the Bible as they do other books, and apply to it the same\nrules of interpretation,--Nay.\n\nAnd, lastly, he who, like myself, recognizes in neither of the two\nthe state of his own mind,--who cannot rest in the former, and feels,\nor fears, a presumptuous spirit in the negative dogmatism of\nthe latter,--he has his answer to seek. But so far I dare hazard a\nreply to the question,--In what other sense can the words be\ninterpreted?--beseeching you, however, to take what I am about to\noffer but as an attempt to delineate an arc of oscillation,--that the\neulogy of St. Paul is in no wise contravened by the opinion, to which\nI incline, who fully believe the Old Testament collectively, both in\nthe composition and in its preservation, a great and precious gift of\nProvidence;--who find in it all that the Apostle describes, and who\nmore than believe that all which the Apostle spoke of was of divine\ninspiration, and a blessing intended for as many as are in communion\nwith the Spirit through all ages. And I freely confess that my whole\nheart would turn away with an angry impatience from the cold and\ncaptious mortal, who, the moment I had been pouring out the love and\ngladness of my soul,--while book after book, Law, and Truth, and\nExample, Oracle and lovely Hymn, and choral Song of ten thousand\nthousands, and accepted Prayers of Saints and Prophets, sent back, as\nit were, from Heaven, like doves, to be let loose again with a new\nfreight of spiritual joys and griefs and necessities, were passing\nacross my memory,--at the first pause of my voice, and whilst my\ncountenance was still speaking--should ask me, whether I was thinking\nof the Book of Esther, or meant particularly to include the first six\nchapters of Daniel, or verses 6-20 of the 109th Psalm, or the last\nverse of the 137th Psalm? Would any conclusion of this sort be drawn\nin any other analogous case? In the course of my Lectures on Dramatic\nPoetry, I, in half a score instances, referred my auditors to the\nprecious volume before me--Shakspeare--and spoke enthusiastically,\nboth in general and with detail of particular beauties, of the plays\nof Shakspeare, as in all their kinds, and in relation to the purposes\nof the writer, excellent. Would it have been fair, or according to the\ncommon usage and understanding of men, to have inferred an intention\non my part to decide the question respecting Titus Andronicus, or the\nlarger portion of the three parts of Henry VI.? Would not every genial\nmind understand by Shakspeare that unity or total impression\ncomprising, and resulting from, the thousandfold several and\nparticular emotions of delight, admiration, gratitude excited by his\nworks? But if it be answered, \"Aye! but we must not interpret St. Paul\nas we may and should interpret any other honest and intelligent writer\nor speaker,\"--then, I say, this is the very _petitio principii_ of\nwhich I complain.\n\nStill less do the words of our Lord[175] apply against my view. Have I\nnot declared--do I not begin by declaring--that whatever is referred\nby the sacred Penman to a direct communication from God, and wherever\nit is recorded that the Subject of the history had asserted himself to\nhave received this or that command, this or that information or\nassurance, from a superhuman Intelligence, or where the writer in his\nown person, and in the character of an historian, relates that the\n_Word of the Lord came_ unto priest, prophet, chieftain, or other\nindividual--have I not declared that I receive the same with full\nbelief, and admit its inappellable authority? Who more convinced than\nI am--who more anxious to impress that conviction on the minds of\nothers--that the Law and the Prophets speak throughout of Christ? That\nall the intermediate applications and realizations of the words are\nbut types and repetitions--translations, as it were, from the language\nof letters and articulate sounds into the language of events and\nsymbolical persons?\n\nAnd here again let me recur to the aid of analogy. Suppose a Life of\nSir Thomas More by his son-in-law, or a Life of Lord Bacon by his\nchaplain; that a part of the records of the Court of Chancery\nbelonging to these periods were lost; that in Roper's or in Bawley's\nbiographical work there were preserved a series of _dicta_ and\njudgments attributed to these illustrious Chancellors, many and\nimportant specimens of their table discourses, with large extracts\nfrom works written by them, and from some that are no longer extant.\nLet it be supposed, too, that there are no grounds, internal or\nexternal, to doubt either the moral, intellectual, or circumstantial\ncompetence of the biographers. Suppose, moreover, that wherever the\nopportunity existed of collating their documents and quotations with\nthe records and works still preserved, the former were found\nsubstantially correct and faithful, the few differences in no wise\naltering or disturbing the spirit and purpose of the paragraphs in\nwhich they were found, and that of what was not collatable, and to\nwhich no test _ab extra_ could be applied, the far larger part bore\nwitness in itself of the same spirit and origin; and that not only by\nits characteristic features, but by its surpassing excellence, it\nrendered the chances of its having had any other author than the\ngiant-mind, to whom the biographer ascribes it, small indeed! Now,\nfrom the nature and objects of my pursuits, I have, we will suppose,\nfrequent occasion to refer to one or other of these works; for\nexample, to Bawley's _Dicta et Facta Francisci de Verulam_. At one\ntime I might refer to the work in some such words as,--\"Remember what\nFrancis of Verulam said or judged;\" or,--\"If you believe not me, yet\nbelieve Lord Bacon.\" At another time I might take the running title of\nthe volume, and at another, the name of the biographer;--\"Turn to your\nRawley! _He_ will set you right;\" or,--\"_There_ you will find a depth,\nwhich no research will ever exhaust;\" or whatever other strong\nexpression my sense of Bacon's greatness and of the intrinsic worth\nand the value of the proofs and specimens of that greatness, contained\nand preserved in that volume, would excite and justify. But let my\nexpressions be as vivid and unqualified as the most sanguine\ntemperament ever inspired, would any man of sense conclude from them\nthat I meant--and meant to make others believe--that not only each and\nall of these anecdotes, adages, decisions, extracts, incidents had\nbeen dictated, word by word, by Lord Bacon; and that all Rawley's own\nobservations and inferences, all the connectives and disjunctives, all\nthe recollections of time, place, and circumstance, together with the\norder and succession of the narrative, were in like manner dictated\nand revised by the spirit of the deceased Chancellor? The answer will\nbe--must be;--No man in his senses! \"No man in his senses--in _this_\ninstance; but in that of the Bible it is quite otherwise;--for (I take\nit as an admitted point that) it _is_ quite otherwise!\"\n\nAnd here I renounce any advantage I might obtain for my argument by\nrestricting the application of our Lord's and the Apostle's words to\nthe Hebrew Canon. I admit the justice--I have long felt the full\nforce--of the remark''\"We have all that the occasion allowed.\" And if\nthe same awful authority does not apply so directly to the Evangelical\nand Apostolical writings as to the Hebrew Canon, yet the analogy of\nfaith justifies the transfer. If the doctrine be less decisively\nScriptural in its application to the New Testament or the Christian\nCanon, the temptation to doubt it is likewise less. So at least we are\nled to infer; since in point of fact it is the apparent or imagined\ncontrast, the diversity of spirit which sundry individuals have\nbelieved themselves to find in the Old Testament and in the Gospel,\nthat has given occasion to the doubt;--and, in the heart of thousands\nwho yield a faith of acquiescence to the contrary, and find rest in\ntheir humility,--supplies fuel to a fearful wish that it were\npermitted to make a distinction.\n\nBut, lastly, you object, that--even granting that no coercive,\npositive, reasons for the belief--no direct and not inferred\nassertions,--of the plenary inspiration of the Old and New Testament,\nin the generally received import of the term, could be adduced,\nyet,--in behalf of a doctrine so catholic, and during so long a\nsuccession of ages affirmed and acted on by Jew and Christian, Greek,\nRomish, and Protestant, you need no other answer than;--\"Tell me,\nfirst, why it should not be received! Why should I not believe the\nScriptures throughout dictated, in word and thought, by an infallible\nIntelligence?\"--I admit the fairness of the retort; and eagerly and\nearnestly do I answer: For every reason that makes me prize and revere\nthese Scriptures;--prize them, love them, revere them, beyond all\nother books! _Why_ should I not? Because the Doctrine in question\npetrifies at once the whole body of Holy Writ with, all its harmonies\nand symmetrical gradations,--the flexile and the rigid,--the\nsupporting hard and the clothing soft,--the blood _which is the\nlife_,--the intelligencing nerves, and the rudely woven, but soft and\nspringy, cellular substance, in which all are imbedded and lightly\nbound together. This breathing organism, this glorious _panharmonicon_,\nwhich I had seen stand on its feet as a man, and with a man's voice\ngiven to it, the Doctrine in question turns at once into a colossal\nMemnon's head, a hollow passage for a voice, a voice that mocks the\nvoices of many men, and speaks in their names, and yet is but one\nvoice, and the same;--and no man uttered it, and never in a human\nheart was it conceived. _Why_ should I not?--Because the Doctrine\nevacuates of all sense and efficacy the sure and constant tradition,\nthat all the several books bound up together in our precious family\nBible were composed in different and widely distant ages, under the\ngreatest diversity of circumstances, and degrees of light and\ninformation, and yet that the composers, whether as uttering or as\nrecording what was uttered and what was done, were all actuated by a\npure and holy Spirit, one and the same--(for is there any spirit pure\nand holy, and yet not proceeding from God--and yet not proceeding in\nand with the Holy Spirit?)--one Spirit, working diversly,[176] now\nawakening strength, and now glorifying itself in weakness, now giving\npower and direction to knowledge, and now taking away the sting from\nerror! Ere the summer and the months of ripening had arrived for the\nheart of the race; while the whole sap of the tree was crude, and each\nand every fruit lived in the harsh and bitter principle; even then\nthis Spirit withdrew its chosen ministers from the false and\nguilt-making centre of Self. It converted the wrath into a form and an\norgan of love, and on the passing storm-cloud impressed the fair\nrainbow of promise to all generations. Put the lust of Self in the\nforked lightning, and would it not be a Spirit of Moloch? But God\nmaketh the lightnings his ministers, fire and hail, vapours and stormy\nwinds fulfilling his word.\n\n_Curse ye Meroz, said the angel of the Lord; curse ye bitterly the\ninhabitants thereof_--sang Deborah. Was it that she called to mind any\npersonal wrongs--rapine or insult--that she or the house of Lapidoth\nhad received from Jabin or Sisera? No; she had dwelt under her palm\ntree in the depth of the mountain. But she was a _mother in Israel_;\nand with a mother's heart, and with the vehemency of a mother's and a\npatriot's love, she had shot the light of love from her eyes, and\npoured the blessings of love from her lips, on the people that had\n_jeoparded their lives unto the death_ against the oppressors; and the\nbitterness, awakened and borne aloft by the same love, she\nprecipitated in curses on the selfish and coward recreants who _came\nnot to the help of the Lord, to the help of the Lord, against the\nmighty_. As long as I have the image of Deborah before my eyes, and\nwhile I throw myself back into the age, country, circumstances, of\nthis Hebrew Bonduca in the not yet tamed chaos of the spiritual\ncreation;--as long as I contemplate the impassioned, high-souled,\nheroic woman in all the prominence and individuality of will and\ncharacter,--I feel as if I were among the first ferments of the great\naffections--the proplastic waves of the microcosmic chaos, swelling up\nagainst--and yet towards--the outspread wings of the Dove that lies\nbrooding on the troubled waters. So long all is well,--all replete\nwith instruction and example. In the fierce and inordinate I am made\nto know and be grateful for the clearer and purer radiance which\nshines on a Christian's paths, neither blunted by the preparatory\nveil, nor crimsoned in its struggle through the all-enwrapping mist of\nthe world's ignorance: whilst in the self-oblivion of these heroes of\nthe Old Testament, their elevation above all low and individual\ninterests,--above all, in the entire and vehement devotion of their\ntotal being to the service of their divine Master, I find a lesson of\nhumility, a ground of humiliation, and a shaming, yet rousing, example\nof faith and fealty. But let me once be persuaded that all these\nheart-awakening utterances of human hearts--of men of like faculties\nand passions with myself, mourning, rejoicing, suffering,\ntriumphing--are but as a _Divina Commedia_ of a superhuman--O bear\nwith me, if I say--Ventriloquist;--that the royal Harper, to whom I\nhave so often submitted myself as a _many-stringed instrument_ for his\nfire-tipt fingers to traverse, while every several nerve of emotion,\npassion, thought, that thrids the flesh-and-blood of our common\nhumanity, responded to the touch,--that this _sweet Psalmist of\nIsrael_ was himself as mere an instrument as his harp, an _automaton_\npoet, mourner, and supplicant;--all is gone,--all sympathy, at least,\nand all example. I listen in awe and fear, but likewise in perplexity\nand confusion of spirit.\n\nYet one other instance, and let this be the crucial test of the\nDoctrine. Say that the Book of Job throughout was dictated by an\ninfallible Intelligence. Then re-peruse the book, and still, as you\nproceed, try to apply the tenet: try if you can even attach any sense\nor semblance of meaning to the speeches which you are reading. What!\nwere the hollow truisms, the unsufficing half-truths, the false\nassumptions and malignant insinuations of the supercilious bigots, who\ncorruptly defended the truth:--were the impressive facts, the piercing\noutcries, the pathetic appeals, and the close and powerful reasoning\nwith which the poor sufferer--smarting at once from his wounds, and\nfrom the oil of vitriol which the orthodox _liars for God_ were\ndropping into them--impatiently, but uprightly and holily,\ncontroverted this truth, while in will and in spirit he clung to\nit;--were both dictated by an infallible Intelligence?--Alas! if I may\njudge from the manner in which both indiscriminately, are recited,\nquoted, appealed to, preached upon, by the _routiniers_ of desk and\npulpit, I cannot doubt that they think so,--or rather, without\nthinking, take for granted that so they are to think;--the more\nreadily, perhaps, because the so thinking supersedes the necessity of\nall after-thought.\n\nFarewell.\n\n[175] John v. 39.\n\n[176] I use the adverb _diversly_ from the adjective _divers_ in order\nto distinguish the Scriptural and Pauline sense of the word--the sense\nin which I here use it--from the logical usage of the term\n_diversely_, from _diverse_, that is, different in kind,\nheterogeneous. The same Spirit may act and impel diversly, but, being\na good Spirit, it cannot act diversely.\n\n\nLETTER IV.\n\nMY DEAR FRIEND,\n\nYou reply to the conclusion of my Letter: \"What have we to do with\n_routiniers_? _Quid mihi cum homunculis putata putide reputantibus?_\nLet nothings count for nothing, and the dead bury the dead! Who but\nsuch ever understood the Tenet in this sense?\"--\n\nIn what sense then, I rejoin, do others understand it? If, with\nexception of the passages already excepted, namely, the recorded words\nof God--concerning which no Christian can have doubt or scruple,--the\nTenet in this sense be inapplicable to the Scripture, destructive of\nits noblest purposes, and contradictory to its own express\ndeclarations,--again and again I ask:--What am I to substitute? What\nother sense is conceivable that does not destroy the doctrine which it\nprofesses to interpret--that does not convert it into its own\nnegative? As if a geometrician should name a sugar loaf an ellipse,\nadding--\"By which term I here mean a cone;\"--and then justify the\nmisnomer on the pretext that the ellipse is among the conic sections!\nAnd yet--notwithstanding the repugnancy of the Doctrine, in its\nunqualified sense, to Scripture, Reason, and Common Sense\ntheoretically, while to all practical uses it is intractable,\nunmalleable, and altogether unprofitable--notwithstanding its\nirrationality, and in the face of your expostulation, grounded on the\npalpableness of its irrationality,--I must still avow my belief that,\nhowever flittingly and unsteadily, as through a mist, it _is_ the\nDoctrine which the generality of our popular divines receive as\northodox, and this the sense which they attach to the words.\n\nFor on what other ground can I account for the whimsical\n_subintelligiturs_ of our numerous harmonists,--for the curiously\ninferred facts, the inventive circumstantial detail, the complemental\nand supplemental history which, in the utter silence of all historians\nand absence of all historical documents, they bring to light by mere\nforce of logic?--And all to do away some half score apparent\ndiscrepancies in the chronicles and memoirs of the Old and New\nTestaments;--discrepancies so analogous to what is found in all other\nnarratives of the same story by several narrators,--so analogous to\nwhat is found in all other known and trusted histories by contemporary\nhistorians, when they are collated with each other (nay, not seldom\nwhen either historian is compared with himself), as to form in the\neyes of all competent judges a characteristic mark of the genuineness,\nindependency, and (if I may apply the word to a book,) the\nveraciousness of each several document; a mark the absence of which\nwould warrant a suspicion of collusion, invention, or at best of\nservile transcription;--discrepancies so trifling in circumstance and\nimport, that, although in some instances it is highly probable, and in\nall instances, perhaps, possible that they are only apparent and\nreconcilable, no wise man would care a straw whether they were real or\napparent, reconciled or left in harmless and friendly variance. What,\nI ask, could have induced learned and intelligent divines to adopt or\nsanction subterfuges, which, neutralizing the ordinary _criteria_ of\nfull or defective evidence in historical documents, would, taken as a\ngeneral rule, render all collation and cross-examination of written\nrecords ineffective, and obliterate the main character by which\nauthentic histories are distinguished from those traditional tales,\nwhich each successive reporter enlarges and fashions to his own fancy\nand purpose, and every different edition, of which more or less\ncontradicts the other? Allow me to create chasms _ad libitum_, and _ad\nlibitum_ to fill them up with imagined facts and incidents, and I\nwould almost undertake to harmonise Falstaff's account of the rogues\nin buckram into a coherent and consistent narrative. What, I say,\ncould have tempted grave and pious men thus to disturb the foundation\nof the Temple, in order to repair a petty breach or rat-hole in the\nwall, or fasten a loose stone or two in the outer court, if not an\nassumed necessity arising out of the peculiar character of Bible\nhistory?\n\nThe substance of the syllogism, by which their procedure was justified\nto their own minds, can be no other than this. That, without which two\nassertions--both of which _must_ be alike true and correct--would\ncontradict each other, and consequently be, one or both, false or\nincorrect, must itself be true. But every word and syllable existing\nin the original text of the Canonical Books, from the _Cherethi_ and\n_Phelethi_[177] of David to the name in the copy of a family register,\nthe site of a town, or the course of a river, were dictated to the\nsacred _amanuensis_ by an infallible Intelligence. Here there can be\nneither more or less. Important or unimportant gives no ground of\ndifference; and the number of the writers as little. The secretaries\nmay have been many,--the historian was one and the same, and he\ninfallible. This is the _minor_ of the syllogism; and if it could be\nproved, the conclusion would be at least plausible; and there would be\nbut one objection to the procedure, namely, its uselessness. For if it\nhave been proved already, what need of proving it over again, and by\nmeans--the removal, namely, of apparent contradictions--which the\ninfallible Author did not think good to employ? But if it have not\nbeen proved, what becomes of the argument which derives its whole\nforce and legitimacy from the assumption?\n\nIn fact, it is clear that the harmonists and their admirers held and\nunderstood the Doctrine literally. And must not that divine likewise\nhave so understood it, who, in answer to a question concerning the\ntranscendant blessedness of Jael, and the righteousness of the act, in\nwhich she inhospitably, treacherously, perfidiously, murdered sleep,\nthe confiding sleep, closed the controversy by observing that he\nwanted no better morality than that of the Bible, and no other proof\nof an action's being praiseworthy than that the Bible had declared it\nworthy to be praised?--an observation, as applied in this instance, so\nslanderous to the morality and moral spirit of the Bible as to be\ninexplicable, except as a consequence of the Doctrine in dispute.--But\nlet a man be once fully persuaded that there is no difference between\nthe two positions--\"The Bible contains the religion revealed by\nGod\"--and \"Whatever is contained in the Bible is religion, and was\nrevealed by God,\"--and that whatever can be said of the Bible,\ncollectively taken, may and must be said of each and every sentence of\nthe Bible, taken for and by itself,--and I no longer wonder at these\nparadoxes. I only object to the inconsistency of those who profess the\nsame belief, and yet affect to look down with a contemptuous or\ncompassionate smile on John Wesley for rejecting the Copernican system\nas incompatible therewith; or who exclaim \"Wonderful!\" when they hear\nthat Sir Matthew Hale sent a crazy old woman to the gallows in honour\nof the Witch of Endor.[178] In the latter instance it might, I admit,\nhave been an erroneous (though even at this day the all but\nuniversally received) interpretation of the word, which we have\nrendered by _witch_;--but I challenge these divines and their\nadherents to establish the compatibility of a belief in the modern\nastronomy and natural philosophy with their and Wesley's doctrine\nrespecting the inspired Scriptures, without reducing the Doctrine\nitself to a plaything of wax;--or rather to a half-inflated bladder,\nwhich, when the contents are rarefied in the heat of rhetorical\ngeneralities, swells out round, and without a crease or wrinkle; but\nbring it into the cool temperature of particulars, and you may press,\nand as it were except, what part you like--so it be but one part at a\ntime--between your thumb and finger.\n\nNow, I pray you, which is the more honest, nay, which the more\nreverential, proceeding,--to play at fast and loose in this way; or to\nsay at once, \"See here in these several writings one and the same Holy\nSpirit, now sanctifying a chosen vessel, and fitting it for the\nreception of heavenly truths proceeding immediately from the mouth of\nGod, and elsewhere working in frail and fallible men like ourselves,\nand like ourselves instructed by God's word and laws\"?--The first\nChristian martyr had the form and features of an ordinary man, nor are\nwe taught to believe that these features were miraculously\ntransfigured into superhuman symmetry; but _he being filled with the\nHoly Ghost, they that looked steadfastly on him, saw his face as it\nhad been the face of an angel_. Even so has it ever been, and so it\never will be, with all who with humble hearts and a rightly disposed\nspirit scan the Sacred Volume. And they who read it with _an evil\nheart of unbelief_, and an alien spirit--what boots for them the\nassertion that every sentence was miraculously communicated to the\nnominal author by God himself? Will it not rather present additional\ntemptations to the unhappy scoffers, and furnish them with a pretext\nof self-justification?\n\nWhen, in my third Letter, I first echoed the question, \"Why should I\nnot?\"--the answers came crowding on my mind. I am well content,\nhowever, to have merely suggested the main points, in proof of the\npositive harm which, both historically and spiritually, our religion\nsustains from this Doctrine. Of minor importance, yet not to be\noverlooked, are the forced and fantastic interpretations, the\narbitrary allegories and mystic expansions of proper names, to which\nthis indiscriminate Bibliolatry furnished fuel, spark, and wind. A\nstill greater evil, and less attributable to the visionary humour and\nweak judgment of the individual expositors, is the literal rendering\nof Scripture in passages, which the number and variety of images\nemployed in different places, to express one and the same verity,\nplainly mark out for figurative. And, lastly, add to all these the\nstrange--in all other writings unexampled--practice of bringing\ntogether into logical dependency detached sentences from books\ncomposed at the distance of centuries, nay, sometimes a _millennium_,\nfrom each other, under different dispensations, and for different\nobjects. Accommodations of elder Scriptural phrases--that favourite\nornament and garnish of Jewish eloquence--incidental allusions to\npopular notions, traditions, apologues--(for example, the dispute\nbetween the Devil and the Archangel Michael about the body of Moses.\n_Jude_ 9),--fancies and anachronisms imported from the synagogue of\nAlexandria into Palestine by, or together with, the Septuagint\nVersion, and applied as mere _argumenta ad homines_--(for example, the\ndelivery of the Law by the disposition of Angels, _Acts_ vii. 53, Gal.\niii. 19, Heb. ii. 2)--these, detached from their context, and,\ncontrary to the intention of the sacred writer, first raised into\nindependent _theses_, and then brought together to produce or sanction\nsome new _credendum_, for which neither separately could have\nfurnished a pretence! By this strange mosaic, Scripture texts have\nbeen worked up into passable likenesses of Purgatory, Popery, the\nInquisition, and other monstrous abuses. But would you have a\nProtestant instance of the superstitious use of Scripture arising out\nof this dogma? Passing by the Cabbala of the Hutchinsonian School as\nthe dotage of a few weak-minded individuals, I refer you to Bishop\nHacket's Sermons on the Incarnation. And if you have read the same\nauthor's Life of Archbishop Williams, and have seen and felt (as every\nreader of this latter work must see and feel,) his talent, learning,\nacuteness, and robust good sense, you will have no difficulty in\ndetermining the quality and character of a dogma, which could engraft\nsuch fruits on such a tree.[179]\n\nIt will perhaps appear a paradox, if, after all these reasons, I\nshould avow that they weigh less in my mind against the Doctrine, than\nthe motives usually assigned for maintaining and enjoining it. Such,\nfor instance, are the arguments drawn from the anticipated loss and\ndamage that would result from its abandonment; as that it would\ndeprive the Christian world of its only infallible arbiter in\nquestions of Faith and Duty, suppress the only common and inappellable\ntribunal; that the Bible is the only religious bond of union and\nground of unity among Protestants, and the like. For the confutation\nof this whole reasoning it might be sufficient to ask:--Has it\nproduced these effects? Would not the contrary statement be nearer to\nthe fact? What did the Churches of the first four centuries hold on\nthis point? To what did they attribute the rise and multiplication of\nheresies? Can any learned and candid Protestant affirm that there\nexisted and exists no ground for the charges of Bossuet and other\neminent Romish divines? It is no easy matter to know how to handle a\nparty maxim, so framed that, with the exception of a single word, it\nexpresses an important truth, but which by means of that word is made\nto convey a most dangerous error.\n\nThe Bible is the appointed conservatory, an indispensable criterion,\nand a continual source and support of true Belief. But that the Bible\nis the sole source; that it not only contains, but constitutes, the\nChristian Religion; that it is, in short, a Creed, consisting wholly\nof articles of Faith; that consequently we need no rule, help, or\nguide, spiritual or historical, to teach us what parts are and what\nare not articles of Faith--all being such,--and the difference between\nthe Bible and the Creed being this, that the clauses of the latter are\nall unconditionally necessary to salvation, but those of the former\nconditionally so, that is, as soon as the words are known to exist in\nany one of the canonical Books; and that, under this limitation, the\nbelief is of the same necessity in both, and not at all affected by\nthe greater or lesser importance of the matter to be believed;--this\nscheme differs widely from the preceding, though its adherents often\nmake use of the same words in expressing their belief. And this latter\nscheme, I assert, was brought into currency by and in favour of those\nby whom the operation of grace, the aids of the Spirit, the necessity\nof regeneration, the corruption of our nature, in short, all the\npeculiar and spiritual mysteries of the Gospel were explained and\ndiluted away.\n\nAnd how have these men treated this very Bible?--I, who indeed prize\nand reverence this sacred library, as of all outward means and\nconservatives of Christian faith and practice the surest and the most\nreflective of the inward Word;--I, who hold that the Bible contains\nthe religion of Christians, but who dare not say that whatever is\ncontained in the Bible is the Christian religion, and who shrink from\nall question respecting the comparative worth and efficacy of the\nwritten Word as weighed against the preaching of the Gospel, the\ndiscipline of the Churches, the continued succession of the Ministry,\nand the communion of Saints, lest by comparing I should seem to detach\nthem;--I tremble at the processes, which the Grotian divines without\nscruple carry on in their treatment of the sacred Writers, as soon as\nany texts declaring the peculiar tenets of our Faith are cited against\nthem,--even tenets and mysteries which the believer at his baptism\nreceives as the title-writ and bosom-roll of his adoption; and which,\naccording to my scheme, every Christian born in Church-membership\nought to bring with him to the study of the sacred Scriptures as the\nmaster-key of interpretation. Whatever the doctrine of infallible\ndictation may be in itself, in _their_ hands it is to the last degree\nnugatory, and to be paralleled only by the Romish tenet of\nInfallibility,--in the existence of which all agree, but where, and in\nwhom, it exists _stat adhuc sub lite_. Every sentence found in a\ncanonical Book, rightly interpreted, contains the _dictum_ of an\ninfallible Mind;--but what the right interpretation is,--or whether\nthe very words now extant are corrupt or genuine--must be determined\nby the industry and understanding of fallible, and alas! more or less\nprejudiced theologians.\n\nAnd yet I am told that this Doctrine must not be resisted or called in\nquestion, because of its fitness to preserve unity of faith, and for\nthe prevention of schism and sectarian byways!--Let the man who holds\nthis language trace the history of Protestantism, and the growth of\nsectarian divisions, ending with Dr. Hawker's _ultra_-Calvinistic\nTracts, and Mr. Belsham's New Version of the Testament. And then let\nhim tell me that for the prevention of an evil which already exists,\nand which the boasted preventive itself might rather seem to have\noccasioned, I must submit to be silenced by the first learned infidel,\nwho throws in my face the blessing of Deborah, or the cursings of\nDavid, or the Grecisms and heavier difficulties in the biographical\nchapters of the Book of Daniel, or the hydrography and natural\nphilosophy of the Patriarchal ages.--I must forego the means of\nsilencing, and the prospect of convincing, an alienated brother,\nbecause I must not thus answer:--\"My Brother! What has all this to do\nwith the truth and the worth of Christianity? If you reject _\u00e0 priori_\nall communion with the Holy Spirit, there is indeed a chasm between\nus, over which we cannot even make our voices intelligible to each\nother. But if--though but with the faith of a Seneca or an\nAntonine--you admit the co-operation of a divine Spirit in souls\ndesirous of good, even as the breath of heaven works variously in each\nseveral plant according to its kind, character, period of growth, and\ncircumstance of soil, clime, and aspect;--on what ground can you\nassume that its presence is incompatible with all imperfection in the\nsubject,--even with such imperfection as is the natural accompaniment\nof the unripe season? If you call your gardener or husbandman to\naccount for the plants or crops he is raising, would you not regard\nthe special purpose in each, and judge of each by that which it was\ntending to? Thorns are not flowers, nor is the husk serviceable. But\nit was not for its thorns, but for its sweet and medicinal flowers\nthat the rose was cultivated; and he who cannot separate the husk from\nthe grain, wants the power because sloth or malice has prevented the\nwill. I demand for the Bible only the justice which you grant to other\nbooks of grave authority, and to other proved and acknowledged\nbenefactors of mankind. Will you deny a spirit of wisdom in Lord\nBacon, because in particular facts he did not possess perfect science,\nor an entire immunity from the positive errors which result from\nimperfect insight? A Davy will not so judge his great predecessor. For\nhe recognizes the spirit that is now working in himself, and which\nunder similar defects of light and obstacles of error had been his\nguide and guardian in the morning twilight of his own genius. Must not\nthe kindly warmth awaken and vivify the seed, in order that the stem\nmay spring up and rejoice in the light? As the genial warmth to the\ninforming light, even so is the predisposing Spirit to the revealing\nWord.\"\n\nIf I should reason thus--but why do I say _if_?--I have reasoned thus\nwith more than one serious and well-disposed Sceptic; and what was the\nanswer?--\"_You_ speak rationally, but seem to forget the subject. I\nhave frequently attended meetings of the British and Foreign Bible\nSociety, where I have heard speakers of every denomination, Calvinist\nand Arminian, Quaker and Methodist, Dissenting Ministers and\nClergymen, nay, dignitaries of the Established Church,--and still\nhave I heard the same doctrine,--that the Bible was not to be regarded\nor reasoned about in the way that other good books are or may\nbe;--that the Bible was different in kind, and stood by itself. By\nsome indeed this doctrine was rather implied than expressed,but yet\nevidently implied. But by far the greater number of the speakers it\nwas asserted in the strongest and most unqualified words that\nlanguage could supply. What is more, their principal arguments were\ngrounded on the position, that the Bible throughout was dictated by\nOmniscience, and therefore in all its parts infallibly true and\nobligatory, and that the men, whose names are prefixed to the several\nbooks or chapters, were in fact but as different pens in the hand of\none and the same Writer, and the words the words of God himself;--and\nthat on this account all notes and comments were superfluous, nay,\npresumptuous,--a profane mixing of human with divine, the notions of\nfallible creatures with the oracles of Infallibility,--as if God's\nmeaning could be so clearly or fitly expressed in man's as in God's\nown words! But how often you yourself must have heard the same\nlanguage from the pulpit!--\"\n\nWhat could I reply to this?--I could neither deny the fact, nor evade\nthe conclusion,--namely, that such is at present the popular belief.\nYes--I at length rejoined--I have heard this language from the pulpit,\nand more than once from men who in any other place would explain it\naway into something so very different from the literal sense of their\nwords as closely to resemble the contrary. And this, indeed, is the\npeculiar character of the doctrine, that you cannot diminish or\nqualify but you reverse it. I have heard this language from men, who\nknew as well as myself that the best and most orthodox divines have in\neffect disclaimed the doctrine, inasmuch as they confess it cannot be\nextended to the words of the sacred Writers, or the particular\nimport,--that therefore the Doctrine does not mean all that the usual\nwording of it expresses, though what it does mean, and why they\ncontinue to sanction this hyperbolical wording, I have sought to learn\nfrom them in vain. But let a thousand orators blazon it at public\nmeetings, and let as many pulpits echo it, surely it behoves you to\ninquire whether you cannot be a Christian on your own faith; and it\ncannot but be beneath a wise man to be an Infidel on the score of what\nother men think fit to include in their Christianity!\n\nNow suppose--and, believe me, the supposition will vary little from\nthe fact--that in consequence of these views the Sceptic's mind had\ngradually opened to the reception of all the truths enumerated in my\nfirst Letter. Suppose that the Scriptures themselves from this time\nhad continued to rise in his esteem and affection--the better\nunderstood, the more dear; as in the countenance of one, whom through\na cloud of prejudices we have at least learned to love and value above\nall others, new beauties dawn on us from day to day, till at length we\nwonder how we could at any time have thought it other than most\nbeautiful. Studying the sacred volume in the light and in the freedom\nof a faith already secured, at every fresh meeting my Sceptic friend\nhas to tell me of some new passage, formerly viewed by him as a dry\nstick on a rotten branch, which has _budded_ and, like the rod of\nAaron, _brought forth buds and bloomed blossoms, and yielded almonds_.\nLet these results, I say, be supposed,--and shall I still be told that\nmy friend is nevertheless an alien in the household of Faith?\nScrupulously orthodox as I know you to be, will you tell me that I\nought to have left this Sceptic as I found him, rather than attempt\nhis conversion by such means; or that I was deceiving him, when I said\nto him:--\n\n\"Friend! The truth revealed through Christ has its evidence in itself,\nand the proof of its divine authority in its fitness to our nature and\nneeds;--the clearness and cogency of this proof being proportionate to\nthe degree of self-knowledge in each individual hearer. Christianity\nhas likewise its historical evidences, and these as strong as is\ncompatible with the nature of history, and with the aims and objects\nof a religious dispensation. And to all these Christianity itself, as\nan existing Power in the world, and Christendom as an existing Fact,\nwith the no less evident fact of a progressive expansion, give a force\nof moral demonstration that almost supersedes particular testimony.\nThese proofs and evidences would remain unshaken, even though the sum\nof our religion were to be drawn from the theologians of each\nsuccessive century, on the principle of receiving that only as divine\nwhich should be found in all,--_quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab\nomnibus_. Be only, my Friend! as orthodox a believer as you would have\nabundant reason to be, though from some accident of birth, country, or\neducation, the precious boon of the Bible, with its additional\nevidence, had up to this moment been concealed from you;--and then\nread its contents with only the same piety which you freely accord on\nother occasions to the writings of men, considered the best and wisest\nof their several ages! What you find therein coincident with your\npre-established convictions, you will of course recognize as the\nRevealed Word, while, as you read the recorded workings of the Word\nand the Spirit in the minds, lives, and hearts of spiritual men, the\ninfluence of the same Spirit on your own being, and the conflicts of\ngrace and infirmity in your own soul, will enable you to discern and\nto know in and by what spirit they spake and acted,--as far at least\nas shall be needful for you, and in the times of your need.\n\n\"Thenceforward, therefore, your doubts will be confined to such parts\nor passages of the received Canon, as seem to you irreconcilable with\nknown truths, and at variance with the tests given in the Scriptures\nthemselves, and as shall continue so to appear after you have examined\neach in reference to the circumstances of the Writer or Speaker, the\ndispensation under which he lived, the purpose of the particular\npassage, and the intent and object of the Scriptures at large.\nRespecting these, decide for yourself: and fear not for the result. I\nventure to tell it you beforehand. The result will be, a confidence in\nthe judgment and fidelity of the compilers of the Canon increased by\nthe apparent exceptions. For they will be found neither more nor\ngreater than may well be supposed requisite, on the one hand, to\nprevent us from sinking into a habit of slothful, undiscriminating\nacquiescence, and on the other to provide a check against those\npresumptuous fanatics, who would rend the _Urim and Thummim from the\nbreastplate of judgment_, and frame oracles by private divination from\neach letter of each disjointed gem, uninterpreted by the Priest, and\ndeserted by the Spirit, which shines in the parts only as it pervades\nand irradiates the whole.\"\n\nSuch is the language in which I have addressed a halting\nfriend,--halting, yet with his face toward the right path. If I have\nerred, enable me to see my error. Correct, me, or confirm me.\nFarewell.\n\n[177] 2 Sam. xx. 23; 1 Chron. xviii. 17.--H. N. C.\n\n[178] He sent two; nor does it appear that the poor creatures were at\nall crazy. Rose Cullender and Amy Duny, widows, of Lowestoft, Suffolk,\nwere tried for witchcraft, on the 10th of March, 1665, at Bury St.\nEdmunds. Sir M. Hale told the jury, \"that he would not repeat the\nevidence unto them, lest by so doing he should wrong the evidence on\nthe one side or on the other. Only this [he] acquainted them, that\nthey had two things to enquire after: first, whether or no these\nchildren were bewitched; secondly, whether the prisoners at the bar\nwere guilty of it. _That there were such creatures as witches, he\nmade no doubt at all. For, first, the Scriptures had affirmed so much.\nSecondly, the wisdom of all nations had provided laws against such\npersons, which is an argument of their confidence of such a crime._\nAnd such hath been the judgment of this kingdom, as appears by that\nAct of Parliament, which hath provided punishments proportionable to\nthe quality of the offence. And desired them strictly to observe their\nevidence; and desired the great God of heaven to direct their hearts\nin the weighty thing they had in hand. For to condemn the innocent,\nand to let the guilty go free were both an abomination to the Lord.\"\nThey were found guilty on thirteen indictments. The bewitched got well\nof all their pains \"within less than half an hour\" after the\nconviction (so \"Mr. Pacy did affirm\"--Mr. Pacy being the father of one\nof the bewitched); \"only Susan Chandler felt a pain like pricking of\npins in her stomach.... The Judge and all the Court were fully\nsatisfied with the verdict, and thereupon gave judgment against the\nwitches that they should be hanged. They were much urged to confess,\nbut would not.... They were executed on Monday, the 17th of March\nfollowing, but they confessed nothing.\"--_State Trials_, vi. p.\n700.--H. N. C.\n\n[179] \"Did not the life of Archbishop Williams prove otherwise, I\nshould have inferred from these Sermons that Hacket from his first\nboyhood had been used to make themes, epigrams, copies of verses, and\nthe like on all the Sunday feasts and festivals of the Church; had\nfound abundant nourishment for this humour of points, quirks, and\nquiddities, in the study of the Fathers and glossers; and remained a\n_junior soph_ all his life long.\" ... \"Let any competent judge read\nHacket's Life of Archbishop Williams, and then these Sermons, and so\nmeasure the stultifying, nugifying effect of a blind and uncritical\nstudy of the Fathers, and the exclusive prepossession in favour of\ntheir authority in the minds of many of our Church dignitaries in the\nreign of Charles I.\"--_Lit. Remains_, III. pp. 175 and 183, [_Notes on\nthe Life of Bishop Hacket._]--H. N. C.--[See also the 'Aids,' ante,\npp. 99 and 107.--ED.]\n\n\nLETTER V.\n\nYes! my dear Friend, it is my conviction that in all ordinary cases\nthe knowledge and belief of the Christian Religion should precede the\nstudy of the Hebrew Canon. Indeed, with regard to both Testaments, I\nconsider oral and catechismal instruction as the preparative provided\nby Christ himself in the establishment of a visible Church. And to\nmake the Bible, apart from the truths, doctrines, and spiritual\nexperiences contained therein, the subject of a special article of\nfaith, I hold an unnecessary and useless abstraction, which in too\nmany instances has the effect of substituting a barren acquiescence in\nthe letter for the lively _faith that cometh by hearing_; even as the\nhearing is productive of this faith, because it is the word of God\nthat is heard and preached. (Rom. x. 8, 17.) And here I mean the\nwritten word preserved in the armoury of the Church to be the sword of\nfaith _out of the mouth_ of the preacher, as Christ's ambassador and\nrepresentative (Rev. i. 16), and out of the heart of the believer,\nfrom generation to generation. Who shall dare dissolve or loosen this\nholy bond, this divine reciprocality, of Faith and Scripture? Who\nshall dare enjoin aught else as an object of saving faith, beside the\ntruths that appertain to salvation? The imposers take on themselves a\nheavy responsibility, however defensible the opinion itself, as an\nopinion, may be. For by imposing it, they counteract their own\npurposes. They antedate questions, and thus in all cases aggravate the\ndifficulty of answering them satisfactorily. And not seldom they\ncreate difficulties that might never have occurred. But, worst of all,\nthey convert things trifling or indifferent into mischievous pretexts\nfor the wanton, fearful, difficulties for the weak, and formidable\nobjections for the inquiring. For what man _fearing God_ dares think\nany the least point indifferent, which he is required to receive as\nGod's own immediate word miraculously infused, miraculously recorded,\nand by a succession of miracles preserved unblended and without\nchange?--Through all the pages of a large and multifold volume, at\neach successive period, at every sentence, must the question\nrecur:--\"Dare I believe--do I in my heart believe--these words to have\nbeen dictated by an infallible reason, and the immediate utterance of\nAlmighty God?\"--No! It is due to Christian charity that a question so\nawful should not be put unnecessarily, and should not be put out of\ntime. The necessity I deny. And out of time the question must be put,\nif after enumerating the several articles of the Catholic Faith I am\nbound to add:--\"and further you are to believe with equal faith, as\nhaving the same immediate and miraculous derivation from God, whatever\nelse you shall hereafter read in any of the sixty-six books collected\nin the Old and New Testaments.\"\n\nI would never say this. Yet let me not be misjudged as if I treated\nthe Scriptures as a matter of indifference. I would not say this: but\nwhere I saw a desire to believe, and a beginning love of Christ, I\nwould there say:--\"There are likewise sacred Writings, which, taken in\nconnection with the institution and perpetuity of a visible Church,\nall believers revere as the most precious boon of God, next to\nChristianity itself, and attribute both their communication and\npreservation to an especial Providence. In them you will find all the\nrevealed truths, which have been set forth and offered to you, clearly\nand circumstantially recorded; and, in addition to these, examples of\nobedience and disobedience both in states and individuals, the lives\nand actions of men eminent under each dispensation, their sentiments,\nmaxims, hymns, and prayers,--their affections, emotions, and\nconflicts;--in all which you will recognize the influence of the Holy\nSpirit, with a conviction increasing with the growth of your own faith\nand spiritual experience.\"\n\nFarewell.\n\n\nLETTER VI.\n\nMY DEAR FRIEND,\n\nIn my last two Letters I have given the state of the argument, as it\nwould stand between a Christian thinking as I do, and a serious\nwell-disposed Deist. I will now endeavour to state the argument, as\nbetween the former and the advocates for the popular belief,--such of\nthem, I mean, as are competent to deliver a dispassionate judgment in\nthe cause. And again, more particularly, I mean the learned and\nreflecting part of them, who are influenced to the retention of the\nprevailing dogma by the supposed consequences of a different view,\nand, especially, by their dread of conceding to all alike, simple and\nlearned, the privilege of picking and choosing the Scriptures that are\nto be received as binding on their consciences. Between these persons\nand myself the controversy[180] may be reduced to a single question:--\n\nIs it safer for the Individual, and more conducive to the interests of\nthe Church of Christ, in its twofold character of pastoral and\nmilitant, to conclude thus:--The Bible is the Word of God, and\ntherefore, true, holy, and in all parts unquestionable;--or thus,--The\nBible, considered in reference to its declared ends and purposes, is\ntrue and holy, and for all who seek truth with humble spirits an\nunquestionable guide, and therefore it is the Word of God?\n\nIn every generation, and wherever the light of Revelation has shone,\nmen of all ranks, conditions, and states of mind have found in this\nVolume a correspondent for every movement toward the Better felt in\ntheir own hearts. The needy soul has found supply, the feeble a help,\nthe sorrowful a comfort; yea, be the recipiency the least that can\nconsist with moral life, there is an answering grace ready to enter.\nThe Bible has been found a spiritual World,--spiritual, and yet at the\nsame time outward and common to all. You in one place, I in another,\nall men somewhere or at some time, meet with an assurance that the\nhopes and fears, the thoughts and yearnings that proceed from, or tend\nto, a right spirit in us, are not dreams or fleeting singularities, no\nvoices heard in sleep, or spectres which the eye suffers but not\nperceives. As if on some dark night a pilgrim, suddenly beholding a\nbright star moving before him, should stop in fear and perplexity. But\nlo! traveller after traveller passes by him, and each, being\nquestioned whither he is going, makes answer, \"I am following yon\nguiding Star!\" The pilgrim quickens his own steps, and presses onward\nin confidence. More confident still will he be, if by the way side he\nshould find, here and there, ancient monuments, each with its votive\nlamp, and on each the name of some former pilgrim, and a record that\nthere he had first seen or begun to follow the benignant Star!\n\nNo otherwise is it with the varied contents of the Sacred Volume. The\nhungry have found food, the thirsty a living spring, the feeble a\nstaff, and the victorious warfarer songs of welcome and strains of\nmusic; and as long as each man asks on account of his wants, and asks\nwhat he wants, no man will discover aught amiss or deficient in the\nvast and many-chambered storehouse. But if instead of this, an idler\nor a scoffer should wander through the rooms, peering and peeping, and\neither detects, or fancies he has detected, here a rusted sword or\npointless shaft, there a tool of rude construction, and superseded by\nlater improvements (and preserved, perhaps, to make us more grateful\nfor them);--which of two things will a sober-minded man,--who from his\nchildhood upward had been fed, clothed, armed, and furnished with the\nmeans of instruction from this very magazine,--think the fitter\nplan?--Will he insist that the rust is not rust, or that it is a rust\n_sui generis_, intentionally formed on the steel for some mysterious\nvirtue in it, and that the staff and astrolabe of a shepherd-astronomer\nare identical with, or equivalent to, the quadrant and telescope of\nNewton or Herschel?--Or will he not rather give the curious inquisitor\njoy of his mighty discoveries, and the credit of them for his\nreward?--\n\nOr lastly, put the matter thus. For more than a thousand years the\nBible, collectively taken, has gone hand in hand with civilization,\nscience, law,--in short, with the moral and intellectual cultivation\nof the species, always supporting, and often leading the way. Its very\npresence, as a believed Book, has rendered the nations emphatically a\nchosen race, and this too in exact proportion as it is more or less\ngenerally known and studied. Of those nations, which in the highest\ndegree enjoy its influences, it is not too much to affirm, that the\ndifferences public and private, physical, moral and intellectual, are\nonly less than what might be expected from a diversity in species.\nGood and holy men, and the best and wisest of mankind, the kingly\nspirits of history, enthroned in the hearts of mighty nations, have\nborne witness to its influences, have declared it to be beyond compare\nthe most perfect instrument, the only adequate organ, of\nHumanity;--the organ and instrument of all the gifts, powers, and\ntendencies, by which the individual is privileged to rise above\nhimself--to leave behind, and lose his dividual phantom self, in order\nto find his true Self in that Distinctness where no division can\nbe,--in the Eternal I AM, the Ever-living WORD, of whom all the elect\nfrom the archangel before the throne to the poor wrestler with the\nSpirit _until the breaking of day_ are but the fainter and still\nfainter echoes. And are all these testimonies and lights of experience\nto lose their value and efficiency, because I feel no warrant of\nhistory, or Holy Writ, or of my own heart for denying, that in the\nframework and outward case of this instrument a few parts may be\ndiscovered of less costly materials and of meaner workmanship? Is it\nnot a fact that the Books of the New Testament were tried by their\nconsonance with the rule, and according to the analogy, of Faith? Does\nnot the universally admitted canon--that each part of Scripture must\nbe interpreted by the spirit of the whole--lead to the same practical\nconclusion as that for which I am now contending; namely, that it is\nthe spirit of the Bible, and not the detached words and sentences,\nthat is infallible and absolute?--Practical, I say, and spiritual\ntoo;--and what knowledge not practical or spiritual are we entitled to\nseek in our Bibles? Is the grace of God so confined,--are the\nevidences of the present and actuating Spirit so dim and\ndoubtful,--that to be assured of the same we must first take for\ngranted that all the life and co-agency of our humanity is\nmiraculously suspended?\n\nWhatever is spiritual, is _eo nomine_ supernatural; but must it be\nalways and of necessity miraculous? Miracles could open the eyes of\nthe body; and he that was born blind beheld his Redeemer. But\nmiracles, even those of the Redeemer himself, could not open the eyes\nof the self-blinded, of the Sadducean sensualist or the self-righteous\nPharisee;--while to have said, _I saw thee under the fig tree_,\nsufficed to make a Nathanael believe.\n\nTo assert and to demand miracles without necessity was the vice of the\nunbelieving Jews of old; and from the Rabbis and Talmudists the\ninfection has spread. And would I could say that the symptoms of the\ndisease are confined to the Churches of the Apostasy! But all the\nmiracles, which the legends of Monk or Rabbi contain, can scarcely be\nput in competition, on the score of complication, inexplicableness,\nthe absence of all intelligible use or purpose, and of circuitous\nself-frustration, with those that must be assumed by the maintainers\nof this doctrine, in order to give effect to the series of miracles,\nby which all the nominal composers of the Hebrew nation before the\ntime of Ezra, of whom there are any remains, were successively\ntransformed into _automaton_ compositors,--so that the original text\nshould be in sentiment, image, word, syntax, and composition an exact\nimpression of the divine copy! In common consistency the theologians,\nwho impose this belief on their fellow Christians, ought to insist\nequally on the superhuman origin and authority of the Masora, and to\nuse more respectful terms, than has been their wont of late, in\nspeaking of the false Aristeas's legend concerning the Septuagint. And\nwhy the miracle should stop at the Greek Version, and not include the\nVulgate, I can discover no ground in reason. Or if it be an objection\nto the latter, that this belief is actually enjoined by the Papal\nChurch, yet the number of Christians who read the Lutheran, the\nGenevan, or our own authorized, Bible, and are ignorant of the dead\nlanguages, greatly exceeds the number of those who have access to the\nSeptuagint. Why refuse the writ of consecration to these, or to the\none at least appointed by the assertors' own Church? I find much more\nconsistency in the opposition made under pretext of this doctrine to\nthe proposals and publications of Kennicot, Mill, Bentley, and\nArchbishop Newcome.\n\nBut I am weary of discussing a tenet, which the generality of divines\nand the leaders of the Religious Public have ceased to defend, and yet\ncontinue to assert or imply. The tendency manifested in this conduct,\nthe spirit of this and the preceding century, on which, not indeed the\ntenet itself, but the obstinate adherence to it against the clearest\nlight of reason and experience, is grounded,--this it is which,\naccording to my conviction, gives the venom to the error, and\njustifies the attempt to substitute a juster view. As long as it was\nthe common and effective belief of all the Reformed Churches, (and by\nnone was it more sedulously or more emphatically enjoined than by the\ngreat Reformers of our Church), that by the good Spirit were the\nspirits tried, and that the light, which beams forth from the written\nWord, was its own evidence for the children of light;--as long as\nChristians considered their Bible as a plenteous entertainment, where\nevery guest, duly called and attired, found the food needful and\nfitting for him, and where each--instead of troubling himself about\nthe covers not within his reach--beholding all around him glad and\nsatisfied, praised the banquet and thankfully glorified the Master of\nthe feast,--so long did the Tenet--that the Scriptures were written\nunder the special impulse of the Holy Ghost remain safe and\nprofitable. Nay, in the sense, and with the feelings, in which it was\nasserted, it was a truth--a truth to which every spiritual believer\nnow and in all times will bear witness by virtue of his own\nexperience. And if in the overflow of love and gratitude they\nconfounded the power and presence of the Holy Spirit, working alike\nin weakness and in strength, in the morning mists and in the clearness\nof the full day;--if they confounded this communion and co-agency of\ndivine grace, attributable to the Scripture generally, with those\nexpress, and expressly recorded, communications and messages of the\nMost High, which form so large and prominent a portion of the same\nScriptures;--if, in short, they did not always duly distinguish the\ninspiration, the imbreathment, of the predisposing and assisting\nSPIRIT from the revelation of the informing WORD,--it was at worst a\nharmless hyperbole. It was holden by all, that if the power of the\nSpirit from without furnished the text, the grace of the same Spirit\nfrom within must supply the comment.\n\nIn the sacred Volume they saw and reverenced the bounden wheat-sheaf\nthat _stood upright_ and had _obeisance_ from all the other\nsheaves--(the writings, I mean, of the Fathers and Doctors of the\nChurch)--sheaves depreciated indeed, more or less, with tares,\n\n            and furrow-weeds,\n    Darnel and many an idle flower that grew\n    Mid the sustaining corn;\n\nyet sheaves of the same harvest, the sheaves of brethren! Nor did it\noccur to them, that, in yielding the more full and absolute honour to\nthe sheaf of the highly favoured of their Father, they should be\nsupposed to attribute the same worth and quality to the straw-bands\nwhich held it together. The bread of life was there. And this in an\nespecial sense was _bread from heaven_; for no where had the same been\nfound wild; no soil or climate dared claim it for its natural growth.\nIn simplicity of heart they received the Bible as the precious gift of\nGod, providential alike in origin, preservation, and distribution,\nwithout asking the nice question, whether all and every part were\nlikewise miraculous. The distinction between the providential and the\nmiraculous, between the divine Will working with the agency of natural\ncauses, and the same Will supplying their place by a special\n_fiat_--this distinction has, I doubt not, many uses in speculative\ndivinity. But its weightiest practical application is shown, when it\nis employed to free the souls of the unwary and weak in faith from the\nnets and snares, the insidious queries and captious objections, of the\nInfidel by calming the flutter of their spirits. They must be\nquieted, before we can commence the means necessary for their\ndisentanglement. And in no way can this be better effected than when\nthe frightened captives are made to see in how many points the\ndisentangling itself is a work of expedience rather than of\nnecessity;--so easily and at so little loss might the web be cut or\nbrushed away!\n\nFirst, let their attention be fixed on the history of Christianity as\nlearnt from universal tradition, and the writers of each successive\ngeneration. Draw their minds to the fact of the progressive and still\ncontinuing fulfilment of the assurance of a few fishermen, that both\ntheir own religion, though of divine origin, and the religion of their\nconquerors, which included or recognized all other religions of the\nknown world, should be superseded by the faith in a man recently and\nignominiously executed. Then induce them to meditate on the universals\nof Christian Faith,--on Christianity, taken as the sum of belief\ncommon to Greek and Latin, to Romanist and Protestant. Show them that\nthis and only this is the _ordo traditionis, quam tradiderunt Apostoli\niis quibus committebant ecclesias_, and which we should have been\nbound to follow, says Iren\u00e6us, _si neque Apostoli quidem Scripturas\nreliquissent_. This is that _regula fidei_, that _sacramentum symboli\nmemori\u00e6 mandatum_, of which St. Augustine says;--_noveritis hoc esse\nFidei Catholic\u00e6 fundamentum super quod edificium surrexit Ecclesi\u00e6_.\nThis is the _norma Catholici et Ecclesiastici sensus_, determined and\nexplicated, but not augmented, by the Nicene Fathers, as Waterland has\nirrefragably shown;--a norm or model of Faith grounded on the solemn\naffirmations of the Bishops collected from all parts of the Roman\nEmpire, that this was the essential and unalterable Gospel received by\nthem from their predecessors in all the churches as the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03c3\n\u03b5\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b7, _cui_, says Iren\u00e6us, _assentiunt mult\u00e6 gentes eorum\nqui in Christum credunt sine charta et atramento, scriptam habentes\nper Spiritum in cordibus suis salutem, et veterum traditionem\ndiligenter custodientes_. Let the attention of such as have been\nshaken by the assaults of Infidelity be thus directed, and then tell\nme wherein a spiritual physician would be blameworthy, if he carried\non the cure by addressing his patient in this manner:--\n\n\"All men of learning, even learned unbelievers, admit that the greater\npart of the objections, urged in the popular works of Infidelity, to\nthis or that verse or chapter of the Bible, prove only the ignorance\nor dishonesty of the objectors. But let it be supposed for a moment\nthat a few remain hitherto unanswered,--nay, that to your judgment and\nfeelings they appear unanswerable. What follows? That the Apostles'\nand Nicene Creed is not credible, the Ten Commandments not to be\nobeyed, the clauses of the Lord's Prayer not to be desired, or the\nSermon on the Mount not to be practised?--See how the logic would\nlook. David cruelly tortured the inhabitants of Rabbah (_2 Sam._ xii.\n31; 1 Chron. xx. 3), and in several of the Psalms he invokes the\nbitterest curses on his enemies; therefore it is not to be believed\nthat _the love of God toward us was manifested in sending his only\nbegotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him_ (1 John\niv. 9). Or: Abijah is said to have collected an army of 400,000 men,\nand Jeroboam to have met him with an army of 800,000, each army\nconsisting of chosen men (2 Chron. xiii. 3), and making together a\nhost of 1,200,000, and Abijah to have slain 500,000 out of the\n800,000: therefore, the words which admonish us that _if God so loved\nus, we ought also to love one another_ (1 John iv. 11), even our\nenemies, yea, _to bless them that curse_ us, and to _do good to them\nthat hate_ us (Matt. v. 44), cannot proceed from the Holy Spirit. Or:\nThe first six chapters of the Book of Daniel contain several words and\nphrases irreconcilable with the commonly received dates, and those\nchapters and the Book of Esther have a traditional and legendary\ncharacter unlike that of the other historical books of the Old\nTestament; therefore, those other books, by contrast with which the\nformer appear suspicious, and the historical document, 1 Cor. xv. 1-8,\nare not to be credited!\"\n\nWe assuredly believe that the Bible contains all truths necessary to\nsalvation, and that therein is preserved the undoubted Word of God. We\nassert likewise that, besides these express oracles and immediate\nrevelations, there are Scriptures which to the soul and conscience of\nevery Christian man bear irresistible evidence of the Divine Spirit\nassisting and actuating the authors; and that both these and the\nformer are such as to render it morally impossible that any passage of\nthe small inconsiderable portion, not included in one or other of\nthese, can supply either ground or occasion of any error in faith,\npractice, or affection, except to those who wickedly and wilfully seek\na pretext for their unbelief. And if in that small portion of the\nBible which stands in no necessary connection with the known and\nespecial ends and purposes of the Scriptures, there should be a few\napparent errors resulting from the state of knowledge then\nexisting--errors which the best and holiest men might entertain\nuninjured, and which without a miracle those men must have\nentertained; if I find no such miraculous prevention asserted, and see\nno reason for supposing it--may I not, to ease the scruples of a\nperplexed inquirer, venture to say to him: \"Be it so. What then? The\nabsolute infallibility even of the inspired writers in matters\naltogether incidental and foreign to the objects and purposes of their\ninspiration is no part of my Creed; and even if a professed divine\nshould follow the doctrine of the Jewish Church so far as not to\nattribute to the _Hagiographa_, in every word and sentence, the same\nheight and fulness of inspiration as to the Law and the Prophets, I\nfeel no warrant to brand him as a heretic for an opinion, the\nadmission of which disarms the Infidel without endangering a single\narticle of the Catholic Faith.\"--If to an unlearned but earnest and\nthoughtful neighbour, I give the advice;--\"Use the Old Testament to\nexpress the affections excited, and to confirm the faith and morals\ntaught you, in the New, and leave all the rest to the students and\nprofessors of theology and Church history! You profess only to be a\nChristian:\"--am I misleading my brother in Christ?\n\nThis I believe by my own dear experience,--that the more tranquilly an\ninquirer takes up the Bible as he would any other body of ancient\nwritings, the livelier and steadier will be his impressions of its\nsuperiority to all other books, till at length all other books and all\nother knowledge will be valuable in his eyes in proportion as they\nhelp him to a better understanding of his Bible. Difficulty after\ndifficulty has been overcome from the time that I began to study the\nScriptures with free and unboding spirit, under the conviction that\nmy faith in the Incarnate Word and his Gospel was secure, whatever the\nresult might be;--the difficulties that still remain being so few and\ninsignificant in my own estimation, that I have less personal interest\nin the question than many of those who will most dogmatically condemn\nme for presuming to make a question of it.\n\nSo much for scholars--for men of like education and pursuits as\nmyself. With respect to Christians generally, I object to the\nconsequence drawn from the Doctrine rather than to the Doctrine\nitself;--a consequence not only deducible from the premises, but\nactually and imperiously deduced; according to which every man that\ncan but read is to sit down to the consecutive and connected perusal\nof the Bible under the expectation and assurance that the whole is\nwithin his comprehension, and that, unaided by note or comment,\ncatechism or liturgical preparation, he is to find out for himself\nwhat he is bound to believe and practise, and that whatever he\nconscientiously understands by what he reads, is to be _his_ religion.\nFor he has found it in his Bible, and the Bible is the Religion of\nProtestants!\n\nWould I then withhold the Bible from the Cottager and the\nArtisan?--Heaven forfend! The fairest flower that ever clomb up a\ncottage window is not so fair a sight to my eyes, as the Bible\ngleaming through the lower panes. Let it but be read as by such men it\nused to be read; when they came to it as to a ground covered with\nmanna, even the bread which the Lord had given for his people to eat;\nwhere he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered\nlittle had no lack. They gathered every man according to his eating.\nThey came to it as to a treasure-house of Scriptures; each visitant\ntaking what was precious and leaving as precious for others;--Yea,\nmore, says our worthy old Church-historian, Fuller, where \"the same\nman at several times may in his apprehension prefer several Scriptures\nas best, formerly most affected with one place, for the present more\ndelighted with another, and afterwards, conceiving comfort therein not\nso clear, choose other places as more pregnant and pertinent to his\npurpose. Thus God orders it, that divers men, (and perhaps the same\nman at divers times) make use of all his gifts, gleaning and\ngathering comfort, as it is scattered through the whole field of the\nScripture.\"\n\nFarewell.\n\n[180] It is remarkable that both parties might appeal to the same text\nof St. Paul,--\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b7 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c9\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd, \u03ba \u03c4. \u03bb. (2 Tim. iii. 16), which favours the one or the\nother opinion accordingly as the words are construed; and which,\nagain, is the more probable construction, depends in great measure on\nthe preference given to one or other of two different readings, the\none having and the other omitting the conjunction copulative \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[The English version is:--_All Scripture is given by inspiration of\nGod, and is profitable, &c._ And in this rendering of the original the\nEnglish is countenanced by the established Version of the Dutch\nReformed Church:--_Alle de Schrift is van Godt ingegeven, ende is\nnuttigh, &c._ And by Diodati:--_Tutta la Scrittura \u00e8 divinamente\ninspirata, e utile, &c._ And by Martin:--_Toute l'Ecriture est\ndivinement inspir\u00e9e, et profitable, &c._ And by Beza:--_Tota Scriptura\ndivinitus est inspirata, et utilis, &c._\n\nThe other rendering is supported by the Vulgate:--_Omnis Scriptura,\ndivinitus inspirata, utilis est ad, &c._ By Luther:--_Denn alle\nSchrift von Gott eingegeben, ist n\u00fctse zur, &c._ And by\nCalmet:--_Toute l'Ecriture, qui est inspir\u00e9e de Dieu, est utile, &c._\nAnd by the common Spanish translation:--_Toda Escritura, divinamente\ninspirada, es util para ense\u00f1ar, &c._ This is also the rendering of\nthe Syriac (Pesch.) and two Arabic Versions, and is followed by\nClement of Alexandria, Origen, and most of the Fathers. See the note\nin Griesbach. Tertullian represents the sense thus:--_Legimus, Omnem\nScripturam, \u00e6dificationi habilem, divinitus inspirari._ De Habit. Mul.\nc. iii. Origen has it several times, \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1, \u03c9\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9, and once as in the received text.--H. N. C.]\n\n\nLETTER VII.\n\nYou are now, my dear Friend, in possession of my whole mind on this\npoint,--one thing only excepted which has weighed with me more than\nall the rest, and which I have therefore reserved for my concluding\nLetter. This is the impelling principle, or way of thinking, which I\nhave in most instances noticed in the assertors of what I have\nventured to call Bibliolatry, and which I believe to be the main\nground of its prevalence at this time, and among men whose religious\nviews are any thing rather than enthusiastic. And I here take occasion\nto declare, that my conviction of the danger and injury of this\nprinciple was and is my chief motive for bringing the Doctrine itself\ninto question;--the main error of which consists in the confounding of\ntwo distinct conceptions, revelation by the Eternal Word, and\nactuation of the Holy Spirit. The former indeed is not always or\nnecessarily united with the latter--the prophecy of Balaam is an\ninstance of the contrary,--but yet being ordinarily, and only not\nalways, so united, the term, Inspiration, has acquired a double sense.\n\nFirst, the term is used in the sense of Information miraculously\ncommunicated by voice or vision; and secondly, where without any\nsensible addition or infusion, the writer or speaker uses and applies\nhis existing gifts of power and knowledge under the predisposing,\naiding, and directing actuation of God's Holy Spirit. Now--between the\nfirst sense, that is, inspired revelation, and the highest degree of\nthat grace and communion with the Spirit, which the Church under all\ncircumstances, and every regenerate member of the Church of Christ, is\npermitted to hope, and instructed to pray, for--there is a positive\ndifference of kind,--a chasm, the pretended overleaping of which\nconstitutes imposture, or betrays insanity. Of the first kind are the\nLaw and the Prophets, no jot or tittle of which can pass unfulfilled,\nand the substance and last interpretation of which passes not away;\nfor they wrote of Christ, and shadowed out the everlasting Gospel.\nBut with regard to the second, neither the holy writers--the so called\n_Hagiographi_--themselves, nor any fair interpretations of Scripture,\nassert any such absolute diversity, or enjoin the belief of any\ngreater difference of degree, than the experience of the Christian\nWorld, grounded on, and growing with, the comparison of these\nScriptures with other works holden in honour by the Churches, has\nestablished. And _this_ difference I admit; and doubt not that it has\nin every generation been rendered evident to as many as read these\nScriptures under the gracious influence of the spirit in which they\nwere written.\n\nBut alas! this is not sufficient; this cannot but be vague and\nunsufficing to those, with whom the Christian religion is wholly\nobjective, to the exclusion of all its correspondent subjective. It\nmust appear vague, I say, to those whose Christianity, as matter of\nbelief, is wholly external, and, like the objects of sense, common to\nall alike;--altogether historical, an _opus operatum_,--its existing\nand present operancy in no respect differing from any other fact of\nhistory, and not at all modified by the supernatural principle in\nwhich it had its origin in time. Divines of this persuasion are\nactually, though without their own knowledge, in a state not\ndissimilar to that, into which the Latin Church sank deeper and deeper\nfrom the sixth to the fourteenth century; during which time religion\nwas likewise merely objective and superstitious,--a letter proudly\nemblazoned and illuminated, but yet a dead letter that was to be read\nby its own outward glories without the light of the Spirit in the mind\nof the believer. The consequence was too glaring not to be\nanticipated, and, if possible, prevented. Without that spirit in each\ntrue believer, whereby we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of\nerror in all things appertaining to salvation, the consequence must\nbe--So many men, so many minds!--And what was the antidote which the\nPriests and Rabbis of this purely objective Faith opposed to this\nperil?--Why, an objective, outward Infallibility; concerning which,\nhowever, the differences were scarcely less or fewer than those which\nit was to heal;--an Infallibility, which, taken literally and\nunqualified, became the source of perplexity to the well-disposed, of\nunbelief to the wavering, and of scoff and triumph to the common\nenemy;--and which was, therefore, to be qualified and limited, and\nthen it meant so much and so little, that to men of plain\nunderstandings and single hearts it meant nothing at all. It resided\nhere. No! there. No! but in a third subject. Nay! neither here, nor\nthere, nor in the third, but in all three conjointly!\n\nBut even this failed to satisfy; and what was the final resource,--the\ndoctrine of those who would not be called a Protestant Church, but in\nwhich doctrine the Fathers of Protestantism in England would have\nfound little other fault, than that it might be affirmed as truly of\nthe decisions of any other Bishop as of the Bishop of Rome? The final\nresource was to restore what ought never to have been removed--the\ncorrespondent subjective, that is, the assent and confirmation of the\nSpirit promised to all true believers, as proved and manifested in the\nreception of such decision by the Church Universal in all its rightful\nmembers.\n\nI comprise and conclude the sum of my conviction in this one sentence.\nRevealed Religion (and I know of no religion not revealed) is in its\nhighest contemplation the unity, that is, the identity or\nco-inherence, of Subjective and Objective. It is in itself, and\nirrelatively, at once inward Life and Truth, and outward Fact and\nLuminary. But as all Power manifests itself in the harmony of\ncorrespondent Opposites, each supposing and supporting the other,--so\nhas religion its objective, or historic and ecclesiastical pole, and\nits subjective, or spiritual and individual pole. In the miracles, and\nmiraculous parts of religion--both in the first communication of divine\ntruths, and in the promulgation of the truths thus communicated--we\nhave the union of the two, that is, the subjective and supernatural\ndisplayed objectively--outwardly and phenomenally--_as_ subjective and\nsupernatural.\n\nLastly, in the Scriptures, as far as they are not included in the\nabove as miracles, and in the mind of the believing and regenerate\nReader and Meditater, there is proved to us the reciprocity, or\nreciprocation, of the Spirit as subjective and objective, which in\nconformity with the Scheme proposed by me, in aid of distinct\nconception and easy recollection, I have named the Indifference.[181]\nWhat I mean by this, a familiar acquaintance with the more popular\nparts of Luther's Works, especially his Commentaries, and the\ndelightful volume of his Table Talk, would interpret for me better\nthan I can do for myself. But I do my best, when I say that no\nChristian probationer, who is earnestly working out his salvation, and\nexperiences the conflict of the spirit with the evil and the infirmity\nwithin him and around him, can find his own state brought before him\nand, as it were, antedated, in writings reverend even for their\nantiquity and enduring permanence, and far more, and more abundantly,\nconsecrated by the reverence, love, and grateful testimonies of good\nmen through the long succession of ages, in every generation, and\nunder all states of minds and circumstances of fortune,--that no man,\nI say, can recognize his own inward experiences in such Writings, and\nnot find an objectiveness, a confirming and assuring outwardness, and\nall the main characters of reality, reflected therefrom on the spirit,\nworking in himself and in his own thoughts, emotions, and\naspirations--warring against sin, and the motions of sin. The\nunsubstantial, insulated Self passes away as a stream; but these are\nthe shadows and reflections of the Rock of Ages, and of the Tree of\nLife that starts forth from its side.\n\nOn the other hand, as much of reality, as much of objective truth, as\nthe Scriptures communicate to the subjective experiences of the\nBeliever, so much of present life, of living and effective import, do\nthese experiences give to the letter of these Scriptures. In the one\n_the Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit_, that we have\nreceived the _spirit of adoption_; in the other our spirit bears\nwitness to the power of the Word, that it is indeed the Spirit that\nproceedeth from God. If in the holy men thus actuated all\nimperfection of knowledge, all participation in the mistakes and\nlimits of their several ages had been excluded, how could these\nWritings be or become the history and example, the echo and more\nlustrous image of the work and warfare of the sanctifying Principle in\nus?--If after all this, and in spite of all this, some captious\nlitigator should lay hold of a text here or there--St. Paul's _cloak\nleft at Troas with Carpus_, or a verse from the Canticles, and ask:\n\"Of what spiritual use is this?\"--the answer is ready:--It proves to\nus that nothing can be so trifling as not to supply an evil heart with\na pretext for unbelief.\n\nArchbishop Leighton has observed that the Church has its extensive and\nintensive states, and that they seldom fall together. Certain it is,\nthat since kings have been her nursing fathers, and queens her nursing\nmothers, our theologians seem to act in the spirit of fear rather than\nin that of faith; and too often instead of inquiring after the Truth\nin the confidence, that whatever is truth must be fruitful of good to\nall who _are in Him that is true_, they seek with vain precautions _to\nguard against the possible inferences_ which perverse and distempered\nminds may pretend, whose whole Christianity,--do what we will--is and\nwill remain nothing but a Pretence.\n\nYou have now my entire mind on this momentous Question, the grounds on\nwhich it rests, and the motives which induce me to make it known; and\nI now conclude by repeating my request--Correct me, or confirm me.\n\nFarewell.[182]\n\n[181] \"The Papacy elevated the Church to the virtual exclusion or\nsuppression of the Scriptures; the modern Church of England, since\nChillingworth, has so raised up the Scriptures as to annul the Church;\nboth alike have quenched the Holy Spirit, as the _mesothesis_ [or\nindifference] of the two, and substituted an alien compound for the\ngenuine Preacher, who should be the _synthesis_ of the Scriptures and\nthe Church, and the sensible voice of the Holy Spirit.\"--_Lit. Rem._\nv. iii. p. 93, [_Notes on Donne._]--H. N. C. See also p. 288,\n_ante_.--ED.\n\n[182] Mr. H. N. Coleridge had the following note on Coleridge's liking\nfor proselytizing, in the first edition of the 'Table Talk', 1835,\nunder the date April 14, 1830:--\"Mr. C. once told me that he had for a\nlong time been amusing himself with a clandestine attempt upon the\nfaith of three or four persons, whom he was in the habit of seeing\noccasionally. I think he was undermining, at the time he mentioned\nthis to me, a Jew, a Swedenborgian, a Roman Catholic, and a New\nJerusalemite, or whatsoever other name the members of that somewhat\nsmall, but very respectable, church, planted in the neighbourhood of\nLincoln's Inn Fields, delight to be known. He said he had made most\nway with the disciple of Swedenborg, who might be considered as a\nconvert, that he had perplexed the Jew, and had put the Roman Catholic\ninto a bad humour; but that upon the New Jerusalemite he had made no\nmore impression than if he had been arguing with the man in the moon.\"\nThis note was suppressed by the after-coming editors, Sarah and\nDerwent Coleridge.--ED.\n\n\n\n\nAN ESSAY ON FAITH;\n\nNOTES ON THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER; AND\n\nA NIGHTLY PRAYER.\n\nBY SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE.\n\n(REPRINTED FROM HIS LITERARY REMAINS.)\n\n\n[The following 'Essay on Faith' and 'Notes on the Book of Common\nPrayer' are reprinted from the 'Literary Remains,' edited by Henry\nNelson Coleridge, and published in 1838-9 as possibly being portions\nof the uncompleted \"Supplementary volume\" to 'Aids to Reflection'\nspoken of by S. T. Coleridge in the latter work: see p. 257 _ante_.\nThey are otherwise fairly supplementary of the two works which\nconstitute the bulk of the present volume.\n\nThe beautiful 'Nightly Prayer' is added (also from the 'Literary\nRemains') as a suitable conclusion to a volume so much devoted to\nsetting forth the author's faith in, and views concerning, Religion,\nthe Bible, and Christianity.\n\nIn the latter connexion, too, the dates appended by the author\n(apparently) to the 'Notes on the Book of Common Prayer,' _in two\nplaces_, pp. 352, 358, and to the 'Nightly Prayer,' p. 359, have\nconsiderable biographical interest.--ED.]\n\n\n\n\nESSAY ON FAITH\n\n\nFaith may be defined as fidelity to our own being--so far as such\nbeing is not and cannot become an object of the senses; and hence, by\nclear inference or implication, to being generally, as far as the same\nis not the object of the senses: and again to whatever is affirmed or\nunderstood as the condition, or concomitant, or consequence of the\nsame. This 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\ncategorical (that is, primary and unconditional) imperative;--that the\nmaxim (_regula maxima_, or supreme rule) of my actions, both inward\nand outward, should be such as I could, without any contradiction\narising therefrom, will to be the law of all moral and rational\nbeings;--this, I say, is a fact of which I am no less conscious\n(though in a different way), nor less assured, than I am of any\nappearance presented by my outward senses. Nor is this all; but in the\nvery act of being conscious of this in my own nature, I know that it\nis a fact of which all men either are or ought to be conscious;--a\nfact, the ignorance of which constitutes either the non-personality of\nthe ignorant, or the guilt, in which latter case the ignorance is\nequivalent to knowledge wilfully darkened. I know that I possess this\nknowledge as a man, and not as Samuel Taylor Coleridge; hence, knowing\nthat consciousness of this fact is the root of all other\nconsciousness, and the only practical contradistinction of man from\nthe brutes, we name it the conscience; by the natural absence or\npresumed presence of which, the law, both divine and human, determines\nwhether X Y Z be a thing or a person:--the conscience being that which\nnever to have had places the objects in the same order of things as\nthe brutes, for example, idiots; and to have lost which implies either\ninsanity or apostasy. Well, this we have affirmed is a fact of which\nevery honest man is as fully assured as of his seeing, hearing, or\nsmelling. But though the former assurance does not differ from the\nlatter in the degree, it is altogether diverse in the kind; the senses\nbeing morally passive, while the conscience is essentially connected\nwith the will, though not always, nor, indeed, in any case, except\nafter frequent attempts and aversions of will, dependent on the\nchoice. Thence we call the presentations of the senses impressions,\nthose of the conscience commands or dictates. In the senses we find\nour receptivity, and as far as our personal being is concerned, we are\npassive;--but in the fact of the conscience we are not only agents,\nbut it is by this alone that we know ourselves to be such; nay, that\nour very passiveness in this latter is an act of passiveness, and that\nwe are patient (_patientes_)--not, as in the other case, _simply_\npassive.\n\nThe result is, the consciousness of responsibility; and the proof is\nafforded by the inward experience of the diversity between regret and\nremorse.\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\ncannot deceive myself. But when my conscience speaks to me, I can, by\nrepeated efforts, render myself finally insensible; to which add this\nother difference, namely, that to make myself deaf is one and the same\nthing with making my conscience dumb, till at length I became\nunconscious of my conscience. Frequent are the instances in which it\nis suspended, and, as it were, drowned in the inundation of the\nappetites, passions, and imaginations, to which I have resigned\nmyself, making use of my will in order to abandon my free-will; and\nthere are not, I fear, examples wanting of the conscience being\nutterly destroyed, or of the passage of wickedness into madness;--that\nspecies of madness, namely, in which the reason is lost. For so long\nas the reason continues, so long must the conscience exist, either as\na good conscience 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\nof experience, 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\nare, scious, but those beings only, who have an I, _scire possunt hoc\nvel illud una cum seipsis_; that is, _conscire vel scire aliquid\nmecum_, or to know a thing in relation to myself, and in the act of\nknowing myself as acted upon by that something.\n\nNow the third person could never have been distinguished from the\nfirst but by means of the second. There can be no He without a\nprevious Thou. Much less could an I exist for us, except as it exists\nduring the suspension of the will, as in dreams; and the nature of\nbrutes may be best understood by considering them as somnambulists.\nThis is a deep meditation, though the position is capable of the\nstrictest proof,--namely, that there can be no I without a Thou, and\nthat a Thou is only possible by an equation in which I is taken as\nequal to Thou, and yet not the same. And this, again, is only possible\nby putting them in opposition as correspondent opposites, or\ncorrelatives. In order to this, a something must be affirmed in the\none, which is rejected in the other, and this something is the will. I\ndo not will to consider myself as equal to myself, for in the very act\nof constructing myself _I_, I take it as the same, and therefore as\nincapable of comparison, that is, of any application of the will. If\nthen, I _minus_ the will be the _thesis_;[183] Thou _plus_ will must\nbe the _antithesis_, but the equation of Thou with I, by means of a\nfree act, negativing the sameness in order to establish the equality,\nis the true definition of conscience. But as without a Thou there can\nbe no You, so without a You no They, These, or Those; and as all these\nconjointly form the materials and subjects of consciousness, and the\nconditions of experience, it is evident that conscience is the root of\nall consciousness,--_\u00e0 fortiori_, the precondition of all\nexperience,--and that the conscience cannot have been in its first\nrevelation deduced from experience.\n\nSoon, however, experience comes into play. We learn that there are\nother impulses beside the dictates of conscience; that there are\npowers within us and without us ready to usurp the throne of\nconscience, and busy in tempting us to transfer our allegiance. We\nlearn that there are many things contrary to conscience, and therefore\nto be rejected and utterly excluded, and many that can coexist with\nits supremacy only by being subjugated, as beasts of burthen; and\nothers, again, as, for instance, the social tendernesses and\naffections, and the faculties and excitations of the intellect, which\nmust be at least subordinated. The preservation of our loyalty and\nfealty under these trials, and against these rivals, constitutes the\nsecond sense of Faith; and we shall need but one more point of view to\ncomplete its full import. This is the consideration of what is\npresupposed in the human conscience. The answer is ready. As in the\nequation of the correlative I and Thou, one of the twin constituents\nis to be taken as _plus_ will, the other as _minus_ will, so is it\nhere: and it is obvious that the reason or _super_-individual of each\nman, whereby he is a man, is the factor we are to take as _minus_\nwill; and that the individual will or personalizing principle of free\nagency (arbitrement is Milton's word) is the factor marked _plus_\nwill;--and, again, that as the identity or coinherence of the absolute\nwill and the reason, is the peculiar character of God; so is the\n_synthesis_ of the individual will and the common reason, by the\nsubordination of the former to the latter, the only possible likeness\nor image of the _prothesis_, or identity, and therefore the required\nproper character of man. Conscience, then, is a witness respecting the\nidentity of the will and the reason effected by the self-subordination\nof the will, or self, to the reason, as equal to, or representing, the\nwill of God. But the personal will is a factor in other moral\n_syntheses_; for example, appetite _plus_ personal will = sensuality;\nlust of power, _plus_ personal will, = ambition, and so on, equally as\nin the _synthesis_, on which the conscience is grounded. Not this,\ntherefore, but the other _synthesis_, must supply the specific\ncharacter of the conscience; and we must enter into an analysis of\nreason. Such as the nature and objects of the reason are, such must be\nthe functions and objects of the conscience. And the former we shall\nbest learn by recapitulating those constituents of the total man which\nare either contrary to, or disparate from, the reason.\n\nI. Reason, and the proper objects of reason, are wholly alien from\nsensation. Reason is supersensual, and its antagonist is appetite, and\nthe objects of appetite the lust of the flesh.\n\nII. Reason and its objects do not appertain to the world of the\nsenses, inward or outward; that is, they partake not of sense or\nfancy. Reason is super-sensuous, and here its antagonist is the lust\nof the eye.\n\nIII. Reason and its objects are not things of reflection, association,\ndiscursion, discourse in the old sense of the word as opposed to\nintuition; \"discursive or intuitive,\" as Milton has it. Reason does\nnot indeed necessarily exclude the finite, either in time or in space,\nbut it includes them _eminenter_. Thus the prime mover of the material\nuniverse is affirmed to contain all motion as its cause, but not to\nbe, 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\nconfused impressions of sense to their essential forms,--quantity,\nquality, relation, and in these action and reaction, cause and\neffect, and the like; thus raises the materials furnished by the\nsenses and sensations into objects of reflection, and so makes\nexperience possible. Without it, man's representative powers would be\na delirium, a chaos, a scudding cloudage of shapes; and it is\ntherefore most appropriately called the understanding, or\nsubstantiative faculty. Our elder metaphysicians, down to Hobbes\ninclusively, called this likewise discourse, _discursus_, _discursio_,\nfrom its mode of action as not staying at any one object, but running,\nas it were, to and fro to abstract, generalize, and classify. Now when\nthis faculty is employed in the service of the pure reason, it brings\nout the necessary and universal truths contained in the infinite into\ndistinct 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\nparticulars, as in the case of geometry, numeral mathematics,\nuniversal logic, and pure metaphysics. The discursive faculty then\nbecomes what our Shakespeare, with happy precision, calls \"discourse\nof 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\nfaculty of the finite, and cannot without error be judged by it. When\nthis is attempted, or when the understanding in its _synthesis_ with\nthe personal 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 (\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2), or the wisdom of this world. The result is,\nthat the reason is super-finite; and in this relation, its antagonist\nis the insubordinate understanding, or mind of the flesh.\n\nIV. Reason, as one with the absolute will (_In the beginning was the\nLogos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God_), and\ntherefore for man the certain representative of the will of God, is\nabove the will of man as an individual will. We have seen in III. that\nit stands in antagonism to all mere particulars; but here it stands in\nantagonism to all mere individual interests as so many selves, to the\npersonal will as seeking its objects in the manifestation of itself\nfor itself--_sit pro ratione voluntas_;--whether this be realized with\nadjuncts, as in the lust of the flesh, and in the lust of the eye; or\nwithout adjuncts, as in the thirst and pride of power, despotism,\negoistic ambition. The fourth antagonist, then, of reason, is the lust\nof 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\nmultitude of which he is an integral part. His _idem_ is modified by\nthe _alter_. And there arise impulses and objects from this\n_synthesis_ of the _alter et idem_, myself and my neighbour. This,\nagain, is strictly analogous to what takes places in the vital\norganization of the individual man. The cerebral system of the nerves\nhas its correspondent _antithesis_ in the abdominal system: but hence\narises a _synthesis_ of the two in the pectoral system as the\nintermediate, and, like a drawbridge, at once conductor and boundary.\nIn the latter, as objectized by the former, arise the emotions,\naffections, and, in one word, the passions, as distinguished from the\ncognitions and appetites. Now, the reason has been shown to be\nsuper-individual, generally, and therefore not less so when the form\nof an individualization subsists in the _alter_, than when it is\nconfined to the _idem_; not less when the emotions have their\nconscious or believed object in another, than when their subject is\nthe individual 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\ncases may arise in which the Christ as the Logos, or Redemptive\nReason, declares, _He that loves father or mother more than me, is\nnot worthy of me_; nay, he that can permit his emotions to rise to an\nequality with the universal reason, is in enmity with that reason.\nHere, then, reason appears as the love of God; and its antagonist is\nthe attachment to individuals wherever it exists in diminution of, or\nin competition with, the 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\nto reason. The application to Faith follows of its own accord. The\nfirst or most indefinite sense of faith is fidelity: then fidelity\nunder previous contract or particular moral obligation. In this sense\nfaith is fealty to a rightful superior: faith is the duty of a\nfaithful subject to a rightful governor. Then it is allegiance in\nactive service; fidelity to the liege lord under circumstances, and\namid the temptations of usurpation, rebellion, and intestine discord.\nNext we seek for that rightful superior on our duties to whom all our\nduties to all other superiors, on our faithfulness to whom all our\nbounden relations to all other objects of fidelity, are founded. We\nmust inquire after that duty in which all others find their several\ndegrees and dignities, and from which they derive their obligative\nforce. We are to find a superior, whose rights, including our duties,\nare presented to the mind in the very idea of that Supreme Being,\nwhose sovereign prerogatives are predicates implied in the subjects,\nas the essential properties of a circle are co-assumed in the first\nassumption of a circle, consequently underived, unconditional, and as\nrationally unsusceptible, so probably prohibitive, of all further\nquestion. In this sense, then, faith is fidelity, fealty, allegiance\nof the moral nature to God, in opposition to all usurpation, and in\nresistance to all temptation to the placing any other claim above or\nequal with our fidelity to God.\n\nThe will of God is the last ground and final aim of all our duties,\nand to that the whole man is to be harmonized by subordination,\nsubjugation, or suppression alike in commission and omission. But the\nwill of God, which is one with the supreme intelligence, is revealed\nto man through the conscience. But the conscience, which consists in\nan inappellable bearing-witness to the truth and reality of our\nreason, may legitimately be construed with the term reason, so far as\nthe conscience is prescriptive; while as approving or condemning, it\nis the consciousness of the subordination or insubordination, the\nharmony or discord, of the personal will of man to and with the\nrepresentative of the will of God. This brings me to the last and\nfullest sense of Faith, that is, the obedience of the individual will\nto the reason, in the lust of the flesh as opposed to the\nsupersensual; in the lust of the eye as opposed to the supersensuous;\nin the pride of the understanding as opposed to the infinite; in the\n\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 in contrariety to the spiritual truth; in the lust\nof the personal will as opposed to the absolute and universal; and in\nthe love of the creature, as far as it is opposed to the love which is\none with the reason, namely, the love of God.\n\nThus, then, to conclude. Faith subsists in the _synthesis_ of the\nReason and the individual Will. By virtue of the latter, therefore, it\nmust be an energy, and, inasmuch as it relates to the whole moral man,\nit must be exerted in each and all of his constituents or incidents,\nfaculties and tendencies;--it must be a total, not a partial--a\ncontinuous, not a desultory or occasional--energy. And by virtue of\nthe former, that is, Reason, Faith must be a Light, a form of knowing,\na beholding of Truth. In the incomparable words of the Evangelist,\ntherefore,--_Faith must be a Light originating in the Logos, or the\nsubstantial Reason, which is co-eternal and one with the Holy Will,\nand which Light is at the same time the Life of men._ Now, as _Life_\nis here the sum or collective of all moral and spiritual acts, in\nsuffering, doing, and being, so is Faith the source and the sum, the\nenergy and the principle of the fidelity of Man to God, by the\nsubordination of his human Will, in all provinces of his nature, to\nhis Reason, as the sum of spiritual Truth, representing and\nmanifesting the Will Divine.\n\n[183] There are four kinds of _Theses_, \u0398\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, puttings or\nplacings.\n\n                        1. _Prothesis._\n  2. _Thesis._                            3. _Antithesis._\n                        4. _Synthesis._\n\nA and B are said to be thesis and antithesis, when if A be the\n_thesis_, B is the _antithesis_ to A, and if B be made the _thesis_,\nthen A becomes the _antithesis_. Thus making me the _thesis_, you are\nthou to me, but making you the _thesis_, I become thou to you.\n_Synthesis_ is a putting together of the two, so that a third\nsomething is generated. Thus the _synthesis_ of hydrogen and oxygen is\nwater, a third something, neither hydrogen nor oxygen. But the blade\nof a knife and its handle when put together do not form a _synthesis_,\nbut still remain a blade and a handle. And as a _synthesis_ is a unity\nthat results from the union of two things, so a _prothesis_ is a\nprimary unity that gives itself forth into two things.\n\n\n\n\nNOTES ON THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER.\n\n\nPRAYER.\n\nA man may pray night and day, and yet deceive himself; but no man can\nbe assured of his sincerity, who does not pray. Prayer is faith\npassing into act; a union of the will and the intellect realizing in\nan intellectual act. It is the whole man that prays. Less than this is\nwishing, or lip-work; a charm or a mummery. _Pray always_, says the\nApostle;--that is, have the habit of prayer, turning your thoughts\ninto acts by connecting them with the idea of the redeeming God, and\neven so reconverting your actions into thoughts.\n\n\nTHE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST.\n\nThe best preparation for taking this sacrament, better than any or all\nof the books or tracts composed for this end, is, to read over and\nover again, and often on your knees--at all events with a kneeling and\npraying heart--the Gospel according to St. John, till your mind is\nfamiliarized to the contemplation of Christ, the Redeemer and Mediator\nof mankind, yea, of every creature, as the living and self-subsisting\nWord, the very truth of all true being, and the very being of all\nenduring truth; the reality, which is the substance and unity of all\nreality; _the light which lighteth every man_, so that what we call\nreason, is itself a light from that light, _lumen a luce_, as the\nLatin more distinctly expresses this fact. But it is not merely light,\nbut therein is life; and it is the life of Christ, the co-eternal Son\nof God, that is the only true life-giving light of men. We are\nassured, and we believe, that Christ is God; God manifested in the\nflesh. As God, he must be present entire in every creature;--(for how\ncan God, or indeed any spirit, exist in parts?)--but he is said to\ndwell in the regenerate, to come to them who receive him by faith in\nhis name, that is, in his power and influence; for this is the meaning\nof the word \"name\" in Scripture when applied to God or his Christ.\nWhere true belief exists, Christ is not only present with or among\nus;--for so he is in every man, even the most wicked;--but to us and\nfor us. _That was the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh\ninto the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him,\nand the world knew him not. But as many as received him, to them gave\nhe power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe in his\nname; which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor\nof the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt\namong us._ John i. 9-14. Again--_We will come unto him, and make our\nabode with him._ John xiv. 23. As truly and as really as your soul\nresides constitutively in your living body, personally, and\nsubstantially does Christ dwell in every regenerate man.\n\nAfter this course of study, you may then take up and peruse sentence\nby sentence the communion service, the best of all comments on the\nScriptures appertaining to this mystery. And this is the preparation\nwhich will prove, with God's grace, the surest preventive of, or\nantidote against, the freezing poison, the lethargizing hemlock, of\nthe doctrine of the Sacramentaries, according to whom the Eucharist is\na mere practical metaphor, in which things are employed instead of\narticulated sounds for the exclusive purpose of recalling to our minds\nthe historical fact of our Lord's crucifixion; in short--(the\nprofaneness is with them, not with me)--just the same as when\nProtestants drink a glass of wine to the glorious memory of William\nIII.! True it is, that the remembrance is one end of the sacrament;\nbut it is, _Do this in remembrance of me_,--of all that Christ was and\nis, hath done and is still doing for fallen mankind, and, of course,\nof his crucifixion inclusively, but not of his crucifixion alone. 14\nDecember, 1827.\n\n\nCOMPANION TO THE ALTAR.\n\n First, then, that we may come to this heavenly feast holy, and\n adorned with the wedding garment, Matt. xxii. 11, we must search our\n hearts, and examine our consciences, not only till we see our sins,\n but until we hate them.\n\nBut what if a man, seeing his sin, earnestly desire to hate it? Shall\nhe not at the altar offer up at once his desire, and the yet lingering\nsin, and seek for strength? Is not this sacrament medicine as well as\nfood? Is it an end only, and not likewise the means? Is it merely the\ntriumphal feast; or is it not even more truly a blessed refreshment\nfor and during the conflict?\n\n This confession of sins must not be in general terms only, that we\n are sinners with the rest of mankind, but it must be a special\n declaration to God of all our most heinous sins in thought, word, and\n deed.\n\nLuther was of a different judgment. He would have us feel and groan\nunder our sinfulness and utter incapability of redeeming ourselves\nfrom the bondage, rather than hazard the pollution of our imaginations\nby a recapitulation and renewing of sins and their images in detail.\nDo not, he says, stand picking the flaws out one by one, but plunge\ninto the river, and drown them!--I venture to be of Luther's doctrine.\n\n\nCOMMUNION SERVICE.\n\nIn the first Exhortation, before the words \"meritorious Cross and\nPassion,\" I should propose to insert \"his assumption of humanity, his\nincarnation, and\". Likewise, a little lower down, after the word\n\"sustenance,\" I would insert \"as\". For not in that sacrament\nexclusively, but in all the acts of assimilative faith, of which the\nEucharist is a solemn, eminent, and representative instance, an\ninstance and the symbol, Christ is our spiritual food and sustenance.\n\n\nMARRIAGE SERVICE.\n\nMarriage, simply as marriage, is not the means \"for the procreation of\nchildren,\" but for the humanization of the offspring procreated.\nTherefore, in the Declaration at the beginning, after the words,\n\"procreation of children,\" I would insert, \"and as the means of\nsecuring to the children procreated enduring care, and that they may\nbe\", &c.\n\n\nCOMMUNION OF THE SICK.\n\nThird rubric at the end.\n\n But if a man, either by reason of extremity of sickness, &c.\n\nI think this rubric, in what I conceive to be its true meaning, a\nprecious doctrine, as fully acquitting our church of all Romish\nsuperstition, respecting the nature of the Eucharist, in relation to\nthe whole scheme of man's redemption. But the latter part of it--\"he\ndoth eat and drink the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ profitably\nto his soul's health, although he do not receive the sacrament with\nhis mouth\"--seems to me very incautiously expressed, and scarcely to\nbe reconciled with the Church's own definition of a sacrament in\ngeneral. For in such a case, where is \"the outward and visible sign of\nthe inward and spiritual grace given\"?[184]\n\n\nXI. SUNDAY AFTER TRINITY.\n\nEpistle.--1 Cor. xv. 1.\n\n_Brethren, I declare unto you the Gospel which I preached unto you._\n\nWhy should the obsolete, though faithful, Saxon translation of\n\u03b5\u03c5\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd be retained? Why not \"good tidings\"? Why thus change a\nmost appropriate and intelligible designation of the matter into a\nmere conventional name of a particular book?\n\nIb.\n\n---- _how that Christ died for our sins._\n\nBut the meaning of \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd is, that\nChrist died through the sins, and for the sinners. He\ndied through our sins, and we live through his righteousness.\n\nGospel.--Luke xviii. 14.\n\n_This man went down to his house justified rather than the other_.\n\nNot simply justified, observe; but justified rather than the other, \u03b7\n\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2,--that is less remote from salvation.\n\n\nXXV. SUNDAY AFTER TRINITY.\n\nCollect.\n\n ---- that they, plenteously bringing forth the fruit of good works,\n may of thee be plenteously rewarded.\n\nRather--\"that with that enlarged capacity, which without thee we\ncannot acquire, there may likewise be an increase of the gift, which\nfrom thee alone we can wholly receive.\"\n\n\nPS. VIII.\n\n V. 2. _Out of the mouth of very babes and sucklings hast thou\n ordained strength, because of thine enemies; that thou mightest still\n the enemy and the avenger._\n\nTo the dispensations of the twilight dawn, to the first messengers of\nthe redeeming word, the yet lisping utterers of light and life, a\nstrength and power were given _because of the enemies_, greater and\nof more immediate influence, than to the seers and proclaimers of a\nclearer day:--even as the first re-appearing crescent of the eclipsed\nmoon shines for men with a keener brilliance than the following larger\nsegments, previously to its total emersion.\n\nIb. v. 5.\n\n _Thou madest him lower than the angels, to crown him with glory and\n worship_.\n\nPower + idea = angel.\n\nIdea - power = man, or Prometheus.\n\n\nPS. LXVIII.\n\n V. 34. _Ascribe ye the power to God over Israel: his worship and\n strength is in the clouds_.\n\nThe \"clouds\", in the symbolical language of the Scriptures, mean the\nevents and course of things, seemingly effects of human will or\nchance, but overruled by Providence.\n\n\nPS. LXXII.\n\nThis psalm admits no other interpretation but of Christ, as the\nJehovah incarnate. In any other sense it would be a specimen of more\nthan Persian or Moghul hyperbole and bombast, of which there is no\nother instance in Scripture, and which no Christian would dare to\nattribute to an inspired writer. We know, too, that the elder Jewish\nChurch ranked it among the Messianic Psalms. N.B. The Word in St. John\nand the Name of the Most High in the Psalms are equivalent terms.\n\n V. 1. _Give the king thy judgments, O God; and thy righteousness\n unto the king's son._\n\nGod of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, the only begotten,\nthe Son of God and God, King of Kings, and the Son of the King of\nKings!\n\n\nPS. LXXIV.\n\n V. 2. _O think upon thy congregation, whom thou hast purchased and\n redeemed of old._\n\nThe Lamb sacrificed from the beginning of the world, the God-Man, the\nJudge, the self-promised Redeemer to Adam in the garden!\n\n V. 15. _Thou smotest the heads of the Leviathan in pieces; and\n gavest him to be meat for the people in the wilderness._\n\nDoes this allude to any real tradition?[185] The Psalm appears to have\nbeen composed shortly before the captivity of Judah.\n\n\nPS. LXXXII. VV. 6-7.\n\nThe reference which our Lord made to these mysterious verses, gives\nthem an especial interest. The first apostasy, the fall of the angels,\nis, perhaps, intimated.\n\n\nPS. LXXXVII.\n\nI would fain understand this Psalm; but first I must collate it word\nby word with the original Hebrew. It seems clearly Messianic.\n\n\nPS. LXXXVIII.\n\nVv. 10-12. _Dost thou show wonders among the dead, or shall the dead\nrise up again and praise thee? &c._\n\nCompare Ezekiel, xxxvii.\n\n\nPS. CIV.\n\nI think the Bible version might with advantage be substituted for\nthis, which in some parts is scarcely intelligible.\n\n V. 6--_the waters stand in the hills._\n\nNo; _stood above the mountains_. The reference is to the Deluge.\n\n\nPS. CV.\n\n V. 3. _Let the heart of them rejoice that seek the Lord._\n\nIf even to seek the Lord be joy, what will it be to find him? Seek me,\nO Lord, that I may be found by thee!\n\n\nPS. CX.\n\nV. 2. _The Lord shall send the rod of thy power out of Sion_; (saying)\n_Rule, &c._\n\nV. 3. Understand--\"Thy people shall offer themselves willingly in the\nday of conflict in holy clothing, in their best array, in their best\narms and accoutrements. As the dew from the womb of the morning, in\nnumber and brightness like dew-drops; so shall be thy youth, or the\nyouth of thee, the young volunteer warriors.\"\n\nV. 5. \"He shall shake,\" concuss, _concutiet reges die ir\u00e6 su\u00e6_.\n\nV. 6. For \"smite in sunder, or wound the heads;\" some word answering\nto the Latin _conquassare_.\n\nV. 7. For \"therefore,\" translate \"then shall he lift up his head\nagain;\" that is, as a man languid and sinking from thirst and fatigue\nafter refreshment.\n\nN.B.--I see no poetic discrepancy between vv. 1 and 5.\n\n\nPS. CXVIII.\n\nTo be interpreted of Christ's Church.\n\n\nPS. CXXVI.\n\n V. 5. _As the rivers in the south._\n\nDoes this allude to the periodical rains?[186]\n\nAs a transparency on some night of public rejoicing, seen by common\nday, with the lamps from within removed--even such would the Psalms be\nto me uninterpreted by the Gospel. O honoured Mr. Hurwitz![187] Could\nI but make you feel what grandeur, what magnificence, what an\neverlasting significance and import Christianity gives to every fact\nof your national history--to every page of your sacred records!\n\n\nARTICLES OF RELIGION.\n\nXX. It is mournful to think how many recent writers have criminated\nour Church in consequence of their ignorance and inadvertence in not\nknowing, or not noticing, the contra-distinction here meant between\npower and authority. Rites and ceremonies the Church may ordain _jure\nproprio_: on matters of faith her judgment is to be received with\nreverence, and not gainsayed but after repeated inquiries, and on\nweighty grounds.\n\n XXXVII. It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the\n magistrate, to wear weapons, and to serve in wars.\n\nThis is a very good instance of an unseemly matter neatly wrapped up.\nThe good men recoiled from the plain words--\"It is lawful for\nChristian men at the command of a king to slaughter as many Christians\nas they can\"!\n\nWell! I could most sincerely subscribe to all these articles.\nSeptember, 1831.\n\n[184] \"Should it occur to any one that the doctrine blamed in the text\nis but in accordance with that of the Church of England, in her rubric\nconcerning spiritual communion, annexed to the Office for Communion of\nthe Sick, he may consider, whether that rubric, explained (as, if\npossible, it must be) in consistency with the definition of a\nsacrament in the Catechism, can be meant for any but rare and\nextraordinary cases; cases as strong in regard of the Eucharist, as\nthat of martyrdom, or the premature death of a well-disposed\ncatechumen, in regard of Baptism.\" Keble's Preface to Hooker, p. 85,\nn. 70.--H. N. C. [It should be mentioned that \"the doctrine blamed in\nthe text,\" which Keble comments upon, is not the doctrine blamed in\nColeridge's text, above,--or, rather, the \"text\" alluded to is not the\ntext above. The text alluded to by Keble is that with which he was\nthen dealing, viz., the text of Hooker. Keble's edition of Hooker's\nworks was published in 1836, two years before Coleridge's \"Literary\nRemains\" were first published.--ED.]\n\n[185] According to Bishop Home, the allusion is to the destruction of\nPharaoh and his host in the Red Sea.--H. N. C.\n\n[186] See Horne in loc. note.--H. N. C.\n\n[187] See p. 140, _ante_. In addition to the 'Vindiciae Hebraicae,'\nthere alluded to, Mr. Hyman Hurwitz was the author of 'Elements of the\nHebrew Language,' which reached a fourth edition in 1848, and other\nworks. He was Professor of Hebrew at the University of London, and\nmaster of the Hebrew Academy at Highgate. Our author's intimacy with\nhim is indicated by the fact that on Hurwitz publishing his 'Dirge\nChaunted in the Great Synagogue, St. James's Place, Aldgate, on the\nDay of the Funeral of the Princess Charlotte,' 1817, Coleridge added a\ntranslation in English. The translation appears in late editions of\nColeridge's poems with the title 'Israel's Lament,' &c. The following\nalso testifies to the friendship, and likewise to Coleridge's\nproficiency in Hebrew. In Hurwitz's preface to his collection of\n'Hebrew Tales,' 1826, he says:--\"Excepting the three moral tales\noriginally published in that valuable work, 'The Friend,' ['Whoso Hath\nFound a Virtuous Wife,' &c., 'The Lord Helpeth Man and Beast,' and\n'Conversation of a Philosopher with a Rabbi:' see Standard Library\nedition, 1866, pp. 246-8], so admirably translated by my friend Mr. S.\nT. Coleridge, and which are by his kind permission inserted in this\ncollection,\" &c., &c. See also H. N. Coleridge's note to the 'Table\nTalk' of April 14, 1830.--ED.\n\n\n\n\nA NIGHTLY PRAYER. 1831.\n\n\nAlmighty God, by thy eternal Word my Creator Redeemer and Preserver!\nwho hast in thy free communicative goodness glorified me with the\ncapability of knowing thee, the one only absolute Good, the eternal I\nAm, as the author of my being, and of desiring and seeking thee as its\nultimate end;--who, when I fell from thee into the mystery of the\nfalse and evil will, didst not abandon me, poor self-lost creature,\nbut in thy condescending mercy didst provide an access and a return to\nthyself, even to thee the Holy One, in thine only begotten Son, the\nway and the truth from everlasting, and who took on himself humanity,\nyea, became flesh, even the man Christ Jesus, that for man he might be\nthe life and the resurrection!--O Giver of all good gifts, who art\nthyself the one only absolute Good, from whom I have received whatever\ngood I have, whatever capability of good there is in me, and from thee\ngood alone,--from myself and my own corrupted will all evil and the\nconsequents of evil,--with inward prostration of will, mind, and\naffections I adore thy infinite majesty; I aspire to love thy\ntranscendant goodness!--In a deep sense of my unworthiness, and my\nunfitness to present myself before thee, of eyes too pure to behold\niniquity, and whose light, the beatitude of spirits conformed to thy\nwill, is a consuming fire to all vanity and corruption;--but in the\nname of the Lord Jesus, of the dear Son of thy love, in whose perfect\nobedience thou deignest to behold as many as have received the seed of\nChrist into the body of this death;--I offer this, my bounden nightly\nsacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, in humble trust, that the\nfragrance of my Saviour's righteousness may remove from it the taint\nof my mortal corruption. Thy mercies have followed me through all the\nhours and moments of my life; and now I lift up my heart in awe and\nthankfulness for the preservation of my life through the past day, for\nthe alleviation of my bodily sufferings and languors, for the manifold\ncomforts which thou hast reserved for me, yea, in thy fatherly\ncompassion hast rescued from the wreck of my own sins or sinful\ninfirmities;--for the kind and affectionate friends thou hast raised\nup for me, especially for those of this household, for the mother and\nmistress of this family, whose love to me hath been great and\nfaithful, and for the dear friend, the supporter and sharer of my\nstudies and researches; but, above all, for the heavenly Friend, the\ncrucified Saviour, the glorified Mediator, Christ Jesus, and for the\nheavenly Comforter, source of all abiding comforts, thy Holy Spirit! O\ngrant me the aid of thy Spirit, that I may with a deeper faith, a more\nenkindled love, bless thee, who through thy Son hast privileged me to\ncall thee Abba, Father! O, thou, who has revealed thyself in thy holy\nword as a God that hearest prayer; before whose infinitude all\ndifferences cease of great and small; who like a tender parent\nforeknowest all our wants, yet listeneth well-pleased to the humble\npetitions of thy children; who hast not alone permitted, but taught\nus, to call on thee in all our needs,--earnestly I implore the\ncontinuance of thy free mercy, of thy protecting providence, through\nthe coming night. Thou hearest every prayer offered to thee\nbelievingly with a penitent and sincere heart. For thou in withholding\ngrantest, healest in inflicting the wound, yea, turnest all to good\nfor as many as truly seek thee through Christ, the Mediator! Thy will\nbe done! But if it be according to thy wise and righteous ordinances,\nO shield me this night from the assaults of disease, grant me\nrefreshment of sleep unvexed by evil and distempered dreams; and if\nthe purpose and aspiration of my heart be upright before thee who\nalone knowest the heart of man, O in thy mercy vouchsafe me yet in\nthis my decay of life an interval of ease and strength; if so (thy\ngrace disposing and assisting) I may make compensation to thy church\nfor the unused talents them hast entrusted to me, for the neglected\nopportunities, which thy loving-kindness had provided. O let me be\nfound a labourer in the vineyard, though of the late hour, when the\nLord and Heir of the vintage, Christ Jesus, calleth for his servant.\n\n_Our Father, &c._\n\nTo thee, great omnipresent Spirit, whose mercy is over all thy works,\nwho now beholdest me, who hearest me, who hast framed my heart to seek\nand to trust in thee, in the name of my Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus,\nI humbly commit and commend my body, soul, and spirit.\n\nGlory be to thee, O God!\n\n\n\n\nERRATUM.\n\n\nAt p. 140, line 23 of the foot-note, for p. 123, 124, _read_ pp.\n130-132.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX.\n\n\n Absolute Will, the, 224, 225.\n\n Absurd, the, xxxii, 227.\n\n Act, originating an, 176-7.\n\n Adam, the word, in Genesis, and as used by St. Paul, 194.\n\n ---- and his posterity, God's anger against, 186.\n\n ---- possible Spiritual Fall antecedent to him, 195.\n\n ---- and Eve, assertions respecting their state, 194.\n\n Adam's Fall, 172.\n\n ---- sin, its penalty, death, 183.\n\n Admiration, love of, 127.\n\n \u00c6olists, the, 45.\n\n 'Aids to Reflection,' the author's aims in the work, ix, xi, xiii, xv,\n     xix, xxiii, lxvi, 102, 103, 205.\n   Republication of it in America, xii, xxvii.\n   Importance of the work, xxvi, xl.\n   Doctrines propounded in it, xxvii.\n   Its orthodoxy, xxi, lvi.\n   Objections to it answered, lxviii.\n   Criticism of it anticipated, 45, 258.\n   Its origin, xx, 108.\n   Its first edition, ix, xv, xix.\n   Dr. Marsh's essay on it, xii, xxiii.\n   Break in the work through the author's illness, 160.\n   Its plan, 204.\n   The notes to it, 152, 205.\n   Purposed supplement to it, 257.\n   See also under Reason and Understanding, the Will, &c.\n\n Alcohol, 100.\n\n Allegory and Symbol in Scripture Interpretation, 212.\n\n _Alogi_, the modern, 219.\n\n Altar, Companion to the, 352.\n\n America, Dr. Jas. Marsh, a disciple of Coleridge there, xii.\n\n Amusements, the care for, and the neglect of study, 151.\n\n Anabaptism, 253.\n\n Analogy in the New Testament, 136.\n\n _Anathema Maranatha_, 251.\n\n Anatomy, Comparative, xx.\n\n Ancient wisdom, the treasures of, lxxiii;\n   Coleridge no contemner of them, _ib_., lxxiv.\n\n Animal development in the _polypi_, &c., 58.\n\n ---- life typical of the understanding and the moral affections, 74.\n\n Antino\u00fcs and No\u00fcs, their Dialogue on Mystics and Mysticism, 261.\n\n Antithesis, 225.\n\n Ants and bees, intelligence of, H\u00fcber, &c., on, 145-147.\n\n Aphorisms, 15.\n\n Apocrypha, the, 295.\n\n Apostasy, 342.\n\n ---- possible, antecedent to Adam, 195.\n\n Apostolic Church, the, 257.\n\n Arbitrement, the word, 344.\n\n Argument and Belief, 234.\n\n Aristotle and Locke, 44.\n\n ---- and Plato, ideas of God, 167.\n   Their philosophy and that of Bacon, lxvii.\n\n Arminianism, or Grotianism, 107.\n\n Arminius, Bp. Hacket on, 107.\n\n Arnauld's work on Transubstantiation, 260.\n\n Art, Nature and, 167.\n\n Arts, trades, &c., and thinking, xix.\n\n Articles of the Church of England, 358.\n   They show the Church as not infallible, 257.\n   Locke's philosophy opposed to them, xii.\n\n Aseity, the divine, 224.\n\n Astronomy, modern, and the Bible, 312.\n\n Atheists, the, of the French Revolution, 121.\n\n Atonement, 215, 216.\n\n ---- vicarious, 103.\n\n Attention, thought and, 3.\n\n Augustine and Original Sin and Infant Baptism, 247, 252.\n   On Faith and Understanding, xviii.\n\n Augustinians, the, 107.\n\n Authority and power, distinction between, 358.\n\n Author, an, and his readers, xv, xviii.\n   The worth of an author, xvi.\n\n Author's, an, view of his own work, 275.\n\n Autobiography, religious, 49.\n\n\n Bacon, Lord, 317, 304.\n\n ---- his philosophy that of the divines of the Reformation, and\n   opposed to that of Locke, lxiv, lxvii,\n   while agreeing with that of Coleridge, lxvii.\n\n ---- his philosophy and that of Plato and Aristotle, lxvii.\n\n ---- on Reason and the Understanding, lxvii, 143.\n\n Baptism, on, 242, 243, _et sq._, 250.\n   Baxter on, 247.\n   Differences on no ground for schism, 254, 257.\n   D'Oyly and Mant and the Evangelicals on, 254.\n   Edward Irving on, 254-5.\n   Coleridge's answer to Irving, _ib._\n   Robinson's History of, 246.\n   Wall on, 247, 254.\n   Superstitions respecting, 249.\n\n ---- of infants, origin of, 246, 251.\n   Argument for, 250.\n\n ---- and Preaching, 242.\n\n ---- and Redemption, 209.\n\n ---- and Regeneration, 136.\n\n ---- not Regeneration, 226.\n\n Baptism, See also Anabaptism.\n\n Baptist, conversation with a, on infant and adult baptism, 243, _et sq._\n\n Basil and his scholars, 75.\n\n Baxter, on Baptism, 247.\n\n ---- his \"censures of the Papists,\" quoted, 141.\n\n ---- and Howe, religious teaching of their times, liii.\n\n Beasts, understanding in, 144.\n\n Bee, the, 74.\n\n Bees and ants, intelligence of, H\u00fcber, &c., on, 145-147, 281.\n\n ---- and instinct, 281.\n\n Behmen, Jacob, 258, 263.\n\n Behmenists, &c., 94.\n\n Belief, xxxvi, 66, 122, 127.\n\n ---- ground of, xxxi, xxxii.\n\n Belief, the, of children, 128.\n\n ---- of the absurd, impossible, xxxii.\n\n ---- and argument, 234.\n\n ---- and superstition, 287.\n\n ---- and truth, 293.\n\n Belsham's version of the Testament, 316.\n\n Berkleyanism, 268.\n\n Bernard, St., xxv.\n\n Bernouillis, 269.\n\n Bible, the, 293, 296.\n   Its divine origin, 289.\n   A source of true belief, but not itself a creed, 315.\n   George III. on, 200.\n   Historical discrepancies in, 309.\n   Inspiration of, 52.\n   Reading it, 65.\n   See also under New Testament, Psalms, Scripture, Inspiration, &c.\n\n ---- the, and Christian Faith, 289.\n\n Biblical criticism, Coleridge's, 285, 289.\n\n Bibliolatry, and mis-interpretation of the Bible, 107, 313.\n\n Birth, the word as used by Christ, 272.\n\n Blood, the word as used by Christ, 27.\n\n Bonnet's view of instinct, 279.\n\n Book-making, 152.\n\n Books for the indolent, 151.\n\n Books, popular, _ib._\n\n Bosom-sin, 10.\n\n Bread, the word as used by Christ, 272.\n\n Breath, the enlivening, 4.\n\n Brown's Philosophy, xxxix, xlix.\n\n Browne, Sir T., and his strong faith, 137.\n\n Brutes and man, 2, 341, 343;\n   Paley, Fleming, and others on, lx.\n\n ---- and the will, 201.\n\n Bruno, Giordano, 269.\n\n Bucer, 227.\n\n Buffon, 24.\n\n Bull and Waterland, their works, 211-12.\n\n Burnet, extract from, 123.\n\n Butler, S., 45.\n\n\n Cabbala, the, of the Hutchinsonians, 314.\n\n Cabbalists, the, 299.\n\n Calling, effectual, doctrine of, 37.\n\n Calumny, 70.\n\n Calvin, the works of, 105.\n\n Calvinism, modern, 73, 104.\n   That of Jonathan Edwards, 105.\n   That of New England, 105.\n\n Calvinists, the, of Leighton's day, 94.\n\n Capital punishment, 90.\n\n Carbonic-acid gas, Hoffman's discovery of, 162.\n\n Carlyle's translation of 'Wilhelm Meister,' 291.\n\n Cartesian and Newtonian philosophies, the, 268.\n\n Catholic, and Roman Catholic, the terms, 141.\n\n Cause, an Omnipresent, 40.\n\n ---- and effect, xlviii, 42, 44, 175.\n\n Cephas, and the Jews who followed him, 215.\n\n Ceremonies, 12, 13.\n\n Ceremony and Faith, 248.\n\n Cherubim, 7.\n\n Children, the belief of, 128.\n\n ---- Jesus and the, 250.\n\n Christ, 234, 350, 360.\n   His agony and death, 103.\n   His Cross and Passion, 207.\n   His _hard sayings_, 212.\n   His _New commandment_, 249.\n   His death, 202.\n\n Christ, the Christian's pattern, 203.\n\n ---- contemplation of, 350.\n\n ---- faith in, 208.\n\n ---- present in every creature, 351.\n\n ---- the Redeemer of \"every creature,\" 350.\n\n ---- the Word, 288.\n\n ---- and His Apostles, 212.\n\n ---- and the children, 250.\n\n ---- Paul and Moses, 241.\n\n ---- Redemption by, 106.\n\n \"Christ, In,\" the phrase, 104.\n\n Christ's aids to the sinner, 104.\n\n ---- use of the words, water, flesh, blood, birth, and bread, 272.\n\n Christian, the, no Stoic, 57.\n\n ---- Dispensation, the, xviii;\n   and the Law of Moses, 240.\n\n Christian Faith, xvi, xviii, 232.\n   A vindication of its whole scheme promised by the author, 103.\n\n ---- Faith and the Bible, 289.\n\n ---- love, 58.\n\n ---- ministry, the, 35, 68, 96.\n\n ---- Philosophy, 91.\n\n ---- Religion, the, 123.\n\n _Christian Spectator_, 1829, Controversy there on the Origin of Sin, liv.\n\n Christians, early, and the Jews, 215.\n\n ---- and war, 358.\n\n ---- should be united in one Church (extract from Wall), 256.\n\n Christianity, 272.\n   Arguments against, 194.\n   Is a vanity without a Church, 200.\n   Coleridge's views on, xxx.\n   The essentials of, 247.\n   The \"Evidences of,\" 134, 272, 319.\n   The doctrines peculiar to, 11, 73, 130.\n   The knowledge required by, 5, 7.\n   Not to be preferred to truth, 66.\n   Not a theory but a Life, 134.\n   Operative, the Pentad of, 288.\n   TRY IT! 134.\n\n ---- and Mythology, 188.\n\n ---- and the old philosophy, 84.\n\n Church, the word, 114.\n\n Church, Christianity a vanity without a Church 200.\n\n ---- a National, 196.\n\n ---- the, 288. Field's work on, 208.\n\n ---- the _most_ Apostolic, 257.\n\n ---- of England, the, 73. See also Articles, &c.\n\n ---- divines, orthodox, 230.\n\n ---- going, 84. Undue love of Church, or sect, 66.\n\n ---- History, the sum of, 66.\n\n ---- ordinances and the New Testament, 246.\n\n 'Church and State,' Coleridge's, 198, 261, 273.\n\n Circumcision, 245.\n\n Circumstance and the Will, 177.\n\n Coleridge, S. T.--_Personal._--\n   To a friend halting in his belief of Christianity, 320.\n   C.'s Baptist friend, 243.\n   C.'s convictions, 300, 301.\n   His conversation, &c., 278.\n   His defence of his work, 274.\n   His editors, 337.\n   They remiss, 103, 337.\n   His friends, 361.\n   His proficiency in Hebrew, and friendship with Hyman Hurwitz, 358.\n   His language and style, xxx, lxix.\n   His alleged unintelligibility, lxix.\n   His philosophical and philological attainments, intellectual powers,\n     and moral worth, lxxiv.\n   His attempts at proselytizing, 337.\n   His religious experiences, 291.\n   He was not at war with religion, xxxi.\n   His \"twenty years\" of contention for the contra-distinction of Reason\n     and the Understanding, 160.\n   His love of truth, 291.\n\n Coleridge, S. T.--_His works._--\n   His lengthy notes to the 'Aids to Reflection', 153, 205.\n   Criticism of the 'Aids' anticipated, 45.\n   'The Ancient Mariner' referred to, 262.\n   His promised 'Assertion of Religion,' &c., 103.\n   'Christabel' alluded to, 262.\n   'Church and State' referred to, 273.\n   His correspondent in the 'Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit,' 301.\n   'The Friend' referred to, 181.\n   The Hebrew Tales in 'The Friend,' 358.\n   'Israel's Lament,' _ib._\n   The 'Lay Sermons' referred to, 56, 273.\n   His 'Lectures on Shakspere,' &c., referred to, 302.\n   His 'Literary Correspondence' in _Blackwood's Magazine_,\n     referred to, 117.\n   His 'Literary Remains,' 188, 314, 340.\n   His MS. Note-Books, 257.\n   His 'Nightly Prayer,' 340, 360.\n   His 'Wanderings of Cain' alluded to, and quoted, 262.\n   Tendency of his works, xi.\n   His _Watchman_, 23.\n   See also under 'Aids to Reflection,' 'Confessions,' &c.\n\n Coleridge. S. T.--_His Views._--\n   He was no contemner of the ancient wisdom, lxxiii.\n   His views those of Bacon, lxiii;\n     and of the Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries, lxiv.\n   Early views on Baptism, 252.\n   His Biblical criticism, 285.\n   He repudiates sympathy with the ideas of the Behmenists, &c., 94.\n   His view of Christianity, xxx, xxxvi;\n     an Evangelical view, xxx.\n   His Confession of Faith, 292.\n   On Edward Irving, 254-5.\n   Opposed to Locke, lvii.\n   The philosophy of the 'Aids,' lxvii.\n   \"Coleridge's Metaphysics,\" lxx.\n   Views on the relations of prudence and morality, xxxi.\n   On Redemption, _ib._, 208.\n   On Religion, or the Spiritual life, xxxi, xxxvi, 339.\n   His transitional state of religious belief, 271.\n   His view of reason in relation to spiritual religion, xxxvi.\n   The key to his system, the distinctions between nature and free-will\n     and between understanding and reason, xxxii, lxiii.\n   His views on Original Sin, xxx.\n   On the terms _spiritual_ and _natural_, _ib._\n\n Coleridge, S. T.--_Criticism of, &c._--\n   C. termed un-English, 230.\n   Arguments for \"extinguishing\" him, _ib._\n   C. and his critics, 258.\n   His alleged Mysticism, _ib._\n\n Coleridge, H. N., on the 'Aids', xi;\n   on the tendency of Coleridge's works, _ib._;\n   on the 'Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit,' 285;\n   on Locke's philosophy and the Church, xii;\n   on Dr. Marsh's Essay, _ib._;\n   on reason and the understanding, xi.\n\n _Commandment, the New_, given by Christ, 249.\n\n Commonplace truths, 1.\n\n Common Prayer, Book of. See Prayer.\n\n Common-sense, 172.\n\n Commonwealth, religion of that time, 94.\n\n Communion Service, proposed emendations of, 352.\n\n Communion of the Sick, 353.\n\n Confession of sins, 352.\n   Luther on, _ib._\n\n 'Confessions of a Fair Saint,' Goethe's, 291.\n\n 'Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit,' v, 261, 284.\n   Is a key to Coleridge's Biblical criticism, 286.\n   H. N. Coleridge's advertisement to, _ib._\n   Author's advertisement to, 289.\n\n Conscience, the, 80.\n   Is the only practical contradistinction between man and the brutes, 341.\n   Things opposed to it, 344.\n\n ---- and reason, 229, 345.\n\n ---- and the senses, 342.\n\n ---- and the will, _ib._\n\n Consciousness, 58.\n\n Consequences, General, Paley's principle of, 181.\n\n Contemplation, religious, 124.\n\n Contempt, 68, 69.\n\n Content, 69.\n\n Controversies, religious, 67.\n\n Conversation, 72.\n\n Conversion, 16.\n\n Corpuscular philosophy, the, 265.\n\n Corruption and Redemption, 185.\n\n Cranmer, 227.\n\n Creation, the week of, 74.\n\n Creed, the, of the Reformed Churches, 292.\n\n Criticism of the 'Aids' anticipated, 45.\n\n ---- anonymous, &c., 258.\n\n Critics replied to, 258.\n\n Cupid and Psyche, and the Fall of Man, 189.\n\n Cyprian, and infant baptism, 251.\n\n Cyrus, 62.\n\n\n Daniel, the Book of, 302.\n\n Daniel, S., quoted, ix, 75.\n\n Danton, 253.\n\n Darkest before day, 203.\n\n Darwin (E.) on instinct, 279.\n\n David and the sons of Michal, 186.\n\n Davy, Sir H., 265, 317.\n\n Death, the penalty of Adam's sin, 183.\n   The debt of, 219.\n   Fear of, 203.\n   Death the loss of immortality, and death eternal, 206.\n   Spiritual death, 217.\n\n ---- and the Resurrection, 204.\n\n Deborah, 306.\n\n Deceit, self, 61.\n\n Demonstrations of a God, &c., 120.\n\n Des Cartes, 268.\n   His theory of instinct, 279.\n\n Despair of none, 68.\n\n Despise none, and despair of none, 68.\n\n Detraction, 69, 70.\n\n Devil, the. See Tempter.\n\n Discourse = Understanding, 228.\n\n ---- and Shakspere's \"discourse of reason,\" 346.\n\n Disputes in Religious Communities, 67.\n\n Dissent and the Church, 257.\n\n Diversely and diversly, the words, 306.\n\n Divines, our elder, 40.\n\n Docility is grounded in humility, 126.\n\n Doctrinal terms, 36.\n\n Dog, the, its species of moral nature, 164.\n\n Donne, quoted. 16.\n\n Doubt. 66.\n\n\n Earthenware, enjoy your, as if it were plate, and think your plate\n   no more than earthenware. 69.\n\n Ecclesiastical history, 47, 272.\n\n Education of the young, xvi.\n\n Edwards, Jonathan, his Calvinism, 105.\n\n Election, the doctrine of, 37, 108, 111.\n   The word in St. Paul's writings 113.\n\n ---- arbitrary, and Reprobation, the doctrines of, 103.\n\n England, xix.\n\n Entertainment and instruction, xviii.\n\n Enthusiasm, 261.\n   Satire and, 46.\n\n Enthusiasts, the, of our Commonwealth time 94.\n\n Equivocation 29.\n\n Error, intellectual effect of, xlii, xlvii, lviii.\n\n Esther, the Book of, 302.\n\n Eternal death, 206.\n\n Eternal life, the promise of, 234.\n\n Eternity and Time, 209.\n\n Ethics, or the Science of Morality, 197.\n\n Eucharist, the, 200, 227, 257, 350.\n   Keble on Hooker's view of it, 353.\n\n Evangelical, Coleridge an, xxx.\n\n ---- clergy, the, on Baptism, 254.\n\n Evangelicals, the, 133, 210.\n\n Eve, the Serpent and, 171.\n\n Everlasting torment, 103.\n\n Evil, the origin of, liv, 102, 170.\n\n ---- and good, 197.\n\n ---- resistance to, 208.\n\n Examination, self, 11.\n\n Expedience is the anarchy of morals, 90.\n\n Expediency, xvii.\n\n Experience, 154.\n\n Expiation and pay, the words, 216.\n\n Extreme unction, the Romish doctrine of, 227.\n\n Extremes, 246.\n\n Eye, the, the body, &c., 266.\n\n Ezekiel, xvii, 356.\n\n\n Faith, Essay on, 339.\n\n ---- xxxi, 7, 13, 137, 287.\n   The articles of, assimilation by, 259.\n   Christian Faith, 232.\n   Faith defined, 341.\n   St. Augustine on it, xviii.\n   The essay on it, 257.\n   The kinds of it, 348.\n   Its mysteries, 168.\n   Faith necessary, _ib._ Spiritual Faith, 85.\n   The strong faith of Sir T. Browne, 137.\n\n Faith and Ceremony, 248.\n\n ---- and Duty, 314.\n\n ---- and right reason, 228, 229.\n\n ---- Steadfast by, 208.\n\n Fall, the, 189, 293.\n\n ---- a Spiritual, possible before Adam, 195.\n\n Falstaff, the lying of, 310.\n\n Familists, 13, 94.\n\n Fanatic, when the mystic becomes one, 261.\n\n Fashion and holiness, 60.\n\n Fatalism, Locke's opinions tending to, lv.\n\n Fate, 271.\n\n Fathers, the, uncritical study of, 314.\n\n Fears, worldly, 52.\n\n Feeble, the, always popular, 274.\n\n Feelings, 57.\n\n Fenelon, a, 264.\n\n Fidianism, 138, 142.\n\n Field, Dr. R., and his work on the Church, 208.\n\n ---- extract from, 213.\n\n \"Finds me,\" that (the utterance) which, 295, 296.\n\n Finite, the, faculty of, 346.\n\n Fleming, Dr., on man and the brutes, lx.\n\n Flesh, the word, as used by Christ, 272.\n\n ---- _according to the_, 242.\n\n ---- _manifested in the_, 217.\n\n ---- and Spirit, 225, 242.\n\n Flowers, 74.\n\n Forethought, 2.\n\n Forgiveness, 86.\n   Self-deceit in, 61.\n   The Socinian doctrine of, 86.\n\n Fortune and circumstance, the riddle of, 235.\n\n Freedom, the highest form of, 204.\n\n Free-thinking Christians, 230.\n\n Free-will, Luther's view of it, 105.\n   See also Will, &c.\n\n ---- and nature, xlix.\n\n French Revolution, the, 253.\n   The Atheists of it, 121.\n\n French people, and women, their talkativeness, 72.\n\n 'Friend, The,' Coleridge's, 269.\n   An essay there referred to, 181.\n   The Hebrew Tales in it, 358.\n\n Friendship, 33.\n\n Future life, the, and the present, 195.\n\n ---- state, belief in, 233, 237.\n   The same taught in the Old Testament, 52.\n\n\n Galileo, 161.\n\n Geist = gas, 162.\n\n Generalization, 182.\n\n Genius and the dunces, 151.\n\n Genus and species, 149, 162.\n\n George III., on the Bible, 200.\n\n German Biblical philologists, 242.\n   Their views of the Gospels and St. John, _ib._\n\n God, the idea of, 76, 81, 116, 120, 191, 255.\n   Ideas of Aristotle and Plato, 167.\n   Demonstrations of a God, 120.\n   God _is_ reason, 255.\n   God present in every creature, 351.\n   His anger with Adam and his posterity, 186.\n   His communion with man, 82.\n   His hand in the world, 288.\n   His personal attributes, 270.\n   Two great things given us by him, 234.\n\n ---- _manifested in the flesh_, 209.\n\n ---- and the world, serving, 60.\n\n Godless Revolution, the, 199.\n\n Goethe's 'Confessions of a Fair Saint' ('Wilhelm Meister'), 291.\n\n Good and evil, 197.\n\n Good men and vicious, radical difference between, 72.\n\n Goodness more than prudence, xvii.\n\n \"Good tidings,\" 354.\n\n Gospel, hearing the, 84.\n   Its language and purport, 135.\n   The word Gospel in the Prayer-Book, 354.\n\n Gospel, the, and Philosophy, 122, 124, 125.\n\n Gospels, the, 242.\n\n Grace, 200.\n   The doctrine of, 38. Growth in, 10, 62.\n   Warburton's tract on, 258.\n\n Grammar and Logic--parts of speech, 117.\n\n Gravity, the law of, 270.\n\n Green, Prof. J. H., his essay on Instinct, 278.\n   His exposition of the difference between Reason and the\n     Understanding, 160.\n   His 'Vital Dynamics,' referred to, 59;\n     and quoted, 278.\n   His remarks upon Coleridge's conversation, &c., _ib._\n\n Grief, worldly, 52, 57.\n\n Grotian interpretation of the Scriptures, 243.\n\n Grotianism, or Arminianism, 107.\n\n Gunpowder, white, slander so termed, 70.\n\n\n Hacket, Bishop, 107, 314.\n   Extract from, 99.\n\n Hagiographa, the, 300.\n\n Hale, Sir Matthew, his belief in witchcraft, 311.\n\n Happiness, 28, 74.\n   The desire of the natural heart for it, 17.\n\n \"Hard sayings,\" the, of Christ, 212.\n\n Harmonists of the Scriptures, 309.\n   See also Bible, inspiration of, &c.\n\n Harrington quoted, on reason in man, 137.\n\n Hawker, Dr., 316.\n\n Hearne on the Indians, 237.\n\n Hebrew theocracy, the, 307.\n\n ---- Tales in 'The Friend', 358.\n\n 'Henry VI.,' Shakspere's, 302.\n\n Herbert, Lord, 139.\n\n Herbert's 'Temple,' quoted, 10.\n\n Hereditary sin is not original sin, 200.\n\n Heresies, the rise of, 314.\n\n Heresy, 15, 140.\n\n Hildebert, quoted, 141.\n\n Historical discrepancies in the Bible, 309.\n\n Hobbes, 24.\n   His philosophy, 92.\n\n Hoffman's discovery of carbonic-acid gas, 162.\n\n Holy Spirit, 360.\n   See also Spirit, &c.\n\n Hooker, 139.\n   Extract from, 129.\n   On the Eucharist, 353.\n   On Truth, 287.\n\n Hopes, worldly, 52.\n\n Howe and Baxter, the religious teaching of their times, lvii.\n\n H\u00fcber on bees and ants, 75, 147.\n   The same as bearing upon instinct, 281.\n\n Humility the first requisite in the search for Truth, 126.\n   The ground of docility, 126.\n\n ---- and vanity, 69, 76.\n\n Hungarian sisters, the, 246.\n\n Hunter, John, 265.\n\n Hurwitz, Hyman, 140, 358.\n\n Hutchinsonians, the, 314.\n\n\n I, the first person. See Person.\n\n I AM, the, 196, 360.\n\n Idealism, Materialism, &c., 268.\n\n Ideas, 277, 284.\n\n Idols, xi.\n   Worldly troubles are idols, 77.\n\n Imagination, wisest use of the, 54.\n\n Imitators and Imitation, 75.\n\n Immortality opposed to Death, 206.\n\n Imprudence, 79.\n\n Incomprehensible, the, 227.\n   Incomprehensibility no obstacle to belief, xxxvi.\n\n Inconsistency, 59.\n\n Indians, the, Hearne on, 237.\n\n Indolent, the busy indolent, and the lazy indolent, their\n   requirements in books, 151.\n\n Infallibility, 257, 296, 316.\n\n Infants, Baptism of. See Baptism.\n\n ---- the Presentation of, 252.\n\n Infidel arguments against the Bible, 316.\n\n Infidelity, and how to treat it, 77.\n\n ---- and Jacobinism, 253.\n\n Infinite, the, and the Finite, 54.\n\n 'Inquiring Spirit, Confessions of an.' See 'Confessions,'&c.\n\n Inquisition, the, and the Bible, 313.\n\n Insanity, 342.\n\n Insects, 74.\n   Vital power of, &c., 163.\n\n Inspiration of every word in the Bible, the doctrine argued\n   against, 296, 309.\n   See also Bible, Scriptures, &c.\n\n Instinct, 74, 160, 162, 279.\n   Its nature, 280.\n   H\u00fcber's bees and, 281.\n   Prof. J. H. Green, on, 278.\n   How it is identical with understanding; and how diverse from\n     reason, _ib._\n   Maternal instinct, or storg\u00e8, 283.\n   The instinct of anticipation in all animated nature, 237.\n   Right use of the term, 279.\n\n Instruction, early, 156.\n\n Instruction and entertainment, xviii.\n\n Insufflation, Roman Catholic, 227.\n\n Interpretation. See Bible, &c.\n\n Irrational, the, 228.\n\n Irritability, 74.\n\n Irving, Edward. His view of baptism answered, 255.\n\n\n Jacobinism and Infidelity, 253.\n\n Jael, the morality of, 311.\n\n _James, Epistle_ (i. 21), 61; (i. 25), 13, 202; (i. 26, 27), 12, 13.\n\n Jebb, Dr., 49.\n\n Jesus. See Christ.\n\n ---- \"the name of\", 115.\n\n Jewish faith, articles of the, 130, 132.\n\n ---- Church and people, the, 250.\n   Their canonical books, 298.\n\n ---- history and sacred records, 358.\n\n Jews and Christians, foundations of their religious beliefs, 238.\n   See also Rabbinical.\n\n ---- the, and the early Christians, 215, 238.\n\n Jews, Coleridge's attempt to convert one, 337.\n\n Job, the Book of, 307.\n\n John (i. 2), 13.\n\n ---- (i. 18), 212.\n\n ---- (iii. 13), 211.\n\n ---- (v. 39), 246.\n\n ---- (vi.) 212.\n\n ---- (1 v. 20), 4.\n\n John the Baptist, 242.\n\n John, St., the Evangelist, 217.\n   His Gospel, 242, 258, 350.\n   His writings, 211.\n   See also, for passages, John (i. 18), &c.\n\n Jonah, the Book of, parabolical, 174.\n\n\n Kant, 269.\n\n Keble on Hooker quoted, 353.\n\n Kepler, 269.\n\n Knowledge, 36, 65, 81.\n   The sort required for Christianity, 5, 7.\n   Purity requisite for its attainment, 64.\n   Knowledge not the ultimate end of religious pursuits, 65.\n   Knowledge, if right, not enough to do right, 81.\n\n\n Lactantius quoted, xiv.\n\n Language, 160.\n   Coleridge's precision of, lxix.\n   Strictures of, 127.\n\n Lavington, Bishop, 47.\n\n Law, 12, 40, 270.\n\n ---- and Religion, 186.\n\n ---- the word, St. Paul's and St. John's use of, 202.\n\n ---- the, and Christ, 201.\n\n ---- the, of Moses, and the Christian dispensation, 240.\n\n ---- W., his mysticism, 'Serious Call,' &c., 258-9.\n\n Learned class, the, 198.\n\n Leibnitz, 269.\n\n Leighton, Archbishop, extracts from, 2, 3, 17, 27, 29, 35, 36, 37, 39,\n   50, 52, 54, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 74,\n   75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 104, 106, 137, 200, 202, 203, 242.\n\n ---- remarks on, xviii, 94, 102.\n   His sublime view of religion and morality, xxi.\n\n Lessing, 232.\n\n Liars for God, 308.\n\n Lies, Falstaff's, 310.\n\n Life, 4.\n\n ---- prospects, the fear of injuring, 68.\n\n Literary bravos and buffoons, their attacks upon Coleridge, 258.\n\n 'Literary Remains,' Coleridge's, 188, 314, 340.\n\n Liturgy, spots on the, 257. See also Prayer Book, &c.\n\n Locke, his philosophy and that of Coleridge and Bacon, lviii, lxvi.\n   His opinions and Fatalism, lv.\n   Dangerous tendency of his views, xii, xlix.\n\n ---- and Aristotle, 44.\n\n Logic and Grammar--parts of speech, 117.\n\n Logod\u00e6daly and logomachy, 81.\n\n Lord's Prayer, the, 132.\n\n Love, 24.\n\n ---- and Christian love, 58.\n\n ---- and the will, 25.\n\n \"Love, the Family of,\" Dutch religious sect, 95.\n\n Lovers' quarrels, 67.\n\n Luther, 210, 213, 254.\n   Extract from, 201.\n   His view of Freewill, 105.\n\n\n Madness, 269.\n   The passage of wickedness into madness, 342.\n\n Magee, Dr., on Redemption, 274.\n\n Maimonides, 232.\n\n Man fleeing from God, 83.\n\n ---- reason in, 345. Man a thinking animal, xix.\n   See also Reason, &c.\n\n ---- and the brutes and lower creatures, 2, 75, 341, 343.\n   See also Reason, Instinct, &c.\n\n Maniac, 25, 178.\n\n _Manifested in the flesh_, 217.\n\n Mant and D'Oyly on Baptism, 254.\n\n Marat, 253.\n\n Marinus quoted, xiv.\n\n Marriage, 25.\n   And the marriage service, 353.\n\n Marsh, Dr., 107.\n\n ---- Dr. James, of Vermont, U.S., and his Essay on the 'Aids,' xii,\n   xxiii.\n\n Materialism, 91.\n   And Idealism, &c., 265.\n\n Materialists, the, 24.\n   Avowed and unavowed, 264.\n\n Maternal instinct, 283.\n\n Mathematical atheists, the, of the French Revolution, 121.\n\n Meekness, 79.\n\n Mendelssohn, Moses, 232.\n\n Merit, 85.\n   Men of little merit, 69.\n\n Metanoia, 86.\n\n Metaphor, xi, 214.\n   The same in the Gospels, 136.\n\n Metaphors in Scripture interpretation, 200.\n\n Metaphysical opinions and the doctrines of Revelation, xliv.\n\n Metaphysics, 45, 171.\n\n ---- the objections to, lxxi.\n\n Methodist fanatics, 210.\n\n Michal, the sons of, David's treatment of them, 186.\n\n Milton on reason and the understanding, lix.\n\n Milton's word arbitrement = free agency, 344.\n\n Mind, the human, 2, 80.\n   Differences in, 149.\n\n \"Mind of the flesh,\" St. Paul's, 346.\n\n Minimifidianism, 142, 244.\n   See also Fidianism.\n\n Ministry, the Christian, 2, 35, 68, 96.\n   Worldly views in, 68.\n   Students for it addressed, xvi.\n   An unlearned ministry incapable, 98.\n\n Miracles, those worked by Christ, 231.\n\n Miraculous, the term, 64.\n\n Mirth, 52.\n\n Moral Law, the, 130, 132.\n\n ---- Philosophy, 199.\n\n ---- Science, 89. The same and Political Economy,196.\n\n ---- and Religious Aphorisms, 35.\n\n Moralist, Paley not a, 196.\n\n Morality, 12, 14, 20, 62, 131.\n   Of the Bible, 311.\n   Morality less than religion, xvii.\n   Religious morality, 45, 85.\n   Transition from morality to religion, 63.\n\n ---- and the people, 196.\n   And prudence, xvii, xxxi, 19, 64, 131, 273.\n\n Morality and religion, xvii.\n   See also Religion and morality.\n\n Morals, Expedience is the anarchy of, 90.\n\n More, Dr. H., 94.\n   Extracts from, 95, 96, 98.\n\n Moses, 62.\n   The books of, 299.\n\n ---- Paul and Christ, 241.\n\n Motannabbi, his _Fort_-philosophy, 237.\n\n Motives, xlix, 39, 58.\n\n Mysteries of Religion, xviii, 158.\n\n Mysticism, 227, 258, 260, 261.\n\n Mythology and Christianity, 188.\n\n\n Name, the word, 152.\n   As applied to God and Christ in Scripture, 351.\n\n Natural and Spiritual, the terms, Coleridge's view of, xxx.\n\n ---- Theology, 272.\n\n Naturalist, a, 238.\n\n Nature, 44.\n   The fairy-tale of, 41.\n   The term, &c., 166.\n   The Religion of (so called), 158.\n   The worship of, 271.\n\n ---- and Art, 167.\n\n ---- and Free-will, xxxii, xlix, 42, 44, 167, 176.\n\n ---- and religion, 57.\n\n Necessitarians, creed of the, lii.\n\n New England Calvinism, 105.\n\n ----, religion in, lxvi.\n\n New Jerusalemites, and Coleridge's attempt to convert one, 337.\n\n New Testament, the misinterpretations in, xlviii.\n   The authorized version defective, 12.\n\n ---- and the Church, 246.\n\n Newton, Pope's epigram on, 230.\n\n Newtonian and Cartesian philosophies, the, 268.\n\n Newtonian system, the, 156.\n\n Nicholas, H., the Familist, 95.\n\n Novelty, 258.\n   Its use, 1.\n   The fault of, 230.\n   The passion for novelty in thought, 72.\n\n\n Obedience, total, impossible, 183.\n\n Oersted, 265.\n\n _Old man, the_, St. Paul's use of the term, 194.\n\n Order, 255.\n\n Origin of Sin, controversy on, in the _Christian Spectator_, 1829, liv.\n\n Originating an act, 176-7.\n\n Original, the word, 175, 178.\n\n Original Sin, 172.\n   Apologue illustrating the bearings of Christianity on the fact and\n     doctrine, 192.\n   Original sin not hereditary sin, 200.\n   Augustine and Original sin, 247.\n\n ---- and Redemption, 206.\n   Coleridge's view of, xxx.\n\n Orthodoxy, 78.\n   Popular orthodoxy, 309.\n\n\n Pagan philosophy, xvii.\n   See also Philosophy, the old, &c.\n\n P\u00e6do-Baptists, 244.\n\n Paley, Dr., 239, 273, 274, 275.\n   Not a moralist, 196.\n   His principle of General Consequences, 181.\n   His 'Evidences,' 232.\n   On man and the brutes, lx.\n   A passage in his Moral and Political Philosophy criticized, 230.\n\n Papists, Baxter's censures of the, 141.\n\n Paradox, 5.\n\n Parr, Dr., on Paley, 230.\n\n Passion no friend to Truth, 79.\n\n Paul, St, 16, 212.\n   His use of the names Adam, and _the old man_, 194.\n   The word \"election\" in his writings, 113.\n   His Epistles to the Romans, and to the Hebrews, 238.\n   His use of the word Law, 202.\n   On the remission of sin, 213, 215.\n   His view of schism, 254.\n   His writings, 211.\n   For St. Paul's writings, see also under _Romans_, &c.\n\n Paul, Moses, and Christ, 241.\n\n Pay and expiation, the words, 216.\n\n Peace (or Reconcilement), 50.\n\n Peasants' War, the, and other revolutionary outbreaks, 253.\n\n Pelagianism, 57, 247, 252.\n\n Pentad, the, of Operative Christianity, 288.\n\n Pentateuch, the, 299.\n   See also Bible, &c.\n\n People, the, and the ministry, 6.\n\n ---- the, and morality, 196.\n\n Perfectionists, 98.\n\n Person, the first--No I possible without a Thou, 343.\n\n Peter Martyr, 227.\n\n _Peter, St._, Epistle II., 298.\n\n Petrarch quoted, 21.\n\n Pharaoh, destruction of, 356.\n\n Pharisees and Sadducees, the, 133.\n\n Philosophic Paganism, modern, 128.\n\n Philosophy,\n   prejudice against in religious communities, xxxiii.\n   Modern philosophy, xlvii, lx, 156.\n   The Scottish, xlix, lxv.\n\n ---- and religion, necessity of combining their study, xxxix.\n\n ---- the old, and Christianity, 84.\n\n ---- and the Gospel, 122, 124.\n\n Phrenology, 100.\n\n Physico-Theology, 272.\n\n Pity, 23, 34.\n\n Plato, the misinterpreters of, 92.\n\n ---- and Aristotle, ideas of God, 167.\n\n Platonic philosophy, lxvii.\n   Platonic view of the Spiritual, 20.\n\n Pleasure, 30.\n\n Plotinus on the soul, 53.\n\n Political Economy and Moral Science, 196.\n\n Polypi, &c., development in, 58.\n\n Pomponatus, and his _De Fato_, 159.\n\n Pope's epigram on Newton, 230.\n\n Popery and the Bible, 313.\n\n ---- See Roman Catholicism, &c.\n\n Popular Theology, 274.\n\n Power, xlix.\n\n ---- and authority, distinction between, 358.\n\n Prayer, 350, 361.\n   The philosophy of, 257.\n\n ---- The Lord's, 132.\n\n ---- A Nightly, 340, 360.\n\n ---- Book of Common, Notes on, 257, 337, 338, 350.\n   Proposed alterations in, 352, _et sq._\n\n Preacher, the, 288.\n\n Preaching, 61.\n   Baptism and preaching, 242.\n\n Pride, 69, 76.\n\n ---- and humility, 75.\n\n Priestley, Dr., 139, 239, 270.\n\n Principle, 40.\n\n Prometheus, 189, 270.\n\n Promise, the _ingrafted word of_, 237.\n\n Proselytizing, Coleridge's attempts at, 337.\n\n Prospects in life, fear of injuring, 68.\n\n Protestantism and schism, 316.\n\n Prothesis, Thesis, &c., forms of Logic, 118, 343.\n\n Prudence, 11, 17, 18, 22, 33, 34, 131.\n   Prudence distinct from Morality, xvii, 131.\n\n ---- and Morality, Coleridge's views of their relations, xxxi, 64.\n\n Prudential Aphorisms, 27.\n\n Psalms, the, 302. See also Prayer Book.\n\n Psilanthropism, 139, 160.\n\n Psilanthropists, 138.\n\n Ptolemaic system, the, 156.\n\n Public, pampering the, 152.\n\n Public Good, the: \"We want public souls,\" 98.\n\n Pulpit,\n   insincerity in the, 318.\n   Pulpit \"routiniers,\" 308.\n\n Purgatory, 206.\n   And the Bible, 313.\n\n Purity requisite to the attainment of knowledge, 64.\n\n\n _Quarterly Review_, the, on Baptism and Regeneration, 226.\n\n\n Rabbinical and other dotages on the Scriptures, 194.\n\n Railers at religion, 78.\n\n Ransom, the word, 216.\n\n _Rational_ Christian, the, 274.\n\n Rational interpretation of the Scriptures, xxxviii.\n\n ---- and reason, the words in relation to religion, xxxiii, 8.\n\n Readers and authors, xv, xviii.\n\n Reason\n   In man, 137.\n   Neglect of studies belonging to it, xvii.\n   Discernment by, 4.\n   Reason not the faculty of finite, 345.\n   God _is_ reason, 255.\n   Practical reason, 97, 115, 164, 277, 283.\n   Right reason and Faith, 228, 229.\n   Reason is super-individual, 346.\n\n ---- and its antagonists in man, 345.\n   And the conscience, 229, 345.\n   Reason and rational, use of the words in relation to religion, xxxiii.\n   Reason and the Spirit, 96; and Spiritual religion, xxxvi.\n\n ---- the, and the Understanding, xi, 135, 142, 143, 171.\n   Their difference in kind, 143, 148.\n   Coleridge's \"twenty years\" of contention for this distinction, 160.\n   The distinction a key to Coleridge's system, xxxii.\n   Prof. J. H. Green's view, 278.\n   Milton's view, lix.\n   Summary of the scheme of the argument, 277.\n   [For this argument see also Understanding, &c., the 'Aids' throughout,\n     _passim_, and the 'Confessions' in part.]\n\n Reason and the will, 344.\n   See also Will.\n\n Reasoning in religion, rule for, 108.\n\n Reconcilement, 50.\n\n Reconciliation, 61, 215.\n   The word and its connection with money-changing, 215.\n\n Redeemer, the, 13.\n   See also Christ, &c\n\n ---- \"every man his own,\" 87.\n\n Redemption, 143, 200, 257, 293.\n   Coleridge's view of, 208.\n   The doctrine of, xiii, 106, 195, 223.\n   Dr. Magee on, 274. Its mystery, 208.\n\n ---- and Baptism, 209.\n\n ---- and corruption, 185.\n\n ---- and Original Sin, 194, 206.\n\n Reflection, xxv, xxvi, 1, 2, 4.\n   Art of, xiii, xix.\n   Need of, xiii, xix.\n\n Reformation, the, Bacon and, lxiv.\n\n Reformed churches, the creed of the, 292.\n   Religion in New England, lxvi.\n   Railers at religion, 78;\n     and satirical critics of it, 45.\n   Speculative systems of religion, 126.\n   The spiritual in religion, 20, 61.\n   The three kinds of religion corresponding with the faculties\n     in man, 21.\n   Where religion is, 196.\n   See also Spiritual religion, &c.\n\n Reformers, the, of the 16th and 17th centuries, lvi, lvii.\n\n Regeneration, 200, 217.\n\n ---- and Baptism, 136.\n   The doctrine that \"Regeneration is only Baptism\" refuted, 226.\n\n Regret and remorse, 105, 342.\n\n Religion, 29, 156, 158.\n   Advantages of, 32.\n   Coleridge's views on, xxx, xxxii.\n   The mysteries of religion, xviii, 158.\n   Natural religion, 120, 157.\n   The \"Religion of Nature,\" &c., 158.\n   Rule for reasoning in religion, 108.\n   The word in _James_ (i. 26, 27), 12.\n\n ---- and Law, 190.\n\n ---- and Morality, xvii, xxi, 273.\n   'Lay Sermons' referred to, 273.\n\n ---- and Nature, 57.\n\n ---- and philosophy, necessity of combining their study, xxxiii, xxxix.\n\n ---- and science, 162.\n\n 'Religion, Assertion of,' &c., Coleridge's unpublished work, 103.\n\n Religious amalgamation, 67.\n\n ---- Aphorisms, Moral and, 35.\n\n ---- autobiography, 49.\n\n ---- communities, disputes in, 67.\n   Their prejudice against philosophy, xxxiii.\n\n Religious contemplation, 124.\n\n ---- controversies, 67.\n\n ---- experiences, 291.\n\n ---- morality, 45.\n\n ---- philosophy, elements of, 88.\n\n ---- professors, detraction among, 70.\n\n ---- pursuits, 65.\n\n ---- teaching of the time, and of that of Baxter and Howe, lvii.\n\n ---- toleration, the limitations of, 139.\n\n ---- truths and speculative science, 205.\n\n ---- unions, 67.\n\n Remorse, 82.\n   Remorse and regret, 105, 342.\n\n Repentance, 85.\n   Jeremy Taylor's work on, 207, 213.\n\n ---- and forgiveness, 86.\n\n Reprobation, doctrine of, 103.\n\n Responsibility, 342.\n\n Resurrection, death and the, 204.\n\n Revelation, the doctrines of, and metaphysical opinions, xliv.\n\n Revolution, the Godless, 199.\n\n Revolutionary, Geryon, the, 253.\n\n Ridicule, 47.\n\n Right, a knowledge of the right not enough for doing right, 81.\n\n ---- misuse of the word, 181.\n\n ---- and wrong, 81, 181.\n\n Righteousness, imputed, 73.\n\n ---- and virtue, 6.\n\n Rites and ceremonies, 12, 358.\n\n Robespierre, 253.\n\n Robinson, Wall, and Baxter on Baptism, 247.\n\n Robinson's 'History of Baptism,' 246.\n\n Roman Catholic, and Catholic, the terms, 141.\n\n ---- Catholic Church. See also Romish Church, &c.\n\n ---- Catholics, 141.\n   Coleridge's attempts to convert, 337.\n   Their doctrine of the punishment of sin, 213.\n\n ---- Catholicism, 239, Is inseparable\n   from Popery, 200.\n   Insufflation and extreme unction in, 227.\n\n _Romans_, Epistles, quoted, &c. xxxix, 39, 42, 43, 113, 174.\n\n Romish Church, the, 199, 246.\n   See also Roman Catholic, &c.\n\n ---- hierarchy, source of their power, 213.\n\n ---- superstition respecting the Eucharist, 353.\n\n\n Sacrament, doctrine of the, 260.\n   Sacrament of the Eucharist, and the best preparation for it, 350.\n\n Sacramentaries, the \"freezing poison\" of their doctrine\n   of the Eucharist, 351.\n\n Sadducees and Pharisees, the, 133.\n\n Saint, and St.  See the names of the Saints, as John, Paul, &c.\n\n Salvation, the doctrine of, 36.\n\n Satire and enthusiasm, 46.\n\n Satirical critics of religion, 45.\n\n Savages, their belief in a future life, 237.\n\n Saviour, The, 165, 169.\n\n Scepticism, origin of, 29.\n\n Sceptics, unwilling, 103.\n\n Scheme, a, not a science, 195.\n\n Schism, and St. Paul's view of it, 254, 256, 257.\n\n ---- and Protestantism, 316.\n\n Science and religion, 162, 205.\n\n ---- what is, and what is merely a scheme, 195.\n\n Scottish philosophy at fault, xlix, lxv.\n\n Scripture, 8, 288.\n   Figure of speech in, 56, 313.\n   Its language, 55.\n   Its literal sense the safer, 56.\n   See also Bible, Inspiration, &c.\n\n ---- interpretation, 101, 194, 205, 243.\n   Private interpretation denounced, 199.\n   Rational interpretation, xxxix.\n   See also Allegory, Metaphor, Bible, &c.\n\n Scriptures, Letters on the Inspiration of the.\n   See 'Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit.' \"Search ye,\" &c., 246.\n\n _Scrutamini Scripturas_, Selden on, 246.\n\n Sect, or Church, lovers, aphorism for, 66.\n\n Seed analyzed, 41.\n\n Seekers, the, 94.\n\n Selden on _Scrutamini Scripturas_, 246.\n\n Self, 306.\n\n Self-deceit, 61.\n\n Self-interest, prudent, 34.\n\n Self-knowledge, xix, lxxi.\n\n Selfishness, 99.\n\n Self-questioning, 205.\n\n Seneca quoted on spiritual truths, 96.\n\n Senses, conscience and the, 342.\n\n Sensibility, 22.\n\n Serpent, the, and Eve, 171.\n\n Shaftesbury, 128.\n   His philosophy, 92.\n\n Shakspere, and his doubtful works, 302.\n   His \"discourse of reason,\" 346.\n   His Falstaff, 310.\n\n ---- Coleridge's 'Lectures' on, referred to, 302.\n\n Sick bed, a, 207.\n\n Silence, the virtue of, 71.\n\n Sin,--\"The subtle bosom sin,\", 5, 10.\n   Original Sin, 172.\n   Roman Catholic doctrine of the punishment of sin, 213.\n   The remedy for sin, 70.\n   The tyranny of sin, 34.\n   See also Origin of Sin, Original Sin, &c.\n\n Sins, confession of. See Confession.\n   Imitating sins, 75.\n\n Skink, the, 78.\n\n Slander, 70.\n\n Smith, John, his Tracts (1660), quoted, 167.\n\n Socinian doctrine of forgiveness, 86.\n\n Socinianism, 231.\n\n Socrates, 64.\n\n Sophisms, exposing, xvii.\n\n Sorrow, 57.\n\n Soul, the, 83.\n   Its different faculties assigned to parts of Religion, 21.\n   Its immortality, 236.\n   Its organs of sense, 57.\n   Plotinus on the soul, 53.\n   Soul and Spirit, 203.\n   See also Spirit, &c.\n\n South, Dr., and his speculations upon the state of Adam and Eve, 194.\n\n Southey's 'Omniana' referred to, 55.\n\n Space, 116.\n\n Spanish refugee, a, on Christianity and Protestantism, 239.\n\n Species and genus, 149.\n\n Speculative reason and Theology, 122.\n\n Spinoza, 227.\n\n Spinozism, 268.\n\n Spirit, 43, 99.\n   The Holy Spirit, 39, 50, 56, 96, 101, 288, 361.\n   How the Holy Spirit's presence is known, 39.\n   Pretended call of the Spirit, 98.\n   The term Spirit, 38, 100.\n   The Spirit in man is the Will, 55, 88.\n\n Spirit, _according to the_, 242.\n\n ---- body, soul and, 361.\n\n ---- and flesh, 225, 242.\n\n ---- and reason, 96.\n\n ---- and soul, 203.\n\n ---- and the will, 167.\n\n ---- and the Word, 317.\n\n Spiritual, the, Platonic view of, 20.\n   The Spiritual in man, 88, 204.\n   In religion, 20, 61.\n\n ---- and natural, the terms, xxx.\n   Misinterpretation of the terms in the New Testament, xlviii.\n\n ---- Communion, 200.\n\n ---- influences, rational, 39, 50.\n\n ---- life and spiritual death, 217.\n\n ---- religion, xxxvi, xlii, 272.\n   That which is it indeed, 102.\n   Aphorisms on, 88, 96.\n   The transition from morality to spiritual religion, 63.\n\n Squash, the, 78.\n\n St., and Saint. See the names of the Saints, as John, Paul, &c.\n\n 'Statesman's Manual,' Coleridge's referred to, 199.\n\n Sterne, 24.\n\n Stoic, the, 57.\n\n Storg\u00e8, or maternal instinct, 283.\n\n Stuart, Prof. (? Moses), and his Commentary on the Epistle\n   to the Hebrews, xl.\n\n Student, the Theological, an aphorism for him, 66.\n\n Students for the ministry addressed, xvi.\n\n Study neglected for amusement, 151.\n\n Subjective and Objective, 117.\n\n Success and desert, 235.\n\n Superstition, 126, 248.\n\n ---- and belief, 287.\n\n Superstitions go in pairs, 246.\n\n Superstitions respecting Baptism, 249.\n\n Swallow, the, 74.\n\n Swedenborgian, Coleridge's, alleged conversion of a, 337.\n\n Swift, 45.\n\n Symbol, 173.\n\n Symbolical and allegorical, difference between, 212.\n\n\n 'Table Talk,' Coleridge's, editions of, 337.\n\n Talkativeness of women and Frenchmen, 72.\n\n Taylor, Jeremy, 170, 228, 230.\n   Extracts from his works, 172, 187, 228, 229, 234.\n   His 'Deus Justificatus,' 172, 187.\n   His 'Liberty of Prophesying,' and his alteration of it, 245.\n   His work on Repentance, 207, 213.\n\n Technical phrases, 59.\n\n Temperance inculcated, 59.\n\n Temple, the light of the, 292.\n\n Temptation, 186.\n\n Tempter, the, 166.\n\n Terms, Doctrinal, 36.\n   Technical, 59.\n   See also Words.\n\n Testament, New. See New Testament.\n\n ---- Old. See Bible.\n\n ---- the Old and the New, 133.\n\n Theological student, aphorism for the, 66.\n\n \"Theology, Natural,\" so called 168, 272.\n\n Theology, Physico, 272.\n\n ---- popular, 274.\n\n ---- speculative, and reason, 122.\n\n Theses, kinds of, Prothesis, Thesis, &c., 118, 343.\n\n Thinking man, the, xix.\n\n \"Thinking souls, we want,\" 100.\n\n Thought, the faculty of, 3.\n   The passion for novelty in, 72.\n   Thought and attention, 3.\n\n Thurtel, the murderer, his \"bump of benevolence,\" 100.\n\n Time and Eternity, 209.\n\n 'Titus Andronicus,' Shakspere's, 302.\n\n Toleration, 67, 68.\n\n Tongue, the, and detraction, 70, 71.\n   The phrase \"Hold your tongue!\" _ib._\n\n Tooke, Home, his Winged words, xv.\n\n Torment, everlasting, 103.\n\n Trades, arts, &c., and thinking, xix.\n\n Transfiguration, the, 312.\n\n Transgressions, the saving power of, 129.\n\n Transubstantiation, 87, 123.\n   Arnauld's work on, 260.\n\n Trinity, The, 116, 121.\n   The doctrine of, 102.\n\n Troubles, refuge from, 76.\n   Worldly troubles, 77.\n\n Truth, 71.\n   Christianity is not better than truth, 66.\n   Hooker on, 287.\n   Truth must be sought in humility, 126.\n   Love of truth, 291.\n   Truth Supreme!, 255.\n\n ---- and belief, 293.\n\n ---- partial, zealots of, 251.\n\n Truths, the most useful, 1.\n\n\n Ultrafidianism, 138.\n\n Understanding = discourse, 228.\n   How modified in man, 283.\n   St. Augustine on, xviii.\n   The word in St. John, 4.\n\n ---- and instinct, 162.\n\n ---- and reason, 135, 346.\n   The distinction between, xxxii, 205.\n   Confusion of the terms, lviii, lxi, 167.\n   See also Reason and Understanding.\n\n Unicity, 138.\n\n Unions, Religious, 67.\n\n Unitarian, the word, 138.\n\n Unitarianism not Christianity, 140.\n   Its doctrine of self-salvation, 87.\n   See also Psilanthropism, &c.\n\n Unitarians, 230, 232.\n   They should be called \"Psilanthropists,\" 138.\n\n Unity, 40.\n\n ---- and the Unitarians, 138.\n\n Unkindness, 151.\n\n\n Vanists, the, 94.\n\n Vanity and humility, 69.\n\n Vice a wound, 129.\n\n ---- and virtue, the twilight between, 24.\n\n Vico, G. B., quoted, xiv.\n\n Vicious men and good, 72.\n\n Virgil, 275.\n\n Virtue, 30, 128.\n   Virtue a medicine and vice a wound, 129.\n   Virtue and righteousness, 6.\n\n 'Vital Dynamics,' Prof. Green's, referred to, 59; quoted, 278.\n\n Vital power of insects, &c., 163.\n\n\n Wall, W., his tract on Baptism, 254, 255.\n   On the Church, and unity among Christians, 256-57.\n\n Warburton, 45, 239.\n   His tract on Grace, 258.\n\n Wars and Christian men, 358.\n\n Water, the word as used by Christ, 272.\n\n Waterland and Bull, their works, 211-12.\n\n _Watchman_, the, Coleridge's, 23.\n\n Wesley, John, and the Bible, 311.\n\n Wickedness, 54.\n   When it passes into madness, 342.\n\n Will, 176.\n   The Absolute Will, 224, 255.\n   A good will, 197.\n   When will constitutes law, 201.\n   The will of the Spirit, 203.\n   The will = the spirit in man, 88.\n   Jeremy Taylor on the will, 231.\n   See also Original Sin, &c.\n\n ---- and the brute animals, 201.\n\n Will and Free-will, 342.\n\n ---- and the judgment, xviii.\n\n ---- and love, 25.\n\n ---- and reason, 344.\n\n ---- Free, xlix, 39, 40, 42, 56, 104, 163, 176, 185, 190.\n\n Wind-harp, a, 207.\n\n Witch of Endor, the, and misinterpretation of the word witch, 311.\n\n Witchcraft, and Sir M. Hale, 311.\n\n Women and Frenchmen, talkativeness of, 72.\n\n ---- and religious fanaticism, 210.\n\n Wonder, 156.\n\n \"Word, the, that was in the beginning\", 294.\n   The Divine Word, 6.\n   The informing Word, 4.\n   The Word as a Light, 242.\n   The Word and the Spirit, 317.\n\n Words, xvi.\n   Their force as used by Coleridge, lxix.\n   Hobbes on, 167.\n   Importance of a knowledge of words, 5.\n   Legerdemain with words, 23, 81.\n   Meaning and history of words, 15, 100.\n   The science of words, xvi.\n   The use of words, 150.\n   See also Terms, and some words under their several names.\n\n Wordsworth, 44, 271.\n\n Works, Good, 85.\n\n World, the, its unsatisfying nature, 54, 76, 82, 235.\n   Retiring from the world, 84.\n\n Worldliness and Godliness, 56, 60.\n\n Worldly activity, xvii; hopes and fears, 52.\n   Worldly views, influence of, 68.\n\n Wrapped up, unseemly matter, 358.\n\n Wrap-rascal, a, 121.\n\n\n Young, the, education of, xvi.\n\n\n Zealots of partial truth, 251.\n\n\n\n\nCHISWICK PRESS:--C. WHITTINGHAM AND CO., TOOKS COURT, CHANCERY LANE.","title":"Aids to Reflection; and, The Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":160884}