In a former page, Mr. Coleridge has been represented as entertaining
sentiments in early life, approaching to, though not identified with,
those of Unitarians; on his return to Bristol, in the year 1807, a
complete reverse had taken place in his theological tenets. Reflection
and reading, particularly the bible, had taught him, as he said, the
unstable foundation on which Unitarians grounded their faith; and in
proportion as orthodox sentiments acquired an ascendancy in his mind, a
love of truth compelled him to oppose his former errors, and stimulated
him, by an explicit declaration of his religious views, to counteract
those former impressions, which his cruder opinions had led him once so
strenuously to enforce on all around.
The editor of Mr. Coleridge's "Table Tails," has conferred an important
benefit on the public, by preserving so many of his familiar
conversations, particularly those on the important subject of
Unitarianism. Few men ever poured forth torrents of more
happily-expressed language, the result of more matured reflection, in his
social intercourse, than Mr. Coleridge; and at this time, the
recollection is accompanied with serious regret, that I allowed to pass
unnoticed so many of his splendid colloquies, which, could they be
recalled, would exhibit his talents in a light equally favourable with
his most deliberately-written productions.
I did indeed take notes of one of his conversations, on his departure
from a supper party, and which I shall subjoin, because the confirmed
general views, and individual opinions of so enlarged a mind must command
attention; especially when exercised on subjects intrinsically important.
I however observe, that my sketch of the conversation must be understood
as being exceedingly far from doing _justice_ to the original.
At this time I was invited to meet Mr. Coleridge with a zealous Unitarian
minister. It was natural to conclude, that such uncongenial, and, at the
same time, such inflammable materials would soon ignite. The subject of
Unitarianism having been introduced soon after dinner, the minister
avowed his sentiments, in language that was construed into a challenge,
when Mr. Coleridge advanced at once to the charge, by saying "Sir, you
give up so much, that the little you retain of Christianity is not worth
keeping." We looked in vain for a reply. After a manifest internal
conflict, the Unitarian minister very prudently allowed the gauntlet to
remain undisturbed. Wine he thought more pleasant than controversy.
Shortly after this occurrence, Mr. Coleridge supped with the writer, when
his well known conversational talents were eminently displayed; so that
what Pope affirmed of Bolingbroke, that "his usual conversation, taken
down verbatim, from its coherence and accuracy, would have borne
printing, without correction," was fully, and perhaps, more justly
applicable to Mr. C.
Some of his theological observations are here detailed. He said, he had
recently had a long conversation with an Unitarian minister, who
declared, that, he could discover nothing in the New Testament which in
the _least_ favoured the Divinity of Christ, to which Mr. C. replied that
it appeared to him impossible for any man to read the New Testament, with
the common exercise of an unbiassed understanding, without being
convinced of the Divinity of Christ, from the testimony almost of every
page.
He said it was evident that different persons might look at the same
object with very opposite feelings. For instance, if Sir Isaac Newton
looked at the planet Jupiter, he would view him with his revolving moons,
and would be led to the contemplation of his being inhabited, which
thought would open a boundless field to his imagination: whilst another
person, standing perhaps at the side of the great philosopher, would look
at Jupiter with the same set of feelings that he would at a silver
sixpence. So some persons were wilfully blind, and did not seek for that
change, that preparation of the heart and understanding, which would
enable them to see clearly the gospel truth.
He said that Socinians believed no more than St. Paul did before his
conversion: for the Pharisees believed in a Supreme Being, and a future
state of rewards and punishments. St. Paul thought he ought to do many
things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. The saints he shut up
in prison, having received authority from the High Priest, and when they
were put to death, he gave his voice against them. But after his
conversion, writing to the Romans, he says, 'I am not ashamed of the
gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation unto every man
that believeth: to the Jew first, and also to the Gentiles.'
He then referred to the dreadful state of the literati in London, as it
respects religion, and of their having laughed at him, and believed him
to be in jest, when he professed his belief in the Bible.
Having introduced Mr. Davy to Mr. C. some years before, I inquired for
him with some anxiety, and expressed a hope that he was not tinctured
with the prevailing scepticism since his removal from Bristol to London.
Mr. C. assured me that he was not: that _his_ heart and understanding
were not the _soil_ for _infidelity_.[84] I then remarked, "During your
stay in London, you doubtless saw a great many of what are called 'the
cleverest men,' how do you estimate Davy, in comparison with these?" Mr.
Coleridge's reply was strong, but expressive. "Why, Davy could eat them
all! There is an energy, an elasticity in his mind, which enables him to
seize on, and analyze, all questions, pushing them to their legitimate
consequences. Every subject in Davy's mind has the principle of vitality.
Living thoughts spring up like the turf under his feet." With equal
justice, Mr. Davy entertained the same exalted opinion of Mr. Coleridge.
Mr. C. now changed the subject, and spoke of Holcroft; who he said was a
man of but small powers, with superficial, rather than solid talents, and
possessing principles of the most horrible description; a man who at the
very moment he denied the existence of a Deity, in his heart believed and
trembled. He said that Holcroft, and other Atheists, reasoned with so
much fierceness and vehemence against a God, that it plainly showed they
were inwardly conscious there _was_ a GOD to reason against; for, a
nonentity would never excite passion.
He said that in one of his visits to London, he accidentally met Holcroft
in a public office without knowing his name, when he began, stranger as
he was, the enforcement of some of his diabolical sentiments! which, it
appears, he was in the habit of doing, at all seasons, and in all
companies; by which he often corrupted the principles of those simple
persons who listened to his shallow, and worn-out impieties. Mr. C.
declared himself to have felt indignant at conduct so infamous, and at
once closed with the "prating atheist," when they had a sharp encounter.
Holcroft then abruptly addressed him, "I perceive you have _mind_, and
know what you are talking about. It will be worth while to make a convert
of _you_. I am engaged at present, but if you vrill call on me to-morrow
morning, giving him his card, I will engage, in half an hour, to convince
you there is no God!"
Mr. Coleridge called on him the next morning, when the discussion was
renewed, but none being present except the disputants, no account is
preserved of this important conversation; but Mr. C. affirmed that he
beat all his arguments to atoms; a result that none who knew him could
doubt. He also stated that instead of _his_ being converted to atheism,
the atheist himself, after his manner, was converted; for the same day he
sent Mr. C. a letter, saying his reasoning was so clear and satisfactory,
that he had changed his views and was now "_a theist_." The next sun
probably beheld him an atheist again; but whether he _called_ himself
this or that, his character was the same.
Soon after the foregoing incident, Mr. Coleridge said, he found himself
in a large party, at the house of a man of letters, amongst whom to his
surprise, he saw Mr. and Mrs. Holcroft, when, to incite to a renewal of
their late dispute, and before witnesses, (in the full consciousness of
strength) Mr. C. enforced the propriety of teaching children, as soon as
they could articulate, to lisp the praises of their Maker; "for," said
he, "though they can, form no correct idea of God, yet they entertain a
high opinion of their _father_, and it is an easy introduction to the
truth, to tell them that their Heavenly Father is stronger, and wiser,
and better, than their _earthly_ father."
The whole company looked at Mr. Holcroft, implying that _now_ was the
time for him to meet a competent opponent, and justify sentiments which
he had so often triumphantly advanced. They looked in vain. He
maintained, to their surprise, a total silence, well remembering the
severe castigation he had so recently received. But a very different
effect was produced on Mrs. Holcroft. She indignantly heard, and giving
vent to her passion and her _tears_, said, she was quite surprised at Mr.
Coleridge talking in that way before her, when he knew that both herself
and Mr. Holcroft were atheists!
Mr. C. spoke of the unutterable horror he felt, when Holcroft's son, a
boy eight years of age, came up to him and said, "There is no God!" So
that these wretched parents, alike father and mother, were as earnest in
inculcating atheism on their children, as christian parents are in
inspiring their offspring with respect for religious truth.
Actions are often the best illustration of principles. Mr. Coleridge also
stated the following circumstance, notorious at the time, as an evidence
of the disastrous effects of atheism. Holcroft's tyrannical conduct
toward his children was proverbial. An elder son, with a mind embued with
his father's sentiments, from extreme severity of treatment, had run away
from his paternal roof, and entered on board a ship. Holcroft pursued his
son, and when the fugitive youth saw his father in a boat, rowing toward
the vessel, rather than endure his frown and his chastisement, he seized
a pistol, and blew his brains out![85]
An easy transition having been made to the Bible, Mr. C. spoke of our
Saviour with an utterance so sublime and reverential, that none could
have heard him without experiencing an accession of love, gratitude, and
adorations to the Great Author of our salvation. He referred to the
Divinity of Christ, as a truth, incontestable to all who admitted the
inspiration, and consequent authority of Scripture. He particularly
alluded to the 6th of John, v. 15. "When Jesus perceived that they would
come and take him by force to make him a king, he departed again into a
mountain '_alone_.'" He said it characterized the low views, and
worldly-mindedness of the Jews, that, after they had seen the miracles of
Jesus Christ, and heard his heavenly doctrine, and had been told that his
kingdom was not of this world, they should think of conferring additional
honour on him, by making him their King! He departed from these little
views and scenes, _by night_, to a neighbouring mountain, and there, in
the spirit of _prescience_, meditated on his approaching crucifixion; on
that attendant guilt, which would bring on the Jews, wrath to the
uttermost, and terminate their impieties, by one million of their race
being swept from the face of the earth.
Mr. C. noticed Doddridge's works with great respect, particularly his
"Rise and Progress of Religion."[86] He thought favourably of Lord
Rochester's conversion as narrated by Burnet; spoke of Jeremy Taylor in
exalted terms, and thought the compass of his mind discovered itself in
none of his works more than in his "Life of Christ," extremely
miscellaneous as it was. He also expressed the strongest commendation of
Archbishop Leighton, whose talents were of the loftiest description, and
which were, at the same time, eminently combined with humility. He
thought Bishop Burnet's high character of Leighton justly deserved, and
that his whole conduct and spirit were more conformed to his Divine
Master, than almost any man on record.
I now proceed to say, it was with extreme reluctance that the Unitarians
in Bristol resigned their champion, especially as other defections had
recently occurred in their community, and that among the more
intellectual portion of their friends. Although the expectation might be
extravagant, they still cherished the hope, however languid, that Mr. C.
after some oscillations, would once more bestow on them his suffrage; but
an occurrence took place, which dissipated the last vestige of this hope,
and formed between them a permanent wall of separation.
Mr. Coleridge was lecturing in Bristol, surrounded by a numerous
audience, when, in referring to the "Paradise Regained," he said that
Milton had clearly represented Satan, as a "sceptical Socinian." This was
regarded as a direct and undisguised declaration of war. It so happened
that indisposition prevented me from attending that lecture, but I
received from Mr. C. directly after, a letter, in which he thus writes:
"... Mr. ---- I find is raising the city against me, as far as he and his
friends can, for having stated a mere matter of fact; viz. that Milton
had represented Satan as a sceptical Socinian; which is the case; and I
could not have explained the excellence of the sublimest single passage
in all his writings, had I not previously informed the audience, that
Milton had represented Satan, as knowing the Prophetic and Messianic
character of Christ, but was sceptical as to any higher claims. And what
other definition could Mr. ---- himself give of a sceptical Socinian?
(with this difference indeed, that Satan's faith somewhat exceeded that
of Socinians.) Now that Satan has done so, will you consult 'Paradise
Regained,' Book IV. from line 196, and the same Book, from line 500."
It is of consequence that Mr. Coleridge's _later_ sentiments on the
subject of Socinianism should be given; but as I had no opportunity of
ascertaining what those sentiments were, it was satisfactory to learn
from the testimony of Mr. C.'s "Table Talk,"[87] that his last and
maturest opinions were, to the fullest, confirmatory of those expressed
by him in these pages.
The following letter was written by Mr. Coleridge, to Mr. George Fricker,
his brother-in-law; it is believed in 1807. Mr. F. died 1828; pious and
respected.
"Saturday afternoon.
My dear young friend,
I am sorry that you should have felt any delicacy in disclosing to me
your religious feelings, as rendering it inconsistent with your
tranquillity of mind to spend the Sunday evening with me. Though I do not
find in that book, which we both equally revere, any command, either
express, or which I can infer, which leads me to attach any criminality
to cheerful and innocent social intercourse on the Lord's day; though I
do not find that it was in the least degree forbidden to the Jews on
their Sabbath; and though I have been taught by Luther, and the great
founders of the Church of England, that the Sabbath was a part of the
ceremonial and transitory parts of the law given by heaven to Moses; and
that our Sunday is binding on our consciences, chiefly from its manifest
and most awful usefulness, and indeed moral necessity; yet I highly
commend your firmness in what you think right, and assure you solemnly,
that I esteem you greatly for it. I would much rather that you should
have too much, than an atom too little. I am far from surprised that,
having seen what you have seen, and suffered what you have suffered, you
should have opened your soul to a sense of our fallen nature; and the
incapability of man to heal himself. My opinions may not be in all points
the same as yours; but I have experienced a similar alteration. I was for
many years a Socinian; and at times almost a Naturalist, but sorrow, and
ill health, and disappointment in the only deep wish I had ever
cherished, forced me to look into myself; I read the New Testament again,
and I became fully convinced, that Socinianism was not only not the
doctrine of the New Testament, but that it scarcely deserved the name of
a religion in any sense. An extract from a letter which I wrote a few
months ago to a sceptical friend, who had been a Socinian, and of course
rested all the evidences of christianity on miracles, to the exclusion of
grace and inward faith, will perhaps, surprise you, as showing you how
much nearer our opinions are than what you must have supposed. 'I fear
that the mode of defending christianity, adopted by Grotius first; and
latterly, among many others, by Dr. Paley, has increased the number of
infidels;--never could it have been so great, if thinking men had been
habitually led to look into their own souls, instead of always looking
out, both of themselves, and of their nature. If to curb attack, such as
yours on miracles, it had been answered:--"Well, brother! but granting
these miracles to have been in part the growth of delusion at the time,
and of exaggeration afterward, yet still all the doctrines will remain
untouched by this circumstance, and binding on thee. Still mast thou
repent and be regenerated, and be crucified to the flesh; and this not by
thy own mere power; but by a mysterious action of the moral Governor on
thee; of the Ordo-ordinians, the Logos, or Word. Still will the eternal
filiation, or Sonship of the Word from the Father; still will the Trinity
of the Deity, the redemption, and the thereto necessary assumption of
humanity by the Word, 'who is with God, and is God,' remain truths: and
still will the vital head-and-heart FAITH in these truths, be the living
and only fountain of all true virtue. Believe all these, and with the
grace of the spirit consult your own heart, in quietness and humility,
they will furnish you with proofs, that surpass all understanding,
because they are felt and known; believe all these I say, so as that thy
faith shall be not merely real in the acquiescence of the intellect; but
actual, in the thereto assimilated affections; then shalt thou KNOW from
God, whether or not Christ be of God. But take notice, I only say, the
miracles are extra essential; I by no means deny their importance, much
less hold them useless, or superfluous. Even as Christ did, so would I
teach; that is, build the miracle on the faith, not the faith on the
miracle."