PART III.

'In initio'.

I strongly suspect that this third part, which ought not to have been

thus conjoined with Bunyan's work, was written by a Roman Catholic

priest, for the very purpose of counteracting the doctrine of faith so

strongly enforced in the genuine Progress.

Ib. p. 443, in Edwards.

Against all which evils fasting is the proper remedy.

It would have been well if the writer had explained exactly what he

meant by the fasting, here so strongly recommended; during what period

of time abstinence from food is to continue and so on. The effects, I

imagine, must in good measure depend on the health of the individual. In

some constitutions, fasting so disorders the stomach as to produce the

very contrary of good;--confusion of mind, loose imaginations against

the man's own will, and the like.

'In fine'.

One of the most influential arguments, one of those the force of which I

feel even more than I see, for the divinity of the New Testament, and

with especial weight in the writings of John and Paul, is the

unspeakable difference between them and all other the earliest extant

writings of the Christian Church, even those of the same age (as, for

example, the Epistle of Barnabas,) or of the next following,--a

difference that transcends all degree, and is truly a difference in

kind. Nay, the catalogue of the works written by the Reformers and in

the two centuries after the Reformation, contain many many volumes far

superior in Christian light and unction to the best of the Fathers. How

poor and unevangelic is Hermas in comparison with our Pilgrim's

Progress!

[Footnote 1: P. 98, &c. of the edition by Murray and Major, 1830 Ed.]

[Footnote 2: See 'ante'. Ed.]

[Footnote 3: Prefixed to an edition of the Pilgrim's Progress, by R.

Edwards, 1820. Ed.]

[Footnote 4: The second of two 'Letters written to persons under trouble

of mind.' Ed.]

[Footnote 5: Sermon of the certainty and perpetuity of faith in the

elect. Vol. iii. p. 583. Keale's edit. Ed.]

NOTES ON SELECT DISCOURSES BY JOHN SMITH. [1]

It would make a delightful and instructive essay, to draw up a critical

and (where possible) biographical account of the Latitudinarian party at

Cambridge, from the close of the reign of James I to the latter half of

Charles II.

The greater number were Platonists, so called at least, and such they

believed themselves to be, but more truly Plotinists. Thus Cudworth, Dr.

Jackson (chaplain of Charles I, and vicar of Newcastle-on-Tyne), Henry

More, this John Smith, and some others. Taylor was a Gassendist, or

'inter Epicureos evangelizantes', and, as far as I know, he is the only

exception.

They were all alike admirers of Grotius, which in Jeremy Taylor was

consistent with the tone of his philosophy. The whole party, however,

and a more amiable never existed, were scared and disgusted into this by

the catachrestic language and skeleton half-truths of the systematic

divines of the Synod of Dort on the one hand, and by the sickly

broodings of the Pietists and Solomon's-Song preachers on the other.

What they all wanted was a pre-inquisition into the mind, as part organ,

part constituent, of all knowledge, an examination of the scales,

weights and measures themselves abstracted from the objects to be

weighed or measured by them; in short, a transcendental æsthetic, logic,

and noetic. Lord Herbert was at the entrance of, nay, already some paces

within, the shaft and adit of the mine, but he turned abruptly back, and

the honour of establishing a complete [Greek: propaideía] of philosophy

was reserved for Immanuel Kant, a century or more afterwards.

From the confounding of Plotinism with Platonism, the Latitudinarian

divines fell into the mistake of finding in the Greek philosophy many

anticipations of the Christian Faith, which in fact were but its echoes.

The inference is as perilous as inevitable, namely, that even the

mysteries of Christianity needed no revelation, having been previously

discovered and set forth by unaided reason.

...

The argument from the mere universality of the belief, appears to me far

stronger in favour of a surviving soul and a state after death, than for

the existence of the Supreme Being. In the former, it is one doctrine in

the Englishman and in the Hottentot; the differences are accidents not

affecting the subject, otherwise than as different seals would affect

the same wax, though Molly, the maid, used her thimble, and Lady

'Virtuosa' an 'intaglio' of the most exquisite workmanship.

Far otherwise in the latter. 'Mumbo Jumbo', or the 'cercocheronychous

Nick-Senior', or whatever score or score thousand invisible huge men

fear and fancy engender in the brain of ignorance to be hatched by the

nightmare of defenceless and self-conscious weakness--these are not the

same as, but are 'toto genere' diverse from, the 'una et unica

substantia' of Spinosa, or the World-God of the Stoics.

And each of these again is as diverse from the living Lord God, the

creator of heaven and earth. Nay, this equivoque on God is as

mischievous as it is illogical: it is the sword and buckler of Deism.

OF THE EXISTENCE AND NATURE OF GOD.

Besides, when we review our own immortal souls and their dependency

upon some Almighty mind, we know that we neither did nor could produce

ourselves, and withal know that all that power which lies within the

compass of ourselves will serve for no other purpose than to apply

several pre-existent things one to another, from whence all

generations and mutations arise, which are nothing else but the events

of different applications and complications of bodies that were

existent before; and therefore that which produced that substantial

life and mind by which we know ourselves, must be something much more

mighty than we are, and can be no less indeed than omnipotent, and

must also be the first architect and [Greek: daemiourgòs] of all other

beings, and the perpetual supporter of them.

A Rhodian leap! Where our knowledge of a cause is derived from our

knowledge of the effect, which is falsely (I think) here supposed,

nothing can be logically, that is, apodeictically, inferred, but the

adequacy of the former to the latter. The mistake, common to Smith, with

a hundred other writers, arises out of an equivocal use of the word

'know.' In the scientific sense, as implying insight, and which ought to

be the sense of the word in this place, we might be more truly said to

know the soul by God, than to know God by the soul.

...

So the Sibyl was noted by Heraclitus as [Greek: mainomén_o stómati

gelastà kaì akall_ópista phtheggoménae] 'as one speaking ridiculous

and unseemly speeches with her furious mouth.'

This fragment is misquoted and misunderstood: for--[Greek: gelastà] it

should be [Greek: amuristà]. unperfumed, inornate lays, not redolent of

art.--Render it thus:

... Not her's

To win the sense by words of rhetoric,

Lip-blossoms breathing perishable sweets;

But by the power of the informing Word

Roll sounding onward through a thousand years

Her deep prophetic bodements.

[Greek: Stómati mainomén_o] is with ecstatic mouth.

...

If the ascetic virtues, or disciplinary exercises, derived from the

schools of philosophy (Pythagorean, Platonic and Stoic) were carried to

an extreme in the middle ages, it is most certain that they are at

present in a far more grievous disproportion underrated and neglected.

The 'regula maxima' of the ancient [Greek: askaesis] was to conquer the

body by abstracting the attention from it. Our maxim is to conciliate

the body by attending to it, and counteracting or precluding one set of

sensations by another, the servile dependence of the mind on the body

remaining the same. Instead of the due subservience of the body to the

mind (the favorite language of our Sidneys and Miltons) we hear nothing

at present but of health, good digestion, pleasurable state of general

feeling, and the like.

[Footnote 1: Of Queen's College, Cambridge, 1660.]

TO ADAM STEINMETZ K------. [1]

MY DEAR GODCHILD,

I offer up the same fervent prayer for you now, as I did kneeling before

the altar, when you were baptized into Christ, and solemnly received as

a living member of His spiritual body, the Church.

Years must pass before you will be able to read with an understanding

heart what I now write; but I trust that the all-gracious God, the

Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, who, by his only

begotten Son, (all mercies in one sovereign mercy!) has redeemed you

from the evil ground, and willed you to be born out of darkness, but

into light--out of death, but into life--out of sin, but into

righteousness, even into the 'Lord our Righteousness'; I trust that He

will graciously hear the prayers of your dear parents, and be with you

as the spirit of health and growth in body and mind.

My dear Godchild!--You received from Christ's minister at the baptismal

font, as your Christian name, the name of a most dear friend of your

father's, and who was to me even as a son, the late Adam Steinmetz,

whose fervent aspiration and ever-paramount aim, even from early youth,

was to be a Christian in thought, word, and deed--in will, mind, and

affections.

I too, your Godfather, have known what the enjoyments and advantages of

this life are, and what the more refined pleasures which learning and

intellectual power can bestow; and with all the experience which more

than threescore years can give, I now, on the eve of my departure,

declare to you (and earnestly pray that you may hereafter live and act

on the conviction) that health is a great blessing,--competence obtained

by honorable industry a great blessing,--and a great blessing it is to

have kind, faithful, and loving friends and relatives; but that the

greatest of all blessings, as it is the most ennobling of all

privileges, is to be indeed a Christian. But I have been likewise,

through a large portion of my later life, a sufferer, sorely afflicted

with bodily pains, languors, and bodily infirmities; and, for the last

three or four years, have, with few and brief intervals, been confined

to a sick-room, and at this moment, in great weakness and heaviness,

write from a sick-bed, hopeless of a recovery, yet without prospect of a

speedy recovery; and I, thus on the very brink of the grave, solemnly

bear witness to you that the Almighty Redeemer, most gracious in His

promises to them that truly seek Him, is faithful to perform what He

hath promised, and has preserved, under all my pains and infirmities,

the inward peace that passeth all understanding, with the supporting

assurance of a reconciled God, who will not withdraw His Spirit from me

in the conflict, and in His own time will deliver me from the Evil One!

O, my dear Godchild! eminently blessed are those who begin early to

seek, fear, and love their God, trusting wholly in the righteousness and

mediation of their Lord, Redeemer, Saviour, and everlasting High Priest,

Jesus Christ!

O, preserve this as a legacy and bequest from your unseen Godfather and

friend,

S. T. COLERIDGE.

July 13, 1834. [2]

[Footnote 1: See 'ante', p. 291. Ed.]

[Footnote 2: He died on the 25th day of the same month.]

END OF VOL. III.

CORRIGENDA.

Pages 32, 33, insert _men_ between the pages.

Page 41. N. after _see post_, add _Vol. IV._

330, line 7 from bottom, _for_ result _read_ rennet.

The Literary Remains of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Volume 3 · 第 3 / 3 章