My remarks on this Aphorism from Leighton cannot be better introduced,
or their purport more distinctly announced, than by the following
sentence from Harrington, with no other change than was necessary to
make the words express, without aid of the context, what from the
context it is evident was the writer's meaning. "The definition and
proper character of Man--that, namely, which should contra-distinguish
him from the Animals--is to be taken from his reason rather than from
his understanding: in regard that in other creatures there may be
something of understanding, but there is nothing of reason."[88]
Sir Thomas Browne, in his _Religio Medici_, complains, that there are
not impossibilities enough in Religion for his active faith; and
adopts by choice and in free preference, such interpretations of
certain texts and declarations of Holy Writ, as place them in
irreconcilable contradiction to the demonstrations of science
and the experience of mankind, because (says he) "I love to lose
myself in a mystery, and 'tis my solitary recreation to pose my
apprehension with those involved enigmas and riddles of the Trinity and
Incarnation;"--and because he delights (as thinking it no vulgar part
of faith) to believe a thing not only above but contrary to reason,
and against the evidence of our proper senses. For the worthy knight
could answer all the objections of the devil and reason "with the odd
resolution he had learnt of Tertullian: _Certum est quia impossibile
est_. It is certainly true because it is quite impossible!" Now this I
call ULTRAFIDIANISM.[89]
Again, there is a scheme constructed on the principle of retaining the
social sympathies, that attend on the name of Believer, at the least
possible expenditure of Belief; a scheme of picking and choosing
Scripture texts for the support of doctrines, that had been learned
beforehand from the higher oracle of Common Sense; which, as applied
to the truths of Religion, means the popular part of the philosophy in
fashion. Of course, the scheme differs at different times and in
different individuals in the number of articles excluded; but, it may
always be recognized by this permanent character, that its object is
to draw religion down to the believer's intellect, instead of raising
his intellect up to religion. And this extreme I call MINIMIFIDIANISM.
Now if there be one preventive of both these extremes more efficacious
than another, and preliminary to all the rest, it is the being made
fully aware of the diversity of Reason and Understanding. And this is
the more expedient, because though there is no want of authorities
ancient and modern for the distinction of the faculties, and the
distinct appropriation of the terms, yet our best writers too often
confound the one with the other. Even Lord Bacon himself, who in his
_Novum Organum_ has so incomparably set forth the nature of the
difference, and the unfitness of the latter faculty for the objects of
the former, does nevertheless in sundry places use the term Reason
where he means the Understanding, and sometimes, though less
frequently, Understanding for Reason.[93] In consequence of thus
confounding the two terms, or rather of wasting both words for the
expression of one and the same faculty, he left himself no appropriate
term for the other and higher gift of Reason, and was thus under the
necessity of adopting fantastical and mystical phrases, for example,
the dry light (_lumen siccum_), the lucific vision, and the like,
meaning thereby nothing more than Reason in contra-distinction from
the Understanding. Thus too in the preceding Aphorism, by Reason
Leighton means the human Understanding, the explanation annexed to it
being (by a noticeable coincidence), word for word, the very
definition which the founder of the Critical Philosophy gives of the
Understanding--namely, "the faculty judging according to sense."
[88] See 'The Friend,' vol. i., p. 263; or p. 95 in Bohn's one vol.
edition; and 'The Statesman's Manual,' Appendix (Note C.).--ED.
[89] There is this advantage in the occasional use of a newly minted
term or title, expressing the doctrinal schemes of particular sects or
parties, that it avoids the inconvenience that presses on either side,
whether we adopt the name which the party itself has taken up by which
to express its peculiar tenets, or that by which the same party is
designated by its opponents. If we take the latter, it most often
happens that either the persons are invidiously aimed at in the
designation of the principles, or that the name implies some
consequence or occasional accompaniment of the principles denied by
the parties themselves, as applicable to them collectively. On the
other hand, convinced as I am, that current appellations are never
wholly indifferent or inert; and that, when employed to express the
characteristic belief or object of a _religious_ confederacy, they
exert on the many a great and constant, though insensible, influence;
I cannot but fear that in adopting the former I may be sacrificing the
interests of Truth beyond what the duties of courtesy can demand or
justify. I have elsewhere stated my objections to the word
_Unitarians_: as a name which in its proper sense can belong only to
the maintainers of the truth impugned by the persons, who have chosen
it as their designation. For _Unity_ or Unition, and indistinguishable
_Unicity_ or Sameness, are incompatible terms. We never speak of the
unity of attraction, or the unity of repulsion; but of the unity of
attraction _and_ repulsion in each corpuscle. Indeed, the essential
diversity of the conceptions, Unity and Sameness, was among the
elementary principles of the old logicians; and Leibnitz, in his
critique on Wissowatius, has ably exposed the sophisms grounded on the
confusion of the two terms. But in the exclusive sense, in which the
name, Unitarian, is appropriated by the sect, and in which they mean
it to be understood, it is a presumptuous boast, and an uncharitable
calumny. No one of the Churches to which they on this article of the
Christian Faith stand opposed, Greek or Latin, ever adopted the term,
Trini--or Tri-uni-tarians as their ordinary and proper name: and had
it been otherwise, yet Unity is assuredly no logical Opposite to
Tri-unity, which expressly includes it. The triple alliance is _a
fortiori_ alliance. The true designation of their characteristic
Tenet, and which would simply and inoffensively express a fact
admitted on all sides, is Psilanthropism, or the assertion of the
_mere_ humanity of Christ.[90]
I dare not hesitate to avow my regret, that any scheme of doctrines or
tenets should be the subject of penal law: though I can easily
conceive, that any scheme, however excellent in itself, may be
propagated, and however false or injurious, may be assailed, in a
manner and by means that would make the advocate or assailant justly
punishable. But then it is the _manner_, the _means_, that constitute
the _crime_. The merit or demerit of the opinions themselves depends
on their originating and determining causes, which may differ in every
different believer, and are certainly known to Him alone, who
commanded us, _Judge not, lest ye be judged_. At all events, in the
present state of the law, I do not see where we can begin, or where we
can stop, without inconsistency and consequent hardship. Judging by
all that _we_ can pretend to know or are entitled to infer, who among
us will take on himself to deny that the late Dr. Priestley was a good
and benevolent man, as sincere in his love, as he was intrepid and
indefatigable in his pursuit, of truth? Now let us construct three
parallel tables, the first containing the Articles of Belief, moral
and theological, maintained by the venerable Hooker, as the
representative of the Established Church, each article being
distinctly lined and numbered; the second the Tenets and Persuasions
of Lord Herbert, as the representative of the platonizing Deists; and
the third, those of Dr. Priestley. Let the points, in which the second
and third agree with or differ from the first, be considered as to the
comparative number modified by the comparative weight and importance
of the several points--and let any competent and upright man be
appointed the arbiter, to decide according to his best judgment,
without any reference to the truth of the opinions, which of the two
differed from the first the more widely. I say this, well aware that
it would be abundantly more prudent to leave it unsaid. But I say it
in the conviction, that the _liberality_ in the adoption of admitted
_misnomers_ in the naming of doctrinal systems, if only they have been
negatively legalized, is but an equivocal proof of liberality towards
the _persons_ who dissent from us. On the contrary, I more than
suspect that the former liberality does in too many men arise from a
latent pre-disposition to transfer their reprobation and intolerance
from the doctrines to the doctors, from the belief to the believers.
Indecency, abuse, scoffing on subjects dear and awful to a multitude
of our fellow-citizens, appeals to the vanity, appetites, and
malignant passions of ignorant and incompetent judges--these are
flagrant overt-acts, condemned by the law written in the heart of
every honest man, Jew, Turk, and Christian. These are points
respecting which the humblest honest man feels it his duty to hold
himself infallible, and dares not hesitate in giving utterance to the
verdict of his conscience, in the jury-box as fearlessly as by his
fireside. It is far otherwise with respect to matters of faith and
inward conviction: and with respect to _these_ I say--Tolerate no
Belief, that you judge false and of injurious tendency: and arraign no
Believer. The Man is more and other than his Belief: and God only
knows, how small or how large a part of him the Belief in question may
be, for good or for evil. Resist every false doctrine: and call no man
heretic. The false doctrine does not necessarily make the man a
heretic; but an evil heart can make any doctrine heretical.
Actuated by these principles, I have objected to a false and deceptive
designation in the case of one System. Persuaded that the doctrines,
enumerated in pp. 130-132, are not only _essential_ to the Christian
Religion, but those which contra-distinguish the religion as
_Christian_, I merely _repeat_ this persuasion in another form, when I
assert, that (in _my_ sense of the word, Christian) Unitarianism is
not Christianity. But do I say, that those, who call themselves
Unitarians, are not Christians? God forbid! I would not think, much
less promulgate, a judgment at once so presumptuous and so
uncharitable.[91] Let a friendly antagonist retort on _my_ scheme of
faith, in the like manner: I shall respect him all the more for his
consistency as a reasoner, and not confide the less in his kindness
towards me as his neighbour and fellow-Christian. This latter and most
endearing name I scarcely know how to withhold even from my friend,
HYMAN HURWITZ, as often as I read what every Reverer of Holy Writ and
of the English Bible ought to read, his admirable VINDICIÆ HEBRAICÆ!
It has trembled on the verge, as it were, of my lips, every time I
have conversed with that pious, learned, strong-minded, and
single-hearted Jew, an Israelite indeed, and without guile,--
_Cujus cura, sequi naturam, legibus uti,
Et mentem vitiis, ora negare dolis;
Virtutes opibus, verum præponere falso
Nil vacuum sensu dicere, nil facere._
Post obitum vivam[92] secum, secum requiescam,
Nec fiat melior sors mea sorte suâ!
_From a poem of Hildebert on his Master,
the persecuted Berengarius._
Under the same feelings I conclude this _Aid to Reflection_ by
applying the principle to another misnomer not less inappropriate and
far more influential. Of those whom I have found most reason to
respect and value, many have been members of the Church of Rome: and
certainly I did not honour those the least, who scrupled even in
common parlance to call our Church a reformed Church. A similar
scruple would not, methinks, disgrace a Protestant as to the use of
the words, Catholic or Roman Catholic; and if (tacitly at least, and
in thought) he remembered that the Romish Anti-catholic Church would
more truly express the fact.--_Romish_, to mark that the corruptions
in discipline, doctrine, and practice do, for the larger part, owe
both their origin and perpetuation to the Romish _Court_, and the
local Tribunals of the _City_ of Rome; and neither are or ever have
been _Catholic_, that is, universal, throughout the Roman _Empire_, or
even in the whole Latin or Western Church--and _Anti_-catholic,
because no other Church acts on so narrow and excommunicative a
principle, or is characterized by such a jealous spirit of monopoly.
Instead of a Catholic (universal) spirit, it may be truly described as
a spirit of Particularism counterfeiting Catholicity by a _negative_
totality and heretical self-circumscription--in the first instances
cutting off, and since then cutting herself off from, all the other
members of Christ's body. For the rest, I think as that man of true
catholic spirit and apostolic zeal, Richard Baxter, thought; and my
readers will thank me for conveying my reflections in his own words,
in the following golden passage from his Life, "faithfully published
from his own original MSS. by Matthew Silvester, 1696."
"My censures of the Papists do much differ from what they were at
first. I then thought that their errors in the _doctrines of faith_
were their most dangerous mistakes. But now I am assured that their
misexpressions and misunderstanding us, with our mistakings of them
and inconvenient expressing of our own opinions, have made the
difference in most points appear much greater than it is; and that in
some it is next to none at all. But the great and unreconcileable
differences lie in their Church Tyranny; in the usurpations of their
Hierarchy, and Priesthood, under the name of spiritual authority
exercising a temporal Lordship; in their corruptions and abasement of
God's Worship; but above all their systematic befriending of Ignorance
and Vice.
"At first I thought that Mr. Perkins well proved, that a Papist cannot
go beyond a reprobate; but now I doubt not that God hath many
sanctified ones among them, who have received the true doctrine of
Christianity so practically, that their contradictory errors prevail
not against them, to hinder their love of God and their salvation: but
that their errors are like a conquerable dose of poison, which a
healthful nature doth overcome. _And I can never believe that a man
may not be saved by that religion, which doth but bring him to the
true Love of God and to a heavenly mind and life; nor that God will
ever cast a Soul into hell, that truly loveth him._ Also at first it
would disgrace any doctrine with me, if I did but hear it called
Popery and Anti-Christian; but I have long learned to be more
impartial, and to know that Satan can use even the names of Popery and
Antichrist, to bring a truth into suspicion and discredit."--Baxter's
Life, part I. p. 131.
[90] See the second 'Lay Sermon,' Bohn's edition, pp. 406-7.--ED.
[91] See Coleridge's 'Table Talk,' April 4, 1832, On
Unitarianism.--ED.
[92] I do not answer for the corrupt Latin.
[93] See 'The Friend,' Bohn's edition, pp. 95-100, and 319-27.--ED.