« ПредишнаНапред »
other nation. In common times, indeed, pecuniary interest will prevail, and prevent a ruinous exercise of the power which the nation supplying the necessary must have over the nation which has only the convenience or luxury to return; but such interest, both in individuals and nations, will yield to many stronger passions. Is Holland any authority to the contrary? If so, Tyre and Sidon and Carthage were so ! Would you put England on a footing with a country, which can be overrun in a campaign, and starved in a year?
The entire tendency of the modern or Malthusian political economy is to denationalize. It would dig up the charcoal foundations of the temple of Ephesus to burn as fuel for a steam-engine !
June 21. 1834.
MR. — in his poem, makes trees coeval with Chaos ; — which is next door to Hans Sachse *, who, in describing Chaos, said it was so pitchy dark that even the very cats ran against each other!
June 23. 1834.
SOCINIANISM. – UNITARIANISM. – FANCY
Faustus Socinus worshipped Jesus Christ, and said that God had given him the power of being omnipresent. Davidi, with a little more acuteness, urged that mere audition or creaturely presence could not possibly
* Hans Sachse was born 1494, and died 1576. –
justify worship from men; — that a man, how glorified soever, was no nearer God in essence than the vulgarest of the race. Prayer, therefore, was inapplicable. And how could a man be a mediator between God and man? How could a man with sins himself offer any compensation for, or expiation of, sin, unless the most arbitrary caprice were admitted into the counsels of God? — And so, at last, you see, it was discovered by the better logicians amongst the Socinians, that there was no such thing as sin at all.
My faith is this:- God is the Absolute Will: It is his Name and the meaning of it. It is the Hypostasis. As begetting his own Alterity, the Jehovah, the Manifested — He is the Father; but the Love and the Life the Spirit — proceeds from both.
I think Priestley must be considered the author of the modern Unitarianism. I owe, under God, my return to the faith, to my having gone much further than the Unitarians, and so having come round to the
other side. I can truly say, I never falsified the Scripture. I always told them that their interpretations of the Scripture were intolerable upon any principles of sound criticism; and that, if they were to offer to construe the will of a neighbour as they did that of their Maker, they would be scouted out of society. I said then plainly and openly, that it was clear enough that John and Paul were not Unitarians. But at that time I had a strong sense of the repugnancy of the doctrine of vicarious atonement to the moral being, and I thought nothing could counterbalance that. " What care I,” I said, “ for the Platonisms of John, or the Rabbinisms of Paul ? - My conscience revolts !” That was the ground of my Unitarianism.
Always believing in the government of God, I was a fervent Optimist. But as I could not but see that the present state of things was not the best, I was necessarily led to look forward to some future state.
You may conceive the difference in kind between the Fancy and the Imagination in this way, — that if the check of the senses and the reason were withdrawn, the first would become delirium, and the last mania. The Fancy brings together images which have no connection natural or moral, but are yoked together by the poet by means of some accidental coincidence; as in the wellknown passage in Hudibras:
“ The sun had long since in the lap
Of Thetis taken out his nap,
The Imagination modifies images, and gives unity to variety; it sees all things in one, il più nell' uno. There is the epic imagination, the perfection of which is in Milton; and the dramatic, of which Shakspeare is the absolute master. The first gives unity by throwing back into the distance; as after the magnifi
* Part II. c. 2. v. 29.