against theories which many of his disciples have eagerly and unsuspectingly adopted.

We shall, perhaps, be accused of bigotry, and considered to evince an absolute deficiency in the first elements of the philosophical spirit, when we express our persuasion that the earlier habits of Mr. Coleridge's mind were not of such a description as should induce us to look on him with confidence as a Christian teacher. We refer to a passage in the present volume, in which the editor says that Coleridge

"From the time that he rose out of the suspense and uncertainty as to his theological system, which caused him to seek for a while a recess with the Unitarians, (whom he found, however, quite as dogmatic in their narrow creed as the Church in her wider one,) when the elements of faith were for his mind in a sort of chaos that was yet to be shaped by reason, divinely illumined, into a spiritual world- -was from this time forth a defender of historical Christianity."-p. 255.

From this statement it appears that Coleridge began as a sceptic, then took refuge with the Unitarians, whom, however, he did not find sufficiently liberal for him, (whether on the subject of the inspiration of Scripture, or no, we cannot say,) and then was guided by Reason-divinely illumined Reason-to the choice of religious views. We do not read that he was guided by God's Holy Scripture, or by the instructions of God's Church. His system was formed by Řeason, by philosophy, which was supposed to be divinely guided. If, however, this representation of Coleridge's views, as given by the editor of the volume before us, be correct, as it doubtless is, we cannot much wonder at finding him so readily receiving the opinions of Lessing on revelation. These opinions, with certain additions of his own, he embodied in the "Confessions of an Enquiring Spirit," which is written in the form of letters to a friend. We learn, from Archdeacon Hare's Biography of Sterling, p. cxxix., that those "Confessions, though they were not printed till after Coleridge's death, had been written many years before; he kept them back with the purpose of adding the half which is still wanting to complete the argument." But it appears, from the same place, that his friends were permitted to read these Confessions, and to transcribe them; and that Sterling "adopted the views concerning inspiration expressed in them, deeming those views, as Coleridge did, to be thoroughly compatible with a deep and lively Christian faith, and with a full reception of all that is essential in the doctrines of our Church."

We now proceed to compare the "Confessions of an Enquiring Spirit" with Lessing's views, as above stated.

Coleridge begins his "Seven Letters" by proposing for consi

deration two questions, of which the first is this:-" Is it necessary, or expedient, to insist on the belief of the divine origin and authority of all and every part of the canonical books as the condition, or first principle, of Christian faith?"-p. 2.

After stating (as is usual in works adverse to existing creeds), his intense love of truth, and his feeling that he should be a happier and more useful man if he could avoid penetrating to the root of subjects; but that he cannot help seeking for light, even if it made its way in through a rent in the wall of the temple; while, on the other hand, he is happy to state that he only finds the light absent in one or two side-chapels not essential to the edifice, and probably not coeval with it-having thus prepared the way, he further lays down the articles of his faith, in which he includes a number of the principal Christian tenets; and in all these points he observes, that his faith "is serene, unclouded by a doubt." "But," he proceeds, "there is a Book, of two parts, each part consisting of several books." He acknowledges that he has "a strong and awful prepossession in its favour." But he will not leave it in the power of unbelievers to say, that the Bible is for him only what the Koran is for the deaf Turk, and the Vedas for the feeble and acquiescent Hindoo. No; he will retire up into the mountain, and hold secret converse with his Bible, above the contagious blastments of prejudice, and the fog-blight of selfish superstition."-p. 9.

Having got above these "blastments" and "fog-lights," Coleridge declares that "the Word that was from the beginning,' "the Light of which light itself is but the Shechinah,"-is given to every man ;" and that, "if any difference appears between this inner light or Word, and the written letter or Scripture, he will "be thankful for what he has-and wait."

66

So far we have these principles laid down :-that the Christian faith is something which stands by itself, distinct from the Scriptures; that there is an inward light, a kind of inspiration given to every individual; and that, if the teaching of this inward light appears to differ from Scripture, we are not bound at once to submit to Scripture.

He observes next, that he has perused the Bible with these feelings; and that he has "met every where more or less copious sources of truth, and power, and purifying impulses—that he has found words for his inmost thoughts, songs for his joy, other causes for his hidden griefs, and pleadings for his shame and feebleness." In short, whatever "finds him [or meets his own feelings and wants] bears witness for itself, that it has proceeded from a Holy Spirit, even from the same Spirit, "which, remaining

in itself, yet regenerateth all other persons, and in all ages entering into holy souls, maketh them friends of God, and prophets (Wisd. vii.)"-p. 11.

Thus the authority of God's word-of the Holy Scriptures-is determined wholly and entirely by its accordance with the supposed inner light or Word in each individual. It is only if, and where, Scripture concurs with the deductions of this inner light (which, of course, cannot be distinguished practically from the reason and feelings), that it is to be recognized as divine. As he remarks afterwards, "whatever finds me" (that is, gives expression to my deepest feelings and thoughts, pp. 10, 11,) brings with it an irresistible evidence of its having proceeded from the Holy Spirit."-p. 13.

Thus the evidence of divine truth existing in the Holy Scripture is entirely founded on its agreement with our own convictions, independently of Scripture. Truths in Scripture are believed to have proceeded from the Holy Ghost, because the Spirit of God has already taught them to us. So that the Scripture has no authority except so far as it meets our judgment. When it does not do this, it is without any evidence of divinity.

Accordingly, in perfect consistence with this principle, Coleridge goes on to state that there is a doctrine with regard to Scripture which "startles his belief." (p. 12.) This doctrine, in short, requires him to believe, that "not only what finds me [that is, not only what agrees with my divinely-inspired and, to me, infallible reason], "but that all that exists in the sacred volume, and which I am bound to find therein, was not alone inspired by, that is, composed by man under the actuating influence of the Holy Spirit [which, on Coleridge's principles, would not invest them with any authority over others, because the eternal word and light is given to every one alike]; but likewise dictated by an infallible intelligence; that the writers, each and all of them, were divinely informed as well as inspired. Now here all evasion, all excuse, is cut off."-pp. 13, 14.

This doctrine Coleridge rejects and contends against. He will acknowledge that Scripture contains divine truth, because his inward light or reason tells him so; but he will not admit that Scripture is infallible—that is to say, he holds that it is not the Word of God in any other sense than as the persuasions of each individual's mind are the word of God. He will not admit that the individual judgment or reason is bound to submit to scriptural authority. He objects to any view of Scripture inspiration which gives it authority and control over REASON, which he supposes to be just as divinely inspired as Scripture itself.

Our object in these remarks is to ascertain and describe the

doctrine of Coleridge, not to enter into any discussion of the arguments on which he founds his views; and therefore we shall pass over much in his volume which is deserving of notice, as supplying the usual arguments against scriptural authority, grounded on the difficulties about the formation of the Canon; the alleged absence of any sufficient declaration in Scripture itself, and the petitio principii which would be involved in alleging any such proof; the impossibility of admitting any modified view of inspiration, or allowing that the language of Scripture can be, in any degree or respect, otherwise than infallible, if its infallibility be admitted as an inspired book. His interpretation of St. Paul's language, 2 Tim. iii. 16, is, that the Old Testament collectively was inspired; but that we are not to understand the Apostle to speak of every part of the Old Testament. (pp. 26-28.) He endeavours to put the same interpretation on our Lord's own references to the Old Testament. His objection to consider the Bible inspired (in the Christian sense of the term) is, that such a doctrine "petrifies at once the whole body of Holy Writ with all its harmonious and symmetrical gradations, &c. &c. (p. 33); that is to say, it presents a positive, objective creed, which imposes some restraints on the speculations of the "divinely-inspired" reason of man.

Coleridge subsequently speaks with contempt of those who attempt to write harmonies of the gospels, and to reconcile Scripture with history, &c., "and all to do away some half-score apparent discrepancies in the chronicles and memoirs of the Old and New Testament!" (p. 42.) All this care arises from a belief that the Scriptures were inspired by God; and of course it is very absurd, if inspiration is rejected. For, in this case, it is not of the least consequence, if the writers of Scripture are convicted of all kinds of errors and mistakes, and even false doctrines. As an illustration of the result of this mode of argument we have the following words dropt en passant, where the author shows the absurdity of quoting texts from all parts of Scripture in support of some doctrine.

"Accommodations of elder scriptural phrases-that favourite ornament and garnish of Jewish eloquence-incidental allusions to familiar notions, traditions, apologues-(for example, the dispute between the devil and the archangel Michael about the body of Moses, Jude 9)— fancies and anachronisms imported from the synagogue of Alexandria, by, or together with, the Septuagint version, and applied as mere argumenta ad hominem-(for example, the delivery of the Lord by the disposition of angels, Acts vii. 53; Ġal. iii. 19; Heb. ii. 2) - these, detached from their context, and, contrary to the intention of the sacred writer, first raised into independent theses, and then brought together to produce or

sanction some new credendum, for which neither separately could have furnished a pretence !"-p. 51.

We have also the arguments urged by Romanists against the authority of Scripture reproduced (p. 53, &c.); and the authority of the Church is nominally admitted, with the object of pulling down that of the Bible. We purposely say "nominally," because the same fundamental principle of an inward Divine light, which leaves Scripture without authority, must equally leave the Church without authority over individual judgments. Coleridge complains that men of all denominations at meetings of the British and Foreign Bible Society assert "that the Bible was not to be regarded or reasoned about as other good books are or may be; that the Bible is different in kind, and stood by itself." (p. 59.) To this doctrine Coleridge decidedly objects, and argues against it, declaring that a man "may be a Christian on his own faith;" and that he should not be an infidel on the score of what other men include in their Christianity. (p. 61.)

Coleridge would thus deal with infidel objectors to the Bible:"All men of learning, even learned unbelievers, admit that the greater part of the objections, urged in the popular works of infidelity, to this or that verse or chapter of the Bible prove only the ignorance or dishonesty of the objectors. But let it be supposed for a moment that a few remain hitherto unanswered, nay, that to your judgment and feelings they appear unanswerable. What follows? That the Apostle and Nicene Creeds is not credible, the Ten Commandments not to be obeyed, the clauses of the Lord's Prayer not to be desired, or the Sermon on the Mount not to be practised." (p. 86.) And then he quotes some passages and books of the Old Testament, which he points out as objectionable or incredible, and asks whether we must therefore disbelieve the whole. He therefore advises the inquirer to "take up the Bible as he would any other body of ancient writings." (p. 90.) The generally received doctrine on this point, which teaches us to receive the Scriptures as the inspired word of God, he calls "Bibliolatry." (p. 92.)

We have endeavoured fairly to represent Coleridge's views on this most important question, and we feel assured that no substantial error can be pointed out in the statement which has been made.

Now the first point to remark is this: Lessing's view is really identical in all points with that of Coleridge; and Mr. Green has, in the volume before us, proved beyond all reasonable doubt that Coleridge followed Lessing, and derived his views from him, though he added some features of his own.