which became fashionable and generally cultivated, and with its brilliancy dazzled the multitude. Priestley displayed considerable expertness and fitness for the practical application of the discoveries of others; and he added also to the new mass of facts, which were daily presenting themselves, and thus science became enriched, enriching at the same time the pockets of the manufacturers, exciting national industry, and adding considerably to the national property. Priestley’s researches and discoveries gave an irresistible weight to his name, and had an undue influence, as we shall presently see, in the arguments or opinions he advanced. This, Horsley foresaw, and felt, and therefore built his arguments on the permanent, in order to subdue the creatures founded on the impermanent and other worthless idols of the mind’s forming.
How the world were delighted and wonder-struck by the supposed discovery, that it was the province of vegetable life to supply the vital air, which animal life destroyed! Priestley was hailed as the wonder of his age, and for a while its oracle. He was however no ordinary being, and even his enemies admitted him to be a kind and moral man. His intellectual powers will speak for themselves. We have now had sufficient experience to see how shifting all kind of theory must be when left to the will and ingenuity of man only — and how unsafe a guide in questions of importance as the one now referred to. Horsley saw the weak points of Priestley’s argument, and was not to be dazzled and put aside by Priestley’s philosophical display. Horsley fearlessly entered into this controversy, like a man who felt his own strength, and particularly the strength of his cause; though he needed not the courage of a Luther, he was apparently a man who possessed it, if called on. He used the best means to silence his adversary , with the Bible before him as his shield, (but at the same time his support as well as defence,) from behind which he assailed his opponent with his Biblical learning so powerfully, that his first attack made Priestley feel the strength of his adversary. In vaunting language, Priestley made the best defence which he thought he could, but not the most prudent, by promising to answer his opponent so efficiently, as to make him a convert to his doctrines. But in this vaunting prediction, that he would not only answer his opponent satisfactorily, to all who were interested in the controversy, but convert him to his opinions, it need not be added he failed, so completely, and at the same time displayed such a “ridiculous vanity,” as to deprive him of that influence which he had so overrated in himself. Horsley’s letters seem particularly to have attracted Coleridge’s attention, and to have caused him to make one of his concise, pithy and powerful notes as a comment on this letter of Horsley’s, entitled, “The Unitarian Doctrine not well calculated for the conversion of Jews, Mahometans, or Infidels, of any description.”
The following is Coleridge’s Comment on the Letter, to which allusion has been made, and from the date seems to have been written during his residence at Malta:
“February 12, 1805. — Thinking during my perusal of Horsley’s letters in reply to Dr. Priestley’s objections to the Trinity on the part of Jews, Mahometans, and Infidels, it burst upon me at once as an awful truth, what seven or eight years ago I thought of proving with a ‘hollow faith’, and for an ‘ambiguous purpose’, my mind then wavering in its necessary passage from Unitarianism (which, as I have often said, is the religion of a man, whose reason would make him an atheist, but whose heart and common sense will not permit him to be so) through Spinosism into Plato and St. John. No Christ, no God! This I now feel with all its needful evidence of the understanding: would to God my spirit were made conform thereto — that no Trinity, no God! That Unitarianism in all its forms is idolatry, and that the remark of Horsley is most accurate; that Dr. Priestley’s mode of converting the Jews and Turks is, in the great essential of religious faith, to give the name of Christianity to their present idolatry — truly the trick of Mahomet, who, finding that the mountain would not come to him, went to the mountain. O! that this conviction may work upon me and in me, and that my mind may be made up as to the character of Jesus, and of historical Christianity, as clearly as it is of the logos, and intellectual or spiritual Christianity — that I may be made to know either their especial and peculiar union, or their absolute disunion in any peculiar sense.
With regard to the Unitarians, it has been shamelessly asserted, that I have denied them to be Christians. God forbid! For how should I know what the piety of the heart may be, or what quantum of error in the understanding may consist, with a saving faith in the intentions and actual dispositions of the whole moral being, in any one individual? Never will God reject a soul that sincerely loves him, be his speculative opinions what they may: and whether in any given instance certain opinions, be they unbelief, or misbelief, are compatible with a sincere love of God, God only can know. But this I have said, and shall continue to say, that if the doctrines, the sum of which I ‘believe’ to constitute the truth in Christ, ‘be’ Christianity, then Unitarianism’ is not, and vice versâ: and that in speaking theologically and ‘impersonally’, i.e. of Psilanthropism and Theanthropism, as schemes of belief — and without reference to individuals who profess either the one or the other — it will be absurd to use a different language, as long as it is the dictate of common sense, that two opposites cannot properly be called by the same name.
I should feel no offence if a Unitarian applied the same to me, any more than if he were to say, that 2 and 2 being 4, 4 and 4 must be 8.”
Biog. Lit. vol. ii. p. 307.
[Footnote 1: In his ‘Literary Life,’ Mr. Coleridge has made the following observation regarding talent and genius:
“For the conceptions of the mind may be so vivid and adequate, as to preclude that impulse to the realising of them, which is strongest and most restless in those who possess more than mere ‘talent’ (or the faculty of appropriating and applying the knowledge of others,) yet still want something of the creative and self-sufficing power of absolute ‘Genius’. For this reason, therefore, they are men of ‘commanding’ genius. While the former rest content between thought and reality, as it were in an intermundium of which their own living spirit supplies the ‘substance’, and their imagination the ever-varying ‘form’; the latter must impress their preconceptions on the world without, in order to present them back to their own view with the satisfying degree of clearness, distinctness, and individuality.”
Vol. i. p. 31.]
[Footnote 2: In consequence of various reports traducing Coleridge’s good name, I have thought it an act of justice due to his character, to notice several mistatements here and elsewhere, which I should otherwise have gladly passed over.]
[Footnote 3: Coleridge was always most ready to pass a censure on what appeared to him a defect in his own composition, of which the following is a proof: — In his introductory remarks to this Greek Ode, printed in the Sibylline Leaves, he observes:
“The Slaves in the West Indies consider Death as a passport to their native country. This sentiment is expressed in the introduction to the ‘Greek Ode on the Slave Trade,’ of which the Ideas are better than the language in which they are conveyed.”
Certainly this is taking no merit to himself, although the Ode obtained the Prize.]
[Footnote 4:
“At the beginning of the French Revolution, Klopstock wrote odes of congratulation. He received some honorary presents from the French Republic (a golden crown, I believe), and, like our Priestley, was invited to a seat in the legislature, which he declined: but, when French liberty metamorphosed herself into a fury, he sent back these presents with a palinodia, declaring his abhorrence of their proceedings; and since then be has been more perhaps than enough an Anti-Gallican. I mean, that in his just contempt and detestation of the crimes and follies of the revolutionists, he suffers himself to forget that the revolution itself is a process of the Divine Providence; and that as the folly of men is the wisdom of God, so are their iniquities instruments of his goodness.”
‘Biographia Literaria,’ vol. ii. p. 243.]
[Footnote
