Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

"And I say," continued Ahlfeld, “that, on that principle, we could scarcely say we know anything. Yet no one would say that a child, who knew a circle when he saw it, did not know what a circle was, because he was unacquainted with, and could not be made to understand all the geometrical properties of a circle. He is aware of one property the circle has, roundness,-by that he knows it, as a circle, as well as though he were acquainted with it far more. Such knowledge is sufficient for his purpose. So, if we are told, on good testimony, that God is holy or good, for example, we may say we know what God is, so far, though we cannot comprehend him. We know him thus, as far as we need know him, and in the application of such knowledge, feeling, understanding, action, are all concerned."

Just at this moment a tap was heard at the door. “Herein !” cried Roger, and the person who had knocked, came in. It was a little boy, wet through, who held in his hand a letter. "Please Sir," said the child, "father's sent you this letter. He did not think there was one for you, but this dropped out afterwards, and he thought you would like to have it at once, so he sent me off with it directly."

"Careless fellow," muttered Roger. "Here,"-and, with the munificent reward of a silbergroschen, the little fellow disappeared in a twinkling and raptures.

Roger looked at the address. It was from Louise.

(To be continued.)

THE MYSTIC: EMERSON.

"THE VOCATION OF THE SCHOLAR," or rather of the teacher, is much spoken of, but little appreciated. Literature, the highest vocation of man, (as ministering not to bodily wants, but to the spirit of man, its tastes, thoughts, and moral principles,) requires for itself a code of laws, that its dignity may be maintained and its purpose, accomplished.

Beyond the immediate success of any literary effort, there should be a consistent moral purpose, an honest effort to contribute to the education of the human race, whether in amusement, information, or spiritual discipline. Whatever fails in contributing to such an end, is at once the disgrace of letters and of genius.

We would not frown on works of imagination, since whatever tends to refine and purify the tastes, to engage men for a time in elegant pursuits, redeems life from grossness, and contributes to the completeness of human development.

But we must very clearly distinguish between taste and morals, between the amenities and refinements of lighter literature, and the graver principles of human faith and duty: we must not allow these to become the mere sport of fancy, to be capriciously whirled round the thaumatrope of a sportive or wild imagination. Men may play at other games, and find amusement and recreation in lighter matters.

Few authors have more gravely violated this plain rule of common sense, than Emerson, the American Essayist. Amidst many exquisite

passages, true touches of a poetical genius, we find such a wild perversity of confusion and contradiction, true lights and great principles turned into dancing meteors, and anon extinguished in the bog of mystical scepticism, that we are tempted to infer his want of instruction in "Literary Ethics," though he has lectured on the subject.

One of the tendencies of this age-an excessive influx of the oversoul-is in the spirit of vagueness and mysticism, which prevails amongst a certain class of literary men, as well as amongst the abettors of superstition and rationalism.

All these classes have a great horror of what is called the "logical consciousness," they prefer dreams and intuitions, impulses and large leaps, like that of one of Homer's gods, whose intuitional horse leaped at one bound across the horizon. Accordingly, Mr. Emerson tells us,* "nothing is more simple than greatness; indeed, to be simple is to be great. All vision, all genius, comes by renouncing the too officious activity of the understanding, and giving leave and amplest privilege to the spontaneous sentiment."

This kind of sentiment, is sometimes called sentimentality; and is the convenient cover for all sorts of logical inconsistencies.

The method adopted by this writer and the class he represents, is confessedly visionary; their dissertations are dreams, consisting of the usual incoherences, beautiful and contradictory visions, with gaps of profound darkness between. They talk in their sleep. They are literary somnambulists. It is as a dream when one awaketh. They sleep in the day, and see men as trees walking; and their description of the scene is fascinating, but not very instructive.

But a true man has a purpose, and is true to it: he will not unsettle truths and principles by a magic-lanthorn exhibition of them. He will give lessons; his followers will be scholars learning something: they will find an elevating tendency in lighter sallies; clearer and holier thoughts and manlier impulses in graver attempts. Their judgment will be illuminated, their souls moved, and not merely their fancy tickled by a spiritual pantomime.

It might be rude, but it would be honest and useful, to ask these vague teachers to translate into English-to condense into plain words, the points, connection, and bearing of their lucubrations.

"Exactly, my friend! it sounds very fine; but please to stand quite still, hold yourself steady by that lamp-post, and tell us just what it is you really mean.”

[ocr errors]

"Literary Ethics," require that a teacher should have a purpose, he must please to instruct, and instruct to improve: he will not go about talking dreams, but aim to swell some good tendencies, to secure some practical end, to remove some gross darkness, to extend some great truths. "rambler;"

Without one or other of these, he is not a teacher but a or, as Johnson's Italian friend re-translated the title of his work, by calling him the great author of the "vagabond." Their utterances are not instructions but vagaries. Their main article of trade is the indefinite. They resent and scorn definitions; in other words, they never like to tell us what they are talking about.

*Literary Ethics.

+ Does he mean a great simpleton? P. D.

[ocr errors]

An enquiry for explanation, is the "too officious activity of the understanding."

"To be great," Mr. Emerson tells us, is simply just "to be misunderstood:" no doubt, omne ignotum pro mirifico; it must be deep, because we cannot see to the bottom. Ghosts are best seen in the dark; and the sun would be very splendid if he did not shine so much.

But these men are open to no such rebuke; we cannot quite perceive their position, though laid down in this spiritual topography-"the man of genius should occupy the whole space between GOD OR pure mind, and the multitude of uneducated men."

This would be a large space to fill, if the Creator were "far from every one of us," but an Apostle tells us that He is not far off, so the space is easily filled up; for nature abhors a vacuum.

But we are too vulgar in our conceptions, for by space between us and God, is to be mystically understood the disparity in wisdom of goodness. This is to be removed by genius;-a more difficult task perhaps. But in filling up this chasm, the genius has nothing to do, it all comes to him, he does not " go to the mountain." "The student, as we all along insist, is great only by being passive to the superincumbent spirit."

Such is the spiritual night-mare in these men's dreams: only they call it a "superincumbent spirit."

Truly enough then does our essayist confess, that when persons approach these oracles for further and more definite revelations," they find that he is a poor ignorant man, like themselves, no-wise emitting a continuous stream of light, but now and then a jet of luminous thought, followed by total darkness."

"Hence the temptation of the scholar to mystify; to hear the question: to sit upon it; to make an answer of words, in lack of the oracle of things."+

Confession is good, but the confession of the priesthood is most healthful for the souls of the laity.

We must not trouble these teachers with minute enquiries, but listen with wonder and such delight as we can muster, as they speak in words like glowing clouds of beauty and truth.

"What is this truth you seek? what is this beauty? men will ask with derision. If, nevertheless, God have called any of you to explore truth and beauty, be bold, be firm, be true."

Excellent advice, its greatness being seen in the fact, that none can understand it." Be bold, and firm," in what?-In your expedition into cloud-land.

A new source of knowledge has of late been opened to the world, sometimes it is called the spontaneous sentiment, sometimes natural and permanent inspiration; or opening the mind that inspiration may flow in through the deeps of reason, &c.: but blessed is he that expecteth nothing from such illuminations, for he shall never be disappointed.

The understanding is depreciated, as belonging to the logical consciousness, whilst a superior process that takes shorter methods is introduced, called the reason; which with infidels, rational Christians and others, is the same as faith with the priests.

[blocks in formation]

Reason (in this new philosophical sense) like faith, is introduced to cover doctrines for which men have no reasons to adduce. It is a direct intuition into things, without the tedious intermediate process of argument. It avoids that troublesome method of employing what the logicians call a middle term. In jubilant language, it is the influx of God, or of the

over-soul.

"We must pay our vows to the highest power, and pass if it be possible, by assiduous love and watching, into the visions of absolute truth. The growth of the intellect, is a larger reception of a common soul. An able man is nothing else than a good free vascular organization, whereinto the universal spirit freely flows."*

Each man is thus a part of the great soul, and gets wise by being open to further influxes: a most consoling doctrine, if anything would come of it, in the way of manifest wisdom.

The difference between man and God, is simply 66 our INCARNATION in a private self;" the defects and limitations of which, by "preferring the private law," are removed by communion with the "superincumbent spirit."

Thus is infidelity revenged in the crude and large credulity of its children, who becoming free from the claims of the gospel, seek to supply its place by this mawkish and profane sentimentalism.

This prepares the way for an explanation of the Redeemer's words, on the principles of reason. He preached not himself, but the soul; every man's soul as truly divine! And this jargon is to be the gospel of these days:-"the dawn of the sentiment of virtue," "this sentiment is divine and deifying. It makes man illimitable. It corrects the capital mistake of the infant man, who seeks to be great by following the great, and hopes to derive advantage from another,-by shewing the fountain of all good to be in himself, and that he, equally with every man, is a door into the deeps of reason." It would be a very good thing if some of them would open the door.

This however, it appears, would be of little service to others, since we can learn only for ourselves, not for others, out of these unfathomable deeps.

"Meantime, whilst the doors of the temple stand open night and day, [whether this door is the man that is open, Emerson does not say] before every man, [who also is the door] and the oracles of this truth cease never, it is guarded by one stern condition; this, namely, it is AN INTUITION. It cannot be received at second-hand."

To this high level of humanity, each one a door to his own particular and private peepshow, our author lifts the Redeemer himself. "Jesus Christ" he informs us, " belonged to the true race of prophets. He saw with open eye the mystery of the soul. Drawn by its severe harmony, ravished with its beauty, he lived in it, and had his being there. Alone in all history he estimates the greatness of man. He san that God incarnates himself in man, and evermore goes forth anew to take possession of his world. He said in this jubilee of sublime emotion, 'I am divine. Through me God acts; through me, speaks. Would you see God, see me; OR SEE THEE, when thou thinkest as I now think."

* Literary Ethics.

[ocr errors]

+ Orations.-An Address to the Senior Class in Divinity College, Cambridge, U. S.

What are we to say of such profane ranting as this? Is it not an obvious falsification of our Saviour's words? When did he discover the greatness of man, or say, "would you see God?-look at thyself?" Never.

This is a private inspiration, a peep through Mr. Emerson's door: full well may he complain of "historical Christianity;" for this stands sadly in the way of his "sublime emotions."

It was no rhapsody on man that our Redeemer uttered; he found man degraded enough; and was himself the fulness,-the deeps of wisdom, whence our life was to be drawn.

This sentimental reason that would exalt man in order to abase man's Redeemer, consistently laments that Christians pay so much regard to the person of Christ, instead of to the soul which is its own redeemer, and whose dignity Christ took figuratively to himself!

All say they are equally divine; unfortunately they do not all equally shew it; the assertion rests on the authority of newly baptized reason ;— a faculty appealed to when argument fails.

Did the Redeemer ever say that man's soul has all resources in itself? His whole mission is a contradiction of it;-he came to help man, not to say that "the fountain of all good is in the soul itself, and cannot be obtained from another."

On the contrary, he said I am come that ye might have life; I am the life; without me ye can do nothing. I am the vine, ye are the branches; except ye abide in me, ye cannot bring forth fruit.

Is there any possible excuse then, for pressing the Saviour into the service of Mr. Emerson's reason, and of his doctrine of the Godhead of the soul,—the equal incarnation of the Divine Being in every man?

This astonishing ignorance, or profound disregard to the plain statements of Christianity, should cover such teachers with everlasting shame and confusion. It violates common honesty; it shocks common decency.

It is a fearful dishonesty or incompetence in such literary men, thus to distort the plain unvarnished teachings of the gospel: making the Redeemer a representative of the power that dwells in all men, instead of what he himself declares-the fountain of spiritual life to those who are lying in weakness and sin.

We are to appropriate to ourselves (according to Mr. Emerson) not the help Christ gives, but the original power and inherent greatness which he declared belonged to himself.

And by what wondrous magic are we thus to make him say, "see God in me, or see him in thee?" It is by laying aside the "too officious activity of the understanding," and adopting the new mode of reasonwhich is the infidel's faith.

"What a distortion (observes Emerson) did Christ's doctrine and memory suffer in the same, in the next, and the following ages! There is no doctrine of the reason which will bear to be taught by the understanding."* So we must veil our faces before the dogmas of this new priesthood, and accept the words of Jesus in the light of a Pantheist's

reason.

"The understanding, (he tells us,) caught this high chaunt [of the Saviour's divinity] from the poet's lips, and said in the next age' this

An Address, &c.

« ForrigeFortsæt »