who lived not in time at all, past, present, or future, but beside 'or collaterally.'

The editor has thus, we think, detracted somewhat from the interest of his work, by being rather too solicitous to render it fit for the perusal of that nondescript being, the general reader.' So large a portion of Coleridge's every-day thoughts and discourses was employed in developing his theory of metaphysics, that no record of his sayings can give a correct impression of the man in which it does not form a prominent feature. In the volumes before us, it is only introduced in a few insulated passages; and much of the philosopher's conversation, deprived of the spirit arising from its connexion with this topic, to which he sought to attach every thing, becomes a mere caput mortuum. What the system of philosophy may be found to contain, if ever thrown into a form for publication, we cannot anticipate; but we are inclined to suspect, that the author had never made any great progress in deducing ulterior results from his fundamental principle the difference between reason and understanding which he derived from Germany; and which, by illustrating and enforcing it in a thousand ways, he succeeded in establishing, in the minds of a large class of students, in opposition to the reigning system of Scottish metaphysics. Until you have mastered,' he says, in this work, the fundamental difference in kind between the reason ⚫ and understanding, as faculties of the human mind, you cannot ' escape a thousand difficulties. It is pre-eminently the Gradus ad Philosophiam. Talent, lying in the understanding, is ⚫ often inherited: genius, being the action of reason and imagination, rarely or never. The reader will find striking, if not entirely satisfactory illustrations, of the different classes of minds in which these faculties are respectively exhibited, in the comparison between Plato and Aristotle (Vol. I. p. 182), Kepler and Newton (ib. p. 216), 'Pantagruel' and 'Panurge' (ib. p. 177). But to investigate these comparisons would lead us far beyond the bounds of our present purpose, and the work is chiefly filled. with less recondite matter.

Many of these discourses relate to religious subjects, chiefly biblical criticism, and the history and peculiar doctrines of the Church of England. Of that Church Mr Coleridge was, during all the latter part of his life, a zealous advocate; but we are well convinced, from the tenor, both of his writings and conversation, that his attachment to her tenets and discipline was combined with a very unusual degree of candour, and freedom from sectarian prejudice. In fact, politically speaking, his reverence for a church in the abstract, as an integral portion of the state, was a ruling principle in his scheme of social government. But with

the supporters of a church in the narrow and empirical sense of the word, with tenets rigidly fixed by subscriptions and articles, we do not think he had any great sympathy. His strong antipathy to the political opponents of the Establishment did, we suspect, occasionally lead him into maintaining its cause with an energy which was not so much displayed when he argued dispassionately on its general and philosophical theory. We have heard him maintain, with an eloquence and a closeness of reasoning which we wish it were possible to transfer to our written report of his opinions, the position, that the revenues of the Church are, in fact, neither more nor less than a portion of the public property set apart for the mental and physical benefit of all, especially of the lower classes; that the mode of their application is in principle uncontrolled by any other law than the absolute good of the community; that all educated men whose line of study is such as to render their services available for the public benefit, including the whole body of the learned, are, in fact, the Clerisy,* to whose disposal these means are properly intrusted; and that there is no reason, for example, why the revenues of the Irish Church, if shown to be inapplicable for the present object to which they are devoted, should not serve to endow schools, or medical establishments, in remote districts, and thus turn at last to the general advantage of the people. We are quite aware that, in discussion with a Whig, such opinions as these would not easily have been elicited from him ;-not that he was either insincere, or really inconsistent, but that his fear and dislike of those who appeared to him to be endangering the establishments of the country, led him to side with a party whose principles, when fully stated, were widely different from his own. To Catholicism he was strongly opposed, as fettering religious liberty; and to Unitarianism, as denying the elements of religious truth. But all sects between these two extremes were, in a religious sense, almost indifferent in his estimation. We refer, with the greater satisfaction, to his opinions respecting the controversies between Protestants, because there is at present growing up, in the bosom of the Anglican Church, a class of divines, the tendency of whose sentiments is to introduce a sort of modified Popery ;-in whose minds the desire of unity in the Catholic Church works so strongly, as nearly to supersede the old and liberal rule of faith for which

* There have been three silent revolutions in England,—first, when the professions fell off from the Church; secondly, when literature fell off from the professions; and, thirdly, when the press fell off from literature.'-Vol. II. p. 42.

Protestants have combated, in the field as well as the pulpit, ever since their separation from Rome. Such extreme opinions are not to be wondered at, in a country where perfect freedom of thought and argument must necessarily call into existence, and exaggerate by mutual opposition, those differences of doctrine which are founded, not on falsehood, but on that exclusive adherence to particular truths, which Pascal signalized as the principal cause of religious quarrels. Nor is there any real probability of such opinions gaining ground; arising, as they do, merely from the reaction produced by the prevalence of latitudinarian sentiments amongst others. But it is of some importance to show, that one whose high, and almost exaggerated, veneration for the Church, has been so widely cited, and who has had such extensive influence over the minds, especially of youthful and enthusiastic thinkers, differed thus far from many of his admirers and imitators, and entertained such temperate views on subjects regarded by them in a light distorted by enthusiasm. On this account, we quote his remarks on the favourite divine of that School, whose exquisite literary beauties, and high devotional feeling, no one could better appreciate than he.

Taylor's was a great and lovely mind; yet how much and injuriously was it perverted by his being a follower of Laud, and by his intensely popish feelings of church authority. His "Liberty of Prophesying" is a work of wonderful eloquence and skill; but, if we believe the argument, what do we come to? Why, to nothing more or less than this, that— so much can be said for every opinion and sect, so impossible is it to settle any thing by reasoning or authority of scripture-we must appeal to some positive jurisdiction on earth, ut sit finis controversiarum. In fact, the whole book is the precise argument used by the papists, to induce men to admit the necessity of a supreme and infallible head of the church on earth. It is one of the works which pre-eminently gives countenance to the saying of Charles II. or James II.,-I forget which,— "When you of the Church of England contend with the Catholics, you use the arguments of the Puritans; when you contend with the Puritans, you immediately adopt all the weapons of the Catholics." Taylor never speaks with the slightest symptom of affection or respect of Luther, Calvin, or any other of the great reformers; at least, not in any of his learned works; but he saints every trumpery monk or friar, down to the very latest canonizations by the modern Popes. I fear you will think me harsh when I say, that I believe Taylor was, perhaps unconsciously, half a Socinian in heart. Such a strange inconsistency would not be impossible; the Romish church has produced many such devout Socinians. The cross of Christ is dimly seen in Taylor's works. Compare him, in this particular, with Donne, and you will feel the difference in a moment.-(Vol. I. p. 165.)

Such observations are not unworthy of attention, at a time when Jeremy Taylor appears to occupy the same post of honour

on the extreme right of religious controversy, which is held by Jeremy Bentham on the extreme left in political discussion.

Biblical learning furnished Coleridge with many favourite subjects for the exercise of ingenuity; and, although not particularly tolerant towards those who take critical liberties with the sacred text, he was liberal, even to daring, in discussion and interpretation. In this respect, there could not be a better guide, a more encouraging monitor, to that class of students-and we believe there are many such-who are doubtful and perplexed, between the rigorous adherence to the letter and doctrines of plenary inspiration, which prevails among the orthodox in this country, and that freedom of critical judgment which, on the continent, appears to be attended with so much laxity of belief. With a mind deeply submissive to the mysteries of religion, he united a most fearless spirit of research, and never abandoned the only true canon of scriptural examination-that which pursues the truth without regard of consequences, and judges of every question simply by its evidence, undeterred by the contemplation of imaginary dangers to the good cause. We do not believe that his knowledge of Hebrew was extensive: his opinions on the Old. Testament, therefore, are to be regarded as adopted rather on philosophical than strictly critical grounds. But he was very extensively conversant with the history and opinions of the Jews, both ancient and modern; and his remarks on the object and character of their divine government-on the language of Moses and the Prophets and on the distinction between miraculous and providential interposition, as evinced in their history-appear to us acute and impressive. But he was sceptical as to the genuineness of great part of their scriptures,-especially the writings called by the name of Solomon, and the book of Daniel. In the New Testament, he attributed, as Luther had done, the Epistle to the Hebrews to Apollos (vol. i. p. 21); although he considered it as rightly admitted into the canon. Many other specimens of this line of criticism are scattered through these volumes, and all propounded in a learned and moderate spirit. And the following passage contains a summary of his opinions on the subject of inspiration,-a subject so harassing and perplexing to many a conscientious enquirer :

There may be dictation, without inspiration; and inspiration, without dictation. They have been, and continue to be, grievously confounded. Balaam and his ass were the passive organs of dictation; but no one, I suppose, will venture to call either of these worthies inspired. It is my profound conviction that St. John and St. Paul were divinely inspired; but I totally disbelieve the dictation of any one word, sentence, or argument throughout their writings. Observe, there was revelation.

All religion is revealed; revealed religion is, in my judgment, a mere pleonasm. Revelations of facts were undoubtedly made to the prophets; revelations of doctrines were as undoubtedly made to John and Paul; but is it not a mere matter of our very senses, that John and Paul each dealt with those revelations, expounded them, insisted on them, just exactly according to his own natural strength of intellect, habit of reasoning, moral, and even physical temperament? We receive the books ascribed to John and Paul as their books, on the judgment of men for whom no miraculous judgment is pretended; nay whom, in their admission and rejection of other books, we believe to have erred. Shall we give less credence to John and Paul themselves? Surely the heart and soul of every Christian give him sufficient assurance, that, in all things that concern him as a man, the words that he reads are spirit and truth, and could only proceed from Him who made both heart and soul. Understand the matter so, and all difficulty vanishes. You read without fear, lest your faith meet with some shock from a passage here and there, which you cannot reconcile with immediate dictation by the Holy Spirit of God, without an absurd violence offered to the text. You read the Bible as the best of all books, but still as a book; and make use of all the means and appliances which learning and skill, under the blessing of God, can afford towards rightly apprehending the general sense of it; not solicitous to find out doctrine in mere epistolary familiarity, or facts in clear ad hominem and pro tempore allusions to national traditions.'(Vol. II. pp. 30-32.)

As in religious, so in political speculation, it was his fate through life to embrace with ardour extreme opinions, first on one, and then on the other side, of the great controversy of modern times; but always to support his own conclusions, whatever they were, by arguments which appeared suspicious, and excited distrust among his own partisans. Throughout life he was the sincerest of men; but instead of joining with others in the pursuit of what was practically expedient, he sought only after results which might attach themselves to his own ruling ideas on government and society. He wished to construct a state and a church on exalted principles of philosophy ;-to build them up in practice, such as they existed in abstract conception, as the necessary conditions of perfect human society. When Mr Coleridge was an itinerant Lecturer at Birmingham and Bristol, or talking treason with Thelwall on the hills of Nether Howey, and when he poured forth those energetic Odes which, after their principles have long been disavowed, still please better and are more widely known than almost any other portion of his poetry; the real veiled object of his adoration, his imaginary Republic, was the same as when his pen was devoted to the daily defence of a Tory Ministry in the Morning Post,' and was known only for diatribes so fiercely warlike that they were supposed, not without some shadow of reason, to have had a real effect in exas