Various - "Knickerbocker, or New York Monthly Magazine, March 1844"

Various - "Notes and Queries, Number 187, May 28, 1853"

Charles Beard - "Beside the Still Waters"

E. Phillips Oppenheim - "Mr. Grex of Monte Carlo"

Annual Bibliography of Commonwealth Literature 2007
This paper argues that discourses of love in Ghanaian market literature for youth offer a view into complex negotiations of agency and empowerment. Drawing on Deborah Durham's notion of youth as "social `shifters'" and Francis Nyamnjoh's conception of the "interconnectedness" of agency, I take Ghanaian market literature as one specific case of how African literature for youth foregrounds questions of continuity and change as African societies enter into increasingly complex global relations. In this literature for youth, received notions of love, often constructed out of impressions from American pop and hip hop music, carry new notions of agency that compete with existing "domesticated" forms. Authors like Ike Tandoh and Evelyn Tay employ discourses of love to offer youth alternative avenues for empowerment in a context of socio-economic disenfranchizement. In a creative process of "straddling", this writing both reveals and reproduces the contradictions that obtain in youth configurations of agency.

Reminiscences of Samuel Taylor Coleridge and Robert Southey

J >> Joseph Cottle >> Reminiscences of Samuel Taylor Coleridge and Robert Southey




You ask me my views of the _Trinity_. I accept the doctrine, not as
deduced from human reason, in its grovelling capacity for comprehending
spiritual things, but as the clear revelation of Scripture. But perhaps
it may be said, the Socinians do not admit this doctrine as being taught
in the bible. I know enough of their shifts and quibbles, with their
dexterity at explaining away all they dislike, and that is not a little,
but though beguiled once by them, I happily for my own peace of mind,
escaped from their sophistries, and now hesitate not to affirm, that
Socinians would lose all character for honesty, if they were to explain
their neighbour's will with the same latitude of interpretation, which
they do the Scriptures.

I have in my head some floating ideas on the _Logos_, which I hope,
hereafter, to mould into a consistent form; but it is a gross perversion
of the truth, in Socinians, to declare that we believe in _three gods_;
and they know it to be false. They might, with equal justice affirm that
we believe in _three suns_. The meanest peasant, who has acquired the
first rudiments of christianity, would shrink back from a thing so
monstrous. Still the Trinity has its difficulties. It would be strange if
otherwise. A _Revelation_ that revealed nothing, not within the grasp of
human reason!--no religation, no binding over again, as before said; but
these difficulties are shadows, contrasted with the substantive and
insurmountable obstacles, with which _they_ contend who admit the _Divine
authority of Scripture_, with the _superlative excellence of Christ_, and
yet undertake to prove that these Scriptures teach, and that Christ
taught his own _pure humanity_.

If Jesus Christ was merely a man, if he was not God as well as man, be it
considered, he could not have been even a _good man_. There is no medium.
The SAVIOUR _in that case_ was absolutely _a deceiver!_ one,
transcendantly _unrighteous!_ in advancing pretensions to miracles, by
the 'Finger of God,' which he never performed; and by asserting claims,
(as a man) in the most aggravated sense, blasphemous. These consequences,
Socinians, to be consistent, must allow, and which impious arrogation of
Divinity in Christ, according to their faith, as well as his false
assumption of a community of 'glory' with the Father, 'before the world
was,' even they will be necessitated completely to admit the exoneration
of the Jews, according to their law, in crucifying one, who 'being a
man,' 'made himself God!' But in the Christian, rather than in the
_Socinian_, or _Pharisaic_ view, all these objections vanish, and harmony
succeeds to inexplicable confusion. If Socinians hesitate in ascribing
_unrighteousness_ to Christ, the inevitable result of their principles,
they tremble, as well they might, at their avowed creed, and virtually
renounce what they profess to uphold.

The Trinity, as Bishop Leighton has well remarked, is 'a doctrine of
faith, not of demonstration,' except in a _moral_ sense. If the New
Testament declare it, not in an insulated passage, but through the whole
breadth of its pages, rendering, with any other admission, the book which
is the christian's anchor-hold of hope, dark and contradictory, then it
is not to be rejected, but on a penalty that reduces to an atom, all the
sufferings this earth can inflict.

Let the grand question be determined.--Is, or is not the bible
_inspired_? No one book has ever been subjected to so rigid an
investigation as the Bible, by minds the most capacious, and in the
result, which has so triumphantly repelled all the assaults of infidels.
In the extensive intercourse which I have had with this class of men, I
have seen their prejudices surpassed only by their ignorance. This I
found particularly the case in Dr. Darwin, (p. 1-85.) the prince of their
fraternity. Without therefore, stopping to contend on what all
dispassionate men must deem undebatable ground, I may assume inspiration
as admitted; and equally so, that it would be an insult to man's
understanding, to suppose any other revelation from God than the
christian scriptures. If these Scriptures, impregnable in their strength,
sustained in their pretensions, by undeniable prophecies and miracles,
and by the experience of the _inner man_, in all ages, as well as by a
concatenation of arguments, all bearing upon one point, and extending
with miraculous consistency, through a series of fifteen hundred years;
if all this combined proof does not establish their validity, nothing can
be proved under the sun; but the world and man must be abandoned, with
all its consequences, to one universal scepticism! Under such sanctions,
therefore, if these scriptures, as a fundamental truth, _do_ inculcate
the doctrine of the _Trinity_; however surpassing human comprehension;
then I say, we are bound to admit it on the strength of _moral
demonstration_.

The supreme Governor of the world and the Father of our spirits, has seen
fit to disclose to us much of his will, and the whole of his natural and
moral perfections. In some instances he has given his _word_ only, and
demanded our _faith_; while on other momentous subjects, instead of
bestowing full revelation, like the _Via Lactea_, he has furnished a
glimpse only, through either the medium of inspiration, or by the
exercise of those rational faculties with which he has endowed us. I
consider the Trinity as substantially resting on the first proposition,
yet deriving support from the last.

I recollect when I stood on the summit of Etna, and darted my gaze down
the crater; the immediate vicinity was discernible, till, lower down,
obscurity gradually terminated in total darkness. Such figures exemplify
many truths revealed in the Bible. We pursue them, until, from the
imperfection of our faculties, we are lost in impenetrable night. All
truths, however, that are essential to faith, _honestly_ interpreted; all
that are important to human conduct, under every diversity of
circumstance, are manifest as a blazing star. The promises also of
felicity to the righteous in the future world, though the precise nature
of that felicity may not be defined, are illustrated by every image that
can swell the imagination; while the misery of the _lost_, in its
unutterable intensity, though the language that describes it is all
necessarily figurative, is there exhibited as resulting chiefly, if not
wholly, from the withdrawment of the _light of God's countenance_, and a
banishment from his _presence!_ best comprehended in this world by
reflecting on the desolations, which would instantly follow the loss of
the sun's vivifying and universally diffused _warmth_.

You, or rather _all_, should remember that some truths from their nature,
surpass the scope of man's limited powers, and stand as the criteria of
_faith_, determining by their rejection, or admission, who among the sons
of men can confide in the veracity of heaven. Those more ethereal truths,
of which the Trinity is conspicuously the chief, without being
circumstantially explained, may be faintly illustrated by material
objects. The eye of man cannot discern the satellites of Jupiter, nor
become sensible of the multitudinous stars, whose rays have never reached
our planet, and consequently garnish not the canopy of night; yet are
they the less real, because their existence lies beyond man's unassisted
gaze? The tube of the philosopher, and the _celestial telescope_,--the
unclouded visions of heaven will confirm the one class of truths, and
irradiate the other.

The _Trinity_ is a subject on which analogical reasoning may
advantageously be admitted, as furnishing, at least a glimpse of light,
and with this, for the present, we must be satisfied. Infinite Wisdom
deemed clearer manifestations inexpedient; and is man to dictate to his
Maker? I may further remark, that where we cannot behold a desirable
object distinctly, we must take the best view we can; and I think you,
and every candid enquiring mind, may derive assistance from such
reflections as the following.

Notwithstanding the arguments of Spinosa, and Des Cartes, and other
advocates of the _Material system_, or, in more appropriate language, the
_Atheistical system!_ it is admitted by all men, not prejudiced, not
biased by sceptical prepossessions, that _mind_ is distinct from
_matter_. The mind of man, however, is involved in inscrutable darkness,
(as the profoundest metaphysicians well know) and is to be estimated, if
at all, alone by an inductive process; that is, by its _effects_. Without
entering on the question, whether an extremely circumscribed portion of
the mental process, surpassing instinct, may or may not be extended to
quadrupeds, it is universally acknowledged, that the mind of man alone,
regulates all the actions of his corporeal frame. Mind, therefore, may be
regarded as a distinct genus, in the scale ascending above brutes, and
including the whole of intellectual existences; advancing from _thought_,
that mysterious thing! in its lowest form, through all the gradations of
sentient and rational beings, till it arrives at a Bacon, a Newton; and
then, when unincumbered by matter, extending its illimitable sway through
Seraph and Archangel, till we are lost in the GREAT INFINITE!

Is it not deserving of notice, as an especial subject of meditation, that
our _limbs_, in all they do or can accomplish, implicitly obey the
dictation of the _mind_? that this operating power, whatever its name,
under certain limitations, exercises a sovereign dominion not only over
our limbs, but over our intellectual pursuits? The mind of every man is
evidently the fulcrum, the moving force,--which alike regulates all his
limbs and actions: and in which example, we find a strong illustration of
the subordinate nature of mere _matter_. That alone which gives direction
to the organic parts of our nature, is wholly _mind_; and one mind if
placed over a thousand limbs, could, with undiminished ease, control and
regulate the whole.

This idea is advanced on the supposition that _one mind_ could command an
unlimited direction over any given number of _limbs_, provided they were
all connected by _joint_ and _sinew_. But suppose, through some occult
and inconceivable means, these limbs were dis-associated, as to all
material connexion; suppose, for instance, one mind with unlimited
authority, governed the operations of _two_ separate persons, would not
this substantially, be only _one person_, seeing the directing principle
was one? If the truth here contended for, be admitted, that _two
persons_, governed by _one mind_, is incontestably _one person_; the same
conclusion would be arrived at, and the proposition equally be justified,
which affirmed that, _three_, or otherwise _four_ persons, owning also
necessary and essential subjection to _one mind_, would only be so many
diversities or modifications of that _one mind_, and therefore, the
component parts virtually collapsing into _one whole_, the person would
be _one_. Let any man ask himself, whose understanding can both reason
and become the depository of truth, whether, if _one mind_ thus regulated
with absolute authority, _three_, or otherwise _four_ persons, with all
their congeries of material parts, would not these parts inert in
themselves, when subjected to one predominant mind, be in the most
logical sense, _one person_? Are ligament and exterior combination
indispensable pre-requisites to the sovereign influence of mind over
mind? or mind over matter?

But perhaps it may be said, we have no instance of one mind governing
more than one body. This may be, but the argument remains the same. With
a proud spirit, that forgets its own contracted range of thought, and
circumscribed knowledge, who is to limit the sway of Omnipotence? or
presumptuously to deny the possibility of _that_ Being, who called light
out of darkness, so to exalt the dominion of _one mind_, as to give it
absolute sway over other dependant minds, or (indifferently) over
detached, or combined portions of organized matter? But if this
superinduced quality be conferable on any order of created beings, it is
blasphemy to limit the power of God, and to deny _his_ capacity to
transfuse _his own_ Spirit, when and to whom he will.

This reasoning may now be applied in illustration of the Trinity. We are
too much in the habit of viewing our Saviour Jesus Christ, through the
medium of his body. 'A body was prepared for him,' but this body was mere
matter; as insensible in itself as every human frame when deserted by the
soul. If therefore the Spirit that was in Christ, was the Spirit of the
Father; if no thought, no vibration, no spiritual communication, or
miraculous display, existed in, or proceeded from Christ, not immediately
and consubstantially identified with Jehovah, the Great First cause; if
all these operating principles were thus derived, in consistency alone
with the conjoint divine attributes; if this Spirit of the Father ruled
and reigned in Christ as his own manifestation, then in the strictest
sense, Christ exhibited 'the Godhead bodily,' and was undeniably '_one_
with the Father;' confirmatory of the Saviour's words: 'Of myself, (my
body) I can do nothing, the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the
works.'

But though I speak of the body as inert in itself, and necessarily allied
to matter, yet this declaration must not be understood as militating
against the christian doctrine of the _resurrection of the body_. In its
grosser form, the thought is not to be admitted, for 'flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God,' but that the body, without losing its
consciousness and individuality, may be subjected by the illimitable
power of omnipotence, to a sublimating process, so as to be rendered
compatible with spiritual association, is not opposed to reason, in its
severe abstract exercises, while in attestation of this _exhilarating
belief_, there are many remote analogies in nature exemplifying the same
truth, while it is in the strictest accordance with that final
dispensation, which must, as christians, regulate all our speculations. I
proceed now to say, that

If the postulate be thus admitted, that one mind influencing two bodies,
would only involve a diversity of operations, but in reality be one in
essence; or otherwise as an hypothetical argument, illustrative of truth,
if one preeminent mind, or spiritual subsistence, unconnected with
matter, possessed an undivided and sovereign dominion over two or more
disembodied minds, so as to become the exclusive source of all their
subtlest volitions and exercises, the _unity_, however complex the modus
of its manifestation, would be fully established; and this principle
extends to Deity itself, and shows the true sense, as I conceive, in
which Christ and the Father are one.

In continuation of this reasoning, if God who is light, the Sun of the
moral world, should in his union of infinite wisdom, power, and goodness,
and from all eternity, have ordained that an emanation from himself,--for
aught we know, an essential emanation, as light is inseparable from the
luminary of day--should not only have existed in his Son, in the fulness
of time to be united to a mortal body, but that a like emanation from
himself, also perhaps essential, should have constituted the Holy Spirit,
who, without losing his ubiquity, was more especially sent to this lower
earth, _by_ the Son, _at_ the impulse of the Father, then in the most
comprehensive sense, God, and his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost,
are ONE. 'Three persons in one God,' and thus form the true Trinity in
Unity.

To suppose that more than one independent power, or governing mind,
exists in the whole universe, is absolute Polytheism, against which the
denunciations of all the Jewish and Christian canonical books were
directed. And if there be but ONE directing MIND, that mind is God!
operating however, in three persons, according to the direct and uniform
declarations of that inspiration which 'brought life and immortality to
light.' Yet this divine doctrine of the Trinity is to be received, not
because it is or can be clear to finite apprehension, but, in reiteration
of the argument, because the Scriptures, in their unsophisticated
interpretation expressly state it. The Trinity, therefore, from its
important aspects, and biblical prominence, is the grand article of
faith, and the foundation of the whole christian system.

Who can say, as Christ and the Holy Ghost proceeded from, and are still
one with the Father, and as all the disciples of Christ derive their
fulness from him, and, in spirit, are inviolately united to him as a
branch is to the vine, who can say, but that in one view, what was once
mysteriously separated, may as mysteriously, be re-combined, and, without
interfering with the everlasting Trinity, and the individuality of the
spiritual and seraphic orders, the Son at the consummation of all things,
deliver up his mediatorial kingdom to the Father, and God, in some
peculiar and infinitely sublime sense, become all in all! God love you,

S. T. Coleridge."[83]


In a former page, Mr. Coleridge has been represented as entertaining
sentiments in early life, approaching to, though not identified with,
those of Unitarians; on his return to Bristol, in the year 1807, a
complete reverse had taken place in his theological tenets. Reflection
and reading, particularly the bible, had taught him, as he said, the
unstable foundation on which Unitarians grounded their faith; and in
proportion as orthodox sentiments acquired an ascendancy in his mind, a
love of truth compelled him to oppose his former errors, and stimulated
him, by an explicit declaration of his religious views, to counteract
those former impressions, which his cruder opinions had led him once so
strenuously to enforce on all around.

The editor of Mr. Coleridge's "Table Tails," has conferred an important
benefit on the public, by preserving so many of his familiar
conversations, particularly those on the important subject of
Unitarianism. Few men ever poured forth torrents of more
happily-expressed language, the result of more matured reflection, in his
social intercourse, than Mr. Coleridge; and at this time, the
recollection is accompanied with serious regret, that I allowed to pass
unnoticed so many of his splendid colloquies, which, could they be
recalled, would exhibit his talents in a light equally favourable with
his most deliberately-written productions.

I did indeed take notes of one of his conversations, on his departure
from a supper party, and which I shall subjoin, because the confirmed
general views, and individual opinions of so enlarged a mind must command
attention; especially when exercised on subjects intrinsically important.
I however observe, that my sketch of the conversation must be understood
as being exceedingly far from doing _justice_ to the original.

At this time I was invited to meet Mr. Coleridge with a zealous Unitarian
minister. It was natural to conclude, that such uncongenial, and, at the
same time, such inflammable materials would soon ignite. The subject of
Unitarianism having been introduced soon after dinner, the minister
avowed his sentiments, in language that was construed into a challenge,
when Mr. Coleridge advanced at once to the charge, by saying "Sir, you
give up so much, that the little you retain of Christianity is not worth
keeping." We looked in vain for a reply. After a manifest internal
conflict, the Unitarian minister very prudently allowed the gauntlet to
remain undisturbed. Wine he thought more pleasant than controversy.

Shortly after this occurrence, Mr. Coleridge supped with the writer, when
his well known conversational talents were eminently displayed; so that
what Pope affirmed of Bolingbroke, that "his usual conversation, taken
down verbatim, from its coherence and accuracy, would have borne
printing, without correction," was fully, and perhaps, more justly
applicable to Mr. C.

Some of his theological observations are here detailed. He said, he had
recently had a long conversation with an Unitarian minister, who
declared, that, he could discover nothing in the New Testament which in
the _least_ favoured the Divinity of Christ, to which Mr. C. replied that
it appeared to him impossible for any man to read the New Testament, with
the common exercise of an unbiassed understanding, without being
convinced of the Divinity of Christ, from the testimony almost of every
page.

He said it was evident that different persons might look at the same
object with very opposite feelings. For instance, if Sir Isaac Newton
looked at the planet Jupiter, he would view him with his revolving moons,
and would be led to the contemplation of his being inhabited, which
thought would open a boundless field to his imagination: whilst another
person, standing perhaps at the side of the great philosopher, would look
at Jupiter with the same set of feelings that he would at a silver
sixpence. So some persons were wilfully blind, and did not seek for that
change, that preparation of the heart and understanding, which would
enable them to see clearly the gospel truth.

He said that Socinians believed no more than St. Paul did before his
conversion: for the Pharisees believed in a Supreme Being, and a future
state of rewards and punishments. St. Paul thought he ought to do many
things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. The saints he shut up
in prison, having received authority from the High Priest, and when they
were put to death, he gave his voice against them. But after his
conversion, writing to the Romans, he says, 'I am not ashamed of the
gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation unto every man
that believeth: to the Jew first, and also to the Gentiles.'

He then referred to the dreadful state of the literati in London, as it
respects religion, and of their having laughed at him, and believed him
to be in jest, when he professed his belief in the Bible.

Having introduced Mr. Davy to Mr. C. some years before, I inquired for
him with some anxiety, and expressed a hope that he was not tinctured
with the prevailing scepticism since his removal from Bristol to London.
Mr. C. assured me that he was not: that _his_ heart and understanding
were not the _soil_ for _infidelity_.[84] I then remarked, "During your
stay in London, you doubtless saw a great many of what are called 'the
cleverest men,' how do you estimate Davy, in comparison with these?" Mr.
Coleridge's reply was strong, but expressive. "Why, Davy could eat them
all! There is an energy, an elasticity in his mind, which enables him to
seize on, and analyze, all questions, pushing them to their legitimate
consequences. Every subject in Davy's mind has the principle of vitality.
Living thoughts spring up like the turf under his feet." With equal
justice, Mr. Davy entertained the same exalted opinion of Mr. Coleridge.

Mr. C. now changed the subject, and spoke of Holcroft; who he said was a
man of but small powers, with superficial, rather than solid talents, and
possessing principles of the most horrible description; a man who at the
very moment he denied the existence of a Deity, in his heart believed and
trembled. He said that Holcroft, and other Atheists, reasoned with so
much fierceness and vehemence against a God, that it plainly showed they
were inwardly conscious there _was_ a GOD to reason against; for, a
nonentity would never excite passion.

He said that in one of his visits to London, he accidentally met Holcroft
in a public office without knowing his name, when he began, stranger as
he was, the enforcement of some of his diabolical sentiments! which, it
appears, he was in the habit of doing, at all seasons, and in all
companies; by which he often corrupted the principles of those simple
persons who listened to his shallow, and worn-out impieties. Mr. C.
declared himself to have felt indignant at conduct so infamous, and at
once closed with the "prating atheist," when they had a sharp encounter.
Holcroft then abruptly addressed him, "I perceive you have _mind_, and
know what you are talking about. It will be worth while to make a convert
of _you_. I am engaged at present, but if you vrill call on me to-morrow
morning, giving him his card, I will engage, in half an hour, to convince
you there is no God!"

Mr. Coleridge called on him the next morning, when the discussion was
renewed, but none being present except the disputants, no account is
preserved of this important conversation; but Mr. C. affirmed that he
beat all his arguments to atoms; a result that none who knew him could
doubt. He also stated that instead of _his_ being converted to atheism,
the atheist himself, after his manner, was converted; for the same day he
sent Mr. C. a letter, saying his reasoning was so clear and satisfactory,
that he had changed his views and was now "_a theist_." The next sun
probably beheld him an atheist again; but whether he _called_ himself
this or that, his character was the same.

Copyright (c) 2007. topboookz.com. All rights reserved.