text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 06.djvu/307

 College, Brewer, in 1855, was appointed professor of the English language and literature and lecturer in modern history. An ardent lover of the classics, he was not less devoted to English literature, the study of which he invariably combined with that of modern history as the only mode of making either study fruitful; and his method of teaching was highly calculated to awaken the best thinking power in his hearers. His classes both at King's College and afterwards in the Working Men's College, where he for some years assisted Mr. Maurice, and ultimately succeeded him as principal, were always numerously attended by a highly interested audience.

He was also busy with his pen—at first mainly as a journalist. From about the year 1854 he continued for six years to write in the columns of the 'Morning Post,' the 'Morning Herald,' and the 'Standard,' of which last paper he became the editor. He resigned in consequence of a dispute with the manager about the employment of a Roman catholic contributor, whose claims he supported. Thoroughly liberal-minded, he appreciated every man's capacity, whatever his leanings might be, and strove to give every one a fair field for his talents. But he soon became absorbed in other work, far less remunerative, though in his eyes of very high importance; and after quitting the 'Standard' he wrote little in any newspaper except a number of very strong letters in the 'Globe' against the policy of disestablishing the Irish Church. In 1856 he was commissioned by the master of the rolls, Sir John Romilly, to prepare a calendar of the state papers of Henry VIII—a work of peculiar labour, involving concurrent investigations at the Record Office and the British Museum, as well as at Lambeth and other public libraries; and in this he continued to be engaged till the day of his death. His advice was for a long time continually sought by Sir Thomas Hardy, the deputy-keeper of the public records, on matters connected with the literary work of the office. He was also appointed by Lord Romilly reader at the Rolls, and afterwards preacher there—a post of greater name than emolument. Some years later he was consulted by the delegates of the Clarendon Press as to a projected series of English classics, of which several volumes have now been published. The plan of the series was drawn up by Brewer, and it was intended that he should write a general introduction to it; but he died before the scheme was sufficiently advanced to enable him to do so.

In 1877 the crown living of Toppesfield in Essex was given to him by Mr. Disraeli, who was then prime minister. He gave up his professorship at King's College, but still remained editor of the calendar of Henry VIII, though he endeavoured to take his editorial work more lightly, while he threw himself into his parochial duties with the zeal and energy he had displayed in everything else. For some time his usually robust health had been slightly impaired. In February 1879 he caught cold after a long walk to visit a sick parishioner. The illness soon affected his heart, and in three days he died.

His principal works are those which he produced for the Record Office, among which the calendar of 'Letters and Papers of the Reign of Henry VIII' holds the first place. The prefaces to the volumes of this calendar have been collected and published in a separate form with the title of 'the Reign of Henry VIII,' 1884, under the editorship of J. Gairdner. And besides some other calendars and official reports, his 'Monumenta Franciscana,' and his editions of certain works of Roger Bacon and Giraldus Cambrensis, also published for the master of the rolls, deserve particular mention. Besides these he published, through ordinary channels, Bishop Goodman's account of the 'Court of King James I.,' an admirable edition of Fuller's 'Church History,' another of Bacon's 'Novum Organum,' 'An Elementary Atlas of History and Geography,' and the 'Student's Hume,' revised edition 1878. He was also the author of some treatises published by the Christian Knowledge Society on the 'Athanasian Creed' and the 'Endowments and Establishment of the Church of England.' Early in his career he had also undertaken an edition of Field's 'Book of the Church,' of which, however, only one volume was issued, in 1843. Dr. Wace edited in 1881 his 'English Studies,' reprinted from the 'Quarterly Review.'

 BREWER, SAMUEL (d. 1743?), botanist, was a native of Trowbridge in Wiltshire, where he possessed a small estate, and was engaged in the woollen manufacture, but seems to have been unsuccessful in business. He communicated some plants to Dillenius for the third edition of Ray's 'Synopsis,' published in 1724, and accompanied the editor in 1726 from Trowbridge to the Mendips, and thence to Bristol, passing onward to North Wales and Anglesey. Brewer remained in Bangor for more than a twelvemonth, botanising with Rev. W. Green and W. Jones, and sending dried plants to Dillenius, particularly


text:
Page:Hoyt's New Cyclopedia Of Practical Quotations (1922).djvu/532

494

{{Hoyt quote | num = | text = Up from the sea, the wild north wind is blowing Under the sky's gray arch; Smiling I watch the shaken elm boughs, knowing It is the wind of March. Whither—March. ' Like an army defeated The snow hath retreated, And now doth fare ill On the top of the bare hill; The Ploughboy is whooping—anon—anon! There's joy in the mountains: There's life in the fountains; Small clouds are sailing, Blue sky prevailing; The rain is over and gone. Wordsworth—Written in March.

MARIGOLD

{{Hoyt quote | num = | text = The marigold, whose courtier's face Echoes the sun, and doth unlace Her at his rise, at his full stop Packs and shuts up her gaudy shop. John Cleveland—On Phillis Walking Before Sunrise. | note = | topic = | page = 494 }}

{{Hoyt quote | num = | text = The marigold abroad her leaves doth spread, Because the sun's and her power is the same. Henry Constable—Diana. | note = | topic = | page = 494 }}

{{Hoyt quote | num = | text = No marigolds yet closed are, No shadows great appeare. | author = Herrick | work = Hespendes. To Daisies. Not to Shut so Soone. | note = | topic = | page = 494 }}

{{Hoyt quote | num = | text = Open afresh your round of starry folds, Ye ardent marigolds! Dry up the moisture from your golden lips. Keats—I Stood Tiptoe Upon a Little Hill. | author = | work = | place = | note = | topic = | page = 494 }}

{{Hoyt quote | num = | text = The sun-observing marigold. Quarles—The School of the Heart. Ode XXX. St. 5. | author = | work = | place = | note = | topic = | page = 494 }}

{{Hoyt quote | num = | text = Nor shall the marigold unmentioned die, Which Acis once found out in Sicily; She Phoebus loves, and from him draws his hue, And ever keeps his golden beams in view. Rapin—In His Latin Poem on Gardens. Trans. by Gardiner in 1706. | author = | work = | place = | note = | topic = | page = 494 }}

{{Hoyt quote | num = | text = And winking Mary-buds begin To ope their golden eyes. Cymbeline. Act II. Sc. 3. Song. L. 25. | author = | work = | place = | note = | topic = | page = 494 }}

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Page:Hoyt's New Cyclopedia Of Practical Quotations (1922).djvu/533

 MARSH MARIGOLD MATRIMONY

MARSH MARIGOLD Caltha Palustris

MARTLET

MARTYRDOM

MASONS

MATRIMONY


text:
Page:The Praises of Amida, 1907.djvu/17

 Rh This is the inner Citadel of the Faith: the rest are outworks, intended to secure the main position,—outworks to be defended with all our might,—but outworks.

Into this inner Citadel of Our Faith Shinshu Amida-ism does not penetrate, in spite of the striking resemblances between Amida and Christ, and in spite of (as I believe it to be) the fact that the two are in their origin the same Person. For though Amida-ism speaks of a Saviour, whom it proclaims to be the Father of Mankind, nay, of all that live, Amida is not the Father, in the sense of being the Creator; and it is our glory as Christians to believe in God the "Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth," and to maintain that, in Creation, God was absolutely unfettered by any pre-existent Matter, or by any Law, but only by the limitations (if such they may be called) of His own Infinite Wisdom and Goodness. It is here that Amida-ism falls short of the Highest Truth, and that in spite of the fact that, if it is true, as Christ said, that 'He that hath seen me hath

title: Page:The Praises of Amida, 1907.djvu/17


text:
Page:Florian - The Fables, 1888.djvu/76

19 Th' invention of this art belongs To folks once skill'd in all such wrongs, The subtle Greeks, who—may they get All the reward for't due them yet!

This art an old fox once profess'd;— Its perfect master stood confess'd. He kept a school to teach the way, And took fat pullets for his pay. One of his pupils aim'd to be A lawyer of the first degree, And for tuition did agree Of case first gain'd to give the fee. In legal form the two compact; Sign'd, seal'd, deliver'd is the act. But when the course of study's done, The pupil for injunction sues; Declares he owes his master none Of all the pullets claim'd for dues. The leopard, learned in the laws, Presides as judge to hear the cause. "May't please the court," the pupil cried, "If my case's gain'd, I need not pay; For so your honor will decide; And we the sentence must obey. And if I lose, why, nothing's due, For the conditions plainly say, 'Tis only if I win I pay. Such is the law I apprehend; I would not, truly, wrong my friend."

title: Page:Florian - The Fables, 1888.djvu/76


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Brewer, Jehoiada


text:
Page:The Praises of Amida, 1907.djvu/18

8 seen the Father' it is also true that he that has caught but the glimpse of Christ that Amida-ism gives, has also caught a glimpse of the Father. When it has been demonstrated, as I hope it will be, that Amida is none other than that Person Whom we Christians worship as our Saviour-God, and for Whose reality we claim to have historical evidence, then Amida-ism will rise to the perfect Truth, and will gain in courage, in strength; in sweetness, in honesty, and in truth. It was not to destroy Amida that our Master was revealed: it was to give substance to the idea which he expresses, and it will some day be seen that the Gospels of Christianity are, in fact, the records of the Earthly Life of Amida Nyorai.

In the meantime, whether Christians or Buddhists, we will provoke one another to good works, to making the world in general, and Japan in particular, a purer, nobler, and in all ways a better place, and if we accomplish so much we shall not have laboured in vain.

title: Page:The Praises of Amida, 1907.djvu/18


text: The Praises of Amida/Introduction

title: The Praises of Amida/Introduction


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 06.djvu/310

 Berkshire, Nottinghamshire, and Derbyshire (, Bar.} He married Beatrice de Valle. In 1201 Brewer founded the abbey of Motisfont as a house of Augustinian canons. This foundation has been ascribed to his son William {Ann. de Osen.}, but the charters of the abbey prove that it was the work of the father (Mon. vi. 480). On 15 Aug. of the same year he was present as founder at the foundation of the Cistercian abbey of Dunkeswell in Devonshire. He is said also to have founded the Benedictine nunnery of Polslo in that county (''Ann. de Margam; Mon.'' iv. 425, v. 678).

During the reign of John, Brewer held a prominent place among the king's counsellors. His name appears among the witnesses of the disgraceful treaty made with Philip at Thouars in 1206. When an attempt was made to reconcile the king to Archbishop Langton in 1209, he joined Geoffrey Fitz-Peter and others in guaranteeing the archbishop's safety during his visit to England, and saw him safely out of the kingdom. During the period of the interdict he strongly upheld the king, and is mentioned by Wendover (iii. 238) as one of John's evil advisers, who cared for nothing else save to please their master. The king's extortions from the clergy, the monks, and especially the Cistercians, were in obedience to Brewer's advice, and in 1210 he caused the king to forbid the Cistercian monks to attend the annual chapter of their order—a sin which, according to Paris, brought him and others concerned to a sorrowful end. He signed the treaty made by John with the Count of Boulogne in May 1212. On 15 May 1213 he signed the charter by which John surrendered the crown and kingdom of England to Innocent III, and on 21 Nov. 1214 the charter granting freedom of election to sees and abbeys, by which the king hoped to win the English church to his side. When the barons made a confederation against the king at Brackley in 1215, and drew up the list of their demands, Brewer refused to join them. After their entry into London, however, he and other ministers of the king were compelled to act with the baronial party, and his name appears among the signatures subscribed to the great charter. His heart, however, was by no means in the work, and when war broke out he became one of the leaders of the army left by John to watch the baronial forces, cut off their supplies, and ravage their lands. On the death of John he assisted at the coronation of Henry at Gloucester on 28 Oct. 1216. He warmly espoused the cause of the young king against the French, and joined with other barons in pledging himself to ransom all prisoners belonging to the king's party. He was one of those who guaranteed the observance of the treaty of Lambeth on 11 Sept. 1217, though he did not approve of the moderate terms granted to Louis (Ann. Wav.} The next year he was present with the king and court at the dedication of the cathedral church of Worcester, to which he afterwards presented a chalice of gold of four marks weight, 'not to be removed from the church save for fire, hunger, or necessary ransom' (''Ann. Wig.''} With the restlessness and plots of the foreign party Brewer had no sympathy, and, indeed, seems to have acted in full accord with the justiciar Hubert de Burgh. In 1221 he sat as one of the barons of the exchequer (Foss, Biog. Jurid.} He was one of the favourite counsellors of Henry III, and his influence with the king was not for good. For example, when in January 1223 Archbishop Langton and the lords demanded that Henry, who was then holding his Christmas festival at Oxford, should confirm the great charter, Brewer answered for the king, and said: 'The liberties you ask for ought not to be observed; for they were extorted by force.' Indignant at this declaration, the archbishop rebuked him. 'William,' he said, 'if you loved the king you would not disturb the peace of the kingdom.' The king saw that the archbishop was angry, and at once yielded to his demand ( iv. 84). Later in the same year Honorius III associated Brewer with the Bishop of Winchester and the justiciar in a letter declaring Henry to be of full age. He died in 1226, having assumed, probably when actually dying, as was not infrequently done, the habit of a monk at Dunkeswell, and was buried there in the church he had founded. During the reigns of John and Henry III he acquired great possessions. By John he was made guardian of Henry Percy and of many other rich wards. He received a large number of grants from the king, and among them the manor of Bridgwater, with an ample charter creating that place a free borough with a market (, Bar.} In this town he founded the hospital of St. John Baptist, for the maintenance of thirteen sick poor, besides 'religious' and pilgrims (Mon. vi. 662). In the same reign he also acquired half the fee of the house of Brito: this acquisition probably was made unjustly ('per potestatem domini Willielmi Bruyere veterioris,' Inq. p. m. 49 Hen. III, Somerset Archæol. Soc. Proc. xxi. ii. 33). It included the honour of Odcomb, with other places in Somersetshire and Devonshire. The memory of this grant is preserved in the name of Ile Brewers, a village near Langport, which


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 06.djvu/311

 passed to him along with Odcomb. One of Brewer's sons, Richard, died before him. He left one son, William, and five daughters, who all married men of wealth and importance. The names of two brothers of Brewer are preserved, John and Peter of Rievaulx. Peter became a hermit at Motisfont; for a document of that house says that he was called 'The Holy Man in the Wall,' and that he did many miracles (Mon. vi. 481). It should, however, be noted that the Peter of Rievaulx who was treasurer in the reign of Henry III was the nephew or son (, iii. 220) of Peter des Roches, bishop of Winchester, and so, if the Motisfont document is of any value at all, was a different man from the hermit there spoken of.

BREWSTER, ABRAHAM (1796–1874), lord chancellor of Ireland, son of William Bagenal Brewster of Ballinulta, Wicklow, by his wife Mary, daughter of Thomas Bates, was born at Ballinulta in April 1796, received his earlier education at Kilkenny College, and, then proceeding to the university of Dublin in 1812, took his B. A. degree in 1817, and long after, in 1847, his M.A. degree. He was called to the Irish bar in 1819, and, having chosen Leinster for his circuit, soon acquired the reputation of a sound lawyer and a powerful speaker. Lord Plunket honoured him with a silk gown on 13 July 1835. Notwithstanding the opposition of Daniel O'Connell, he was appointed legal adviser to the lord-lieutenant of Ireland on 10 Oct. 1841, and was solicitor-general of Ireland from 2 Feb. 1846 until 16 July. By the influence of his friend Sir James Graham, the home secretary, he was attorney-general of Ireland from 10 Jan. 1853 until the fall of the Aberdeen ministry, 10 Feb. 1855.

Brewster was very active in almost all branches of his profession after his resignation, and his reputation as an advocate may be gathered from the pages of the 'Irish Law and Equity Reports,' and in the later series of the 'Irish Common Law Reports,' the 'Irish Chancery Reports,' and the 'Irish Jurist,' in all of which his name very frequently appears. Among the most important cases in which he took part were the Mountgarrett case in 1854, involving a peerage and an estate of 10,000l. a year; the Carden abduction case in July of the same year; the Yelverton case, 1861; the Egmont will case, 1863; the Marquis of Donegal's ejectment action; and lastly, the great will cause of Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, in which Brewster's statement for the plaintiff is said to have been one of his most successful efforts.

On Lord Derby becoming prime minister, Brewster succeeded [q.v.] as lord justice of appeal in Ireland in July 1866, and lord chancellor of Ireland in the month of March following. As lord chancellor he sat in his court for the last time on 17 Dec. 1868, when Mr. Disraeli's government resigned. He then retired from public life. There are in print only three or four judgments delivered by him, either in the appellate court or the court of chancery. As far back as January 1853 he had been made a privy councillor in Ireland. He died at his residence, 26 Merrion Square South, Dublin, on 26 July 1874, and was buried at Tullow, co. Carlow, on 30 July. By his marriage in 1819 with Mary Ann, daughter of Robert Gray of Upton House, co. Carlow, who died in Dublin on 24 Nov. 1862, he had issue one son, Colonel William Bagenal Brewster, and one daughter, Elizabeth Mary, wife of Mr. Henry French, both of whom died in the lifetime of their father.

BREWSTER, DAVID (1781–1868), natural philosopher, was born at Jedburgh on 11 Dec. 1781. He was the third child and second son of James Brewster, rector of the grammar school of Jedburgh, his mother being Margaret Key, who is said to have been a very accomplished woman. She died at the age of thirty-seven, when David was only nine years old, but through his long life he retained a most affectionate memory of his mother. The motherless family fell to the charge of Grisel, the only sister, who appears to have discovered the genius of her second brother, and, the paternal rule being marked by much severity, the sister, who was but three years older than David, did her utmost by fond indulgence to spoil the boy. It is recorded that David was never seen to pore over his books, but he always knew his lessons and often assisted his schoolfellows, keeping always a prominent place in his classes. There were four brothers, James, George, David, and [q. v.], who were all remarkable for their intelligence. Among the citizens of Jedburgh when David Brewster was a boy were various men


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 06.djvu/315

 scientific friend, Mr. Francis Deas, as to the arrangement of his scientific instruments, and two years later he confided to this gentleman the completion of a paper 'On the Motion, Equilibrium, and Forms of Liquid Films.'

On 10 Feb. 1868 an attack of pneumonia and bronchitis exhibited symptoms which convinced Sir James Simpson that he could not live over the day. After a few hours of extreme languor, knowing all his loving watchers, with ' an ineffably happy, cheerful look, which seemed to come from a very fulness of content,' this bright intelligence passed quietly away at Allerby, Montrose. In 1857 Brewster married for the second time Miss Jane Kirk Purnell of Scarborough, by whom he had a daughter, born 27 Jan. 1861.

 BREWSTER, FRANCIS (fl. 1674–1702), writer on trade, was a citizen and alderman of Dublin, and lord mayor of that city in 1674. In February 1692-3 he gave evidence before the House of Commons on certain public abuses in Ireland, and in 1698 was appointed one of seven commissioners to inquire into the forfeited estates in Ireland. The commissioners disagreed among themselves, and when the report was delivered in the following year it was signed by only four of the members of the commission; the other three, the Earl of Drogheda, Sir Richard Levinge, and Sir F. Brewster, having refused to sign it because they thought it false and ill-grounded in several particulars. The dispute was brought before parliament, and Sir R. Levinge was committed to the Tower for spreading scandalous aspersions against some of his colleagues.

Brewster was the author of 'Essays in Trade and Navigation. In Five Parts,' Lond. 1695, 12mo. The first part only was published; but in 1702 he issued 'New Essays on Trade, wherein the present state of our Trade, its great decay in the chief branches of it, and the fatal consequences thereof to the Nation (unless timely remedy'd), is considered under the most important heads of Trade and Navigation,' Lond. 12mo. The following anonymous book is also ascribed to him: 'A Discourse concerning Ireland and the different Interests thereof; in answer to the Exon and Barnstaple Petitions; shewing that if a Law were enacted to prevent the exportation of Woollen Manufactures from Ireland to Foreign Parts, what the consequences thereof would be both to England and Ireland,' Lond. 1698, 4to.

 BREWSTER, JOHN (1753–1842), author, the son of the Rev. Richard Brewster, M.A., vicar of Heighington in the county palatine of Durham, was born in 1753, and received his education at the grammar school of Newcastle-upon-Tyne under the Rev. Hugh Moises, and at Lincoln College, Oxford, where he graduated B.A. in 1775, and M.A. in 1778. He was appointed curate of Stockton-on-Tees in 1776, and lecturer there in 1777. In 1791 he was presented to the vicarage of Greatham, which benefice he held until 1799, when he became vicar of Stockton through the patronage of Bishop Barrington. The same prelate afterwards successively preferred him to the rectories of Redmarshall in 1805, Boldon in 1809, and Egglescliffe in 1814, in which charges, according to the testimony of Surtees (Hist, of Durham, iii. 139), he was 'long and justly respected for the exemplary discharge of his parochial duties.' He died at Egglescliffe 28 Nov. 1842, aged 89.

His chief work was his
 * 1) 'Parochial History and Antiquities of Stockton-on-Tees,' published in quarto at Stockton in 1796. A second and enlarged edition was printed in 1829, octavo. His other works were:
 * 2) 'Sermons for Prisons,' &c., 1790, 8vo.
 * 3) 'On the Prevention of Crimes and the Advantages of Solitary Confinement,' 1790, 8vo.
 * 4) 'Meditations of a Recluse, chiefly on Religious Subjects,' 1800, 12mo.
 * 5) 'A Thanksgiving Sermon for the Peace,' 1802.
 * 6) 'A Secular Essay, containing a View of Events connected with the Ecclesiastical History of England during the 18th Century.' 1802, 8vo.
 * 7) 'The Restoration of Family Worship recommended, in Discourses selected, with alterations, from Dr. Doddridge.' 1804, 8vo.
 * 8) 'Lectures on the Acts of the Apostles.' 1806, 2 vols. 8vo.
 * 9) 'Of the Religious Improvement of Prisons, an Assize Sermon,' 1808.
 * 10) 'Meditations for the Aged, adapted to the Progress of Human Life,' 1810, 8vo; four editions.
 * 11) 'Meditations for Penitents.' 1813.
 * 12) 'Reflections adapted to the Holy Seasons of the Christian and Ecclesiastical Year,' 12mo.
 * 13) 'Reflections upon the Ordination Service.' 12mo.
 * 14) 'Contemplations on the Last Discourses of our Blessed Saviour with His Disciples as recorded in the Gospel of St. John,' 1822, 8vo.
 * 15) 'A Sketch of the History of Churches in England, applied to the purposes of the Society for Promoting the Building and Enlargement of Churches and Chapels,' 1818.


text:
Page:A Book of Dartmoor.djvu/175

Rh By a charter of Edward I, it was constituted a Stannary prison. Richard Strode, of Newnham Park, one of the principal gentry of the county, moved in Parliament to restrain the miners from discharging their refuse into the rivers with the result of choking up the harbours. The miners were so incensed against him that they captured him in 1512, had him summarily tried by their Stannary Laws, on Crockern Tor, and threw him into Lydford gaol, where he languished for some time, and it was with considerable difficulty that his release was obtained.

What with Forest Laws and Stannary Laws, Lydford Castle rarely lacked tenants. Even in 1399 Lydford law was held in bad repute, for Wright, in his collection of political poems, prints some verses of that date which speak of it as such; and William Browne, in 1644, wrote on it:—

And so on for sixteen verses.

Below the castle is the water-gate where is the only spring from which Lydford town was supplied

title: Page:A Book of Dartmoor.djvu/175


text:
Page:A Book of Dartmoor.djvu/176

132 till Mr. Radford brought drinking water into the place.

With Lydford the name of Daniel Radford will be indissolubly connected—one of the noblest and kindest of men, and one of the most modest. He cut the way up the ravine by which the gorge was made accessible. When I was a boy the only method by which it could be explored was by swimming and scrambling in summer, when the water was low. Mr. Radford built Bridge House and restored the church. It was due to him that I undertook, in 1888, to collect the folk-music in Devon and Cornwall; and it is in Lydford churchyard that he lies, awaiting the resurrection of the just. Not without deep feeling can I pen these lines to commemorate one of the best men whom it has been my happiness to know.

As I have mentioned the folk-music of Devon, I may here add that one of my assistants was old Will Huggins, of Lydford, a mason, who entered enthusiastically into the work. I had an attack of influenza in the winter of 1889-90, and had to leave England for Italy. Before my departure Will promised me to go about among his old cronies and collect ancient ballads. Alas! he caught a chill; it fell on his chest, and when I returned in the spring, it was to learn that he was gone.

title: Page:A Book of Dartmoor.djvu/176


text:
Page:A Book of Dartmoor.djvu/177

Rh In the village street may be noticed, built into the hedge or wall, a piece of granite with a round hole like a rock basin depressed in it. Actually it is one of the stones of a gate-hinge.

Formerly the gates around Dartmoor had no iron hinges, but turned in sockets cut in granite blocks. Few of these now remain in use, but the stones may be noticed lying about in many places, and it is really

marvellous that the antiquaries of the past did not suppose they were basins for sacrificial lustration.

In 1880 the late Mr. Lukis was in Devon, planning the rude stone monuments on Dartmoor for the Royal Society of Antiquaries. He came on some of these cuplike holes in stones, and carefully measured and drew them. Happily, I was able to show a gate swinging between two of these blocks, and so explain to him their purpose.

title: Page:A Book of Dartmoor.djvu/177


text:
Page:A Book of Dartmoor.djvu/178

134 The Lydford ravine is the finest of its kind in England. A bridge crosses it, and it is worth while looking over the parapet into the gulf below, through which the river writhes and leaps. The gardens of Bridge House are thrown open on Mondays, when a visitor may descend and thread the gorge. But decidedly the best way for him to see the beauties of the Lyd valley, where most restricted and romantic, is for him to descend at the waterfall, a pretty but not grand slide of a lateral brook, and ascend the ravine of the Lyd from thence; he will pass through the gorge where finest, under the bridge, and pursue his course till he comes out at a mill below the south gate of Lydford. Hence a half-mile will take him to Kitt's Steps, another fall, a leap of the Lyd into a basin half choked with the rubbish from a mine. The mine happily failed, but it has left its heaps in the glen as a permanent disfigurement.

Considerable caution must be exercised in ascending the gorge, as the path is narrow, and in places slippery. A schoolmistress was killed here a few years ago. She turned to look at the sun glancing through the leaves at the entrance of the chasm, became giddy, and fell over. She was dead when her body was recovered.

Inhabiting the valley and lateral combes of the Lyd, in the time of Charles I. and the Commonwealth, was a race of men called the Gubbinses. They were wild and lawless, and maintained themselves by stealing sheep and cattle, and carrying them into the labyrinth of glens where they could not be traced.

title: Page:A Book of Dartmoor.djvu/178


text:
Page:A Book of Dartmoor.djvu/179

Rh Fuller, in his account of the wonders of the county of Devon, includes the Gubbinses. He heard of them during his stay in Exeter, 1644-7.

"I have read of an England beyond Wales, but the Gubbings land is a Scythia within England, and they be pure heathens therein. It lyeth near Brenttor, in the edge of Dartmore. . . . They are a peculiar of their own making, exempt from Bishop, Archdeacon, and all Authority, either ecclesiastical or civil. They live in cotts (rather holes than houses) like swine, having all in common, multiplied, without marriage, into many hundreds. Their language is the drosse of the dregs of the vulgar Devonian; and the more learned a man is, the worse he can understand them. Their wealth consists in other men's goods, and they live by stealing the sheep on the More, and vain it is for any to search their Houses, being a Work beneath the pains of a Sheriff, and above the powers of any constable. Such their fleetness, they will out-run many horses: vivaciousnesse, they outlive most men, living in the ignorance of luxury, the Extinguisher of Life, they hold together like Burrs, offend One, and All will revenge his quarrel."

William Browne speaks of them as near Lydford:—

title: Page:A Book of Dartmoor.djvu/179


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 06.djvu/316

 to the purposes of the Society for Promoting the Building and Enlargement of Churches and Chapels,' 1818.  'An Abridgment of Cave's Primitive Christianity.'  'Memoir of the Rev. Hugh Moises, A.M.;' privately printed in 1823, and reprinted in Nichols's 'Illustrations of Literature,' vol. v.

 BREWSTER, PATRICK (1788–1859), Scotch divine, born on 20 Dec. 1788, was the youngest of the four sons of Mr. James Brewster, and younger brother of Sir [q. v.] In accordance with the wishes of his father, who had destined all his sons to the ministry of the Scottish church, Patrick devoted himself to theology, and received license as a probationer from the presbytery of Fordoun on 26 March 1817. In August following he was presented by the Marquis of Abercorn to the second charge of the Abbey Church of Paisley, to which he was ordained on 10 April 1818. He continued to occupy this preferment for nearly forty-one years, and died at his residence at Craigie Linn, near Paisley, on 26 March 1859. Brewster was a favourite of the working classes, and received a public funeral (4 April 1859). In 1863 a monument to his memory was erected by public subscription in Paisley cemetery.

As a preacher Brewster enjoyed an almost unrivalled local fame. His political views were extreme; he was a 'moral-force chartist,' and took an active share in the plans for carrying out the chartist programme. His whole life was one continuous succession of exciting disputes upon public questions, or with the heritors, the parish authorities, or the presbytery. This polemical spirit may be traced in the volume of his sermons entitled 'The Seven Chartist and Military Discourses libelled by the Marquis of Abercorn and other Heritors of the Abbey Parish. To which are added four other Discourses formerly published, with one or two more as a Specimen of the Author's mode of treating other Scripture Topics. With an Appendix,' 8vo, Paisley, &c., 1843. Brewster advocated the abolition of the slave trade, the repeal of the corn laws, temperance, and a national system of education. He published three single 'Sermons,' 8vo, and a vindication, in two parts, of the rights of the poor of Scotland 'against the misrepresentations of the editor of the "Glasgow Post and Reformer."' He was also a contributor to the 'Edinburgh Cyclopædia,' and furnished a 'Description of a Fossil Tree found in a Quarry at Nitshill' to the ninth volume of the 'Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.' He incurred some odium for not, like his brothers, leaving the established church of Scotland at the time of the disruption in 1843, when he was one of 'the Forty.'

 BREWSTER, THOMAS, M.D. (b. 1705), translator, was the son of Benjamin Brewster of Eardisland, Herefordshire, and was born on 18 Sept. 1705. He was educated at Merchant Taylors' School, and thence elected to St. John's College, Oxford, in 1724. He graduated B.A. in 1727, M.A. in 1732, B.M. and D.M. in 1738. He was also elected a fellow of his college. While at Oxford he published a translation of the 'Second Satire of Persius,' in English verse by itself, to see, as he says in the preface, how the public would appreciate his work. This was in 1733. The third and fourth 'Satires' were published together in 1742, the fifth in the same year, and the six satires in one volume in 1784. Brewster, after leaving the university, practised medicine at Bath.

 BREWSTER, WILLIAM (1560?–1644), one of the chief founders of the colony of Plymouth, New England, was possibly a native of Scrooby, Nottinghamshire. According to the 'Memoir ' by Bradford, he was at the time of his death in his eightieth year, but Morton, secretary of the colony, states that he was eighty-four at his death, so that he was probably born in 1560. It has been conjectured that his father was either William Brewster, who was tenant at Scrooby of Archbishop Sandys, or Henry Brewster, vicar of Sutton-cum-Lound, or James Brewster, who succeeded Henry. The coat-of-arms preserved in the Brewster family in America is identical with that of the ancient Suffolk branch. Bradford states that Brewster, after obtaining some knowledge of Latin and some insight into Greek, spent a short time at the university of Cambridge, but he mentions neither the school where he made his preparatory studies, nor


text:
Page:A Book of Dartmoor.djvu/180

136 It cannot be said that the race is altogether extinct. The magistrates have had much trouble with certain persons living in hovels on the outskirts of the moor, who subsist in the same manner. They carry off lambs and young horses before they are marked, and when it is difficult, not to say impossible, for the owners to identify them. Their own ewes always have doubles.

In the West Okement valley, in a solitary spot, are the foundations of a cottage in which for many years a man lived, preying upon the flocks and cattle on the moor, and carrying on his depredations with such cunning that he was never caught. It was shrewdly suspected that he was in league with a number of small farmers, and that he was by this means able to pass on his captures and ensure their concealment.

Black Down is an extensive ridge of moorland traversed by the high road from Okehampton to Tavistock. The highest point is called Gibbet Hill, but tradition is silent as to who hung there.

In the Mary Tavy register occurs this entry:—

"1691, March 12, William Warden, a currier, was whipped by the Parson and Churchwardens of Whitchurch, and ordered to be passed on as a wandering rogue from parish to parish, by the officers therein, in 26 days to his native place, Cheshunt in Hertfordshire, and as the Churchwardens were conveying him on horseback over Black Down, he died on the back of the horse, and was buried the same night."

The parson of Whitchurch was a Mr. Polwhele, who was also justice of peace.

title: Page:A Book of Dartmoor.djvu/180


text:
Page:A Book of Dartmoor.djvu/181

Rh Here is another curious entry in the same book of registers:—  "1756, Sept. 12, Robert Elford, was baptized, the child of Susanna Elford by her sister's husband, to whom she was married with the consent of her sister, the wife, who was at the wedding."

Here the union is not with a deceased wife's sister, but the living wife's sister. There is no entry relative to this marriage, so that the pair must have got their unhallowed union blessed in some remote parish, where the relationship was not known.

In 1760 William Greedy, sojourner, and Susanna Elford had their banns called, but there is no entry of a marriage.

Another entry in the same register book is suggestive of a scandal.  "1627, Aug. 5, Baptized, Nicolas filius Mri. Johan. Cake jam senio confecti."

Mary Tavy church, picturesquely situated, not on the Tavy, but on a little confluent, was barbarously renovated some years ago, but of late much loving care has been bestowed upon the structure, and something has been done to efface the mischief wrought by the architect who had dealt with it previously. The new screen is remarkably good, and in accordance with Devonshire work of the sixteenth century. The stained glass is excellent.

Peter Tavy church was disfigured rather later than Mary Tavy. It possessed an interesting Tudor square pew, richly carved, and with posts at the

title: Page:A Book of Dartmoor.djvu/181


text:
Page:A Book of Dartmoor.djvu/182

138 corners supporting heraldic beasts. This was demolished at the so-called restoration. Some scraps have been preserved and worked up to form a screen across the tower arch. All the modern work is of the vulgarest description, in yellow deal. A portion of the screen with saints painted on it is preserved within the altar rails.

Peter Tavy Combe must on no account be neglected; it is a remarkably picturesque valley.

Another church that may be visited from Lydford is Bridestowe, dedicated to S. Bridget, who had a sanctuary of refuge here, now called the Sentry. The original church stood in a different position, and contained the Norman arch now erected at the entrance to the church avenue. It was turned into a church-house, then became ruinous and was pulled down. The reason for the removal of the parish church in the fifteenth century was probably because the old church was near the road at a turn, so that there was not space available to enlarge it.

This church has suffered from maltreatment by a late rector, who tore down the old roodscreen, sawed it down the middle, and plastered the tracery so treated against a deal dwarf screen, inverted, and against a vestry door. To make matters worse, he boarded the entire interior of the chancel with deal, varnished. It presented the appearance of a cabin of a ship. This has now happily disappeared. It is greatly to be desired that the screen should be restored.

Second to the Dart only in beauty is the West Okement that comes foaming down from the bogs

title: Page:A Book of Dartmoor.djvu/182


text:
Author:John Brewster

Works

 * Parochial History and Antiquities of Stockton-on-Tees (1796). Second and enlarged edition (1829)
 * Sermons for Prisons (1790)
 * On the Prevention of Crimes and the Advantages of Solitary Confinement (1790)
 * Meditations of a Recluse, chiefly on Religious Subjects (1800)
 * A Thanksgiving Sermon for the Peace (1802)
 * A Secular Essay, containing a View of Events connected with the Ecclesiastical History of England during the 18th Century (1802)
 * The Restoration of Family Worship recommended, in Discourses selected, with alterations, from Dr. Doddridge (1804)
 * Lectures on the Acts of the Apostles. (1806) 2 vols
 * Of the Religious Improvement of Prisons, an Assize Sermon (1808)
 * Meditations for the Aged, adapted to the Progress of Human Life (1810) four editions.
 * Meditations for Penitents (1813)
 * Reflections adapted to the Holy Seasons of the Christian and Ecclesiastical Year
 * Reflections upon the Ordination Service
 * Contemplations on the Last Discourses of our Blessed Saviour with His Disciples as recorded in the Gospel of St. John (1822)
 * A Sketch of the History of Churches in England, applied to the purposes of the Society for Promoting the Building and Enlargement of Churches and Chapels (1818.
 * An Abridgment of Cave's Primitive Christianity
 * Memoir of the Rev. Hugh Moises, A.M. privately printed (1823), and reprinted in Nichols's Illustrations of Literature vol. v.

title: Author:John Brewster


text:
Page:Southern Life in Southern Literature.djvu/26

 8

In the morning I left my son at the camp, and we started on towards the harricane, and when we had went about a mile, we started a very large bear, but we got along mighty slow on account of the cracks in the earth occasioned by the earthquakes. We, however, made out to keep in hearing of the dogs for about three miles, and then we come to the harricane. Here we had to quit our horses, as old Nick himself couldn't have got through it without sneaking it along in the form that he put on to make a fool of our old grandmother Eve. By this time several of my dogs had got tired and come back; but we went ahead on foot for some little time in the harricane, when we met a bear coming straight to us, and not more than twenty or thirty yards off. I started my tired dogs after him, and McDaniel pursued them, and I went on to where my other dogs were. I had seen the track of the bear they were after, and I knowed he was a screamer. I followed on to about the middle of the harricane, but my dogs pursued him so close that they made him climb an old stump about twenty feet high. I got in shooting distance of him and fired, but I was all over in such a flutter from fatigue and running that I couldn't hold steady; but, however, I broke his shoulder, and he fell. I run up and loaded my gun as quick as possible, and shot him again and killed him. When I went to take out my knife to butcher him, I found that I had lost it in coming through the harricane. The vines and briars was so thick that I would sometimes have to get down and crawl like a varment to get through it all; and a vine had, as I supposed, caught in the handle and pulled it out. While I was standing and studying what to do, my friend came to me. He had followed my trail through the harricane, and had found my knife, which was mighty good news to me, as a hunter hates the worst in


text:
Page:A Book of Dartmoor.djvu/183

Rh about Cranmere through a fine ravine between Yes Tor and Amicombe Hill. If the river be followed up from Meldon Viaduct, a point is reached where it rushes over a barrier-of rocks fallen from Black Tor, and divides about an islet. But perhaps the best way to see this valley is to ascend a combe, crossed at the foot by the Lake Viaduct, and follow a track that sweeps round Sourton Tor, and ascend to Bronescombe's Loaf and Cheese, where is a fine cairn. On the slope between Sourton Tor and Bronescombe's Loaf lies a large slab of granite through which a dyke of elvan has been thrust. In this elvan have been cut the moulds for two bronze axe-heads.

Walter Bronescombe was Bishop of Exeter between 1258 and 1280, and he lies buried in the Cathedral under a fine canopied tomb. The effigy is of his own date, and gives apparently a true portrait of a worthy prelate.

One day he was visiting this portion of his diocese, and had ventured to ride over the moor from Widdecombe. He and his retinue had laboured through bogs, and almost despaired of reaching the confines of the wilderness. Moreover, on attaining Amicombe Hill they knew not which way to take, for the bogs there are nasty; and his attendants dispersed to seek a way. The Bishop was overcome with fatigue, and was starving. He turned to his chaplain and said, "Our Master in the wilderness was offered by Satan bread made of stones. If he were now to make the same offer to me, I doubt if I should have the Christian fortitude to refuse."

title: Page:A Book of Dartmoor.djvu/183


text:
Page:A Book of Dartmoor.djvu/184

140 "Ah!" sighed the chaplain, "and a hunch of cheese as well!"

"Bread and cheese I could not hold out against," said the Bishop.

Hardly had he spoken before a moorman rose up from a peat dyke and drew nigh; he had a wallet on his back.

"Master! "called the chaplain, "dost thou chance to have a snack of meat with thee?"

"Ay, verily," replied the moorman, and approached, hobbling, for he was apparently lame. "I have with me bread and cheese, naught else."

"Give it us, my son," said the Bishop; "I will well repay thee."

"Nay," replied the stranger, "I be no son of thine. And I ask no reward save that thou descend from thy steed, doff thy cap, and salute me with the title of master."

"I will do that," said the Bishop, and alighted.

Then the strange man produced a loaf and a large piece of cheese.

Now, the Bishop was about to take off his cap and address the moorman in a tone of entreaty and by the title of master, when the chaplain perceived that the man had one foot like that of a goat. He instantly cried out to God, and signified what he saw to the prelate, who, in holy horror, made the sign of the cross, and lo! the moorman vanished, and the bread and cheese remained transformed to stone.

Do you doubt it? Go and see. Look on the Ordnance Survey map and you will find Bread

title: Page:A Book of Dartmoor.djvu/184


text: Page:A Book of Dartmoor.djvu/185

title: Page:A Book of Dartmoor.djvu/185


text: Page:A Book of Dartmoor.djvu/186

title: Page:A Book of Dartmoor.djvu/186


text:
Page:A Book of Dartmoor.djvu/187

Rh and Cheese marked there. Only Bronescombe's name has been transformed to Brandescombe.

But the Bishop, to make atonement, and to ease his conscience for having so nearly yielded to temptation, spent great sums on the rebuilding of his cathedral.

From the Bread and Cheese, a walk along the brow of the hill by the Slipper Stones—so called because there Bishop Bronescombe dropped one of the coverings of his feet—shows the valley to perfection, with Black Tor rising above it, and Yes Tor towering high aloft in the rear. By the stream below is a stunted copse, a relic of the ancient arms of forest that stole up the ravines far into the moor, but of which now hardly any remain. At Stinga Tor, further up, is a fine logan rock. The visitor may return by the peat-works and the noble pile of Lynx Tor to the valley of the Lyd.

An interesting excursion may be made to Tavy Cleave. The course to be adopted, so as to see it in perfection, is to go on to the moor from the Dartmoor Inn. Here in its proper season, August to October, the field gentian, with its dull purple flowers, may be gathered. A descent to the Lyd by some old mine works opens a fine view of Lynx, Hare, and Doe Tors, and the little farm named after the latter lies before one, solitary in the midst of heather and swamp. Stepping-stones allow the river to be crossed, and the farm is reached and passed, and Hare Tor is aimed at. Old stream-works and prospecting pits abound. By leaving the summit of Hare Tor on the left, a cluster of rocks rising above

title: Page:A Book of Dartmoor.djvu/187


text:
Page:A Book of Dartmoor.djvu/188

142 the grass and heather must be struck at, and suddenly before the eye opens the ravine of the Tavy, that foams far below over a bar of red granite.

Between the rocks and Ger Tor is a cluster of hut circles in tolerable preservation, and a very interesting collection is found on a spur of Stannon, on the further side of the Tavy.

Lynx Tor may be ascended from Lydford. The summit is occupied by a fine mass of rocks, and

commands a superb view as far as the Atlantic in one direction, and Plymouth Sound and the Channel in another.

Near Lynx Tor are the peat-works already mentioned. Various attempts have been made to find for the peat a use that may prove commercially successful, but hitherto these attempts have not been satisfactory to investors. The bogs are hungry, and swallow up a good deal of money.

Hence a short diversion will take to the logan rock on Stinga Tor.

On Sourton Down stands an old granite cross that

title: Page:A Book of Dartmoor.djvu/188


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Brewster, Thomas


text:
Page:A Book of Dartmoor.djvu/189

Rh bears an inscription only to be read when the sun is setting and casts its rays aslant over the face. Apparently the monolith was shaped into a Latin cross at some period later than the inscription, which belongs to the sixth century. It is headed by the early Christian symbol of the, but badly made. The same symbol occurs on the inscribed stone at Southill. The granite is of a very coarse texture, especially where the figure occurs and at the beginning of the name.

As for every person, so for every place, a time comes if waited for. It has come for Lydford, burnt by Danes, deserted in the Middle Ages, abandoned by its rectors.

So wrote Browne in the seventeenth century.

But the time has arrived for Lydford at last, and now in summer it is hardly possible for a visitor to obtain lodgings, unless he has written to secure them months before, so greatly does Lydford attract to it those who have eyes to see beautiful scenery and hearts to appreciate it.

title: Page:A Book of Dartmoor.djvu/189


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 06.djvu/317

 the college which he entered at Cambridge On leaving the university, Brewster, probably in 1584, entered the service of [q. v.], ambassador, and afterwards secretary of state of Queen Elizabeth, who, according to Bradford, found him 'so discreet and faithful, that he trusted him above all others that were with him.' He accompanied Davison in his embassy to the Low Countries in 1585, and remained in his service till his fall in 1587.

The information supplied by Bradford regarding the immediately succeeding period of his life is comprised in the general statement that he 'retired to the country,' where he interested himself 'in promoting and furthering religion' by procuring good preachers 'in all places thereabouts.' Possibly he owed the bent towards ecclesiastical matters to his intimacy with two favourite pupils of Hooker—George Cranmer, also one of Davison's assistants, and Sir Edwyn Sandys, afterwards governor of Virginia. The part of the country to which Brewster retired was identified by Joseph Hunter (Collections concerning the Early History of the Founders of New England} as Scrooby, Nottinghamshire. Hunter has further modified the information of Bradford by discovering, from an examination of the post-office accounts, that from April 1594, or earlier, to September 1607, Brewster filled the office of 'post,' that is, keeper of the 'post office,' at Scrooby, a station on the great north road between Doncaster and Tuxford. Such an office was then one of considerable importance, and was not unfrequently held by persons of good family. It implied the superintendence of the despatch of mails to the various side stations, the supplying of relays of horses, and the providing of entertainment for travellers. While holding this office Brewster occupied Scrooby Manor, a possession of the archbishop of York, where royal personages had more than once resided, and Cardinal Wolsey after his dismissal had passed several weeks. His salary was 20d. per diem until in July 1603 it was raised to 2s. It was at Scrooby Manor that Brewster' on the Lord's day entertained with great love' the company of Brownists or Separatists presided over by Clifton. Much of the progress of the movement was owing to his zeal and his influence, his social position being undoubtedly higher than that of the other members of the community. After they 'had been about a year together,' the threat of persecution made them resolve in 1607 to remove to Holland, but the skipper in whose sloop they embarked at Boston having betrayed them, they were apprehended, and Brewster as one of the principal leaders of the movement was imprisoned and bound over to the court of assize. In the summer of the following year they were more successful, and, having set out, from Hull, reached Amsterdam in safety. In 1609 they removed to Leyden, where Brewster, 'having spent most of his means,' employed himself in 'instructing students at the university, Danes and Germans, in the English language.' He 'prepared rules or a grammar after the Latin manner' for the use of his scholars. By the help of some friends he also set up a printing-press, and so 'had employment enough by reason of many books which would not be allowed to be printed in England' (for list of principal works printed by him see Life of Brewster, pp. 172-174). In 1619 inquiry was instituted by the authorities regarding his publications, but he was then absent in London negotiating about a grant of land in Virginia. Through the assistance of his friend Sir Edwyn Sandys a patent for a tract of land within that colony was finally granted, and Brewster, with Bradford [see ], as the chief leaders of the enterprise, set sail in September 1620 with the first company of 'pilgrims' in the Mayflower. In the church at Leyden he had acted as ruling elder, and he discharged the same duties in the church at New Plymouth. As no regular minister was appointed until 1629, he up to this time also acted as teacher and preacher, officiating twice every Lord's day. During the early difficulties of the colony he conducted himself with untiring cheerfulness. He was charitable to others, and his own personal habits were frugal. He drank nothing but water until the last five or six years of his life. Bradford gives the date of his death as 18 April 1643, but Morton, secretary of the colony, entered the date in the church records as 'April 10th 1644, and various other circumstances confirm this entry. He had four sons and four daughters. He left a library of 300 books valued at 43l., the catalogue of which is preserved in the records of the colony, and an estate valued at 150l. His sword is preserved in the cabinet of the Massachusetts Historical Society.


text: Index:The Debs Decision, 1919.djvu

title: Index:The Debs Decision, 1919.djvu


text: A Book of Dartmoor/Chapter 1

title: A Book of Dartmoor/Chapter 1


text:
User:Flyax

el:Χρήστης:Flyax fr:Utilisateur:Flyax

title: User:Flyax


text: A Book of Dartmoor/Chapter 2

title: A Book of Dartmoor/Chapter 2


text: A Book of Dartmoor/Introductory

title: A Book of Dartmoor/Introductory


text:
Translation talk:Tales of the New Era

Reviewing Guide
Please help me complete the translation of the work by Any suggestion or comment is also welcomed.
 * bringing in more content;
 * rewriting into better English;
 * telling me where you could not understand.

Free Discussion

 * Hearing you...

title: Translation talk:Tales of the New Era


text:
The New Monthly Magazine

Series 1: The New Monthly Magazine and Universal Register

 * Volume 1 (February–July 1814)
 * Volume 2 (August 1814–January 1815)
 * Volume 3 (February–July 1815)
 * Volume 4 (August 1815–January 1816)
 * Volume 5 (February–July 1816)
 * Volume 6 (August 1816–January 1817)
 * Volume 7 (February–July 1817)
 * Volume 8 (August 1817–January 1818)
 * Volume 9 (February–July 1818)
 * Volume 10 (August 1818–January 1819)
 * Volume 11 (February–July 1819)
 * Volume 12 (August–December 1819)
 * Volume 13 (January–December 1820)

Series 2: The New Monthly Magazine

 * /Volume 1/
 * /Volume 2/
 * /Volume 3/
 * /Volume 4/
 * /Volume 5/
 * /Volume 6/
 * /Volume 7/ (1823)
 * /Volume 8/
 * /Volume 9/
 * /Volume 10/
 * /Volume 11/ (1824)
 * /Volume 12/
 * /Volume 13/
 * /Volume 14/
 * /Volume 15/
 * /Volume 16/
 * /Volume 17/
 * /Volume 18/
 * /Volume 19/
 * /Volume 20/
 * /Volume 21/
 * /Volume 22/
 * /Volume 23/
 * /Volume 24/
 * /Volume 25/
 * /Volume 26/
 * /Volume 27/
 * /Volume 28/ (1830, Part 1)
 * /Volume 29/ (1830, Part 2)
 * /Volume 30/ (1830, Part 3)
 * /Volume 31/ (1831, Part 1)
 * /Volume 32/ (1831, Part 2)
 * /Volume 33/ (1831, Part 3)
 * /Volume 34/ (1832, Part 1)
 * /Volume 35/ (1832, Part 2)
 * /Volume 36/ (1832, Part 3)
 * /Volume 37/ (1833, Part 1)
 * /Volume 38/ (1833, Part 2)
 * /Volume 39/ (1833, Part 3)
 * /Volume 40/
 * /Volume 41/
 * /Volume 42/
 * /Volume 43/
 * /Volume 44/
 * /Volume 45/
 * /Volume 46/
 * /Volume 47/
 * /Volume 48/
 * /Volume 49/
 * /Volume 50/
 * /Volume 51/
 * /Volume 52/
 * /Volume 53/
 * /Volume 54/
 * /Volume 55/
 * /Volume 56/
 * /Volume 57/
 * /Volume 58/
 * /Volume 59/
 * /Volume 60/
 * /Volume 61/
 * /Volume 62/
 * /Volume 63/
 * /Volume 64/
 * /Volume 65/
 * /Volume 66/
 * /Volume 67/
 * /Volume 68/
 * /Volume 69/
 * /Volume 70/
 * /Volume 71/
 * /Volume 72/
 * /Volume 73/
 * /Volume 74/
 * /Volume 75/
 * /Volume 76/
 * /Volume 77/
 * /Volume 78/
 * /Volume 79/
 * /Volume 80/
 * /Volume 81/
 * /Volume 82/
 * /Volume 83/
 * /Volume 84/
 * /Volume 85/
 * /Volume 86/
 * /Volume 87/
 * /Volume 88/
 * /Volume 89/
 * /Volume 90/
 * /Volume 91/
 * /Volume 92/
 * /Volume 93/
 * /Volume 94/ (1852)
 * /Volume 95/
 * /Volume 96/
 * /Volume 97/
 * /Volume 98/
 * /Volume 99/
 * /Volume 100/
 * /Volume 101/
 * /Volume 102/
 * /Volume 103/
 * /Volume 104/
 * /Volume 105/

title: The New Monthly Magazine


text: A Book of Dartmoor

title: A Book of Dartmoor


text: A Book of Dartmoor/Chapter 3

title: A Book of Dartmoor/Chapter 3


text: A Book of Dartmoor/Chapter 4

title: A Book of Dartmoor/Chapter 4


text:
Page:Essence of Christianity (1854).djvu/244

 CHAPTER XXIII. THE CONTRADICTION IN THE SPECULATIVE DOCTRINE OF GOD.

personality of God is thus the means by which man converts the qualities of his own nature into the qualities of another being,—of a being external to himself. The personality of God is nothing else than the projected personality of man.

On this process of projecting self outwards rests also the Hegelian speculative doctrine, according to which man’s consciousness of God is the self-consciousness of God. God is thought, cognized by us. According to speculation, God, in being thought by us, thinks himself or is conscious of himself; speculation identifies the two sides which religion separates. In this it is far deeper than religion, for the fact of God being thought is not like the fact of an external object being thought. God is an inward, spiritual being; thinking, consciousness, is an inward, spiritual act; to think God is therefore to affirm what God is, to establish the being of God as an act. That God is thought, cognized, is essential; that this tree is thought, is to the tree accidental, unessential. God is an indispensable thought, a necessity of thought. But how is it possible that this necessity should simply express the subjective, and not the objective also?—how is it possible that God—if he is to exist for us, to be an object to us—must necessarily be thought, if he is in himself like a block, indifferent whether he be thought, cognized or not? No! it is not possible. We are necessitated to regard the fact of God being thought by us, as his thinking himself, or his self-consciousness.

Religious objectivism has two passives, two modes in which God is thought. On the one hand, God is thought by us, on the other, he is thought by himself. God thinks himself, independently of his being thought by us: he has a self-consciousness distinct from, independent of, our consciousness. This is


text:
Page:Essence of Christianity (1854).djvu/245

 certainly consistent when once God is conceived as a real personality; for the real human person thinks himself, and is thought by another; my thinking of him is to him an indifferent, external fact. This is the last degree of anthropopathism. In order to make God free and independent of all that is human, he is regarded as a formal, real person, his thinking is confined within himself, and the fact of his being thought is excluded from him, and is represented as occurring in another being. This indifference or independence with respect to us, to our thought, is the attestation of a self-subsistent, i.e., external, personal existence. It is true that religion also makes the fact of God being thought into the self-thinking of God; but because this process goes forward behind its consciousness, since God is immediately presupposed as a self-existent personal being, the religious consciousness only embraces the indifference of the two facts.

Even religion, however, does not abide by this indifference of the two sides. God creates in order to reveal himself: creation is the revelation of God. But for stones, plants, and animals there is no God, but only for man; so that Nature exists for the sake of man, and man purely for the sake of God. God glorifies himself in man: man is the pride of God. God indeed knows himself even without man; but so long as there is no other me, so long is he only a possible, conceptional person. First when a difference from God, a non-divine is posited, is God conscious of himself; first when he knows what is not God, does he know what it is to be God, does he know the bliss of his Godhead. First in the positing of what is other than himself, of the world, does God posit himself as God. Is God almighty without creation? No! Omnipotence first realizes, proves itself in creation. What is a power, a property, which does not exhibit, attest itself? What is a force which effects nothing? a light that does not illuminate? a wisdom which knows nothing, i.e., nothing real? And what is omnipotence, what all other divine attributes, if man does not exist? Man is nothing without God; but also, God is nothing without man; for only in man is God an object as


text:
Page:Essence of Christianity (1854).djvu/246

 God; only in man is he God. The various qualities of man first give difference, which is the ground of reality in God. The physical qualities of man make God a physical being—God the Father, who is the creator of Nature, i.e., the personified, anthropomorphized essence of Nature; the intellectual qualities of man make God an intellectual being, the moral, a moral being. Human misery is the triumph of divine compassion; sorrow for sin is the delight of the divine holiness. Life, fire, emotion comes into God only through man. With the stubborn sinner God is angry; over the repentant sinner he rejoices. Man is the revealed God: in man the divine essence first realizes and unfolds itself. In the creation of Nature God goes out of himself, he has relation to what is other than himself, but in man he returns into himself:—man knows God, because in him God finds and knows himself, feels himself as God. Where there is no pressure, no want, there is no feeling;—and feeling is alone real knowledge. Who can know compassion without having felt the want of it? justice without the experience of injustice? happiness without the experience of distress? Thou must feel what a thing is; otherwise thou wilt never learn to know it. It is in man that the divine properties first become feelings, i.e., man is the self-feeling of God;—and the feeling of God is the real God; for the qualities of God are indeed only real qualities, realities, as felt by man,—as feelings. If the experience of human misery were outside of God, in a being personally separate from him, compassion also would not be in God, and we should hence have again the Being destitute of qualities, or more correctly the nothing, which God was before man or without man. For example:—Whether I be a good or sympathetic being—for that alone is good which gives, imparts itself, bonum est communicativum sui,—is unknown to me before the opportunity presents itself of showing goodness to another being. Only in the act of imparting do I experience the happiness of beneficence, the joy of generosity, of liberality. But is this joy apart from the joy of the recipient? No; I rejoice because


text:
Page:Essence of Christianity (1854).djvu/247

 he rejoices. I feel the wretchedness of another, I suffer with him; in alleviating his wretchedness I alleviate my own;—sympathy with suffering is itself suffering. The joyful feeling of the giver is only the reflex, the self-consciousness of the joy in the receiver. Their joy is a common feeling, which accordingly makes itself visible in the union of hands, of lips. So it is here. Just as the feeling of human misery is human, so the feeling of divine compassion is human. It is only a sense of the poverty of finiteness that gives a sense of the bliss of infiniteness. Where the one is not, the other is not. The two are inseparable,—inseparable the feeling of God as God, and the feeling of man as man, inseparable the knowledge of man and the self-knowledge of God. God is a Self only in the human self,—only in the human power of discrimination, in the principle of difference that lies in the human being. Thus compassion is only felt as a me, a self, a force, i.e., as something special, through its opposite. The opposite of God gives qualities to God, realizes him, makes him a Self. God is God, only through that which is not God. Herein we have also the mystery of Jacob Böhme’s doctrine. It must only be borne in mind that Jacob Böhme, as a mystic and theologian, places outside of man the feelings in which the divine being first realizes himself, passes from nothing to something, to a qualitative being apart from the feelings of man (at least in imagination),—and that he makes them objective in the form of natural qualities, but in such a way that these qualities still only represent the impressions made on his feelings. It will then be obvious that what the empirical religious consciousness first posits with the real creation of Nature and of man, the mystical consciousness places before the creation in the premundane God, in doing which, however, it does away with the reality of the creation. For if God has what is not-God, already in himself, he has no need first to create what is not-God in order to be God. The creation of the world is here a pure superfluity, or rather an impossibility; this God for very reality does not come to reality; he is already in himself the full and restless world. This is especially true of Schelling’s doctrine of God, who though made up of innumerable “potences” is yet thoroughly impotent. Far more reasonable, therefore, is the empirical religious consciousness, which makes God reveal, i.e., realize himself in real man, real nature, and according to which man


text:
Page:Essence of Christianity (1854).djvu/248

 is created purely for the praise and glory of God. That is to say, man is the mouth of God, which articulates and accentuates the divine qualities as human feelings. God wills that he be honoured, praised. Why? because the passion of man for God is the self-consciousness of God. Nevertheless, the religious consciousness separates these two properly inseparable sides, since by means of the idea of personality it makes God and man independent existences. Now the Hegelian speculation identifies the two sides, but so as to leave the old contradiction still at the foundation;—it is therefore only the consistent carrying out, the completion of a religious truth. The learned mob was so blind in its hatred towards Hegel as not to perceive that his doctrine, at least in this relation, does not in fact contradict religion;—that it contradicts it only in the same way as, in general, a developed, consequent process of thought contradicts an undeveloped, inconsequent, but nevertheless radically identical conception.

But if it is only in human feelings and wants that the divine “nothing” becomes something, obtains qualities, then the being of man is alone the real being of God,—man is the real God. And if in the consciousness which man has of God first arises the self-consciousness of God, then the human consciousness is, per se, the divine consciousness. Why then dost thou alienate man’s consciousness from him, and make it the self-consciousness of a being distinct from man, of that which is an object to him? Why dost thou vindicate existence to God, to man only the consciousness of that existence? God has his consciousness in man, and man his being in God? Man’s knowledge of God is God’s knowledge of himself? What a divorcing and contradiction! The true statement is this: man’s knowledge of God is man’s knowledge of himself, of his own nature. Only the unity of being and consciousness is truth. Where the consciousness of God is, there is the being of God,—in man, therefore; in the being of God it is only thy own being which is an object to thee, and what presents itself before thy consciousness is simply what lies behind it. If the divine qualities are human, the human qualities are divine.

Only when we abandon a philosophy of religion, or a theology, which is distinct from psychology and anthropology, and recognise anthropology as itself theology, do we attain to a true, self-satisfying identity of the divine and human being, the


text:
Page:Essence of Christianity (1854).djvu/249

 identity of the human being with itself. In every theory of the identity of the divine and human which is not true identity, unity of the human nature with itself, there still lies at the foundation a division, a separation into two, since the identity is immediately abolished, or rather is supposed to be abolished. Every theory of this kind is in contradiction with itself and with the understanding,—is a half measure—a thing of the imagination—a perversion, a distortion; which, however, the more perverted and false it is, all the more appears to be profound.


text:
Page:Essence of Christianity (1854).djvu/250

 CHAPTER XXIV. THE CONTRADICTION IN THE TRINITY.

gives reality or objectivity not only to the human or divine nature in general as a personal being; it further gives reality to the fundamental determinations or fundamental distinctions of that nature as persons. The Trinity is therefore originally nothing else than the sum of the essential fundamental distinctions which man perceives in the human nature. According as the mode of conceiving this nature varies, so also the fundamental determinations on which the Trinity is founded vary. But these distinctions, perceived in one and the same human nature, are hypostasized as substances, as divine persons. And herein, namely, that these different determinations are in God hypostases, subjects, is supposed to lie the distinction between these determinations as they are in God, and as they exist in man,—in accordance with the law already enunciated, that only in the idea of personality does the human personality transfer and make objective its own qualities. But the personality exists only in the imagination; the fundamental determinations are therefore only for the imagination hypostases, persons; for reason, for thought, they are mere relations or determinations. The idea of the Trinity contains in itself the contradiction of polytheism and monotheism, of imagination and reason, of fiction and reality. Imagination gives the Trinity, reason the Unity of the persons. According to reason, the things distinguished are only distinctions; according to imagination, the distinctions are things distinguished, which therefore do away with the unity of the divine being. To the reason, the divine persons are phantoms, to the imagination realities. The idea of the Trinity demands that man should think the opposite of what he imagines, and imagine the opposite of what he thinks,—that he should think phantoms realities.


text:
Page:Essence of Christianity (1854).djvu/251

 There are three Persons, but they are not essentially distinguished. Tres personæ, but una essentia. So far the conception is a natural one. We can conceive three and even more persons, identical in essence. Thus we men are distinguished from one another by personal differences, but in the main, in essence, in humanity, we are one. And this identification is made not only by the speculative understanding, but even by feeling. A given individual is a man as we are; punctum satis; in this feeling all distinctions vanish,—whether he be rich or poor, clever or stupid, culpable or innocent. The feeling of compassion, sympathy, is therefore a substantial, essential, speculative feeling. But the three or more human persons exist apart from each other, have a separate existence, even when they verify and confirm the unity of their nature by fervent love. They together constitute, through love, a single moral personality, but each has a physical existence for himself. Though they may be reciprocally absorbed in each other, may be unable to dispense with each other, they have yet always a formally independent existence. Independent existence, existence apart from others, is the essential characteristic of a person, of a substance. It is otherwise in God, and necessarily so; for while his personality is the same as that of man, it is held to be the same with a difference, on the ground simply of this postulate: there must be a difference. The three Persons in God have no existence out of each other; else there would meet us in the heaven of Christian dogmatics, not indeed many gods, as in Olympus, but at least three divine Persons in an individual form, three Gods. The gods of Olympus were real persons, for they existed apart from each other, they had the criterion of real personality in their individuality, though they were one in essence, in divinity; they had different personal attributes, but were each singly a god, alike in divinity, different as existing subjects or persons; they were genuine


text:
Page:Essence of Christianity (1854).djvu/252

 divine personalities. The three Persons of the Christian Godhead, on the contrary, are only imaginary, pretended persons, assuredly different from real persons, just because they are only phantasms, shadows of personalities, while, notwithstanding, they are assumed to be real persons. The essential characteristic of personal reality, the polytheistic element, is excluded, denied as non-divine. But by this negation their personality becomes a mere phantasm. Only in the truth of the plural lies the truth of the Persons. The three persons of the Christian Godhead are not tres Dii, three Gods;—at least they are not meant to be such;—but unus Deus, one God. The three Persons end, not, as might have been expected, in a plural, but in a singular; they are not only Unum—the gods of Olympus are that—but Unus. Unity has here the significance not of essence only, but also of existence; unity is the existential form of God. Three are one: the plural is a singular. God is a personal being consisting of three persons.

The three persons are thus only phantoms in the eyes of reason, for the conditions or modes under which alone their personality could be realized, are done away with by the command of monotheism. The unity gives the lie to the personality; the self-subsistence of the persons is annihilated in the self-subsistence of the unity,—they are mere relations. The Son is not without the Father, the Father not without the Son; the Holy Spirit, who indeed spoils the symmetry, expresses nothing but the relation of the two to each other. But the divine persons are distinguished from each other only by that which constitutes their relation to each other. The essential in the Father as a person is that he is a Father, of the Son that he is a Son. What the Father is over and above his fatherhood, does not belong to his personality; therein he is God, and as God identical with the Son as God. Therefore it is said: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost:—God is in all three alike. “There is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But


text:
Page:Essence of Christianity (1854).djvu/253

 the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one;” i.e., they are distinct persons, but without distinction of substance. The personality, therefore, arises purely in the relation of the Fatherhood; i.e., the idea of the person is here only a relative idea, the idea of a relation. Man as a father is dependent, he is essentially the correlative of the son; he is not a father without the son; by fatherhood man reduces himself to a relative, dependent, impersonal being. It is before all things necessary not to allow oneself to be deceived by these relations as they exist in reality, in men. The human father is, over and above his paternity, an independent personal being; he has at least a formal existence for himself, an existence apart from his son; he is not merely a father, with the exclusion of all the other predicates of a real personal being. Fatherhood is a relation which the bad man can make quite an external one, not touching his personal being. But in God the Father, there is no distinction between God the Father and God the Son as God; the abstract fatherhood alone constitutes his personality, his distinction from the Son, whose personality likewise is founded only on the abstract sonship.

But at the same time these relations, as has been said, are maintained to be not mere relations, but real persons, beings, substances. Thus the truth of the plural, the truth of polytheism is again affirmed, and the truth of monotheism is denied. To require the reality of the persons is to require the unreality of the unity, and conversely, to require the reality of the unity is to require the unreality of the persons. Thus in the holy mystery of the Trinity,—that is to say, so far as it is supposed to represent a truth distinct from human nature,—all resolves itself into delusions, phantasms, contradictions, and sophisms.


text:
Page:Essence of Christianity (1854).djvu/254

 CHAPTER XXV. THE CONTRADICTION IN THE SACRAMENTS.

the objective essence of religion, the idea of God, resolves itself into mere contradictions, so also, on grounds easily understood, does its subjective essence.

The subjective elements of religion are on the one hand Faith and Love; on the other hand, so far as it presents itself externally in a cultus, the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The sacrament of Faith is Baptism, the sacrament of Love is the Lord’s Supper. In strictness there are only two sacraments, as there are two subjective elements in religion, Faith and Love: for Hope is only faith in relation to the future; so that there is the same logical impropriety in making it a distinct mental act as in making the Holy Ghost a distinct being.

The identity of the sacraments with the specific essence of religion as hitherto developed is at once made evident, apart from other relations, by the fact that they have for their basis natural materials or things, to which, however, is attributed a significance and effect in contradiction with their nature. Thus the material of baptism is water, common, natural water, just as the material of religion in general is common, natural humanity. But as religion alienates our own nature from us, and represents it as not ours, so the water of baptism is regarded as quite other than common water; for it has not a physical but a hyperphysical power and significance; it is the Lavacrum regenerationis, it purifies man from the stains of original sin, expels the inborn devil, and reconciles with God. Thus it is natural water only in appearance; in truth it is supernatural. In other words: the baptismal water has supernatural effects (and that which operates supernaturally is itself supernatural) only in idea, only in the imagination.

And yet the material of Baptism is said to be natural water. Baptism has no validity and efficacy if it is not performed


text:
Page:Essence of Christianity (1854).djvu/255

 with water. Thus the natural quality of water has in itself value and significance, since the supernatural effect of baptism is associated in a supernatural manner with water only, and not with any other material. God, by means of his omnipotence, could have united the same effect to anything whatever. But he does not; he accommodates himself to natural qualities; he chooses an element corresponding, analogous to his operation. Thus the natural is not altogether set aside; on the contrary, there always remains a certain analogy with the natural, an appearance of naturalness. In like manner wine represents blood; bread, flesh. Even miracle is guided by analogies; water is changed into wine or blood, one species into another, with the retention of the indeterminate generic idea of liquidity. So it is here. Water is the purest, clearest of liquids; in virtue of this its natural character it is the image of the spotless nature of the Divine Spirit. In short, water has a significance in itself, as water; it is on account of its natural quality that it is consecrated and selected as the vehicle of the Holy Spirit. So far there lies at the foundation of Baptism a beautiful, profound natural significance. But, at the very same time, this beautiful meaning is lost again because water has a transcendental effect,—an effect which it has only through the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit, and not through itself. The natural quality becomes indifferent: he who makes wine out of water, can at will unite the effects of baptismal water with any material whatsoever.

Baptism cannot be understood without the idea of miracle. Baptism is itself a miracle. The same power which works miracles, and by means of them, as a proof of the divinity of Christ, turns Jews and Pagans into Christians,—this same power has instituted baptism and operates in it. Christianity began with miracles, and it carries itself forward with miracles. If the miraculous power of baptism is denied, miracles in general must be denied. The miracle-working water of baptism springs from the same source as the water which at the wedding at Cana in Galilee was turned into wine.

The faith which is produced by miracle is not dependent on me, on my spontaneity, on freedom of judgment and


text:
Page:Essence of Christianity (1854).djvu/256

. A miracle which happens before my eyes I must believe, if I am not utterly obdurate. Miracle compels me to believe in the divinity of the miracle-worker. It is true that in some cases it presupposes faith, namely, where it appears in the light of a reward; but with that exception it presupposes not so much actual faith as a believing disposition, willingness, submission, in opposition to an unbelieving, obdurate, and malignant disposition, like that of the Pharisees. The end of miracle is to prove that the miracle-worker is really that which he assumes to be. Faith based on miracle is the only thoroughly warranted, well-grounded, objective faith. The faith which is presupposed by miracle is only faith in a Messiah, a Christ in general; but the faith that this very man is Christ—and this is the main point—is first wrought by miracle as its consequence. This presupposition even of an indeterminate faith is, however, by no means necessary. Multitudes first became believers through miracles; thus miracle was the cause of their faith. If then miracles do not contradict Christianity,—and how should they contradict it?—neither does the miraculous efficacy of baptism contradict it. On the contrary, if baptism is to have a Christian significance it must of necessity have a supernaturalistic one. Paul was converted by a sudden miraculous appearance, when he was still full of hatred to the Christians. Christianity took him by violence. It is in vain to allege that with another than Paul this appearance would not have had the same consequences, and that therefore the effect of it must still be attributed to Paul. For if the same appearance had been vouchsafed to others, they would assuredly have become as thoroughly Christian as Paul. Is not divine grace omnipotent? The unbelief and non-convertibility of the Pharisees is no counter-argument; for from them grace was expressly withdrawn. The Messiah must necessarily, according to a divine decree, be betrayed, maltreated and crucified. For this purpose there must be individuals who should maltreat and crucify him: and hence it was a prior necessity that the divine grace should be withdrawn from those individuals. It was not indeed totally withdrawn


text:
Page:Essence of Christianity (1854).djvu/257

 from them, but this was only in order to aggravate their guilt, and by no means with the earnest will to convert them. How would it be possible to resist the will of God, supposing of course that it was his real will, not a mere ? Paul himself represents his conversion as a work of divine grace thoroughly unmerited on his part; and quite correctly. Not to resist divine grace, i.e., to accept divine grace, to allow it to work upon one, is already something good, and consequently is an effect of the Holy Spirit. Nothing is more perverse than the attempt to reconcile miracle with freedom of inquiry and thought, or grace with freedom of will. In religion the nature of man is regarded as separate from man. The activity, the grace of God is the projected spontaneity of man, Free Will made objective.

It is the most flagrant inconsequence to adduce the experience that men are not sanctified, not converted by baptism, as an argument against its miraculous efficacy, as is done by rationalistic orthodox theologians; for all kinds of miracles, the objective power of prayer, and in general all the supernatural truths of religion, also contradict experience. He who appeals to experience renounces faith. Where experience is a datum, there religious faith and feeling have already vanished. The unbeliever denies the objective efficacy of prayer only because it contradicts experience; the atheist goes yet farther,—he denies even the existence of God, because he does not find it in experience. Inward experience creates no difficulty to him; for what thou experiencest in thyself of another existence, proves only that there is something in thee which thou thyself art not, which works upon thee independently of thy personal


text:
Page:Essence of Christianity (1854).djvu/258

 will and consciousness, without thy knowing what this mysterious something is. But faith is stronger than experience. The facts which contradict faith do not disturb it; it is happy in itself; it has eyes only for itself, to all else it is blind.

It is true that religion, even on the stand-point of its mystical materialism, always requires the co-operation of subjectivity, and therefore requires it in the sacraments; but herein is exhibited its contradiction with itself. And this contradiction is particularly glaring in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper; for baptism is given to infants,—though even in them, as a condition of its efficacy, the co-operation of subjectivity is insisted on, but, singularly enough, is supplied in the faith of others, in the faith of the parents, or of their representatives, or of the church in general.

The object in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is the body of Christ,—a real body; but the necessary predicates of reality are wanting to it. Here we have again, in an example presented to the senses, what we have found in the nature of religion in general. The object or subject in the religious syntax is always a real human or natural subject or predicate; but the closer definition, the essential predicate of this predicate is denied. The subject is sensuous, but the predicate is not sensuous, i.e., is contradictory to the subject. I distinguish a real body from an imaginary one only by this, that the former produces corporeal effects, involuntary effects, upon me. If therefore the bread be the real body of God, the partaking of it must produce in me immediate, involuntarily sanctifying effects; I need to make no special preparation, to bring with me no holy disposition. If I eat an apple, the apple of itself gives rise to the taste of apple. At the utmost I need nothing more than a healthy stomach to perceive that the apple is an apple. The Catholics require a state of fasting as a condition of partaking the Lord’s Supper. This is enough. I take hold of the body with my lips, I crush it with my teeth, by my œsophagus it is carried into my stomach; I assimilate it corporeally, not


text:
Page:Essence of Christianity (1854).djvu/259

 spiritually. Why are its effects not held to be corporeal? Why should not this body, which is a corporeal, but at the same time heavenly, supernatural substance, also bring forth in me corporeal and yet at the same time holy, supernatural effects? If it is my disposition, my faith, which alone makes the divine body a means of sanctification to me, which transubstantiates the dry bread into pneumatic animal substance, why do I still need an external object? It is I myself who give rise to the effect of the body on me, and therefore to the reality of the body; I am acted on by myself. Where is the objective truth and power? He who partakes the Lord’s Supper unworthily has nothing further than the physical enjoyment of bread and wine. He who brings nothing, takes nothing away. The specific difference of this bread from common natural bread rests therefore only on the difference between the state of mind at the table of the Lord, and the state of mind at any other table. “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.” But this mental state itself is dependent only on the significance which I give to this bread. If it has for me the significance not of bread, but of the body of Christ, then it has not the effect of common bread. In the significance attached to it lies its effect. I do not eat to satisfy hunger; hence I consume only a small quantity. Thus to go no further than the quantity taken, which in every other act of taking food plays an essential part, the significance of common bread is externally set aside.

But this supernatural significance exists only in the imagination; to the senses, the wine remains wine, the bread, bread. The Schoolmen therefore had recourse to the precious distinction of substance and accidents. All the accidents which


text:
Page:Essence of Christianity (1854).djvu/260

 the nature of wine and bread are still there; only that which is made up by these accidents, the subject, the substance, is wanting, is changed into flesh and blood. But all the properties together, whose combination forms this unity, are the substance itself. What are wine and bread if I take from them the properties which make them what they are? Nothing. Flesh and blood have therefore no objective existence; otherwise they must be an object to the unbelieving senses. On the contrary: the only valid witnesses of an objective existence—taste, smell, touch, sight—testify unanimously to the reality of the wine and bread, and nothing else. The wine and bread are in reality natural, but in imagination divine substances.

Faith is the power of the imagination, which makes the real unreal, and the unreal real: in direct contradiction with the truth of the senses, with the truth of reason. Faith denies what objective reason affirms, and affirms what it denies. The mystery of the Lord’s Supper is the mystery of faith: —hence the partaking of it is the highest, the most rapturous, blissful act of the believing soul. The negation of objective truth which is not gratifying to feeling, the truth of reality, of the objective world and reason,—a negation which constitutes the essence of faith,—reaches its highest point in the Lord’s Supper; for faith here denies an immediately present, evident, indubitable object, maintaining that it is not what the reason and senses declare it to be, that it is only in appearance bread, but in reality flesh. The position of the Schoolmen, that according to the accidents it is bread, and according to the substance


text:
Page:Essence of Christianity (1854).djvu/261

 flesh, is merely the abstract, explanatory, intellectual expression of what faith accepts and declares, and has therefore no other meaning than this: to the senses or to common perception it is bread, but in truth, flesh. Where therefore the imaginative tendency of faith has assumed such power over the senses and reason as to deny the most evident sensible truths, it is no wonder if believers can raise themselves to such a degree of exaltation as actually to see blood instead of wine. Such examples Catholicism has to show. Little is wanting in order to perceive externally what faith and imagination hold to be real.

So long as faith in the mystery of the Lord’s Supper as a holy, nay the holiest, highest truth, governed man, so long was his governing principle the imagination. All criteria of reality and unreality, of unreason and reason, had disappeared: anything whatever that could be imagined passed for real possibility. Religion hallowed every contradiction of reason, of the nature of things. Do not ridicule the absurd questions of the Schoolmen! They were necessary consequences of faith. That which is only a matter of feeling had to be made a matter of reason, that which contradicts the understanding had to be made not to contradict it. This was the fundamental contradiction of scholasticism, whence all other contradictions followed of course.

And it is of no particular importance whether I believe the Protestant or the Catholic doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. The sole distinction is, that in Protestantism it is only on the tongue, in the act of partaking, that flesh and blood are united in a thoroughly miraculous manner with bread and wine; while in Catholicism, it is before the act of partaking, by the power of the priest,—who however here acts only in the name of the Almighty,—that bread and wine are really transmuted into flesh and blood. The Protestant prudently avoids a definite explanation; he does not lay himself open like the pious, uncritical simplicity of Catholicism, whose God, as an external object, can be devoured by a mouse; he shuts up his


text:
Page:Essence of Christianity (1854).djvu/262

 God within himself, where he can no more be torn from him, and thus secures him as well from the power of accident as from that of ridicule; yet, notwithstanding this, he just as much as the Catholic consumes real flesh and blood in the bread and wine. Slight indeed was the difference at first between Protestants and Catholics in the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper! Thus at Anspach there arose a controversy on the question—“whether the body of Christ enters the stomach, and is digested like other food?”

But although the imaginative activity of faith makes the objective existence the mere appearance, and the emotional, imaginary existence the truth and reality; still, in itself or in truth, that which is really objective is only the natural elements. Even the Host in the pyx of the Catholic priest is in itself only to faith a divine body,—this external thing, into which he transubstantiates the divine being is only a thing of faith; for even here the body is not visible, tangible, tasteable as a body. That is: the bread is only in its significance flesh. It is true that to faith this significance has the sense of actual existence;—as, in general, in the ecstasy of fervid feeling that which signifies becomes the thing signified;—it is held not to signify, but to be flesh. But this state of being flesh is not that of real flesh; it is a state of being which is only believed in, imagined, i.e., it has only the value, the quality, of a significance, a truth conveyed in a symbol. A thing which has a special significance for me, is another thing in my imagination than in reality. The thing signifying is not itself that which is signified. What it is, is evident to the senses; what it signifies, is only in my feelings, conception, imagination, is only for me, not for others, is not objectively present. So here. When therefore Zwinglius said that the Lord’s Supper has only a subjective significance, he said the same thing as his opponents; only he disturbed the illusion of the religious imagination; for that which “is” in the Lord’s