who, by his holy presence, accomplishes the mystery of piety in the souls of those who are baptized with fire, in the name and power of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

These three principles residing at once in a soul, of which they com pose the essence, one of them may operate with vigour, when the other two remain inactive: as in those visionary distractions, which we call dreams; and when a pious person is struck with an apoplexy, his intellect and his will cease to act; or if seized with a burning fever, though his intellects may be deranged, his love appears always active. In his delirium he prays, he preaches, and endeavours the performance of good works. In a person completely renewed in the image of Jesus Christ, these three principles are always in perfect harmony, for "true wisdom," and "pure love," ceaselessly flow from what St. Paul calls the "life of God." Thus in God, the Word and the Holy Spirit are always in the Father, as the Father is always in each of the other two. If this union be considered, it will be in no way surprising, that, in the Holy Scrip. tures, the Father, the Word, and the Divine Spirit, are equally named God, as only making one and the same Jehovah.

The mystery of the incarnation did not annihilate the divinity of the Word; we owe Divine honours to the Son of Mary, because the Word united himself with his soul in a manner the most intimate, and because "it pleased the ever-blessed God, that in Jesus Christ should dwell all the fulness of the Godhead bodily," in order that in the kingdom of grace a plenitude of life, of wisdom, and of love should reside in Christ, Col, i, 19, and ii, 9, as in the kingdom of nature, a plenitude of vivifying energy, of light, and of heat, resides in the sun.

"But I do not see (says a philosopher) how the Word, who was from all eternity with the Father, could be at one and the same time in hea ven and on earth; in the bosom of the Father, and in the child Jesus."

There are many other things which you do not understand, which are nevertheless true. You do not comprehend how your Father communicated to you life, and the power of thought and reasoning: you do not understand how the lustre of the sun can be at one and the same time in the whole atmosphere, and in your eyes. For my part, I can. not conceive in what manner any soul can make its will, (to speak so,) incarnate with my hand, so as to move it at pleasure; since the same union does not subsist between my will and my ears: if I cannot fathom this little mystery of my being, shall I be surprised if there are depths in the Supreme Being which I cannot fathom?

A savage, who hath no knowledge of pen, ink, and paper, carries the will of his master sealed in a letter. This to him is an impenetrable mystery, which astonishes his reason. We shall cease to be surprised, when we emerge from the deep gulfs of our ignorance. There will come a time, perhaps, when the savages of the moral world shall be so far enlightened by the Gospel, as to comprehend how the Almighty could unite his eternal Word to the spotless soul of Mary's Son, as we can now understand how men can commit their thoughts to paper, and transmit them to future generations.

"But why did not God explain to us the whole mystery?" Such a question is worthy of the savage, who might demand, Why did not my master unfold to me all the mystery of the sealed paper, which contained

his will? Here is an answer to such a question: God will not satisfy our curiosity; first, because he requires of us the "obedience of faith," and not the impertinence of pride; and secondly, because he wills man to make use of a method for his restoration, opposed to that which lost him his perfection and bliss. Is it not reasonable, that a being who involved himself in ruin, through "believing the father of lies," should restore himself by "believing the God of truth?" The first man hazarded his felicity upon the declarations of the tempter; and ought we not to hazard our misery upon a hundred declarations of the Redeemer? Do we not daily see sick persons put their lives into the hands of a physician, who is almost, yea, sometimes, altogether unknown to them?

"But I would not trust to the physician of which you speak: the person to whom I trusted should not be a quack." I answer, that if you do not sufficiently feel your sins and miseries, so as to impel you to run the risk, you cannot believe in Jesus Christ; because he came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. He comforteth not those who are at ease, but those who are weary and heavy laden. Nevertheless, the time will come, when, if you harden not your heart, you shall feel your danger and disease; when you shall be as much charmed with submission to Jesus Christ as Naaman, the leprous general, was in submitting to the venerable prophet; when you shall feel that in order to find health of soul and a foretaste of eternal life, you must know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent, John xvii, 3. For regeneration, without which none can see the kingdom of heaven, is nothing more than the re-establishing of the soul in that happy state, when impressed with the image of God, she has not only the life of the Father, as her principle of life, but also the light of the Son to illuminate her understanding, and the love of the "Holy Spirit" to regulate her will.

It is very evident that life flows eminently from the Father, light from the Son, and Divine love from the "Holy Spirit," if we consult the three following quotations: John vi, 57; John i, 9; Romans v, 5. To reject the Son and the "Holy Spirit," when the Gospel is preached, is to rest contented with a life altogether defective, a life not perfected by the living light of grace and the sweetness of love: such is the life of devils, of infidels, and of proud Pharisees.

THOUGHTS ON FANATICISM.

TRANSLATED FROM THE FRENCH OF THE REV. JOHN FLETCHER.

BY MILES MARTINDALE.

FANATICISM is the child of false zeal and of superstition, the father of intolerance, and of persecution; it is therefore very different from piety, though some persons are pleased to confound them. The pious man, always governed by humility and reason, implores and receives the succours of grace; and evidences this Divine nature by conducting himself with sweet humility and love, the genuine character of the first Christians. But the fanatic, big with pride, and full of himself, rejects reason, and takes the emotions of his own passions for those of grace; and far from conducting himself with Christian modesty and love, he follows the reveries of his imagination as if they were the inspirations of the Divine Spirit; he imitates the follies of enthusiastic fools, and, if occasion offers, the cruelties of bloody persecutors. Let us cautiously guard against this excess, but let us not despise true zeal; for it differs as much from fanaticism as vigour, accompanied with health, differs from a delirium produced by a burning fever.

While certain philosophers, and some proud of following them, fall into this error, and agree to treat as fanatics not only the falsely inspired, but also those who believe in the Divine assistance which holy souls receive from God; they rank with enthusiasts all who humbly request from the Father of lights that inspiration which the Scriptures call the "wisdom which cometh from above;" or the assistance of the Holy Spirit. This philosophy, so common and so dangerous, has its source in pride; and from pride there are but three steps to Atheism. The first is to think one's self sufficiently wise, independent, and strong, to govern the heart virtuously, without the Divine succours of the Father of lights. Those who take this step, filled with the lofty ideas they have of their own reason, despise, in some sense, this faculty of their soul, and take the twinkling light of their own imagination for the Sun of righteousness, from whom proceeds our supreme illumination. This step conducts to a second, which is not less dangerous. It is very natural for those who deny the influence of the Supreme Being on their spirits, to exclude him from all influence over their bodies, and all events. Hence it follows, that the gentlemen who are so ready to treat piety as enthusiasm, more or less follow Epicurus, who denied the influences of a Divine Providence over the preservation of our bodies, and the direction of all events. When these two steps are fully secured, the third is easily taken: for if God take no care, neither of our souls by his Spirit, nor of our bodies by his providence, he is to us a useless Being, far from being God, that is to say, the "Being of beings," the Being in whom we have life and

motion; and our faith is reduced to that of Epicurus, or Spinosa, who neither admitted a God of grace nor of providence.

If the reader be of the sect of these philosophers, or inclined to their system, he will doubtless judge the author an enthusiast, because that, under the articles of air and zephyr,* he alludes to this common inspiration of the Divine Spirit, which is called the "grace of God;" for inspiration is as necessary to piety, or the spiritual life, as respiration is necessary to the animal life. If I am mistaken in this matter there is at least this consolation, that not only all the sacred authors are on my side, with the compilers of Christian liturgies, but also the wisest of the heathens. Let us observe some of the well known and fine testimonies of the ancient philosophers, which ought to put our modern philosophers to the blush, and even some of our divines. "Without God, (says Seneca,) there is no good man; it is he who inspires with grand ideas and exalted designs. God dwells in every good man. When you see a man superior to his passions, happy in adversity, calm amid surrounding tempests; can you withhold respect from him? Do you not say, These qualities are too exalted to derive their origin from this little ornamented individual. A Divine vigour has descended on him. A heavenly power animates an humble and excellent soul. There is no possessing these great advantages without the succours of the Supreme Being." (Sen. Ep. 41.)

Bias gave this precept to his disciples: "Remember that all the good you do comes principally from the gods." "Rome and Greece (says Cicero) have produced great men; and we ought to believe that none of them became such, but by the assistance of God. There never was a great man without some degree of Divine inspiration." (Cic de Nat. Deorum. chap. lxvi.) And in the thirty-first chapter: "If there be (says he) among men good faith, virtue, and concord; from whence, think you, do these arrive on earth, if not from heaven?"

One might even here quote M. de Voltaire, who, in one of his happy moments, where he recommends truth, cites with admiration this fine passage of Confucius :-"Heaven hath given me virtue, man cannot hurt me;" and the verse of ancient Orpheus, which the priests of Ceres recited to those who were initiated into their mysteries: "Walk in the path of righteousness, adore the Master of the universe: he is one: all beings owe their existence to him; he acts IN them and BY them." Now if God acts in beings in general, where is the absurdity of believing that he acts in a virtuous man, whose soul is the most noble instrument of the Father of spirits, as she is a temple the most worthy of the divinity? The ancient philosophers did not only acknowledge that moral virtues came principally from God, but also inventions that were useful to society. "They are the gift of the gods," saith Pliny, "and if any one imagines that man made these discoveries by chance, he makes ungrateful returns for the presents of the divinity." (Plin. lib. 27, chap. i, 2.)

Can we see these clear testimonies rendered to the truth of the doctrine which our philosophers would make to pass for fanaticism, without being astonished at the blindness of these people, who, aided by the Gos

This refers to the poem entitled La Grace et la Nature.

3

pel, cannot discern that which the Pagans saw, but turn into ridicule truths clearly developed in the Holy Scriptures-truths which the Pagan philosophers acknowledged many ages since? Plutarch, in his life of Coriolanus, goes still farther than the Roman philosophers; for, speaking of "actions extraordinary and dangerous, which demand a degree of inspiration and enthusiasm," he cites several passages from Homer, where the poet speaks of such an inspiration; and, far from thinking with our philosophers that it is impossible and unreasonable, he says that "only ignorant and stupid people ridiculed it." As a true philosopher he defends it, and proves that it harmonizes with our liberty. His words are remarkable. I will quote them from the translation of M. Dacier :

"God," says he, "is so far from destroying our free agency, that he not only inspires us with a will, but he warms the imagination, and imparts ideas by which we are determined. It is thus he gives birth to the will, to which he adds confidence and hope. Indeed, we must either exclude God from having any part as to the moving cause and principle of our operations, or confess that there is no other way to succour men and co-operate with them. For he does not move our bodies, but by certain ideas which he awakens in us he excites our souls to active virtue; thus giving us a will, and restraining or turning it from evil." (Lives of Illustrious Men. Ed. de Paris, 1762, tom. iii, p. 315.) It appears, in Plutarch's judgment, that to deny this kind of inspiration is to deny the providence of God, with regard to men; it is to plunge one's self, at the same time, in the impious error of Epicurus, and the blindness of ignorant and stupid persons.

When a Pagan philosopher thus pleads the cause of Divine grace, can we, without indignation, behold Christians making a mock of the succours of the Spirit of God, by which only we can have that faith which enables us to say with certainty that "Jesus Christ is the Lord?" 1 Cor. xii, 3. Full of aversion for true Christianity, these admirers of a false philosophy will not, perhaps, permit true Christians what they allow to Voltaire, in the prayer which concludes his poem on the "Law of Nature:" "O God, unknown! O God, whom all declare! My heart would wander, if not filled with thee." They think all to be enthusiasts who dare speak of inspiration as openly as M. Rousseau, their inconsistent oracle: "The divinity," says he, "is seen in his works; he makes himself felt within us; he has given us that degree of sensibility which is known and felt." He is not afraid to say in his confession of faith which he has made in his famous Emilius: "How can I be guilty for serving God according to the light which he imparts to my mind, and according to the sentiments with which he inspires my heart?" Some Christians, more inconsistent even than Rousseau, have not the candour to say, If God sometimes inspires with good sentiments even those who fight against the Gospel, he certainly can inspire those who receive it. There is perhaps no difficulty in drawing another comparison between the Pagan and our modern philosophers. After having seen how much they differ in regard to grace, let us see how widely they differ concerning prayer.

If man cannot conquer all his passions, and produce solid virtue in his heart, without the help of the Spirit of God, he ought with humility and