ted him
to tell us, what lay concealed within, which excited his fears? He
replied, he was afraid lest he should be called a naturalist, and so an
atheist, by the clergy, and a man of unsound reason by the laity; as
they both either believe from a blind credulity, or see from the sight
of those who confirm that credulity. But just then, being impelled by a
kind of indignant zeal for the truth, we addressed him in saying,
"Friend, you are much deceived; your wisdom, which is only an ingenious
talent for writing, has seduced you, and the glory of reputation has led
you to confirm what you do not believe. Do you know that the human mind
is capable of being elevated above sensual things, which are derived
into the thoughts from the bodily senses, and that when it is so
elevated, it sees the things that are of life above, and those that are
of nature beneath? What is life but love and wisdom? and what is nature
but their recipient, whereby they may produce their effects or uses? Can
these possibly be one in any other sense than as principal and
instrumental are one? Can light be one with the eye, or sound with the
ear? Whence are the senses of these organs but from life, and their
forms but from nature? What is the human body but an organ of life? Are
not all things therein organically formed to produce the things which
the love wills and the understanding thinks? Are not the organs of the
body from nature, and love and thought from life? And are not those
things entirely distinct from each other? Raise the penetration of your
ingenuity a little, and you will see that it is the property of life to
be affected and to think, and that to be affected is from love, and to
think is from wisdom, and each is from life; for, as we have said, love
and wisdom are life: if you elevate your faculty of understanding a
little higher, you will see that no love and wisdom exists, unless its
origin be somewhere or other, and that its origin is wisdom itself, and
thence life itself, and these are God from whom is nature." Afterwards
we conversed with him about his second question, WHETHER THE CENTRE BE
OF THE EXPANSE, OR THE EXPANSE OF THE CENTRE; and asked him why he
discussed this question? He replied, "With a view to conclude concerning
the centre and the expanse of nature and of life, thus concerning the
origin of each." And when we asked him what were his sentiments on the
subject, he answered, as in the former case, that he could confirm