To Thomas Archer Hirst   Nov. 23/48 | Nov. 25/48

[[Leighlin] Nov. 23/48 | [Halifax] Nov. 25/48]¹

My Dear Tom –

My religion has not yet been unable the make the organs of speech its proper instrument, it has not yet unravelled itself into fit utterance, it has no dialect, but while reading your letter² I experienced many feelings which the ancient dialects embody forth in the phrases ‘praise the lord O my Soul³ &c my feelings were certainly those of joy and gratitude, the source of which completely baffles my powers of analysis. ‘We mark’ says Emerson ‘with light in the memory the few interviews we have had in the dreary days of routine and sin with those souls who made our souls wiser, that spoke what we thought, that told us what we knew, that gave us leave to be what we inly were’⁴ such a light-streak has been your interview with Caryle⁵ – for my own part I owe to him and Emerson more than to any other men living – you feel another being since you read this little book, can you not connect this change in your feelings with the doctrine of regeneration, can you not even by means of your present light see a beauty and a truth in that discourse with Nickodemus⁶ where the phrase ‘born again’⁷ is introduced which escaped your attention heretofore – you have already drawn a circle round all sectaries, you have a key to all their mysteries, you will be able to appreciate the truth of popery and of protestantism, of Mahomed⁸ and John Wesley⁹ – your religion is a general formula of which theirs is but particular cases, at bottom they are all true, and the differences, hostilities, wars, and burnings with which each sect has propagated its own views are simply the result of elevating a part and worshiping it as a whole – Thus we solve the silly problem of the freethinker who demands how all can be true since they are so opposite. It has long been fashionable to extol the private judgment of mankind, it is the phrase of protestantism, which was driven to it as an apology for its separation from Rome, but you see the folly of submitting this question to argumentation, the impossibility of making it a mere intellectual topic. Jesus refuses throughout do do so, his words are ‘If any man shall do his will he shall know the doctrine whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself’¹⁰ So says in effect every great thinker, Emerson says ‘Every mans words who speaks from that life must sound vain to him who does not dwell in the same thought on his own part’¹¹ Fichte says ‘There is no logical means by which this insight can be forced upon man.’¹² Carlyle says ‘Get first into the sphere of thought by which it is so much as possible to judge of Luther or any man like Luther otherwise than distractedly, and then we may begin arguing with you’¹³ The views of Jesus on this point are best collected from the writings of John;¹⁴ Paul¹⁵ is only half a christian, he is a disputant to the back bone; and he it was who introduced, by his choosing argument as the test of truth, confusion and war into the early christian church; hence arose the antagonist principle the infallibility of the pope; men saw the hopelessness of getting on with that chartist¹⁶ christianity where every screechowl bedlamite¹⁷ proclaimed his right to judge for himself and to establish his views by argument, any thing was preferable to this riotous anarchy, and hence the gigantic imposture before alluded to.

The religious life is progressive, if you are true you will see deeper and clearer this day twelvemonth than you do now, I make this remark because there is a tendency in the age to call every thing nonsense which it does not comprehend; forgetting that the power of comprehension depends upon previous culture, hence the wisdom of patience, let us reserve our judgment on such men as Emerson and Caryle, and on the particular difficulties of their writings, and attribute these difficulties to a defect in ourselves rather than in the writers; do not be discontented if you cant see to the bottom of every thing just now – ‘have patience and these oracles will tell thee all’¹⁸

If religion then be not a question for the intellect how is it to be propogated, how are men to be convinced, that men can be so convinced the history of all religions prove, no founder of religion has leaned upon his power of reasoning, there would seem to be a magnetic sympathy between soul and soul, so that when one utters its earnest thought the other is as it were polarised by the ‘utterance’ and brought into the same magnetic state – a sincere word was never lost to a sincere mind, a sincere speaker is always a blessing to a sincere hearer; Religion is not a persuasion, it is a life and as Fichte remarks ‘it is the first characteristic of true life to create other life from itself’¹⁹

the leading idea of Past and Present²⁰ I conceive to be the application of the principles handled in Heroes & Hero Worship²¹ to politics, it aims rather at elevating the whole system of politics than at obtaining any single measure or series of measures, we have no Morrison’s pill²² for social maladies;

Inflammation of the lungs is a most dangerous complaint, it was once near cutting me off I got cold neglected it, had to go to bed, the doctor was called and pronounced me in danger, he bled & blistered me, in a week I was able to go out; I went to fish, got wet, fell ill again and remained in bed for 6 weeks afterwards, The effect of the attack is still discernable at times and will doubtless cling to me always, I sincerely trust that by this time your mother²³ is restored to you in the full enjoyment of her usual strength, and now I will close –

bel- me²⁴ dear Tom <yours affect>ionately Tyndall

I don’t know the address of the office – so will send this to Grove Cottage.²⁵

RI MS JT/1/HTYP/15-16

RI MS JT/1/T/1016