66

“Then shalt thou say in thine heart, Who hath begotten me these, seeing I have lost my chil dren, and am desolate, a captive, and removing "to and fro? And who hath brought up these? "Behold, I was left alone: these, where had "they been ?"

Here I was again interrupted in my speculations, by being detached in the beginning of January 1792, with two companies of sepoys under my command, to garrison a small hill fort, taken from Tippoo Sultan, called Ram Ghurry, and one of the dependencies of Savendroog. This retired situation was enlivened by the society of a very agreeable young officer, who commanded one of the companies, and, like me, was fond of poetry and literary amusement. The first month of our residence in this post, was spent in putting it into a state of defence; but when this pleasing labour was over, I again employed all my leisure, in the prosecution of my plan.

In the course of my reflections, which I committed to paper, it became clear and manifest to me, that the human soul was in itself both male and female; and when arrived at maturity, was truly represented in bodily shadows by the state of matrimony. That as

The experience of thirty years shows me, that this intricate subject will not be properly understood by readers

man and wife were one flesh, so the head or mind, and the heart, became united into one

of any description (almost) without some further elucidation, and bringing more force of Scriptural evidence. In adducing this, I must of necessity enter on the limits of metaphysical inquiry; and therefore, I would entreat the patience and candid allowance of metaphysical adepts, in the event of my using terms, which they may judge not to be appropriate to the things which I mean to describe. For instance, the words qualities, faculties, powers, heart, mind, soul, spirit, affections, passions, intellect, &c. It is probable, that I may not always use the above terms with propriety, agreeably to the newest edition of metaphysical definitions, by the great masters. All I can aspire to, or hope for, is, merely to be understood; and even that may be a presumptuous hope, considering the abstruseness of the subject, and the incompetency of the writer.

My intelligent and critical reader, if he takes the trouble to consider the subject, may, perhaps, perceive a degree of confusion and perplexity arise in the course of the developement of the analogies of the above similitude. This I also felt and saw after a little consideration; but I did not so soon find how to obviate the difficulty. Thus, the human head is pronounced by St. Paul to be the type, or figure or emblem, of our Lord Jesus Christ; and the rest of the body to be emblematic of the church, his mystic wife. But this wife, though she is female in a collective point of view, in comparison with her husband the head, is yet composed of both male and female ingredients, or individuals, in pretty equal proportion.

Now, if we suppose, (what seems to be a reasonable supposition) that the types, figures, and parables, set forth by the inspired writers, and by our Lord Jesus Christ, are (generally speaking) perfectly accurate and congruous in all their parts to what they represent, then we may lawfully infer,

spirit or soul; and that as the object of matrimony was the propagation of healthful chil

that the human body, which is the Scripture emblem of the church, is in all probability congruous therewith, in all respects of true proportion, or analogy. Hence, we may reasonably look out for a parallel in the human body, and soul, also, to the male and female component parts of the church, as characteristic of the sexes.

If any person can point out any other more comprehensive, striking, and important characteristics, than reason and the intellectual faculty altogether, including the imagination subordinately; and sentiment, or feeling, affection, passion, and all moral perception; then I shall give these up and adopt his characteristics; but as the above include both the mind and heart of man, which are the vital organs and functions of the soul, or, as it were, the whole essential of man; so I must beg leave to keep to them, until some faculties more important, and more characteristic of the sexes, shall be presented.

Now although men have sentiment, or heart, and women have rational intellect, or mind; yet I apprehend that man is (generally speaking) more intellectual than woman; and that woman is (generally speaking) more sentimental than man. If this be allowed, and if it be required to give a brief characteristic of each sex, in mutual relation and comparatively, then intellect seems more characteristic of the man, and sentiment or feeling more characteristic of the woman. But St. Paul himself says, 1st of Corinthians, xi. chapter, "Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, "neither the woman without the man, in the Lord;" or, in spiritual truth.

Among a multitude of characteristics of man and woman, given by the celebrated Lavater, chapter xxiv. on - male and female characteristics, he says, "The female thinks not profoundly; profound thought is the power of the man.

dren, to be educated in virtue to happiness; so I supposed the final cause of making the

"Women feel more sensibility is the power of the woman." This testimony from so competent a judge, together with the common sense and observation of mankind, which, so far as I have read, heard, and seen, do correspond with the opinion of Lavater, make me venture to hope, that perhaps I have succeeded in my endeavours to discover in the individual human soul, faculties, or properties, which are parallels to the distinction of sexes in the church at large.

With respect to the body however, the fact has not yet been established; for though the heart is common both to soul and body, meaning in the first case the organ of the affections, and in the latter the organ of the blood; yet the bodily organ corresponding to the human mind or intellect, has not been specified, much less demonstrated. Let us "then search for it.

In the first place, all will agree that two of the most important and vital organs of the body must be selected, to represent the united whole. The heart is already admitted as one, and where shall we find another organ in the body, so important, and so vital, as the lungs-The lungs ! exclaims my reader in surprise, I thought you had already fixed upon the head, or right reason, as the male, and as the husband of the body!

Very true, my gentle reader, the head, that is to say, the emblem of Christ, is the husband of the whole body, as one collective church. But you must also remember, that this church is composed of male and female individuals, who are also joined together, in individual matrimony among themselves. This is the obscurity, the ambiguity, the difficulty, the mystery, which long puzzled me. I confounded the two unions together, when I ought to have kept them distinct; and I burdened myself with a distinct subdivision, when I ought only to have considered the case in a

the heart, (or the spiritual male and female) might under the influence of divine truth, or

of truth, in consequence of prejudices. Hence it will perhaps be allowed, that as the heart is the organ of natural blood, or life; and as the lungs, united with the heart, are the organ of natural air, or life; also, that as the blood is the emblem of moral life, or love, and as the air is the emblem of spiritual life, or truth in love; so they are the two grand members of the body which represent the whole; in short, the types of the male and female component parts of the individual soul, and also of the whole church at large, under CHRIST THE GREAT HEAD.

But there still remains another weighty objection to answer; not indeed weighty in its own merits, but in the clouds of prejudice and unconsciousness which invest, and magnify, as well as obscure it; and in the confidence, the popular unchecked confidence, with which it is advanced. It is asserted, or admitted by many pious persons, among whom is the late excellent Rev. Joseph Milner, (in his Sermon on the Brazen Serpent, as the Type of our Lord Jesus Christ) "that types and emblems are seldom to be "taken strictly." But he adds, "very true, neither ought

they ever to be explained away entirely. They seldom hold, "it is acknowledged, if we descend to minute particulars; "but this instructive emblem would fail in its leading and "most essential circumstance, if an eager longing sight of "the Saviour on the cross did not perfectly heal the most "inveterate spiritual malady."

But with all due deference and respect to the worthy and eminent character above-mentioned (who, however, is more for than against the use of types and figures), and all other such, I would humbly submit, that every man's opinion, who has an opinion of his own upon this subject, will be formed by his own experience. Suppose a parable