Sermon

# found: 0

Toggle:

Show Page #s Notes (4)

Notes:

Sermon 116: What Is Man? Psalm 8:4

https://wesleyworks.ecdsdev.org/sermons/Sermon116

04:019 An Introductory Comment

1In the five weeks following the previous sermon Wesley continued his progress through the Midlands, preaching almost every day and with his usual variety of unusual experiences. In the midst of these travels he still found time to gather up his thoughts yet once again on a theme that had exercised his speculative impulses since his Oxford days (see No. 141, ‘The Image of God’): the mystery of the human self—its ground, capacities, and end. On May 2 he ‘went on to Bradford’ from a pleasant visit to Wakefield. The Journal entry records a busy day and night; the diary records that part of his business was to complete this present sermon on Ps. 8:4. He had already published another sermon on this same text (No. 103) and had entitled it ‘What is Man?’ The two sermons deserve comparison.

2The present one is a brief encapsulation of Wesley’s Christian anthropology. With its radical body-soul dualism and an assumption about the body as a complicated machine, it reflects Wesley’s third-generation Cartesianism. That tradition, in other of its forms, had already taken a drastic turn toward explicit mechanism in men like La Mettrie (L’Homme Machine, 1748), D’Holbach (Système de la Nature, 1770), and David Hartley (Observations on Man, 1749).

3Wesley’s views here come from the tradition of Christian Platonism mediated to him more directly by Norris and Malebranche. He still refers to the older theories of ‘elements’, ‘temperaments’, and ‘ethereal fire’. He takes it for granted that ‘I am something distinct from my body,’ and he allows himself more speculative leeway than in his earlier comments on human liberty. ‘But what we are most concerned to know, and deeply to consider, is the end of life.’ To this he devotes the peroration (§§13-15); it is one of his more eloquent passages.

4The sermon appeared in the Arminian Magazine

May and June 1789 (XII.230-34, 285-89).

without a title but numbered ‘LI’. In his edition of the Works (1811), Benson entitled this sermon, ‘On, What Is Man?’; Jackson shortened this to ‘What Is Man?’ in his edition of the Sermons (1825). We have added ‘Ps. 8:4’ to distinguish it from No. 103.

04:020 What is Man? Psalm 8:4

11. Nay, what am I? With God’s assistance I would consider myself. Here is a curious machine,

For this phrase and Wesley’s Cartesian mechanism, cf. No. 51, The Good Steward, I.4 and n.

‘fearfully and wonderfully made’.

Ps. 139:14.

It is a little portion of earth, the particles of which, cohering I know not how, lengthen into innumerable fibres a thousand times finer than hairs. These, crossing each other in all directions, are strangely wrought into membranes; and these membranes are as strangely wrought into arteries, veins, nerves, and glands; all of which contain various fluids, constantly circulating through the whole machine.

22. In order to the continuance of this circulation a considerable quantity of air is necessary. And this is continually taken into the habit

Cf. Chambers’s Cyclopaedia: ‘what we otherwise call temperament or constitution of the body…. A thing is said to “enter the habit” when it becomes intimately diffused throughout the body and is conveyed to the remotest stages of circulation.’

by an engine fitted for that very purpose.

Viz., the lungs.

But as a particle of ethereal fire

One of the cosmic elements; cf. No. 15, The Great Assize, III.3 and n.

is connected with every particle of air (and a particle of water too), so both air, water, and fire are received into the lungs together, where the fire is separated from the air and water, both of which are continually thrown out, while the fire extracted from them is received into and mingled with the blood. Thus the human body is composed of all the four elements, duly proportioned and mixed together; the last of which constitutes the vital flame, whence flows the animal heat.

33. Let me consider this yet a little farther. Is not the primary use of the lungs to administer fire to the body, which is continually extracted from the air by that curious fire-pump? By inspiration it takes in the air, water, and fire together. In its numerous cells (commonly called air-vessels) it detaches the fire from the air and 04:021water. This then mixes with the blood, as every air-vessel has a blood-vessel connected with it; and as soon as the fire is extracted from it the air and water are thrown out by expiration.

44. Without this spring of life, this vital fire, there could be no circulation of the blood; consequently no motion of any of the fluids, of the nervous fluid in particular

‘Now, after the same manner as the arterial blood is perpetually carried into all the parts of the body…, so we conceive a juice, prepared in the cortex of the brain and cerebellum, conveyed thence every moment through the Nerves to every point of solid body;’ Chambers’s Cyclopaedia (see the whole article, ‘Nerve, Nervus’, for a summary of the best current physiology available to Wesley).

(if it be not rather, as is highly probable, this very fire we are speaking of). Therefore there could not be any sensation; nor any muscular motion. I say there could be no circulation; for the cause usually assigned for this, namely the force of the heart, is altogether inadequate to the supposed effect. No one supposes the force of the heart in a strong man to be more than equal to the weight of three thousand pounds. Whereas it would require a force equal to the weight of a hundred thousand pounds to propel the blood from the heart through all the arteries. This can only be effected by the ethereal fire contained in the blood itself, assisted by the elastic force of the arteries through which it circulates.

Cf. the anatomical passages parallel to this idea of ethereal fire energizing the circulation of the blood in the ‘Introduction’ to Wesley’s Survey. Note his point there that William Harvey’s Exercitatio anatomica de motu cordis et sanguinis in animalibus (Frankfurt, 1628) is a striking instance of modern science surpassing that of the ancients (see espec. Pt. 1, ch. 1); cf. No. 57, ‘On the Fall of Man’, II.5 and n.

55. But beside this strange compound of the four elements, earth, water, air, and fire, I find something in me of a quite different nature, nothing akin to any of these. I find something in me that thinks, which neither earth, water, air, fire, nor any mixture of them can possibly do. Something which sees, and hears, and smells, and tastes, and feels, all which are so many modes of thinking. It goes farther: having perceived objects by any of these senses it forms inward ideas of them. It judges concerning them, it sees whether they agree or disagree with each other. It reasons concerning them; that is, infers one proposition from another. It reflects upon its own operations. It is endued with imagination and memory. And any of its operations, judgment in particular, may be subdivided into many others.

66. But by what means shall I learn in what part of my body this thinking principle is lodged? Some eminent men have affirmed 04:022that it is ‘all in all, and all in every part’.

Cf. Plotinus, Enneads, IV.2:1; and see No. 67, ‘On Divine Providence’, §10 and n.

But I learn nothing from this: they seem to be words that have no determinate meaning. Let us then appeal, in the best manner we can, to our own experience. From this I learn that this thinking principle is not lodged in my hands, or feet, or legs, or arms. It is not lodged in the trunk of my body. Anyone may be assured of this by a little reflection. I cannot conceive that it is situated in my bones, or in any part of my flesh. So far [as] I can judge, it seems to be situated in some part of my head. But whether in the pineal gland, or in any part of the brain, I am not able to determine.

77. But farther. This inward principle, wherever it is lodged, is capable not only of thinking, but likewise of love, hatred, joy, sorrow, desire, fear, hope, etc., and a whole train of other inward emotions which are commonly called ‘passions’ or ‘affections’. They are styled, by a general appellation, ‘the will’, and are mixed and diversified a thousand ways. And they seem to be the only spring of action in that inward principle I call ‘the soul’.

Cf. No. 69, ‘The Imperfection of Human Knowledge’, I.13 and n. 34.

88. But what is my ‘soul’? It is an important question, and not easy to be resolved.

Hear’st thou submissive; but a lowly birth?

Some separate particles of finer earth?

A plain effect, which nature must beget,

As motion dictates, and as atoms meet?

Cf. Prior, Solomon, iii.7-10, where l. 10 reads, ‘As motion orders’; cf. Wesley, A Collection of Moral and Sacred Poems (1744), I.163. See also No. 117, ‘On the Discoveries of Faith’, §5, where Wesley again quotes these first two lines.

I cannot in any wise believe this. My reason recoils at it. I cannot reconcile myself to the thought that the soul is either air,

Wesley added ‘air’ in his personal copy of AM.

earth, water, or fire, or a composition of all of them put together, were it only for this plain reason: all these, whether separate or compounded in any possible way, are purely passive still. None of them has the least power of self-motion; none of them can move itself. ‘But’, says one, ‘does not that ship move?’ Yes, but not of itself: it is moved by the water on which it swims. ‘But then the water moves.’ True, but the water is moved by the wind, the current of air. ‘But the air moves.’ It is moved by the ethereal fire, which is attached to every particle of it. And this fire itself is 04:023moved by the Almighty Spirit, the source of all the motion in the universe. But my soul has from him an inward principle of motion, whereby it governs at pleasure every part of the body.

99. It governs every motion of the body, only with this exception, which is a marvellous instance of the wise and gracious providence of the great Creator: there [are]

Orig., ‘is’.

some motions of the body which are absolutely needful for the continuance of life, such as the dilatation

Orig., ‘dilation’, changed to this more unusual form in Wesley’s personal copy of AM.

and contraction of the lungs, the systole and diastole

Cf. Chambers’s Cyclopaedia, for what was current knowledge on systolic and diastolic phases of heartbeat.

of the heart, the pulsation of the arteries, and the circulation of the blood. These are not governed by me at pleasure; they do not wait the direction of my will. And it is well they do not. It is highly proper that all the vital motions should be involuntary, going on whether we advert to them or not. Were it otherwise grievous inconveniencies might follow. A man might put an end to his own life whenever he pleased by suspending the motion of his heart or of his lungs; or he might lose his life by mere inattention, by not remembering, not adverting to, the circulation of his blood. But these vital motions being excepted, I direct the motion of my whole body. By a single act of my will I put my head, eyes, hands, or any part of my body into motion; although I no more comprehend how I do this than I can comprehend how the ‘Three that bear record in heaven are One’.

Cf. 1 John 5:7; also No. 55, On the Trinity.

1010. I? But what am I? Unquestionably I am something distinct from my body. It seems evident that my body is not necessarily included therein. For when my body dies I shall not die; I shall exist as really as I did before. And I cannot but believe this self-moving, thinking principle,

An echo of Descartes’s res cogitans; cf. the conclusion of his Meditations (1647), II, and the Discourse on Method (1637).

with all its passions and affections, will continue to exist although the body be mouldered into dust. Indeed at present this body is so intimately connected with the soul that I seem to consist of both. In my present state of existence I undoubtedly consist both of soul and body. And so I shall again after the resurrection to all eternity.

1111. I am conscious to myself of one more property, commonly called liberty. This is very frequently confounded with the will, 04:024but is of a very different nature.

For other references to ‘liberty’ and ‘will’, cf. No. 60, ‘The General Deliverance’, I.4 and n.

Neither is it a property of the will, but a distinct

Corrected from marginal notes in Wesley’s personal copy of AM; orig. omits ‘it’ and misreads ‘distant’ for ‘distinct’.

property of the soul, capable of being exerted with regard to all the faculties of the soul, as well as all the motions of the body. It is a power of self-determination which, although it does not extend to all our thoughts and imaginations, yet extends to our words and actions in general, and not with many exceptions. I am full as certain of this, that I am free with respect to these, to speak or not to speak, to act or not to act, to do this or the contrary, as I am of my own existence. I have not only what is termed a ‘liberty of contradiction’, a power to do or not to do, but what is termed a ‘liberty of contrariety’,

A scholastic distinction between the liberty of angels and that of men, probably best known to Wesley’s time from the debate on ‘liberty, necessity, and chance’ between Thomas Hobbes and Bishop John Bramhall of Derry; cf. Hobbes’s A Treatise of Liberty and Necessity (1655), and Bramhall’s Defence of True Liberty from Antecedent and Extrinsical Necessity (1655); see also Hobbes, Works, V.247-57 (Q. IV): ‘a liberty of contradiction [in God and the angels], …a liberty to do both good and evil’ contrasted with ‘a liberty of contrariety [found in men], that is, a liberty to do or not to do this good or that, this evil or that’. The same distinction had been invoked by Thomas Goad, Stimulus Orthodoxus; Sive Goadus Redivivus (1661), p. 11; and John Weemes, The Pourtraiture of the Image of God in Man, in His Three Estates (1627), p. 128. Other references in Wesley on this point may be seen in No. 62, ‘The End of Christ’s Coming’, I.4-5; and his Thoughts Upon Necessity, III.9.

a power to act one way or the contrary. To deny this would be to deny the constant experience of all human kind. Everyone feels that he has an inherent power to move this or that part of his body, to move it or not, and to move this way or the contrary, just as he pleases. I can, as I choose (and so can everyone that is born of a woman), open or shut my eyes, speak or be silent, rise or sit down, stretch out my hand or draw it in, and use any of my limbs according to my pleasure, as well as my whole body. And although I have not an absolute power over my own mind, because of the corruption of my nature, yet through the grace of God assisting me I have a power to choose and do good as well as evil. I am free to choose whom I will serve, and if I choose the better part, to continue therein even unto death.

An echo of the debate between Erasmus and Luther; cf. Erasmus, Diatribe de Libero Arbitrio (1524), and Luther, De Servo Arbitrio (1525); the issue turned on their nuanced meanings of arbitrium (power of specific choice). Both sides agreed on human voluntas (power of deliberation).

04:025

12.

But tell me, frighted nature, what is death?

Blood only stopped, and interrupted breath?

The utmost limit of a narrow span?

And end of motion, which with life began?

Cf. Prior, Solomon, iii.518-21, beginning, ‘Yet tell me, frighted reason’; see also Wesley, A Collection of Moral and Sacred Poems (1744), I.180.

Death is properly the separation of the soul from the body.

Cf. No. 41, Wandering Thoughts, III.5 and n.

Of this we are certain. But we are not certain (at least in many cases) of the time when this separation is made. Is it when respiration ceases, according to the well-known maxim, Nullus spiritus, nulla vita

π; This medical catchphrase had already appeared in Wesley’s Survey, V.254.

—‘Where there is no breath, there is no life’? Nay, we cannot absolutely affirm this; for many instances have been known of those whose breath was totally lost, and yet their lives have been recovered. Is it when the heart no longer beats? Or when the circulation of the blood ceases? Not so. For the heart may beat anew; and the circulation of the blood, after it is quite interrupted, may begin again.

A point already made in No. 99, The Reward of Righteousness, II(III).3.

Is the soul separated from the body when the whole body is stiff and cold as a piece of ice? But there have been several instances lately of persons who were thus cold and stiff, and had no symptoms of life remaining, who nevertheless upon proper application recovered both life and health.

Accounts of such incidents were popular in current literary journals; cf., e.g., Gent’s Mag. (Jan. 1740), X.34: ‘At Staines, the wife of one Collet, a tanner, having lain dead three days, just before she was to be nailed up in her coffin, opened her eyes and spoke.’ See also, ibid., XLIV.40; No. 37, ‘The Nature of Enthusiasm’, §18 and n.; and No. 99, The Reward of Righteousness, II.4-9.

Therefore we can say no more than that death is the separation of the soul and body; but in many cases God only can tell the moment of that separation.

1313. But what we are much more concerned to know, and deeply to consider, is the end of life. For what end is life bestowed upon the children of men? Why were we sent into the world? For one sole end, and for no other—to prepare for eternity. For this alone we live: for this, and no other purpose, is our life either given or continued. It pleased the all-wise God, at the season which he saw best, to arise in the greatness of his strength, and create the heavens and the earth, and all things that are therein. Having prepared all things for him, ‘He created man in his own image, after his own likeness.’

Cf. Gen. 1:26-27.

And what was the end of his creation? It 04:026was one, and no other: that he might know, and love, and enjoy, and serve his great Creator to all eternity.

A paraphrase of the familiar first question and answer in the Westminster Shorter Catechism, viz., that ‘the chief end of man’ is ‘to know God and to enjoy him forever’; see also No. 54, ‘On Eternity’.

1414. But ‘man being in honour continued not; but became’ lower than even ‘the beasts that perish’.

Cf. Ps. 49:12.

He wilfully and openly rebelled against God, and cast off his allegiance to the Majesty of heaven. Hereby he instantly lost both the favour of God and the image of God wherein he was created. As he was then incapable of obtaining happiness by the old, God established a new covenant with man; the terms of which were no longer, ‘Do this and live,’

Cf. Gen. 42:18.

but, ‘Believe, and thou shalt be saved.’

Cf. Mark 16:16.

But still the end of man is one and the same: only it stands on another foundation. For the plain tenor of it is, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, whom God hath given to be the propitiation for thy sins, and thou shalt be saved’;

Cf. Acts 16:31; 1 John 2:2.

first from the guilt of sin, having redemption through his blood; then from the power, which shall have no more dominion over thee; and then from the root of it, into the whole image of God. And being restored both to the favour and image of God, thou shalt know, love, and serve him to all eternity. So that still the end of his life, the life of every man born into the world, is to know, love, and serve his great Creator.

1515. And let it be observed, as this is the end, so it is the whole and sole end, for which every man upon the face of the earth, for which every one of you were brought into the world, and endued with a living soul. Remember! You were born for nothing else. You live for nothing else. Your life is continued to you upon earth for no other purpose than this, that you may know, love, and serve God on earth, and enjoy him to all eternity. Consider! You were not created to please your senses, to gratify your imagination, to gain money or the praise of men; to seek happiness in any created good, in anything under the sun. All this is ‘walking in a vain shadow’;

Cf. Ps. 39:7 (BCP).

it is leading a restless, miserable life, in order to a miserable eternity. On the contrary, you were created for this, and for no other purpose—by seeking and finding happiness in God on earth to secure the glory of God in heaven. Therefore let your 04:027heart continually say, ‘This one thing I do.’

Phil. 3:13.

Having one thing in view, remembering why I was born, and why I am continued in life, ‘I press on to the mark.’

Cf. Phil. 3:14.

I aim at the one end of my being, God; even at ‘God in Christ, reconciling the world to himself’.

Cf. 2 Cor. 5:19.

He shall be my God for ever and ever, and my guide even unto death.

Bradford, May 2, 1788

How to Cite This Entry

, “” in , last modified , https://wesleyworks.ecdsdev.org/sermons/Sermon116.

Bibliography:

, “.” In , edited by . , Entry published . https://wesleyworks.ecdsdev.org/sermons/Sermon116.

About this Entry

Entry Title: Sermon 116: What Is Man? Psalm 8:4

Copyright and License for Reuse

Show full citation information...