ifferency ever since the day when Saint Paul so emphatically denied
that he made void the law through faith, and said of certain
calumniators that their damnation was just. Emerson was open to the same
charge, and he knew it. In a passage already quoted, Emerson says
good-humouredly that his wife keeps his philosophy from running to
antinomianism He could not mistake the tendency of saying that, if you
look wider, things are all alike, and that we are in the grasp of a
higher law than our own will. On that side he only paints over in
rainbow colours the grim doctrine which the High Calvinist and the
Materialistic Necessarian hold in common.

All great minds perceive all things; the only difference lies in the
order in which they shall choose to place them. Emerson, for good reason
of his own, dwelt most on fate, character, and the unconscious and
hidden sources, but he writes many a page of vigorous corrective. It is
wholesome, he says, to man to look not at Fate, but the other way; the
practical view is the other. As Mill says of his wish to disbelieve the
doctrine of the formation of character by circumstances--'Remembering
the wish of Fox respecting the doctrine of resistance to governments,
that it might never be forgotten by Kings nor remembered by subjects, I
said that it would be a blessing if the doctrine of necessity could be
believed by all _quoad_ the characters of others, and disbelieved in
regard to their own.' So Emerson knew well enough that man's
consciousness of freedom, action, and power over outer circumstances
might be left to take care of itself, as the practical view generally
can. The world did not need him to tell it that a man's fortunes are a
part of his character. His task was the more far-reaching one of drawing
them to recognise that love is the important thing, not benevolent
works; that only impure men consider life as it is reflected in events,
opinions, and persons; that they fail to see the action until it is
done, whereas what is far better worth considering is that its moral
element prae-existed in the actor.

It would be easy to show that Emerson has not worked out his answers to
these eternal enigmas, for ever reproducing themselves in all ages, in
such a form as to defy the logician's challenge. He never shrinks from
inconsistent propositions. He was unsystematic on principle. 'He thought
that truth has so many facets that the best we can do is to notice each
in turn, without trou