424 Mr. Wright on the Objection to one of his Sermon-topics. points in discussion-the truth and importance of Christianity, and the general state of unbelievers, I earnestly recommend, as a proof of my good will, to Candidus, on parting, to his most serious attention. SIR, The B. FLOWER. June 30, 1815. HE remarks of A Subscriber to the Fund, (p. 289) would have been noticed by me sooner, had not travelling and preaching occupied my time so fully as to leave no leisure for writing. Your correspondent mentions his serious doubts with regard to the propriety of a Missionary making "the existence and influence of the Devil a topic of popular preaching." I apprehend the propriety or impropriety will depend upon circumstances. On this, and some other points, I have never preached in places where the leading doctrines we maintain were not already received and professed, and seldom indeed but at the request of sensible and pious friends. In breaking up new ground, and till an Unitarian church has been planted, I have thought it right to confine myself to the first principles of the Unitarian, which I regard as the first principles of the true evangelical doctrine; and to insist on these theoretically, experimentally, and practically. When this has been done with good effect, I have not thought any topic which has a material bearing on the character and government of God, and on the moral system, improper to be made the subject of a discourse; especially when expressly called for. That the popular notions concerning an invisible evil being, and his influence on the minds of men, has such a bearing, I think your correspondent will admit. They are the ground of much vile superstition, and from them men derive many excuses for their improper spirit and conduct. Many who have been convinced that such notions cannot be reconciled with what the scriptures clearly teach concerning God and his government, have still felt great difficulty in rejecting them without seeming to reject what some places of scripture appeared to them to countenance; hence they have been desirous of hearing a discourse, illustrative of such parts of scripture, and have judged that such a discourse would be useful to their neighbours, with whom they could not avoid being involved in controversy on the subject. In such circumstances, I should think it wrong to decline preaching on the existence and influence of the Devil. I know not whether I rightly understand your correspondent's question, "Is the doctrine of the New Testament sufficiently clear to warrant a Missionary in deciding upon it?" I apprehend a Missionary is as capable of deciding upon it as any other person; provided he takes equal pains in examining it. I further think that the New Testament fully warrants us to decide against the popular notions of the Devil and his supposed influence. I have not leisure now to go into the inquiry, whether it be" probable, that our Lord and his apostles, believed, in some degree, in some sort of evil spirit :" I think your correspondent will hardly say that it is at all probable, that either our Lord or his apostles believed any thing like the notions now maintained respecting the Devil and his influence on the human mind: which is the only point in question. If he will give himself the trouble to read my Essay on the subject, a new edition of which was published last year, he will fully know what I think our Lord and his apostles taught respecting it. To your correspondent's question, "Docs not the statement of such a subject shock and terrify serious Christians, holding the vulgar faith, and close their ears against a Missionary ?" I reply, this depends on the time and manner of giving the statement. As to the time I have sufficiently explained myself, and the statement may be given in a manner that will not be offensive even to delicate ears, nor alarming to any who will not be alarmed at whatever opposes their prejudices in favour of popular notions. So far as my experience goes, I have not witnessed the effect which your correspondent apprehends: I have seen no evil effects produced by ny preaching on the subject; but I have witnessed the contrary. I readily admit, that this subject may, if introduced unseasonably, or stated injudiciously, or in coarse and offensive langage, produced the bad effect he anticipates; and the same may be said of many other subjects; but I trust Unitarian Missionaries will always have the judgment and prudence to guard against the evil feared by the subscriber to the Fund. After all, is it possible to avoid, sometimes, shocking and terrifying serious Christians, holding the vulgar creed? I have known this done by a faithful statement of the doctrines of the divine unity, the humanity of Christ, and the free unpurchased mercy and grace of God. Yet I have seen such shocks subside, and the ears of the persons so alarmed, instead of being finally closed against a Missionary, have been fully opened, and they have received as divine truth what at first greatly terrified them. What I most dread is having hearers who are too indifferent to be either alarmed or pleased. If a Missionary is to avoid every subject that will shock and terrify some serious Christians, he will labour to little purpose. Your correspondent further asks, "Does it not furnish low-minded, irreligious men, who will not examine the scriptures, and who care nothing about missionary preaching, with an authority for scoffing, and introduce the maxim of no devil' into ale-houses and other places of like character, where it will be esteemed a licence to vice?" To this 1 answer, our rejection of the popular notions concerning the Devil and his influence is generally known, before a Missionary enters publicly on the subject, and is more likely to be abused before a proper statement is given and the subject well guarded, than afterwards: nor can I see how the rejection of those notions should give a licence to vice. What subject is there that will not furnish some low-minded, irreligious men, with a pretext for scoffing, &c.? but are we on this account to avoid declaring the whole truth, or opposing pernicious error? If we proceed with all due prudence, we may lament, but we cannot blame ourselves for the conduct of such persons, who will be equally likely to abuse the doctrines of free grace, of the infinite goodness and mercy of God, and of limited punishment; but are we therefore to conceal these doctrines, lest ungodly men should turn the grace of God into licentiousness? Is it not enough if we correctly state and guard them as far as we can from abuse. After all I have not found preaching on the subject in question productive of the effects intimated. I agree with your correspondent that it is "dangerous to pull down, rather than build up the faith of the common people." Those who have heard me most, know it is my plan to lead my hearers to right views of Christian truth, before I attempt to expose the fallacy of the opposite notions: indeed I conceive the latter to be in a good measure done so far as the former is effected. Yet, as the apostles not only preached one God, but declared they are no gods which are made with hands, so I conceive we ought, with prudence and candour, to expose and refute error as well as plainly declare the truth, especially by shewing that the language of scripture does not express such doctrines as the popular system supposes it to express, and which are incompatible with the "sole, all-perfect, and infinitely just and merciful government of Almighty God." I remain, Sir, Respectfully yours, R. WRIGHT. SIR, N some of your pages last year, which I have not now an opportunity of referring to, there appeared a sort of defence of the practice of certain religious teachers receiving and giving each other the title of Reverend. The arguments (if they deserved the name) seemed to me excessively weak and inconclusive, and quite unworthy of the rational and philosophic principles which distinguish your publication. The blind attachment of the professed adherents of misnamed orthodoxy, to the puerile absurdities and unscriptural practices of the apostate Church of Rome, gives me but little concern. It is what may be expected until the prophetic denunciation be fulfilled, and "the whore is made desolate and naked and burnt with fire." See Rev. xvii. 16. But that the enlightened friends of primitive truth, the intrepid opposers of prevailing corruptions of Christianity, the avowed worshipers of only one God, even the Father, should wish to retain such a childish, unscriptural and antichristian appendage to their names, appears such an 426 Chapel Exemption Bill. anomaly as to deserve severe repre hension. It has been often urged that the subject is trivial and unimportant, therefore ought not to be agitated. Repeated consideration for many years has confirmed me in a contrary way of thinking. In the present state of Unitarianism it is of great moment, that its friends should look at every part of the system, that they should carry their dissent from human traditions and unauthorized impositions in religion to its legitimate extent, and that they should be consistent throughout. Observe then, 1st. That it is a violation of our Master's 's express command for his disciples to receive or give any titles expressive of distinction and authority in religious concerns. Matt. xxiii. 3 12. The Rabbies and Fathers of the Pharisaic School were soon succeeded by the Reverend Fathers of the Christian church, notwithstanding Jesus had explicitly said "It shall not be It has been said that so among you." we are rather to regard the spirit of these precepts, and that our Lord's object was only to impress on his disciples the duty of humility. I ask in reply, How will the spirit of the precept be observed, if its letter be daily broken with impunity? 2d. The appropriation of such a title to our ministers is inconsistent with enlarged and liberal views of Christianity. It was doubtless intended by the antichristian hierarchy that first adopted it to discriminate an order of men exclusively authorized to teach religion and to perform sacred offices. But we acknowledge no such monoAnd we ask any poly in religion. man who claims it, from whom he derived his authority? Every Christian man who is able, has a right to teach those who choose to be taught by him; and to do it or decline it according to the dictates of his own understanding and conscience. It is. therefore a supposable case, that the whole of a small society might be so enlightened as to instruct and edify one another. Would these be all called Reverend brethren? It is however generally requisite that one or two able persons should be selected for the important work of public instruction. But is it therefore consistent to give these an appellation which may be understood to signify that it is their opinions alone that ought Sd. The retaining of this title by Unitarian ministers is inconsistent with that manly and independent spirit which ought to inspire every part of our system. They ought to shew the world that they are superior to those paltry artifices by which an antichristian priesthood deceived and enslaved our unenlightened progenitors; that they desire not to have their opinions received under the sanction of personal pretensions to holiness, learning, or sacred character; that their authority lies wholly in the truth of the doctrines, and in the evidence by which they are supported; and that these they submit to the unbiassed and candid examination of every man by a rational, unambiguous and unreserved declaration of what appears to them the duty of a Christian both to believe and practise. Far be the degradation from them, of seeking to place themselves even in appearance on a level with the teachers of superstition and fanaticism, who, as if conscious of the prostration of their own understandings, desire to clothe themselves in the trappings of outward sanctity and of ficial dignity. Let Unitarians labour to fix their reputation on a basis which will sustain it with honour, when the general blaze of universal knowledge will extinguish those petty meteors, which owe all their lustre to the darkness of the hemisphere in which they move. I rejoice to see some of our most distinguished leaders disposed to abandon the use of the title that occasioned these reflections, and I doubt not their example will be followed. To accelerate this it only remaius for the people to cease from calling their preachers Reverend, and they will not long continue to give the title to one another. I I remain, dear Sir, Chapel Exemption Bill. SIR, June 20th, 1815. is not my intention here to enter into the merits of this bill, but merely, as a friend to Christianity and disinterested conduct in its professors, to inquire of some of the numerous readers of your widely-extended miscellany the true cause of its rejection by the House of Commons, having heard that its friends had abandoned it, assigning as a reason that, as one-fifth of every chapel was proposed to be made free for the poor, they would rather submit to the parochial rates than submit to this proposition I forbear to comment on the reason said to be assigned for abandoning it, especially as it is said to emanate from the Committee appointed to protect the rights of Protestant Dissenters, feeling convinced that if they did abandon it to its fate it must have been from some other motive more worthy of their heads and hearts. Being peculiarly concerned to ascertain the real cause of its defeat, having hailed the little opposition that was first made to it as another instance of the progressive liberality of the times, I shall feel myself greatly obliged to any of your readers who can afford me the information I so anxiously seek. You will confer a service on a constant reader of your valuable work by inserting this in your ensuing Number. P. Edinburgh, June 1, 1815. SIR, AM aware that you expressed a wish that the controversy respecting the doctrine of Universal Restoration should be terminated in your last volume, and I do not mean to revive it; but there is a very important consideration connected with it, which I believe was not noticed, and to which if it be not incompatible with the plan of your present volume, I could wish to direct the attention of your readers. I refer to the celebrated objection against the doctrine stated by Butler in his Analogy, and urged with uncommon force by Price, in his Dissertation on Providence. It is argued by the advocates of this pleasing view of the ultimate destiny of the human race, which the doctrine of Universal Restoration affords, that man is evidently designed for the enjoyment of happiness; that he is not fitted for ignorance, for vice, for misery; that if he be formed for either of these nothing can be worse contrived; that if he be formed for happiness nothing can be better: that this design, being the design of the Deity, must be ultimately accom plished, and that therefore there is every reason to believe that the apparent failure of it which takes place in the present state, is only a part of the plan by which the Almighty and all-wise Disposer of Events is securing it. To this argument the admirable writers mentioned above reply, that the principle upon which it is founded is not supported by the analogy of nature; that the completion of every evident design which it supposes, does not take place; that every blos som, for example, does not ripen into fruit, nor every embryo attain the maturity of which it is capable, and for which it appears to have been designed; that there is, in those instances, as great an apparent failure of the designs of the Deity as can well be imagined, and that as this is not supposed to be inconsistent with his perfections, so there may be the same apparent frustration of his plan with regard to human beings without any impeachment of his wisdom or goodness. This is not only a reply to a very plausible argument on the side of a doctrine which all must wish to be true, but it forms one of the most forcible objections against it, which I do not remember to have seen fairly met and satisfactorily answered. That it does admit of a complete reply I cannot doubt; and if I venture to propose a solution of the difficulty it is with much diffidence a feeling which would certainly have kept me silent had I not known that your pages are read by some able advocates of the doctrine which Dr. Price espoused, and conceived that they may perhaps be able to point out some fallacy in the answer which has occurred to me upon the subject, and which at present appears to me to be perfectly satisfactory. Should they perceive any defect in the reasoning, about to be submitted through your indulgence, to their cousideration, I shall deem myself under an obligation to them, if they will take the trouble to shew in what it consists, and perhaps it may be useful to others. It ought to be our earnest and constant endeavour to arrive at the knowledge of the truth, and to assist one another as much as we can in the attainment of this invaluable treasure. It appears to the that two answers 428 Philosophical Objection to Universal Restoration may be given to this objection. In the first place it may be replied, that though all analogical reasoning is founded upon a comparison of the lower with the higher parts of the creation, and of the higher with the lower; yet this objection supposes that comparison to be carried farther than it can be carried with safety, or than, in fact, it ever is carried; namely, to the final destinies of creatures of different orders. It is impossible to conclude that the final destiny of a being of a superior order is of a certain nature, because that is the destiny of a being of an inferior order. A striking conformity between a particular organization in a fly and in a man, may lead to the conclusion that that organization is designed to answer a similar purpose in both. This deduction from analogy is fair and conclusive. But if because at a certain period of its existence this insect changes its state, and that change of state is attended with a total loss of conscious existence, it be inferred that when at a certain period man undergoes a change, apparently very similar, this change is in him also attended with a total loss of consciousness, this deduction of analogy is not fair and conclusive because there may be something in the nature of a heing possessing the faculties of a man to prevent that change from being final, while in an insect possessing only the properties of a fly, that something may not exist being already distinguished from the fly by the noble faculty of reason, he may be still further distinguished from it by the property of surviving his apparent disorganization or their Creator may have something in view by appointing the change in one which he may not have in the other. The analogy to this extent therefore does not hold, but to this extent the objection under consideration supposes it to hold: for it supposes that human beings may be prematurely destroyed because the rudiments of an insect or a vegetable are so. It is therefore a false analogy. : There is also another very important view to be taken of this subject. Nothing is more evident than that the inferior part of the creation may, and that in many cases it actually is, made for the use of the superior. To minister to the convenience and comfort of the higher is the final cause of the existence of the lower orders of the creation, and supposing these lower orders to be in the mean time happy, as far as they are capable of happimess, which always is the case; this is a plan of wonderful and matchless wisdom and beauty. Supposing, for example, it were wise and good in the Deity to give to the superior animals of our globe their present constitution, a constitution, that is, to the support of which many of the fruits of the earth and many of the inferior animals are necessary, then it is a most beautiful instance of his wisdom and goodness to make such a provision that those fruits and animals shall always sufficiently abound; nay, that they shall super-abound. For were they from any cause to fail the most disastrous consequences must ensue to those higher orders for whom alone the inferior exist. Now the only way by which it seems possible to guard against such a calamity is, to provide in every period more of these inferior beings than is absolutely necessary at any period; and there will appear the greater reason for this when it is considered that by this super-abundance itself beauty and enjoyment are multiplied in the exact degree in which there is a super-abundance. For this super-abundance of possible existence therefore we see the most wise and benevolent reason, so that though every blossom do not ripen into fruit, nor every embryo develope its latent faculties, this is so far from being a proof of the frustration of the plans of the Deity that it is the reverse: for the provision of this super-abundance is the very means he has adopted to secure their accomplishment. Though these blossoms and embryos perish they still fulfil the design of their creation. Had they been necessary, they were ready to ripen into maturity to supply the existing want; but not being so they read a most instructive lesson to the intelligent creation: they say to itBehold the never-failing care of your Creator to provide for your happiness,† and then are seen no more. But there is also a second answer which may be given to this objection. Every blossom it is said does not ripen into fruit, neither does every embryo grow to the maturity of which it is capable, and for which it seems to + MS. imperfect.-ED. |