Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

the call. Or, I might say in my defence, that I merely meant to convey the general impression which had been made upon my mind, by what I had occasionally read and heard on the subject of Natural Religion. But I will rather present to your readers a passage which accidentally met my eye the other day, and which will serve my purpose tolerably well. And I leave others to judge whether my observation can be considered as a violent caricature of the sentiments which it expresses. "God," says my author, "has spread before all the world such legible characters of his works and providence, and given all mankind such a sufficient light of reason, that they to whom his written word never came, could not (whenever they set themselves to search) either doubt of the being of a God, or of the obedience due to him." All, then, if they pleased, could read and understand the legible characters of which the author speaks. And, for my part, I know of no truths which are intelligi ble to all mankind, but those which are too plain to be misunderstood. But the author shall proceed. "Since the precepts of Natural Religion are very plain and very intelligible to all mankind, and seldom come to be controverted, and other revealed truths which are conveyed to us by books and languages are liable to the natural obscurities and difficulties incident to

Mr. Locke, in this passage, makes no mention of a future life; but as he has said elsewhere, that if there be no hope of a life to come, the inference is, let us eat and drink for to-morrow we die, he could not, when speaking of obedience to the will of God, have altogether excluded the doctrine of a future existence from the discoveries of Natural Religion. Mr. Locke speaks of searching for the truths of Natural Religion, and I never supposed any man to say that they could be understood by those who would not take the trouble to learn them. But that which is intelligible to all mankind, must be very easy to understand. And I fear that had Mr. Locke been closely pressed with the question, how the most rude and ancivilized of mankind were to set about the search spoken of, he would have been obliged to confess that the precepts of Natural Religion, to which he alluded, did not differ much from those innate principles which he has so ably exploded.

[blocks in formation]

words, methinks it would become us to be more careful and diligent in observing the former, and less magisterial, positive and imperious in imposing our own sense and interpretation on the latter." If Mr. Locke has here given Natural Religion "an advantage over the Bible," the fault is not mine. Did I consider myself as having a right to call upon Mr. Sturch for an explanation of any thing in his letter, I should request him to tell me a little concerning "the lar guage" in which the truths of Natural Religion are written, whether, for example, it may be learned without a teacher, or whether it will be necessary to call in the aid of some person of superior mind to explain what otherwise might be obscure and difficult, and to assist us in the interpretation of the volume which it is proposed to read; in which case this instructor might shew something of the spirit of those, usurping priests who are so justly the object of Mr. Sturch's abhorrence.

But to proceed with my defence; I had made it a question, whether without a divine interposition the superstitions of Paganism could have been banished from the earth, and a purer religion substituted in their place. Upon this Mr. Sturch asks, "From this language would it not be perfectly natural to conclude, that with a divine interposition, this happy state of things has been effected, that superstition has actually been banished from the world, and a pure religion established in its stead?" The superstitions of which I was speaking have been banished from the earth, and Mr. Sturch will not choose to say that Christianity is not in itself a pure religion. That it would be corrupted in the hands of man, every reflecting mind would have anticipated. The corrup tions, indeed, by which its beauty has been defaced are gross enough, but as they are not to be "charged on the religion itself," I do not see what reason I had to do more than to advert to them as I did. To dwell upon them more at large would not indeed have "suited the purpose of my letter" so well as it might have suited that of Mr. Sturch's reply.

I now proceed to an observation at which I am not a little surprised. I acknowledged that the great majority

of mankind are unable to judge of the evidences of revelation, and added, that it is not the evidence of a doctrine, but the belief of it, which is practically useful. "This language," says Mr. Sturch, "from the pen of a liberal Dissenting minister, is surely very singular and extraordinary." For aught I know it may be very singular and very extraordinary, but of this I am very sure, that what it expresses is true. And it is to me very extraordinary that any sensible man should call its truth in question. And had not Mr. Sturch's mind been haunted by the unsightly forms of those spiritual directors of whom he speaks, he could not surely have confounded two things which have no affinity to each other, or have attributed to me a sentiment which he might have known could not be mine. To submit to spiritual tyranny is one thing, and to rest in the judgment of those whom we consider as wiser than ourselves, in cases where we are conscious that our own judgment will not avail us, is another thing; and, much as it may savour of the credulity of a child," is conformable to the constitution of nature, and the universal experience of mankind. With respect to the

[ocr errors]

insolent demands of men who call

upon you to prostrate your understanding before the dogmas which they choose to erect into articles of faith, I should certainly urge it upon the most illiterate Christian strenuously to resist them, believing it to be infinitely better that he should think for himself as well as he can, than that any man should assume the right of thinking for him. But I still maintain, that there are multitudes in every Christian country who are altogether incapable of deciding upon the truth or falsehood of the Christian religion. But if Mr. Sturch, who is himself a believer, would point out any principles which would enable them to determine the question, he would effectually refute me, and confer a benefit upon them. But it seems, if my remark is just, "Protestantism and every thing connected with it as at an end." This, did I believe it, I should be sorry for. But truth is truth, whatever becomes of consequences. There is, however, no ground of apprehension. As it has been judiciously observed, "The right of private judgment is unques

tionable, but the ability to exercise that right is quite another thing." Nor is it at all necessary in order to refute the arrogant claims of the Church of Rome, to maintain that every Christian, whatever have been his means of improvement, is competent to judge of the evidences of revelation.

Mr. Sturch has the good fortune to possess two indestructible and divine religions, one of which he believes to be true, the other (Natural Religion) he certainly knows to be so. In this, Mr. Sturch, who does not seem to have distinguished very accurately between faith and knowledge, differs somewhat from that zealous champion of Natural Religion, the author of Apeleutherus, who, if I rightly recollect, when speaking of an important article of this religion, says, that certainty is entirely out of the question. Were I called upon to decide between Mr. Sturch and this anonymous author, I should pronounce judgment in favour of the latter, and should give it as my opinion that Mr. Sturch, in a moment of inadvertency, has mistaken a strong persuasion for certain knowledge. E. COĞAN.

SIR,

into controversy with such able. ITHOUT presuming to enter writers as Mr. Cogan and Mr. Sturch, will you allow me to put a question to the latter, with reference to the last paragraph in his letter? (p. 112.) Mr. S. has there made a distinction between knowledge and belief, implying that the former is descriptive of his own mental feelings with reference to the evidences of Natural Religion, and the latter with reference to the evidences of Revealed Religion: this, of course, seems to lead to the conclusion that higher regard is due to the former than to the latter. Now the question I wish to ask is, How any one can be said to KNOW the truth of Natural Religion, or at any rate what part of the religion of nature can be the subject of this knowledge? To me it appears that belief, though proceeding on different grounds in either, case, belief, which has been well defined to be "a state of mind between knowledge and doubt, with reference to the truth of a proposition," is the only appropriate term we can employ. Mr. Sturch, in pursuing a train of

reasoning on the attributes of the Deity, on our future destination, &c., may come to several conclusions which are satisfactory to his own mind, (conclusions, by the bye, the practical use of which I should be the last to undervalue,) yet how he can call these conclusions subjects of knowledge, any more than the conclusions of his mind on the other evidences mentioned, I am at a loss to conceive.

Could Socrates properly be said to know the character of the Deity, the future destiny of man, &c.? And are we only permitted to say we believe such a man as Wickliffe once lived in England, and that he translated the Scriptures? The latter phrase conveys what I should conceive to be a correct statement of the fact in both cases. Of course, in this view of the matter, I consider belief to constitute quite as reasonable a ground of action as knowledge. The relation which outward objects bear to the human mind is such, as that comparatively few can be said to be subjects of knowledge; but it is quite as irrational not to act upon the highest possible degrees of probability, as to distrust the evidence of our senses on things immediately before us. Whether, when a merchant sends a vessel to the East or West Indies he can be said to know there are such places, can only be decided by asking whether he has himself been there. If he has not, he merely believes the fact; and wherein, for practical purposes, is such belief inferior to knowledge?

B.

[blocks in formation]

"

dent Mr. Jevans, who, in your last Number, (p. 83,) has so forcibly proved that a translation of the Bible, in which the word Lord, when printed in our common translation in small capitals, should be rendered, agreeably to the original, JEHOVAH, signify ing being, or existence; leading us to consider our heavenly Father as the self-existent and eternal Being, and, of course, the great Author or first Cause of all other beings in the universe;" and that such an alteration would be most desirable; I cannot but remark, that even such an improved

translation, not being sanctioned by our HOLY ALLIANCE, our rulers in Church and State, would be but very partially received by the people. Till, however, the desirable object can be attained, I cannot but be of opinion, that other methods might be taken, by which the evil complained of might be considerably diminished. Your correspondent inquires-" How few persons know that the original word is Jehovah; and how can they know when it occurs, who do not read, but only hear others read?" Such questions remind me of a very shrewd one, put by that phenomenon, a plainspeaking courtier, in the reign of James I., who, on the monarch's remarking, "That it was impossible for an honest man to make his way at Court," bluntly asked him, "Whose fault's that, Sir?" A question full of point, and which so posed our British Solomon, that he, conscious of his inability to make a satisfactory answer, remained silent. Now, Sir, I hope Í shall be excused if I, on a subject of so much importance, put the question, What are our teachers about, who read and explain to us the Scriptures every Sabbath? Ought not every Christian instructor, whether Trinitarian or Unitarian, from the learned prelate in the Established Church to the comparatively illiterate Methodist teacher, to inform, and occasionally remind his hearers, that the word Lord, whenever it appears in our translation in small capitals, ought to be read Jehovah ? And I beg leave further to suggest, whether it might not be a great improvement in reading the Scriptures, if not only ministers from the desk and the pulpit, but all who take the lead in family, social or public wor

them correctly, and thus fix the attention of their hearers on the distinguishing, the peculiar name of the self-existent, eternal ONE GOD?

The observations of your correspondent have struck me so forcibly, that I am determined to set the example in my own family, and whenever I may be called to assist in social or public worship. As to the ministers of our Episcopal Establishment, they have nothing to do but to obey their Lord Bishop, and the laws of their Church; it is, indeed, at their peril if they presume to alter our common

translation: the members in general of that Establishment will therefore, it is to be feared, long remain in ignorance on this important subject; but should the questions of your correspondent be repeated by Dissenting ministers of any description-" How few persons know how frequently the word Lord means Jehovah'; how can they know when it occurs, who do not read but only hear others read;" they must not be surprised if we repeat the question of the old courtier,-"Whose fault's that"-Reverend Gentlemen?

BENJ. FLOWER.

P. S. Might it not be beneficial to hearers in general were their ministers occasionally to remind them that the words printed in their Bibles in italics, are not in the original, but were inserted by our translators, in order to render the sense more obvious, although in some instances they weaken the force of the original, and in matters of controversy little stress is to be laid on them.

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

T may be thought a degree of

dual, to censure one whose Unitarian zeal and useful writings have pro cured her general respect amongst our body; nevertheless, I cannot forbear expressing the sentiments with which I read Mrs. Hughes's Protest, in your last Number, (p. 97,) against the paper of Philadelphus. Into the opinions advanced by that writer, I wish not to enter your giving them a place in the Repository affords a presumption that you considered them a fair subject of discussion. They are, however, expressed with a modesty and seriousness, and breathe a spirit of bene volence, calculated, I should think, to conciliate the ingenuous mind; and which, to say nothing of the names of Priestley and Hartley, whom the writer calls to his aid, might have protected him from the stigma of "in significance and absurdity."

How, after reading the third paragraph of Philadelphus, Mrs. H. can find any indication of "utter indifference with respect to Scripture

tained by a Christian philosopher, unless it can be shewn to be consistent with those passages of Scripture which have relation to the state of mankind after death." Does this warrant Mrs. Hughes in placing him on a par with a professed reviler of Christianity ? Throughout the paper, I can observe no disposition to receive the deductions of philosophical investigation, except so far as they accord with the declarations of revelation. As I believe that all such investigation will promote the ultimate discovery of truth, and that a comparison of its result with the Sacred Writings, will, in the end, most firmly establish their truth, by making them better understood, I view with horror every attempt to put down inquiry by assertion and invective. Such means I deem peculiarly unbecoming in the zealous professor of Unitarianism, which owes its progress to the extrication of reason from the trammels of authority, and the free exercise of investigation.

Had Mrs. Hughes fairly controverted the sentiments advanced by Philadelphus, none could gainsay: but the

the erroneousness of his views, is unworthy alike of a lady and a Christian. Her concluding paragraph is so illogical and inapplicable, that I am surprised it should proceed from her pen.

Perhaps I may do wrong in reflecting upon so respectable a person, under an anonymous signature: but, in truth, my name would add little weight to these observations. Moreover, I will confess that I should rather shrink from the odium of publicly censuring one so much looked up to.

If I know my motive in thus writing, it is not to give needless pain, or to gratify a censorious temper, but to maintain the free expression of opinion and unrestrained discussion-the surest supports of knowledge and of virtue.

VINDEX.

Thorne, Yorkshire. Feb. 18, 1824. EING in habit of

SIR,

thority," I cannot conceive. He there Ba weekly-evening meeting here,

دو

expressly says, "No speculation, as to the termination of pain with the present life, could be safely enter

partly for the purpose of discussing any subject proposed the week before, the last we had was Luke xvi. 19, to

the end of the chapter, and not being able to satisfy ourselves with any view we could take of the passage, we concluded to apply to you, or some of your correspondents, for a more satisfactory view of the subject. This, Sir, will greatly oblige your constant readers.

L. K.

Correspondence on a Charge of Heresy against Sir Rose Price, Bart.

(Continued from p. 92.)

the Committee held at the Hotel on the 13th inst., in answer to Sir Rose Price's letter of the 8th.-Mark this, readers!-I will not appeal to you with the epithets of independent and enlightened.' It has a suspicious appearance, when a pleader compli ments his jury: I appeal to all honest men and true.

"At a meeting of the Committee of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, held at the Hotel, Penzance, January 13th, 1824, Sir Rose Price's letter and the Resolutions of the last meeting having been read,

[From the Royal Cornwall Gazette of Resolved that Sir Rose Price has mis

Jan. 31, 1824.]

"To Sir Rose Price, Bart.

[ocr errors][merged small]

"SIR,

"I

taken the grounds on which the members acted in passing them, their proceedings having been founded solely and entirely on a communication of the sentiments expressed by Sir Rose

Townsend at Trengwainton, on the 26th of December last.

"That with respect to the correspondence alluded to by Sir R. Price, it is our opinion that Mr. Le Grice would have been quite correct in shewing it to any individual upon commu nicating the circumstance to Sir R. P., (as appears by his, Sir R. P.'s, own letter,) but that four only of the members then present, and those clergymen, having been made acquainted with it, there is not the slightest ground for charging Mr. Le Grice with a breach of confidence.

te on you reduced me to the necessity of extorting from you by a public appeal; and upon the most careful perusal, I do not find in it the denial of a single assertion, or an explicit answer to a single question contained in my letter. I have called in the aid of friends, and they cannot help me in the discovery. With a perfectly satisfied mind, therefore, I might close the case: but your defence in some parts, and in its general tenor, assumes the form of an accusation, and to this I must reply. The mode which I shall adopt will be very different from yours: I will reply seriatim to every particular. The net which you have spread is so long and so entangled, that I dread the tediousness, not the difficulty, of the task. How ought I then to fear for the patience of those, who have little interest in the issue !

"And first, let me begin with supplying an omission, an important link, which is wanting in the chain of the correspondence, whether from negligence or contrivance I leave the reader to judge. Your letter to the Rev. Mr. Townsend, dated Jan. 21, 1824, begins thus: Sir Rose Price has the honour of forwarding to Mr. Townsend his remarks,' &c. Remarks on what? By this general expression, the deficiency of a connecting link is concealed. I will supply it.-These remarks are intended as a reply to certain resolutions forwarded to Sir Rose Price by Mr. Townsend from

"RESOLVEd, therefore, THAT THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE OF THIS PAINFUL BUSINESS, OUR SECRETARY (MR. LE GRICE) HAS BEEN ACTU

ATED BY THE MOST HONOURABLE

AND CONSCIENTIOUS MOTIVES, AND

THAT HE IS JUSTLY ENTITLED TO
OUR BEST THANKS AND ACKNOW

LEDGMENTS.-Signed by order of the
Meeting, J. H. Townsend, Assistant
Secretary."

"That I may coolly proceed in my task, I pause to calm the feeling which rises in my breast, while exposing such disingenuous conduct. In a statement which is so managed, subtleties, not arguments, are to be expected; and whether this prove to be the case, let the reader judge, while he accoinpanies me in the investigation.

"My very next step is to supply an omission. Sir R. P. says, that my letter of the 8th contained Resolutions appointing the Rev. Canon Rogers to

« VorigeDoorgaan »