Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

joined for the perfection, it would be permitted to the weakness of our nature. We should be betrayed into it, if we thought it sin; and pious ejaculations would escape our lips, though we were obliged to preface them with, God forgive me for praying?-To those (she says) who press the objection, that we cannot see in what manner our prayers can be answered, consistently with the government of the world according to general laws: it may be sufficient to say, that prayer being made almost an instinct of our nature, it cannot be supposed but that, like all other instincts, it has its use: but that no idea can be less philosophical, than one which implies, that the existence of a God who governs the world, should make no difference in our conduct; and few things less probable, than that the child-like submission which bows to the will of a father, should be exactly similar in feature to the stubborn patience which bends under the yoke of necessity. Remarks on Wakefield's Inquiry, p. 11-14. See also the excellent remarks of Doctor Percival to the same purport, cited in the Appendix to this volume.

No. IX. ON
-ON THE GRANTING OF THE DIVINE FORGIVE-

NESS THROUGH A MEDIATOR OR INTERCESSOR.

PAGE 23. (i)-See H. Taylor's Ben Mord. 5th Letter in which a number of instances are adduced from the Old Testament, to show that God's dealing with his creatures is of the nature here described. Thus we find, that when God had declared that he would destroy the entire nation of Israel for their idolatry at Horeb, (Numb. ch. 14.) and again, for their intended violence against Caleb and Joshua, (Deut. ch. 9.) yet upon the intercession of Moses, he is said to have forgiven them. In like manner, for the sake of ten righteous persons, he would have spared Sodoni. (Gen. xviii. 32.) In remembrance of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and for their sakes, he is represented as being merciful to their posterity, (Gen. xxvi. 24.)-He forgave Abimelech also upon the prayer of Abraham, (Gen. xx. 7.) and the friends of Job, upon the solicitation of that patriarch, (Job xlii. 10.)-and, what renders these two last instances particularly strong is, that whilst he declares the purpose of forgiveness, he at the same time expressly prescribes the mediation by which it was to be obtained. To quote more of the numerous instances which the Old Testament supplies on this head, must be unnecessary. What has been

urged will enable us to form a true judgment of that extraordinary position, on which Dr. Priestley relies not a little, (Hist. of Cor. vol. 1. p. 156.) viz. that "the declarations

L

of divine mercy are made without reserve or limitation to the truly penitent, through all the books of scripture, without the most distant hint of any regard being had to the sufferings or merit of any being whatever."

Very different indeed were the sentiments of the pious writer referred to in the last number. He not merely admits the contrary of this position to be founded in the facts of revelation; but he maintains the abstract reasonableness of the principle, with a force and feeling that must render bis remarks upon this head particularly acceptable to the read

If it be asked, he says, what influence our prayers can have upon the state of others; what benefit they can derive from our intercessions; or whether we can conceive, that God, like weak men, can be persuaded by the importunity of one person, to bestow upon another blessings which he would not else have bestowed: the proper answer is to be derived from the consideration, that it is by no means necessary to suppose that the treatment which beings shall receive, depends in all cases, solely on what they are in themselves. This, without doubt, is what the universal Governor chiefly regards; but it is not all. And though there are some benefits of such a nature, that no means can obtain them for beings who have not certain qualifications, there are other benefits which one being may obtain for another, or for which he may be indebted entirely to the kind offices of his fellowAn advantage may become proper to be granted to another, in consequence of some circumstances he may be in, or some relations in which he may stand to others, which abstracted from such circumstances and relations, would not have been proper. Nothing more frequently happens in the common course of events.

creatures.

The whole scheme of nature seems, indeed, to be contrived on purpose in such a manner, as that beings might have it in their power in numberless ways, to bless one another. And one great end of the precarious and mutually dependent condition of men, appears plainly to be, that they might have room and scope for the exercise of the beneficent affections. From this constitution of things it is, that almost all our happiness is conveyed to us, not immediately from the hands of God, but by the instrumentality of our fellow-beings, or through them as the channels of his beneficence, in such a sense, that had it not been for their benevolence and voluntary agency, we should have for ever wanted the blessings we enjoy.

Now with respect to prayer, he asks, Why may not this be one thing that may alter a case, and be a reason with the divine Being for showing favour? Why, by praying for one

another, may we not, as in many other ways, be useful to one another? Why may not the universal Father, in consideration of the humble and benevolent intercessions of some of his children for others, be pleased often, in the course of his Providence, to direct events for the advantage of the persons interceded for, in a manner that otherwise would not have been done?-No truly benevolent and pious man (he adds) can help lifting up his heart to the Deity in behalf of his fellow-creatures. No one whose breast is properly warmed with kind wishes to his brethren about him, and who feels within himself earnest desires to do them all possible good, can avoid offering up his kind wishes and desires to the common benefactor and ruler, who knows what is best for every being, and who can make those we love infinitely happy. In reality, (he contends) supplications to the Deity for our friends and kindred, and all in whose welfare we are concerned, are no less natural than supplications for ourselves. And are they not (he demands) also reasonable? What is there in them that is not worthy the most exalted benevolence? May it not be fit, that a wise and good being should pay a regard to them? And may not the regarding and answering them, and in general, granting blessings to some on account of the virtue of others, be a proper method of encouraging and honouring virtue, and of rewarding the benevolence of beings to one another? Perhaps, (he adds) there may not be a better way of encouraging righteousness in the creation, than by making it as much as possible the cause of happiness, not only to the agent himself, but to all connected with him: since there is no virtuous being, who would not, in many cir cumstances, choose to be rewarded with a grant of blessings to his fellow-beings rather than himself.

That our prayers for others may be attended with benefi cial effects upon their condition, he considers also to be a prevailing sentiment: otherwise, wherefore should we feel, ourselves impelled to offer them? Our immediate view in praying must be to obtain what we pray for. This, which is true as applied to prayers on our own behalf, must be also true of our supplications for others. We cannot mean, in addressing to the Deity our desires for others, merely to ob tain some benefit to ourselves. And this in itself proves, he adds, that the effect of prayer is not merely to be estimated by its tendency to promote our moral and religious improvement.

At the same time I cannot but lay before the reader the edifying and delightful representation given by the author, in another place, of the beneficial influence of intercessionary prayer on the mind of him who offers it. "No one can

avoid feeling how happy an effect this must have in sweetening our tempers, in reconciling us to all about us, and causing every unfriendly passion to die away within us. We cannot offer up prayers to God for our fellow-men, without setting them before our minds in some of the most engaging lights possible; as partaking of the same nature with ourselves, liable to the same wants and sufferings, and in the same helpless circumstances; as children of the same father, subjects of the same all-wise government, and heirs of the same hopes. He who prays for others with understanding and sincerity, must see himself on the same level with them; he must be ready to do them all the good in his power; he must be pleased with whatever happiness they enjoy; he can do nothing to lessen their credit or comfort; and fervent desires will naturally rise within him while thus engaged, that his own breast may be the seat of all those good dispositions and virtues, which he prays that they may be blessed with. Resentment and envy can never be indulged by one, who, whenever he finds himself tempted to them, has recourse to this duty, and sets himself to recommend to the divine favour the persons who excite within him these passions. No desire of retaliation or revenge, nothing of unpeaceableness, ill nature, or haughtiness, can easily show itself in a heart kept under this guard and discipline. How is it possible to use him ill, for whom we are constant advocates with God? How excellent a parent or friend is he likely to make, who always remembers before God the concerns and interests of his children and friends, in the same manner that he remembers his own? Is there a more rational way of expressing benevolence than this? or a more effectual way of promoting and enlarging it? Nothing is more desirable or more delightful than to feel ourselves continually under the power of kind affections to all about us. Would we be thus happy? Would we have our hearts in a constant state of love and good-will? Would we have every tender sentiment strong and active in our breasts? -Let us be constant and diligent in this part of devotion, and pray continually for others, as we do for ourselves." (Price's Four Dissertations, pp. 207, 221-227, 237239.)

Such was the language of a man, who, whilst (unlike Dr. Priestley and his Unitarian associates) he really possessed, and by the habits of his studies daily strengthened the powers of accurate thinking, had not rationalized away those just and natural sentiments, which belong to the truly religious character, and which, whilst the highest exercises of mere intellect cannot reach, its soundest decisions cannot but approve. At the same time, how deeply is it to be deplored,

that, in certain of his theological opinions, such a man should have departed widely from the truth of scripture!

I have willingly permitted myself in this extract to wander beyond what the immediate subject demanded: because amidst the thorny mazes of polemics, the repose and refreshment which these flowers of genuine piety present, would, I apprehend, afford to the reader a satisfaction not less than they had yielded to myself.

No. X.-ON UNITARIANS; OR RATIONAL DISSENTERS.

PAGE 23. (k) It is obvious, that the sect to which I here allude, is that known by the title of UNITARIANS: a title, by which it is meant modestly to insinuate, that they are the only worshippers of One God. From a feeling similar to that which has given birth to this denomination, they demand also to be distinguished from the other non-conformists, by the appellation of Rational Dissenters.

Mr. Howes has observed, (Critical Observ. vol. iv. p. 17.) that the term Unitarian has been used with great vagueness, by the very writers who arrogate the name: being applied by some to a great variety of sects, Arians, Ebionites, Theodotians, Sabellians and Socinians; to any sect, in short, which has pretended to preserve the unity of the Deity better than the Trinitarians according to the council of Nice: whilst by others, and particularly by Dr. Priestley, it is attributed exclusively to those who maintain the mere humanity of Christ. On this account, Mr. Howes proposed to substitute the word Humanist, as more precisely expressing the chief principle of the sect intended and this word he afterwards exchanged for Humanitarian, Mr. Hobhouse and other Unitarians having adopted that appellation. (Crit. Obs. vol. iv. p. 91.)However, as I find the latest writers of this description prefer the denomination of Unitarian, I have complied with their wishes, in adopting this term throughout the present work; perfectly aware, at the same time, of the impropriety of its appropriation, but being unwilling to differ with them merely about names, where so much attention is demanded by things.

For a full account of the doctrines of this new sect, (for new it must be called, notwithstanding Doctor Priestley's laboured, but unsubstantial, examination of "Early Opinions," the reader may consult the Theological Repository, the various theological productions of Dr. Priestley, and particularly Mr. Belsham's Review of Mr. Wilberforce's Treatise. Indeed, this last publication presents, on the whole, so extraordinary a system, and conveys so comprehensive a view

« VorigeDoorgaan »