Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

Yalden's Character of Milton.

Ito be allowed to rely. Should any
friends to the memory of Dr. Priest-
ley, and to this design, be in posses-
sion of unpublished letters or papers,
which they would commit to the
Editor's discretion, he would be much
obliged by such communications. He
begs leave, also, generally to solicit
the readers of Dr. Priestley's works,
to give him any information, through
the medium of the Monthly Reposi-
tory, or otherwise, which may assist
him in rendering the projected edition
a tribute, not altogether unworthy of
the well-earned reputation of the au-
thor, whose memory will be always
cherished by the friends of civil and
religious liberty, of free inquiry and
of evangelical simplicity and truth.
In the edition now proposed the
types of the text and notes are intend-
ed to be the same as those of Lard-
ner's Works, in the late Mr. John-
son's octavo edition, with an equally
full page, which will contain more
than two of the usual octavo pages.
The typographical execution, espe-
cially as to correctness, will be, de-
servedly, an object of peculiar atten-
tion,

It is expected that sixteen volumes, each containing from 500 to 600 pages, will complete the intended publication, or at most eighteen such volumes, should the proposed notes extend further than at present apprehended. These volumes will include, under the general title of Dr. Priestley's Theological Works, what are now extended into nearly forty octavo volumes, and more than fifty pamphlets of various sizes.

To accomplish this design, a subscription of Two Guineas is proposed to be paid on subscribers giving their names, and Half a Guinea on the delivery of each volume. Only a small number of copies, beyond those subscribed for, to be printed.

The following friends to the proposed undertaking have obligingly of fered to promote its success by receiving subscriptions:

London-Rev. R. Aspland, Durham
House, Hackney Road; Mr. R.
Hunter, Bookseller, St. Paul's
Church Yard; Mr. D. Eaton,
Bookseller, No. 187, High Hol-
born; and Messrs. Stower and
Smallfield, Printers, Hackney,
Bath-Rev. Joseph Hunter.

Bilston-Mr. S. Bassford, Bookseller.

87

Birmingham-Rev. J. Kentish; Mr.
J. B. Toulmin.
Bristol-Rev. Dr. Estlin.
Chichester-Rev. W. J. Fox.
Cranbrook-Mr. S. Dobell.
Crewkerne-Rev. W. Blake.
Derby Row-Rev.- Higginson.
Dorchester-Rev. B. Treleaven.
Exeter-Rev. Dr. Carpenter.
Glasgow-Rev. James Yates; Mr.
George Harris, College.
Kidderminster-Rev. R. Fry.
Leeds-Rev. T. Jervis.
Lewes-Mr. Ebenezer Johnston.
Lincoln-Rev. - Hawkes.
Liverpool-Rev. John Yates; Mr. F.
B. Wright, Printer.
Manchester-Rev. J. Grundy.

Newcastle-Rev. W. Turner.

Norwich-Rev. T. Madge.
Nottingham-Rev. James Tayler;
Mr. E. B. Robinson, Bookseller.
Portsmouth-Rev. R. Scott.
Southampton-Mr. B. Travers.
Stockport-Rev. Samuel Parker.
Warrington-Rev. W. Broadbent.
Wisbeach-Rev. R. Wright.
Wolverhampton-Mr. Joseph Pearson.
Yarmouth-Mr. W. Alexander, Book-

[graphic]

Nov. 27, 1815. NE of the four Poets whom

on specially recommended for insertion in his Collection, was Dr. Yalden. I lately discovered a powerful reason for the choice of Yalden, who, in the following lines, anticipated the malignity of the Biogra pher towards the principles and character of Milton.

On the re-printing Milton's Prose Works,

1698. Written in his Paradise Lost. These sacred lines with wonder we peruse, And praise the flights of a seraphic Muse,

88

Yalden's Malignity to Milton.

Till thy seditious prose provokes our rage, And soils the beauties of thy brightest page.

Thus here we see transporting scenes arise, Heav'n's radiant host, and opening paradise;

Then trembling view the dread abyss be

neath,

Hell's horrid mansions, and the realms of death.

Whilst here thy bold majestic numbers rise,

And range th' embattled legions of the skies,

With armies fill the azure plains of light, And paint the lively terrors of the fight, We own the poet worthy to rehearse Heav'n's lasting triumphs in immortal

[blocks in formation]

The "impious and mercenary pen" of Milton, and Charles, "the best of princes, best of men," are poetic fancies, equally amusing. Yalden, who died in 1736, aged 65, had been a contemporary, at Magdalen College, Oxford, with Addison and Sacheverell, adhering to the political principles of the latter. In the heaven of Court-Divines and Poets, Kings, or Protectors, when Kings could not be found, have always shone as stars of the first magnitude. Thus Sprat, who, as a young collegian, in 1658, while hopeless of the return of royalty, chaunted the praises of the deceased Cromwell, "the subject of the noblest pens and most divine phansies," was ready, as a grateful Bishop, to celebrate, in a mournful Pastoral, the Apotheosis of Charles II. How different a place was discovered by the uncourtly Quevedo, in one of his Visions, for "all the Kings that ever reigned." Grotius too, in his Votum pro pace, as translated in 1652, quotes for а "true saying," that " all good

Princes may have their names easily inscribed within the compass of one ring." He, however, advises the people "to desire the best, and give God thanks for the middle sort, and bear with the worst, for the doctrine and example of Christ."

[graphic]

Bromley, Feb. 4, 1816.

IN the number for Feb. 1813, Vol.

viii. p. 110, a curious" Quaker Creed" is given with some judicious remarks on it by "N. C.," in order to shew your readers "what sort of a Trinity it is, which at least some highly accredited members of this Society profess to believe." He was furnished with it" by a Friend," who had, it seems, questioned his right to consider himself a Christian, "because he was understood not to believe in the Divinity of Christ."

Your correspondent replied, "that if by divinity was meant, divine commission and authority, he believed it as firmly as any person"-but that if this term meant," essential Deity, equality with the Father," he did not conceive" that any person could prove such a doctrine from the scriptures." The friend "declined entering into any explanations," observing, "that it was not the practice of their Society to engage in theological controversy." But in return for Dr. Priestley's Appeal, and Elwall's Trial, he furnished" N. C." with the said

Quaker Creed," which the latter sent for insertion in your Journal. It does not, as he remarked, even hold the doctrine of " a mere modal Trini ty," explicitly disavowing the idea of "three persons, or essences," in the Deity. That in short, like other modifications of the Sabellian scheme it only supplies "a pretence for the [partial] use of orthodox language, while the real doctrine is strictly Unitarian."

Yet has this Creed been lately republished, verbatim, by an accredited Elder in the Society of Friends, William Alexander, of York, in his "Annual Monitor, for the year 1816," with this commentatory preface: THE following explanation of the Unity of the Divine Being was found in MS. a few years ago, hearing the marks of not being a very modern production; but without any clue by which to disco

Mr. Gilchrist in Reply to A. A.

ver the author. Its coincidence with the sentiments of the Editor induced him to request a copy of the individual among whose papers it was found, and he trusts it will not be less pleasing to many of his readers.

"The words, in the general, are placed in brackets, being an addition which he has ventured to insert; as he does not conceive by the tenure [tenor] of the whole piece, that the author intended so unqualified a restriction of the several appellations as his words may otherwise possibly imply."

To enable your readers to judge of this singular piece of conjectural criticism, I will subjoin the paragraph to which it relates, with the intended amendment, viz. "The different appellations of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are, nevertheless, not to be used indifferently or indiscriminately one for another, because [in the general] they are properly and consistently used only, as this one Supreme, Self-existing Essence is considered in different points of view."

I have put the above word only in italics, as Wm. Alexander seems to have overlooked its import, and because the passage is absolutely incompatible with the construction he would put upon it. His criticism reminds

me of the groundless and fanciful no.

tion of a worthy man, and a reputedly orthodox divine, who being closely pressed with scriptural proofs, that prayer should only be offered to God the Father, admitted that in the general, such was the duty, and had always been the practice of Christians; but nevertheless contended for the •propriety of sometimes addressing prayer to Christ in cases of peculiar emergency!

The above and every other modification of the Sabellian hypothesis, that I have seen, asserts that there is "but one true God," as all Christians agree, and also that this Supreme Being does not consist, as all Trinitarians affirm, of" three distinct persons," and is so far sound and scriptural. As it is also, in representing this one true God, as the “first Cause of all things, from whence the whole universe derives its origin and existence," the proper Author of all temporal and spiritual blessings.

When, however, it declares that "the different appellations of Father,

VOL. XI.

Son, and Holy Spirit," are essentially and identically one and the same, each signifying the true God, my reverence for the authentic records of the Christian Revelation induces me to withhold my assent. I cannot find that they contain any such doctrine.

And although the author of this Creed, like other Sabellians, uses such very incorrect language, it is obvious he felt the necessity of distinguishing those "different appellations" from each other, and that he exclusively ascribed the creation and existence of all things both animate and inanimate "to God the Father."

The first part of this Creed is purely Sabellian. If the second part concerning the Son is pure Quakerism, N. C.'s correct observation that not a word is used under this head" that can be supposed to have the remotest reference to the history, doctrine, death or resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ," is well worthy the serious attention of its members, and especially of Wm. Alexander, the publisher and patron of this Creed. Recommending it to their notice,

I am, sincerely yours,

THOMAS FOSTER.

Newington Green, Feb. 6, 1816. SIR,

[ocr errors]

OUR last number (p. 16,) contains animadversions on a Sermon of mine, to which I deem some reply necessary. Such animadversions may not be unprecedented, but they are rather unusual, and I conceive hardly justifiable. Is it not enough that authors be subjected to the judgments and decisions of anonymous reviewers without the privilege of appeal or re ply? Must they also be exposed to the attacks of anonymous letter-writers?

There are several circumstances connected with the indictment in question not very creditable to him who drew it up. He is an officious accuser. For the same reason that he writes reprehensively of me or of my publications a thousand others might do so; but I do not suppose that he has an ex-officio commission to put himself forward as accuser-general. He says that there can be but one opinion" respecting my Sermon; but for that very reason the publishing of his opinion was uncalled for and unnecessary. I would

90

Mr. Gilchrist in Reply to A. A.

not hastily suspect or impute bad
motives; but I must be permitted to
say that there is some appearance of
envy about his strictures. He indi-
rectly confesses it was the character
given of the sermon as “acute, able
and eloquent," that provoked his re-
proaches; and without considering
the abatement made in the conclud-
ing remarks of the Review, he reluc-
tantly and grudgingly admits of any
excellence by saying, "whatever
may be thought of the argument
which, though clear and simple, does
not strike me as peculiarly ingenious
or novel." If this be not the language
of envy it is so very like it as to be in
danger of misleading common under-
standings. I have a higher opinion
of the talents of the writer than to
suppose he cannot rise to honourable
distinction by the native buoyancy of
his own genius; or that he must at-
tempt to pull down the reputation of
surrounding talents lest his own should
be overshadowed and concealed. But
why does he not abstain from the
very appearance of ignoble motives?
He complains loudly and bitterly of
uncourteousness and uncharitableness;
yet he can be very uncourteous and
uncharitable in his turn; which is
something like (to use an old vulgar
saying) Satan reproving sin. In the
small space of a short letter the reader
will find a great many hard words
(though the arguments be soft and
slippery) well barbed with personal
reflections. In this respect, at least,
the accuser has outdone the accused;
and I hope to convince him that how
ever hot and violent I may be when
I have no one human being in view,
I can use the gentlest words in the
English vocabulary when repelling a
personal attack. I do not object to
the words applied to me or to my ser-
mon they are as truly respectable as
the hypocritical misnomers and sla-
vish inuendos rendered to the arbi-
trary laws and despotic fashions of
modern etiquette are mean and con-
temptible. But I have a right to meet
people on the ground which them-
selves have chosen, and to demand
consistency between their professions
and their practice. I am sorry to
speak unhandsomely of one, who
gives himself the airs of a gentleman;
but I must tell the unprovoked as-
sailant in question, that he does not
come forward as an honourable chal-

lenger, but rather attacks in the manner of one whom I shall not name, lest I should be be uncharitable enough to shock his ears and hurt his delicacy; for he need not be told what class of men wear a mask and shoot from ambush. There is a sort of wild justice and generosity to be met with at times even among them; but was it just or fair in your correspondent to pretend he was criticising my sermon when he was only quoting from the notes appended to it?

I am unwilling to consider his ingenious, original and classical allusion of the philosopher's tub in the light of splendid poverty. It is always easier to repeat than to invent; but he is surely not necessitated after such a wide range of reading to bedeck his compositions with the worn-out finery of fabulous traditions. Does he really believe in the Tale of a Tub? Did it never occer to him that Diogenes was calumniated like our own Hobbes ; and that merely because he had sagacity to discern and courage to ridicule the nonsense of such popular philosophers as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, the holy trinity of classical idolatry?

But these are only circumstanceslet us come to the matter of the indictment. It may be resolved into uncourteousness, uncharitableness and contemptuousness. The ears of your correspondent have been long accustomed to the language of scripture, else they would be shocked with the specimens of Christian courtesy which might be selected from the speeches of Christ and his apostles. I intend no reproach to his understanding by remarking that, it is of great importance to reflect carefully on the nature of things and meaning of words; especially on such words as are ever sounding in our ears; for without much attention, our roting begets a silly habit of repeating after repeaters as the jay chattereth English. Charity (as I understand the term) means benevolence; and therefore to the charge of uncharitableness I plead not guilty; for I sincerely wish those whose opinions differ from mine all the blessings of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. But, if, as I suspect, your correspondent means by charity, what the French (from whom we borrowed it) call the art of pleasing and the art of liv

Mr. Gilchrist in Reply to A. A.

91

ing, I glory in being uncharitable; ject I may have to treat of, I shall and in setting all the petty ordinances certainly not spare the insect generaof the modern idol at defiance. If tion of scribblers; for I would rather your correspondent wishes to go into bear the marks of their displeasure the merits of bienséance and courtesy than have the hum of their approba(of the same origin with courtesan) I tion. There are many Trinitarian beam prepared to give my reasons for lievers for whose understanding as verging towards the opposite extreme well as character I have the greatest from that of the fashion; and what respect; but none who know how to will probably have more weight with argue would attempt to support the his judgment, I am prepared to back doctrine of the Trinity by argument. those reasons with high authorities; Bacon was of opinion that reason for though I do not borrow my opin- ought not to be employed about the ions they are not quite so singular mysteries of the church; and one of as some readers may suppose. the ablest reasoners and most eloquent writers among the orthodox in the present time has been frequently heard to say, that the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be supported by argument. It is highly improbable that ever I shall write or publish on that subject again; and whatever your correspon- dent may say about disgusting affectation, or ridiculous vanity, I can once more declare that I do think it a degrading task to have to reason with third-rate mystical declaimers. I have already wasted more time than the occasion called for; and shall conclude with a remark or two on the object of your correspondent's letter.

Your correspondent ought to have sagacity enough to discern that the objectionable matter in the notes added to my sermon, is a literary rather than a theological question. Whether he perceived this and did not think proper to notice it, but chose rather to speak of the odium theologicum, is not for me to determine. As, however, he glories in belonging to the dwarfish age of smooth, courtly petits maitres, he might have been expected to repel the violent attack made upon its tender delicacy and accomplished refinement. But I am contemptuous. Towards whom am I contemptuous? The only living author named by me is Robert Hall; but so far from contempt, I have the highest admiration of his splendid talents and pre-eminent genius; and would rather read a volume of his writings than a page of the dull censors' of faults which they have not talent enough to commit. Your correspondent will not assert that I have expressed any contempt for the other names introduced; and to these I could add, if not a multitude, at least a goodly number of authors for whom I have the greatest esteem and affection. I am not conscious of expressing contempt towards that numerous and respectable body of the people who are of the orthodox faith. I am persuaded that there is as much intellectual dignity and moral worth among them as in the Catholic church of Orthodox Unitarians.

The question then returns-towards whom am I contemptuous? I will tell your correspondent sciolists, witlings and pretenders of all descriptions, who have the vanity and presumption to write on subjects while they know not what they say nor whereof they affirm. Whatever sub.

He must have intended to correct the offender-or simply to punish him-or thirdly, to proclaim to the Catholic church of orthodox Trinitarians, that though the Catholic church of orthodox Unitarians, might through the laxness of her discipline harbour such a daring heretic, yet that he was rather tolerated than approved. As to the first purpose, your correspondent has written very unhappily and unsuccessfully; and though he says something about conciliating and pleasing, I fear he will be an unsuccessful candidate for the reward promised by his supreme holiness in the Vatican to the best prize-essay on that important subject. But perhaps he did not wish to conciliate but to irritate; and despairing of correcting, hoped simply to punish. Being a gentleman of exquisite delicacy and courtly accomplishments he thought, perhaps, that dull admonition and pointless satire are the most effectual means of refined torture; for the blunter the instrument the longer it is of dispatching the victim. I confess my pride is deeply wounded to think that your correspondent should suppose me unworthy of acute pains and costly ce

« AnteriorContinua »