Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

And again, (II. 28,) Mar. 17th, "I to walk in the park, where to the Queen's Chapel, and there heard a fryer preach with his cord about his middle in Portugueze, something I could understand, shewing that God did respect the meek and humble as well as the high and rich. He was full of action but very decent and good, I thought, and his manner of delivery very good. Then I went back to White-Hall, and there up to the closet, and spoke with several people till sermon was ended, which was preached by the Bishop of Hereford, an old good man that they say 'made an excellent sermon. He was by birth a Catholique, and a great gallant, having 15007. per annum patrimony, and is a Knight Barronet: was turned from his persuasion by the late Archbishop Laud. He and the Bishop of Exeter, Dr. Ward, are the two Bishops that the King do say he cannot have bad sermons from."

There are those that yet censure the patriots that stood up against Charles IInd's Government: let them read the following description of it by a Courtier, and then say whether virtue lay in submission or in resistance: "1667, April 26. To White-Hall, and there saw the Duke of Albemarle, who is not well and do grow crazy. Then I took a turn with Mr. Evelyn, with whom I walked two hours, till almost one of the clock, talking of the badness of the Government where nothing but wickedness, and wicked men and women command the King: that it is not in his nature to gainsay any thing that relates to his pleasures, that much of it arises from the sickliness of our Ministers of State, who cannot be about him as the idle companions are, and therefore he gives way to the young rogues; and then from the negligence of the clergy, that a Bishop shall never be seen about him, as the King of France hath always that the King would fain have some of the same gang to be Lord Treasurer, which would be yet worse, for now some delays are put to the getting gifts of the King, as Lady Byron who had been, as he called it, the King's seventeenth mistress abroad,

"Dr. Herbert Croft was made Bihop of Hereford 1661, but he could not then be very old, as he lived till 1691:”

:

did not leave him till she had got him to give her an order for 40007. worth of plate to be made for her but by delays, thanks be to God! she died before she had it. He confirmed to me the business of the want of paper at the council-table the other day, which I have observed; Wooly being to have found it, and did, being called, tell the King to his face the reason of it. And Mr. Evelyn tells me of several of the menial servants of the Court lacking bread, that have not received a farthing wages since the King's coming in. He tells me the King of France hath his mistresses, but laughs at the foolery of our King, that makes his bastards princes, and loses his revenue upon them, and makes his mistresses his masters. And the King of France did never grant Lavaliere any thing to bestow on others, and a little subsistence, but no more to his bastards." II. 45, 46.

1667, June 25. Pepys heard of Sir H. Cholinly, that the King had declared in Council his determination to call a Parliament, " against the Duke of York's mind flatly, who did rather advise the King to raise money as he pleased; and against the Chancellor's (Clarendon), who told the King, that Queene Elizabeth did do all her business in Eighty-eight without calling a Parliament, and so might he do for any thing he saw."

The 28th of this month he detected his wife "making of tea; a drink which Mr. Pelling, the Potticary, tells her is good for her cold and defluxions." II. 85.

July 12, 1667, (II. 91,) recording the lavish expenditure of the public money by a debauched Court, P. says, "It is strange how every body do now-a-days reflect upon Oliver, and commend him, what brave things he did and inade all the neighbour princes fear him; while here a prince, come in with all the love and prayers and good liking of his people, who have given greater signs of loyalty and willingness to serve him with their estates than was ever done by any people, haga lost all so soon, that it is a miracle what way a man could devise to lose so much in so little time."

The waste of the King's revenue upon his vices left his household in a

miserable situation. One of Pepys' friends tells him, (July 29, 1667, II. 107,)" that the King hath not greater enemies in the world than those of his own family; for there is not an officer in the house almost but curses him for letting them starve, and there is not a farthing of money to be raised for the buying them bread."

The King was as poor-spirited as he was profligate. One of his mistresses made him ask her forgiveness upon his knees and promise not to offend any more, and nearly "hectored him out of his wits." (II. 108.) We are not surprised at finding Mr. Evelyn tell Pepys, Aug. 8, 1667, (II. 109,)" that wise men do prepare to remove abroad what they have, for that we must be ruined, our case being past relief, the kingdom so much in debt, and the King minding nothing but his lust."

(To be concluded in the next Number.)

SIR,

INCE the time when Dr. Chalmers

He observes, in effect, that from the boundless extent of the material world with which modern astronomy has made us acquainted, a plausible objec tion has been drawn to the supposed Christian doctrine of the incarnation and death of the second person of the Godhead. In a manner very beautiful and eloquent he reviews the sublime discoveries of the telescope, the infinitude of suns and systems which appear to fill the interminable realms of space; freely admitting the inference that the globe which we inhabit is but a speck, an atom, amidst their countless hosts. And as the world in which we live is but one amongst endless myriads, so he allows it reasonable to believe that that race of reasonable creatures, the human species, by which it is occupied, is also but one variety amidst innumerable others of moral and intelligent offspring who have derived the blessings and responsibilities of existence from the Father of all. All this having been largely stated, he proceeds to notice the objection thence derived, viz. that if mankind form so

S a part of

courses, I have been expecting that some suitable answer to the argument of that work would appear in the Monthly Repository; for as a defence is therein attempted, not of our common Christianity, but merely of those peculiar dogmas which a prevailing majority of Christians have confounded with it, it became Unitarians to guard against the injury which the cause of truth was likely to sustain from this association with error, as well as to seize the opportunity for a seasonable vindication of their own sentiments. What others, abler and better, have left undone, their continued silence induces me to attempt; a feeble opponent, indeed, to such a Goliath in divinity as the author be fore us, but armed, I trust, with weapons simple and mighty through God, like David's stone and sling, the force of truth and right reason. knowledging then, in one word, the great esteem which is due from all parties to Dr. Chalmers, as an able, amiable and excellent man, and very eloquent writer, I shall proceed at once to point out what appears to me to be the fallacy of the argument which forms the burden of his Astroncmical Discourses.

Ac

creation those mighty measures for human redemption which are com monly believed in by Christians, are incompatible with the extent of the Divine engagements, and disproportionate to the relative insignificance of our world and its inhabitants. This is a very natural, and, after all that Dr. Chalmers has written, it appears to me a very just objection to what are called orthodox doctrines. That a being not only possessing in himself the nature and perfections of Deity, but standing to the whole universe in the relation of its maker, preserver, and constant providential governor, should for a certain season abandon this exalted situation in order to retire on a visit of mercy to a minute spot like this world, is to me a thought that will not bear reflection, and appears more and more improbable the inore it is considered. I shall, however, endeavour to do justice to Dr. C. by giving both the objection and his answer as nearly as possible in his own words: "God would not have manifested himself in the flesh for the salvation of so paltry a world. Neither would the eternal Son of God, he who is revealed to us as having made all worlds, and as holding an

empire amid the splendours of which, the globe that we inherit is shaded in insignificance; neither would he strip himself of the glory which he had with the Father before the world was, and light on this lower scene for the purpose imputed to him in the New Testament." "The objection which we are discussing I shall state again in a single sentence. Since astronomy has unfolded to us such a number of worlds, it is not likely that God would pay so much attention to this one world, and set up such wonderful provisions for its benefit as are announced to us in the Christian revelation. This objection will have received its answer, if we can meet it by the following position-that God, in addition to the bare faculty of dwelling on a multiplicity of objects at one and the same time, has this faculty in such wonderful perfection, that he can attend as fully and provide as richly, and manifest all his attributes as illustriously, on every one of these objects as if the rest had no existence, and no place whatever in his government or thoughts." I shall quote directly another passage, to shew the manner in which Dr. C.

substantiates and illustrates this position, which contains in itself a very just and sublime sentiment. But I must here take the liberty to say, that this position, although conceded to him, is such as he can make no legitimate use of in respect to the scope of his main argument. He here affirms, and in the subsequent pages he proves at large, that the Divine providence and attention so regards the whole as not to be withdrawn for a moment from the minutest part, which is very right. But what will this avail in reply to the objector, who does not quarrel with the minuteness or perfection of the attention which God is supposed to bestow on the part, but with the idea that he can so attend to the part as to withdraw his attention for a season from the whole? This is evidently quite another thing, and we may safely grant this champion of orthodoxy the position which he thinks so commanding, without fearing at all any advantages which it can give him. It is totally irrelevant to the main point at issue, and it is to me surprising that so ingenious a man should handle his argument in a manner so

inconclusive.

The objector denies that God would for thirty years abandon his charge of the whole; the advocate insists on the minute and perfect attention which the Divine Provi dence, without neglecting the whole, can bestow on the part; the reply therefore does not at all meet the objection, but leaves it entirely unrelieved. Dr. Chalmers, in order to ineet this objection fairly, was obliged to do one of these two things: either to advance such a statement of the Christian doctrine as would not involve the notion of God's resigning for a season his charge of the whole, or otherwise to defend the reasonableness of supposing that he might on some occasions do so. But neither of these has he done, or attempted to do; and his argument therefore, though adorned with the fascinations of a rich and lofty eloquence, and animated, I fully believe, with the sacred flame of piety, is yet altogether fallacious and futile, as every argument must be which misses the main point in dispute, and wastes its strength in establishing what is not denied.

But I believe the weakness is rather in the cause than in its advocate. Could Dr. C. if he were to take the argument up again, answer this objection? I think not; but let us consider it. The objection is this. The doctrine that the Divine Being, the Author and Preserver of the universe, divested himself for a season of that high function and condition, and shrunk, as it were, into the state of a man, is unreasonable, nay incredible, because the connexion of the Creator with his works must needs be supposed to be immutable, as well as his own nature and condition, and their absolute dependence on him is such that we cannot conceive they could even exist, much less preserve their order, without his superintendence, for a single moment. To deny this would indeed, as Chalmers says, be to expunge a perfection of the Deity, and to obscure his glory. He himself expresses this absolute and constant dependence of all things upon God in a very beautiful manner. "At the very time while the mind of the Deity is abroad over the whole vastness of creation, there is not one particle of matter, there is not one

individual principle of rational or of animal existence, there is not one single world in that expanse which teems with them, that his eye does not discern as constantly, and his hand does not guide as unerringly, and his spirit does not watch and care for as vigilantly, as if it formed the one and exclusive object of his attention." And is this very argument of the constant universal providence of God to be brought forward to prove that he could abandon the charge of all his works, to devote himself for a scason to the concerns of this single world? Again I repeat that we cannot think too highly of the perfection of the Divine attention and concern towards every the smallest creature; but we must remember that he so attends to each as not to neglect any other, much less to forego his charge of the whole, even for the twinkling of an eye.

But, perhaps, Dr. C. would concede this point, although, as far as the person of the Son is concerned, the expressions which occur in his work make this doubtful. But supposing it conceded, that the attention of the Deity to his works cannot be supposed to have been intermitted for a single instant, with what view of Christian doctrine can this concession be reconciled? That which calls itself orthodoxy must take refuge in one of these two alternatives, which I think will be found no better than the two horns of a dilemma-it must either be supposed that God the Son, in becoming incarnate, remained still unchanged in his divine condition and functions; or, as is the more popular opinion, that he for a season laid his divine condition and glory and operations aside, at least in very great measure, and was reduced to the obscure and feeble state of humanity. One of these alternatives must, as far as I see, of necessity be embraced. If we assume the first, we must admit that Jesus, in his incarnation, laid nothing aside, nor abandoned any glory: he merely superadded the circumstances of his humanity to his previous divine condition. This supposition, indeed, gets rid of the objection of his neglecting the universe in order to attend to this world; but it exposes us to others not less formidable. These arise from the absolute incompatibility of the con

ditions of humanity and deity at one time in the same individual person or being. Nothing can appear to us absurd or impossible, if it does not appear so to suppose that Jesus was, at one and the same moment, filled with all the unutterable bliss of deity, and distressed with pain, and sunk in anguish and dismay; or that he who was at the moment regulating_the universe, could in any sense have been truly tempted by the offer of an earthly kingdom; or that he who possessed at that very instant the omniscience of deity, could with any honesty have declared himself ignorant of the day when his own predictions would be fulfilled. If our faith is to embrace such incongruities as these, then all objection to religious doctrines or practices, whether Christian or Hea then, on the ground of their intrinsic absurdity, must be at an end. It is in vain to urge, as is often done, that Christ united these contradictory qualities by virtue of his two natures; that argument only recoils upon itself, and manifests the impossibility of two incongruous natures existing at one time in the same person. If these absurd consequences result from this supposed union of natures, the only inference is, that such supposed union is itself absurd.

Turning from this hypothesis, which indeed makes the whole life of Christ look more like a piece of theatrie hypocrisy than a faithful reality, an empty show of infirmity and suffering affected by one who was throughout the whole potent and blissful—turn, I say, from this-let us consider the more popular doctrine. According to this, God the Son really emptied himself of his pre-existent glory, and reduced himself to the condition of a man of sorrows. Having really assumed the nature and state of man, he was for a season really feeble, igno rant and afflicted. He had resigned his part in the Divine government not to resume it till his work on earth was accomplished. But this bypothesis, sufficiently appaling from its absolute inconsistency with the immutable perfection of the Divine nature, is also open to the force of that objection already noticed, and which it is the scope of Dr. Chalmers's work to combat. It represents one to whom belonged, by virtue of his essential

Deity, in conjunction with the two other members of the Divine Triad, the infinite characters of the Creator and Preserver of all things, as ceasing for a season, no matter how long or how short, but in this instance not Tess than thirty years, (though the argument would be the same if it were but for an hour,)-as ceasing for this period from the exercise of these great and divine functions and ener gies. The world, then, for thirty years was able to go on as well as usual without the presence and agency of this its Creator and Upholder; for that period he was no longer present with the adoring spirits who derived from him their existence and their bliss: he heard neither their prayers nor their praises: so far from attending perfectly to every thing, there was but one out of the whole to which he was attending. Such is this popular doctrine, which I forbear to expose further, lest I should seem to border on impiety: but I think the dispassionate reader will agree with me that Dr. Chalmers has left unanswered that objection to orthodoxy which he fancies he has annihilated.

The work before us is a very handsome piece of declamation, nay more, it is in many respects a very eloquent and interesting display of the perfection of the Divine Providence; but with reference to the strength of argument and soundness of sense which are to be found in it, I am constrained to say, Satis eloquentiæ, sapientiæ parum!

T. F. B.

On Second Part of Dr. Carpenter's
Reply to Archbishop Magee.
Manchester.
SIR,
November 1, 1825.
N the 9th the Preface

Mode in which the Controversy ought to be conducted.-II. Great Importance of Revelation, as sanctioning the Hope of Divine Forgiveness and Acceptance.-III. The Jewish Dispensation and Sacrifices, and the Connexion between the Jewish and Christian Dis pensations.-IV. General Principles taught by or immediately deducible from Revelation.-V. Various erroneous or defective Hypotheses respecting the Ends of the Death of Christ.

VI. Consideration of the Scriptural Expressions respecting the Death of Christ, and his Agency in effecting the Salvation of Mankind.-VII. General Conclusions from the Testimony of Scripture. -VIII. Advantages of this View of the Ends of our Saviour's Death."

From the very interesting nature of the articles which this outline embraces, it is much to be regretted that the able writer has not met with that encouragement which his valuable labours in the cause of Christian truth so well deserve. "For the remaining" (i. e. 2d) "part," observes the Doctor, "I have made considerable preparation; and two or three months of tolerable leisure would enable me to complete it for publication."It is now nearly six years since the volume appeared from which the preceding extract has been made, and it may be reasonably presumed that the proposed second part is by this time sufficiently matured for publication. If I am correct in this presumption, I would take the liberty of urging the completion of this great work; and, to induce the author to proceed, I would propose 20s. each, to guarantee the expense that 100 gentlemen should subscribe of publishing.

H. W.

[ocr errors]

Magee is exhibited an outline of the plan of the proposed SECOND PART of that interesting publication, which is as follows:-"Inquiry into the Scripture Doctrine of Redemption.-I.

ley's Works, when the completion of that publication may be expected? It is now more than twelve months since the last volume appeared.

4 s

VOL. XX.

« AnteriorContinua »