Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

faithfully translated from the Author's Latin Edition, with considerable_Enlargements. By John Lindsay, Presbyter of the Church of England." We afterwards learn [1726], that this book was in the press, and would be published, with a curious appendix. At the conclusion of the year 1727, it was announced as on the point of appearing, but does not seem to have come out until the commencement of the ensuing year* [1728].

Nichols states, that "Mr. Lindsay, for many years, and till his death, officiated as minister of the Nonjuring Society in Trinity Chapel, Aldersgate Street, and is said to have been their last minister;" that he died in 1768, (June 21,) at the age of eighty-two, and was buried in Islington Churchyard. A list of this gentleman's publications, is subjoined by the editor of the Literary Anecdotes: however, it does not include the work after which Cantabrigiensis inquires.

The epitaph on Mr. Lindsay, represents him as having studied at St. Mary Hall, in Oxford: † but I do not meet with his name in the catalogue either of the graduates of that University or of those of Cambridge..

Perhaps the preface to the "New Testament," or some of the notes, may accord with this communication, which is respectfully offered to Cantabrigiensis and your other readers. ↑ N.

[blocks in formation]

respondent, that the signs of the times strongly shew the expediency of Unitarian ministers making the subjects of such a treatise their special care at the present moment; and, taking the hint from Robinson's plan of Lectures on Nonconformity, he has had for some weeks a Course of Lectures in delivery on Sunday Evenings in two neighbouring Societies, which have been attended by a large and increasing number of hearers in both places, the greater part of whom are either members of the Church of England or of other Dissenting Churches.— Much has been said to him about publishing these Lectures; and if it were probable that the public would receive them with the same candour as they have been listened to by his neighbours, he would enjoy a gratification in offering his aid to support the inalienable rights of conscience against the gigantic power which has risen up in the States and Empires of the world to restrain and to destroy them. In most respects the object of these Lectures is that which P. D. has stated to be most important; but they are distinguished by one strong additional feature, which the compiler of them has deemed of the very first importance; and which, at the present moment, when a large proportion of the religious public are disposed to entertain far milder feelings towards Unitarian professors, appears to him fit to be brought forward with the best prospect of success. While such a course contains views in which all

Dissenters agree, and some of the Lectures will, with little exception meet the ideas of Nonconformists at large, no opportunity need be lost of setting our views of the original simplicity of Christian teaching in a clear and just point of light; and, as History will furnish, not the ground-work alone, but the greater proportion of the materials of these Lectures, it will afford the best possible opportunity of so doing.

Christian Church as it is exhibited in They may begin with a view of the the Acts of the Apostles, and may be judged of by various passages in the Epistles, at that time strictly Unitarian; and may proceed to shew, partly from the Epistles themselves and still more from Ecclesiastical History, in what way those errors which bear the

Christian name found their way into the Church and there obtained a settlement, and how the monstrous power of priests and bishops accumulated, until at length mystery and arbitrary power obtained a joint and universal sway. In treating which subject the remark will have peculiar weight, that while the Antichrist, the Man of Sin, required no less than three centuries to grow up to maturity, present appearances strongly indicate that the same period will be employed, under the Divine Government, from the Reformation, to reduce his power and turn him out of the Christian Church. In treating a subject of such extensive application and high importance, the first duty of the advocate of pure Christianity will be to shew, that religion is a personal duty, which is incapable of either compulsion or restraint; and that any attempt to enforce belief may check the timid in their in quiries and may multiply knaves and hypocrites without number, but cannot lead to the conscientious profession of religion. The history of the three first centuries will shew, in what manner the professors of the Gospel were drawn away by the plausibility of science falsely so called, from the simplicity of belief which characterised the preaching of the apostles; the early schisms which divided the Church, and the gradual growth of what may well be called Pagan Christianity: and, if a comparison be drawn between the churches which then existed in their defective state, and those which are now called Christian churches under the sanction of the civil power, the greater purity even of those churches will be manifest at the first view.

History may then lead us to that eventful period in which the authority of the Emperor of the West was called in to put a stop to the jarring interests and differences of opinion which prevailed, and were especially seen in the Church of Alexandria, a city of great wealth and power, celebrated for its learning and for its cultivation of the arts and sciences, which gave it a decisive influence over the smaller spots in which Christianity had been received. The history of that church is the history of the churches gene rally, until the vain and futile attempt was made by Constantine, to effect a

uniformity of belief. Together with this disastrous step, it will be our duty to speak of the Councils, the fruits of whose noisy labours have come down to our time and signalize our own Established Church." Here we must pause, and not attempt to draw back the thick veil of ignorance and of priestcraft, which hung through successive centuries over the falselycalled Church of Christ; until our eyes are gladdened by the light of truth which again began to dawn at the Reformation. Faint indeed and feeble was its light, yet sweet its influence to the mind that long had groaned under the excessive severities, the gross impositions and the impudent iniquity of the Papal power and its satellites. Joyfully was it hailed by every honest heart; and although it found its way into our island only through the small loop-hole which the lust of its king had rent open, and was on that account little preferable to the darkness and bigotry of Popery, yet it was acceptable, inasmuch as it broke the charm of priestly power, and put to flight the swarm of locusts which had spread desolation over the fair field of human industry and devoured its fruits.

We shall then be led to examine the principle upon which Establishments are necessarily formed, the strong objections against all of them alike, the fluctuating state in which the doctrines of our own remained for a long time, and the persecuting spirit of its advocates; and it will be an easy task to shew, that this principle is altogether inconsistent with the rights of conscience, calculated to extend error and superstition, to make men hypocrites or careless of every thing, discarding the authority of scripture and the language of the gospel, and setting up that of kings and priests in the place of it.

Immediately connected with this, is the formation of Creeds and Catechisms, which part of Church History will furnish a distinct view of the encroachments which were deliberately made upon the freedom of the mind, and how men have been led to acknowledge for Scripture truth all the jargon of the Athanasian Creed; advancing by almost equally measured paces, from the test given by Peter to

the jailor, through the creed wrongly called the Apostles', to the larger demands of the Nicene, and thence to the mysteries of Athanasius.

After the inquirer has gone through an examination of the modes of wor ship and religious ceremonies now in use in England, and traced their origin

to the Pagan worship of Rome, and the consideration of tythes and other revenues by which a false system of Christianity has been propped up, it will becoine his duty to shew, that civil power is not required to maintain the honour, the worship of God; that an established religion is inconsistent with the enjoyment of civil rights, on which it necessarily intrudes, and is fatal to the moral and mental character of man.

[ocr errors]

From hence he will be led by an easy transition to the character and conduct of the English Noncons., to the noble sacrifice they made to the rights of conscience, and the immense advantages that England has derived, both in the extension of its civil liberties, and in its manufacturing and commercial celebrity, from that large body of the people who have conscientiously declined uniting in the ser'vice of the Church of England.

This course might conclude with a general view of the ground we have gone over, together with those objects which are peculiar to Unitarians in their dissent from every establishment; and, having surveyed the growth of error and the gigantic forms it has assumed, it might exhibit the distinct lines of similarity between the modern Unitarian and the primitive Apostolic Church.

Whatever may be the opinion of P. D. as to confining our views to the general principle of Dissent, the writer of these lines cannot but think that error in doctrine is far more injurious than error in forms: the latter touches only the pocket, the former corrupts the mind and defiles the heart. Paley says any man may go into the Church who is not a Papist or an Anabaptist; we know that any man may be a Quaker who will conform to their exterior rules, as any one may be a Dissenter who will contend against the Hierarchy and its impositions. But much more than this is required surely in the present day, for a full and cor

[blocks in formation]

YOUR learned correspondent Mr. Cogan, whose papers in the Monthly Repository are distinguished for cogent argument and valuable criticism, has favoured us in your last number (p. 8) with one of great interest on Ephes. iv. 32, "As God for Christ's sake has forgiven you;” in which he adduces the unsuspicious authority of the orthodox and learned Valckenaer to prove, in concert with many of our best critics and divines, that when the passage is properly rendered, it conveys no such meaning as that generally attributed to it by those who believe in the doctrine of vicarious atonement. My present object is to prove, for the benefit of the common reader, that, independently of criticism, however just, and taking the passage in its present faulty form, it will be seen, if we are allowed to explain Scripture by Scripture, that it neither supports nor expresses the popular meaning.

This form of expression occurs more than 150 times in the Old, and about 50 times in the New Testament; used by different persons, and on occasions so various as if it were proverbial, or a common mode of speech: as where God is represented as saying, that he will bestow blessings, inflict punishments, or have mercy, for "the earth's sake," "for man's sake," "for Abraham's sake;" "for Israel's sake;" "for David's sake;" "for his name's sake" "for Zion's sake;" "for Jerusalem's sake," &c. &c. Now if we apply the terms according to the popular notion, to the different persons, things and occasions where these occur, could any thing appear more absurd or foolish? If we come to the use of the terms in the New Testa ment, we find the apostles and first Christians "ready to suffer and to die for righteousness' sake;" "for the gospel's sake;" "for the word's sake;" "for the truth's sake," "for the sake of the church and of the brethren ;" and "for Christ's sake." Are we then to understand that they made

in these instances an atonement for each other; for the gospel, for the truth, and even for Christ himself? Does it require the aid of learning and a new translation of the passage to prove the fallacy and gross absurdity of the imputed orthodox meaning?

The true meaning then of the terms, "As God for Christ's sake forgave you," is, "Be kind, be courteous to each other, imitate the benevolence of God, and forgive one another, as he, in or by Christ, has forgiven you." D. EATON.

SIR,

MANY years have elapsed since theological research engaged my attention. Should you, notwithstanding that circumstance, think the following observations admissible into your useful miscellany, as calculated to induce persons to discuss the subject who are better qualified for the work, they are at your service; declaring, however, that I do not mean to become a theological polemic.

A young friend visiting me in the country, brought with him and read to me Lord Byron's" Cain." Although I am not stiffened with the illiberality of either Peter or Martin, nor yet with that of their co-adjutors in Jack's tattered coat, I was surprised at some part of its contents.

· Notwithstanding, also, that I have long since renounced the odious prac tice of imputing bad motives and wicked intentions to those who differ from me in opinion, considering such imputations, when unsupported by other proofs of evil designs, calumnious and cruel; still I own that it is matter of regret to me when I observe great talents employed, either by orthodox or heterodox, in giving such representations of the Deity as tend to excite strong mental disgust and abhorrence: and if such were his Lordship's intention, it induces the questions-Will the best interests of society be promoted? Will our moral relations be strengthened, or our benevolent affections improved, by effacing from our minds those impressions of veneration and esteem for the Deity, which almost all receive and many cherish under a just persuasion that benevolence predominates in the world, years of sunshine and comfort, ani

[ocr errors]

nutes only of rain and pain, and even those minutes generally beneficial, and eventually, in most cases, even to the sufferers themselves?

But if his Lordship meant to shake and loosen the prevailing opinion of the origin of evil, by representing not the God of nature, but the God of certain theologians, then it may be allow. able to ask, whether satisfactory answers to Cain's bitter questions may not be found in the following succinct view of the origin of evil, which I submitted to my young friend's consideration soon after reading the work? I am not aware that any author treating

of

this subject has given a similar view of it, or I should not trouble you.

Suppose then an intelligent first cause employing his energies in creating: it transcends contradiction and dispute that his creatures must be either perfect or imperfect; an intermediate condition of neither perfect nor imperfect cannot exist under any of the possible modes of existence. It is a plain contradiction, an impossibility. But perfect they could not be unless equal to the Creator. Equal to the Creator!!!! Most absurd thought! Let me ask, how is infinity to be created? How can a creature's existence equal its Creator's? How can independence be created? Surely these questions involve contradictions insuperable. So thought Jesus Christ when he declared, there is none good or perfect but God. Creation implies commencement of being: how can creatures then be infinite? And if the creature's existence be posterior, it is evident that his powers must be inferior to the Creator's. Creation and dependence are correlatives. Now mark the consequence, the inevitable consequence, if the creature, however exalted his powers, has less knowledge, less wisdom, &c.; the liability to mistake, to err, to fall, must exist, with all the evil resulting from such an unavoidable constitution of things, if ever his knowledge, wisdom and power be called into action. The creature must be necessarily imperfect. Adam was innocent only, not perfect. Imperfection involves the idea of inconvenience, of evil. Thus we arrive at the conclusion I had in view, that if the Creator employs his energies_in creating, without attributing malig

nity to his scheme or defect to his power, except the defect of working absurdities and contradictions, which is no defect in truth, the result of creation must be such as we find it. With reverence I add, the Deity had no option; evil must occasionally appear, but no more than the nature of things necessarily generates. If my principles be correct, and I think them incontestably so, then,

"In spite of pride, in erring reason's spite,

One thing is clear, whatever is, is right."

Consequently, to interpret literally the beautiful allegory of the fall, contained in the Book of Genesis, must be wrong. This the advocates of a literal interpretation virtually admit. They attribute the introduction of all evil, moral and physical, to Adam's transgression, and yet place the rebellion of the Devil and his angels anterior to that event. If so, Adam's lapse was not the origin of evil, for crime, by their own shewing, had been previously committed, and of course evil existed prior to his fall. It has been and is still pertinaciously maintained by many, that the Devil, in the form of a serpent, tempted Eve to take the forbidden fruit. This itself was evil, and pronounced by themselves to be

[ocr errors]

Again, the advocates of a literal meaning, who allow the fore-knowledge of God, differ in sound more than in sense from the scheme I propose. They maintain as I do, that the Deity possesses ALL PERFECTIONSinfinite knowledge, wisdom, goodness, power, &c., and yet he has produced the present system of things. Now, the very fact of its existence, as the work of SUCH A BEING, proves its pre-eminence, that it is the best. Shew me how, under the influence of SUCH ATTRIBUTES in its formation, it could be otherwise. To attribute to him the ability to devise and execute the best scheme, and at the same time to charge him with the adoption of a worse, this is indeed, if I understand the term, the most fearful and blackest blasphemy. This is to rob the Divinity of its brightest attribute, INFINITE GOODNESS. This is to identify the Deity and the theologian's Devil, as

one in disposition. The latter is represented as exerting himself to make others miserable, without benefit to himself, from mere malignancy of nature. To represent the Deity as voluntarily adopting a plan productive of misery, when a better one was in his power, is exhibiting him in the same light, and thus, without intending so to do, they degrade the benevolent God into an Almighty Devil. Horrible even in idea!

But to affirm that the Deity did not foresee what would actually take place, as it depended upon man's free will, is only removing the difficulty to a greater distance. It is similar to the Indian's mode of supporting the world by placing under it an elephant, crocodile and camel. The objection introduces us to a new kind of God, a sort of demi-god, who knows the results of part of his scheme only; but this is not a God of infinite knowledge. It supposes him ignorant of what is actually to take place till illustrated by the event. How can it be predicated of such a being that "he knows the END from the BEGINNING”, which the Scripture asserts, if events are strictly uncertain, unless it be meant that they are known as uncertainties? On such remarks I have neither time nor inclination to comment.

Besides, this doctrine does not relieve the case of any of its difficulty. Can that benevolence be infinite which places creatures in stations of risk, when it might have placed them in security? In equivocal circumstances, the result of which is unknown, may be happiness or may be ineffable misery? Is this the work of beneficence that is infinite? But all those and similar difficulties are obviated by the considerations which I have proposed. They place the condition of all creatures and the infinite benevolence of God in perfect harmony: hitherto a questio vexata.

A highly respectable and highly esteemed friend objected to my hypothesis as incompatible with the Scripture representation of our improved knowledge and happiness in a future state. I look forward with some degree of hope to that futurity; but in contemplating the figurative descriptions of Scripture on that head, I confess 1 am at a loss what limits to

« AnteriorContinua »