good. These sublime truths were probably derived from an original Revelation. The meaning of the record is simple, but in its obvious sense not true. To reconcile the record with philosophical truth, much ingenuity has been exercised, but only to twist and torture the words of the writer, who though right in his theology had no better knowledge of the facts than his own speculations derived from the most obvious appearances of the universe. The Unitarian position was defended in 'Letters' addressed to Howley, Bishop of London.. The Bishop in a charge had spoken unfavourably of Unitarians. Belsham expressed his surprise at this treatment, as Unitarians did not desire the downfall of the Established Church. For the last twenty years not one of them had preached or published anything on the subject. In truth, they were so favourable to the National Church, that if the petition of forty years ago for the substitution of the Bible in the place of the Articles of Religion had been complied with, and the Liturgy reformed upon the principles of Dr Clarke, the benches of Unitarian chapels would have been greatly thinned. The Bishop had divided Unitarians into those who were conscientious, and those who were Atheists, Deists or licentious Free Thinkers. Belsham answered that Unitarians believed everything necessary to salvation. They confess with their mouths that Jesus is Lord, and believe in their hearts that God hath raised Him. from the dead. As to infidels the retort was easy. When men cast off all religion but the profession, they generally desert the sects and become members of the Established Church. Bolingbroke was a High Churchman and a persecutor of Nonconformists. Gibbon was a placeman and professed great zeal for orthodoxy of faith. The Bishop had 'said of Unitarianism: Its influence has generally been confined to men of some education, whose thoughts have been little employed on the subject of religion, or who, loving rather to question than learn, have approached the oracles of divine truth without that humble docility, that prostration of the understanding and will which are indispensable to proficiency in Christian instruction.' To this a parallel was found in Hume, 'Whosoever believeth the truth of Christi which subverts all the principles of his understanding, and gives him a determination to believe what is most contrary to reason and experience.' Belsham added that the confines of orthodoxy and of infidelity approach more nearly than the Bishop perhaps recollected. The Unitarians published an improved version of the Bible, which was understood by many to be an improved Bible, made to suit their theology. In the Bampton Lectures of 1819, Dr Moysey made Unitarianism the subject, and criticised the new Bible. He said the Trinity was rejected because it was incomprehensible. This was met with a direct negative. The Trinity was rejected because it was, according to some expositions of it, a manifest contradiction, and in every form unfounded in reason and opposed to Scripture. The Lecturer said that the Unitarians had expunged or altered many passages of Scripture which bore witness against them. He denied that any one could be a Christian even in profession who did not hold that the man Christ Jesus was also very God. The first statement was declared simply untrue, and the second was answered in the words of Locke that 'believing Jesus to be the Messiah, and a good life were the indispensable conditions of the new covenant.' To the statement that a doctrine may be true, though reason cannot comprehend it, the answer was that this is a mere truism, but though Trinitarians use the same words their ideas are often as opposite as light is to darkness. Sherlock said that there were three persons in the Trinity as distinct as Peter, James, and John, so that really there were three gods. Wallis on the other hand, made the persons merely modes, or relations of God to His creatures. Bishop Burgess said that not one of the three was a being, so that three nonentities constituted God. The object of Unitarianism at this time was to get rid of Trinitarian texts. In a future chapter it will be found that later in the century they became indifferent to texts. It will also be seen that Unitarianism runs along the whole line from the borders of orthodoxy to the bourne of non-belief. A Unitarian preacher has described the Unitarians of the school of Priestley and Belsham, as asserting the divine authority of the New Testament, yet 'explaining away passages which distinctly assert the opposite view with a most curious and perverse good. These sublime truths were probably derived from an original Revelation. The meaning of the record is simple, but in its obvious sense not true. To reconcile the record with philosophical truth, much ingenuity has been exercised, but only to twist and torture the words of the writer, who though right in his theology had no better knowledge of the facts than his own speculations derived from the most obvious appearances of the universe. The Unitarian position was defended in 'Letters' addressed to Howley, Bishop of London.. The Bishop in a charge had spoken unfavourably of Unitarians. Belsham expressed his surprise at this treatment, as Unitarians did. not desire the downfall of the Established Church. For the last twenty years not one of them had preached or published anything on the subject. In truth, they were so favourable to the National Church, that if the petition of forty years ago for the substitution of the Bible in the place of the Articles of Religion had been complied with, and the Liturgy reformed upon the principles of Dr Clarke, the benches of Unitarian chapels would have been greatly thinned. The Bishop had divided Unitarians into those who were conscientious, and those who were Atheists, Deists or licentious Free Thinkers. Belsham answered that Unitarians believed everything necessary to salvation. They confess with their mouths that Jesus is Lord, and believe in their hearts that God hath raised Him from the dead. As to infidels the retort was easy. When men cast off all religion but the profession, they generally desert the sects and become members of the Established Church. Bolingbroke was a High Churchman and a persecutor of Nonconformists. Gibbon was a placeman and professed great zeal for orthodoxy of faith. The Bishop had 'said of Unitarianism: Its influence has generally been confined to men of some education, whose thoughts have been little employed on the subject of religion, or who, loving rather to question than learn, have approached the oracles of divine truth without that humble docility, that prostration of the understanding and will which are indispensable to proficiency in Christian instruction.' To this a parallel was found in Hume, 'Whosoever believeth the truth of Christi which subverts all the principles of his understanding, and gives him a determination to believe what is most contrary to reason and experience.' Belsham added that the confines of orthodoxy and of infidelity approach more nearly than the Bishop perhaps recollected. The Unitarians published an improved version of the Bible, which was understood by many to be an improved Bible, made to suit their theology.' In the Bampton Lectures of 1819, Dr Moysey made Unitarianism the subject, and criticised the new Bible. He said the Trinity was rejected because it was incomprehensible. This was met with a direct negative. The Trinity was rejected because it was, according to some expositions of it, a manifest contradiction, and in every form unfounded in reason and opposed to Scripture. The Lecturer said that the Unitarians had expunged or altered many passages of Scripture which bore witness against them. He denied that any one could be a Christian even in profession who did not hold that the man Christ Jesus was also very God. The first statement was declared simply untrue, and the second was answered in the words of Locke that 'believing Jesus to be the Messiah, and a good life were the indispensable conditions of the new covenant.' To the statement that a doctrine may be true, though reason cannot comprehend it, the answer was that this is a mere truism, but though Trinitarians use the same words their ideas are often as opposite as light is to darkness. Sherlock said that there were three persons in the Trinity as distinct as Peter, James, and John, so that really there were three gods. Wallis on the other hand, made the persons merely modes, or relations of God to His creatures. Bishop Burgess said that not one of the three was a being, so that three nonentities constituted God. The object of Unitarianism at this time was to get rid of Trinitarian texts. In a future chapter it will be found that later in the century they became indifferent to texts. It will also be seen that Unitarianism runs along the whole line from the borders of orthodoxy to the bourne of non-belief. 1 A Unitarian preacher has described the Unitarians of the school of Priestley and Belsham, as asserting the divine authority of the New Testament, yet 'explaining away passages which distinctly assert the opposite view with a most curious and perverse CHAPTER IX COLERIDGE, ERSKINE, HAMPDEN, WHATELY, COPLESTON, HAWKINS, ARNOLD, MILMAN THE new spirit which animated the nineteenth century was first manifested in poetry and science. There were tributaries from Germany in the way of transcendental philosophy and intuitive religion. There was also the spirit of inquiry which seemed the destruction of old beliefs. Then there were movements by way of reaction, and counter movements against these. It was only necessary for one force to be in action to evoke other and opposing forces. Nature, commonly regarded as a dead mechanism, was now seen by the poets as instinct with divine life. In the same direction was the doctrine of evolution. The poets most conspicuous in this connection were Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Southey. In their youth, they were devoted to freedom, with the ardour of those who expect to reform the world, but were sobered by the excesses of the French Revolution. They became conservative in politics, strong Churchmen, and if they did not always defend things as they were and had been, they were not eager for change. Wordsworth and Southey stood by the dogmatic form of orthodox theology. Coleridge helped most in the transition to a new era, while he reflected new light on what was old. His writings are fragmentary, and his 1 Evolution may be regarded as the counterpart of the immanence of Deity in Nature. In the time of these poets it was not recognised as it has been since, but it was beginning to speak though not as yet with an audible voice. |