Page images

A Letter to Theophilus Lindsey, A. M. occafioned by his late Publication of An Historical View of the State of the Unitarian Doctrine and Worship 8vo. 2s. 6d. Payne and Son.



HE author of this Letter informs us, that ever fince he was able to read the New Teftament, with any degree of rational attention, he has been led to confider the mystery of the Trinity in Unity as an object of faith too vaft for human comprehenfion, and therefore beft viewed in awful filence and adoration.' About the fame time, he fays, he formed an opinion, which he has never seen the least reafon to alter, that the doctrine of Chrift's humanity, as profeiied and preached by Mr. Lindsey, is fubverfive of every principle of Chrif tianity.' But, though he utterly difapproves of Mr. Lindsey's tenets, he does not attempt to refute them by an appeal to the facred writers. After what has been written on the subject, he does not apprehend that any thing he can add would have the leaft effect; he therefore ftudiously avoids all appearance of controverfy; and confines his obfervations to those parts of Mr. Lindfey's writings, in which that author has mentioned fome very learned, pious, and refpectable men, as patronizers of his opinion.

'I find, fays he, very few, if any, thofe only excepted who reject the gospel revelation, that would not have thought it an injury to their characters to be ranked with your difciples. Surely the word unitarian, in this fenfe, could never have been used with less propriety, than when applied to fuch believers in the Chriftian fyftem as Mr. Whifton, Dr. Clarke, fir Ifaac Newton, bifhop Hoadly, and even Socinus himself, who, ftrange as it may feem, was not, in your fenfe of the word, a Socinian; for all thefe, according to your own account, confidered Chrift as an object of worship; and if they had been called upon to fign an article, declaring that he was only an inspired man, would have burnt rather than have complied.'

Mr. Lindsey, it is well known, has made great use of Dr. Clarke's manufcript Liturgy, in the British Museum. On this fubject, the author makes the following animadverfions, among many others to the fame effect.

It is pretty clear, from Dr. Clarke's writings, that he was too able, too difcerning, and I hope too conscientious a man, to settle in his mind an opinion, that Chrift was a proper object of worship; and then, from that opinion, to draw the confequence, which, according to your account, must be contended for, that the Liturgy of the Church of England



ought to be divested of all paffages, in which prayer is ad dreffed to Chrift. I muft, therefore, suppose, I think I might fay, conclude, that Dr. Clarke's manufcript. Liturgy was merely experimental, and, as fuch, by him abandoned, though not deftroyed or that it did contain fome paffages in which prayer was addreffed to Chrift.'

In fpeaking of Mr. Whiston, as well as Dr. Clarke, he fays: could you, who believe that Chrift had no exilence be fore he was born at Bethlehem, and Mr. Whitton, who with Dr. Clarke, believed that he exifted with the Father from the beginning, read the fame fervice together? If you could, there is certainly fome mystery in the art of Liturgy-making, totally beyond my comprehenfion. Nor can I fee why, if the fame words can be made to fit two fuch oppofite opinions, and fatisfy those who in fome way worship Chrift, and those who worship him not at all, there needed all that labour which it coft you, to alter and amend Dr. Clarke's Liturgy.'

After many other obfervations on this fubject, the author proceeds to the principal defign of his addrefs, the vindica tion of his friend, the late Abraham Tucker, Efq. author of the Light of Nature purfued, again that injurious reflection, which he conceives Mr. Lindfey has thrown on his character, when he ftyles him an unitarian Chriftian.' . When I faw Mr. Tucker in the lift of your enlightened Unitarians,' I folemnly declare, fays he, I could not have been more amazed, if I had feen his venerable name enrolled among the difciples of Mahomet.'


In confequence of this imputation on the religious fentiments of that writer, our author proves, by various paffages in his works, that he was not a believer in one fyllable of Mr. Lindfey's chapter on the proper humanity of Chrift, but an enlightened Athanafian.'

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


At the conclufion of his Letter he fuggefts what influence he thinks Mr. Lindfey's Hiftorical View of the State of the Unitarian Doctrine and Worthip, may have on the peace and happiness of mankind, in their individual, focial, civil, and religious capacities.

This writer appears to be a ferious, orthodox believer, who views the Mystery of the Trinity in awful filence, refigus hist judgement to the incomprehenfibility of the fubject, and peaceably acquiefces in a doctrine, fanctified by the wifdom of ages, and established by the laws of the land.


Archeologia or Mifcellaneous Tra&ts relating to Antiquity. Publifhed by the Society of Antiquaries of London. Vol. VII. 4to.

1. 1s. in Boards. White.

THE HE inflitution of the Antiquarian Society has proved the means not only of diffufing an acquaintance with antiquities, but of ftimulating ingenuity to various conjectures and obfervations. The Archeologia, therefore, at the fame time that they afford a work of entertainment, are happily calculated for extending our knowlege relative to the ftate of remote ages.

The first article in this volume contains Obfervations on an Infeription on an ancient Pillar in the Poffeffion of the Society of Antiquaries. In 1726, this pillar was brought from Alexandria, where it was found buried in the fands, and supposed to have served as a tomb-ftone. It is of granite, in the form of an inverted cone, three feet four inches high, and from eight inches and half to fix inches and a half diameter. The infcription is in Oriental characters, compounded of the Cufic, and of that which was invented by Ebn Moclah, about the year of the Hegira 320. The following is the tranflation of it according to Mr. Bohun.

1. The Bismela with a flat roof, this temple

2. Erected according to an old form, happening to be burnt down and laid fleeping in its ruins, was

3. In the time of the Caliph Hakem re-erected according to that (form) which Mahomet

4. Cafim, in his directions touching this kind of building, had given and fet thereof an

5. Example, and now laftly being purged from impurities and confecrated was re-built by order

6. Of Al Muftapha, over Egypt by the grace of God lord. of the faithful in the year 506 in the month Cahile.'

This obfcure infcription Mr. Bohun endeavours to illuftrate from hiftory, and refers it to an event in the dynasty of the Fatemite caliphs.

Article II. is an Illustration of fome Druidical Remains in the Peak of Derbyshire. By the Rev. Mr. Pegge.-Thefe remains are chiefly two ftones which were taken out of the ground about the year 1760, at Durwood, near Hartle-moor, where they lay by the fide of a large urn, half full of burnt bones. They are fuppofed to have been used for grinding corn before mills were invented; and this opinion Mr. Pegge endeavours to confirm by the authority of fome authors, who have obferved that the fame expedient was commonly practifed in other nations.

VOL. LX. Sept. 1785.


Art. III.

Art. III. Hiftorical Notes concerning the Power of the Chancellor's Court at Cambridge. By the Rev. Robert Richardson, D. D. late Rector of St. Anne's, Soho.

Art. IV. Obfervations on the Practice of Archery in England. By the Hon. Daines Barrington.-In the numerous difquifitions made by Mr. Barrington relative to British antiquities, he discovers fo much laudable industry, and fuch an extent of information, as must render his obfervations peculiarly interefting to all the lovers of antiquarian researches. We fhall therefore, for the gratification of our readers, fubmit to them a part of his remarks on the present fubje&.

As fome of our moft fignal victories, in former centuries, were chiefly attributed to the English archers, it may not be uninterefting to the Society if I lay before them what I have been able to glean with regard to the more flourishing state of our bowmen, till their prefent almoft annihilation.

This fraternity is to this day called the Artillery company, which is a French term fignifying archery, as the king's bowyer is in that language flyled artillier du roy, and we seem to have learnt this method of annoying the enemy from that nation, at leaft with a cross-bow.


We here fore find that William the Conqueror had a confiderable number of bowmen in his army at the battle of Haftings, when no mention is made of fuch troops on the fide of Haroid. I have upon this occafion, made ufe of the term bow man, though I rather conceive that thefe Norman archers fhot with the arbaleft (or cross-bow) in which formerly the arrow was placed in a groove, being termed in French a quadrel, and in Engfh a bolt.


Though I have taken fome pains to find out when the fhooting with the long-bow first began with us, at which exercife we afterwards became fo expert, I profefs that I cannot meet with any pofitive proois, and muft therefore ftate fuch grounds for conjecture as have occurred.

Our chroniclers do not mention the ufe of archery as exprefly applied to the crofs, or long bow, till the death of Richard the Firft, who was killed by an arrow. at the fiege of Limoges, in Guienne, which Hemmingford mentions to have iffued from a cross-bow. Joinville, likewife, (in his life of St. Lewis) always fpeaks of the Christian balistarii.

After this death of Richard the Firft, 1199, I have not happened to ftumble upon any paffages alluding to archery for nearly one hundred and fifty years, when an order was issued by Edward the Third, in the fitteenth year of his reign, to the fherives of most of the English counties, for providing five hundred white bows, and five hundred bundles of arrows, for the then intended war against France.

• Similar orders are repeated in the following years, with this difference only that the sheriff of Gloucestershire is directed to



furnish five hundred painted bows, as well as the fame number of white.

The famous battle of Creffy was fought four years afterwards in which our chroniclers ftate that we had two thousand archers, who were oppofed to about the fame number of the French, together with a circumftance, which feems to prove, that by this time we ufed the long-bow, whilft the French archers fhot with the arbaleft.

'Previous to this engagement fell a very heavy rain, which is faid to have much damaged the bows of the French, or perhaps rather the ftrings of them. Now our long-bow (when unArung) may be most conveniently covered, fo as to prevent the rain's injuring it, nor is there fcarcely any addition to the weight from fuch a cafe; whereas the arbaleft is of a most inconvenient form to be sheltered from the weather.

As therefore in the year 1342, orders iffued to the sherives of each county to provide five hundred bows, with a proper proportion of arrows, I cannot but infer that these were long bows, and not the arbaleft.


• We are still in the dark, indeed, when the former weapon was first introduced by our ancestors, but I will venture to thoot my bolt in this obfcurity, whether it may be well directed or not, as poffibly it may produce a better conjecture from others.

Edward the First is known to have ferved in the holy wars, where he must have seen the effect of archery from a long-bow to be much fuperior to that of the arbaleft, in the ufe of which, the Italian ftates, and particularly the Genoefe, had always been diftinguished.

This circumstance would appear to me very decifive, that we owe the introduction of the long-bow to this king, was it not to be observed, that the bows of the Afiatics (though differing totally from the arbaleft) were yet rather unlike to our long-bows in point of form.


This objection, therefore, must be admitted; but ftill poffibly, as the Afiatic bows were more powerful than the arbaleit, fome of our English crufaders might have fubftituted our longbows in the room of the Afiatic ones, in the fame manner that improvements are frequently made in our prefent artillery. We might, confequently, before the battle of Crefly, have had fuch a fufficient number of troops trained to the long-bow, as to be decifive in our favour, as they were afterwards at Poitiers and Agincourt."

Art. V. Illustration of an unpublished Seal of Richard Duke of Gloucefter. By the Rev. Dr. Mills, Dean of Exeter.

Art. VI. Conjectures concerning fome undefcribed Roman roads, and other Antiquities in the County of Durham. By John Cade, Efq. of Durham.-This ingenious gentleman maintains, with great plaufibility, that the traces of an ancient road in the county of Durham are the remains of RyckN 2 nild

« PreviousContinue »