« PreviousContinue »
A Letter 10 Theophilus Lindsey, A. M. occasioned by his late Pub
lication of An Historical View of the State of the Unitarian
Do&trine and Worship. 8vo. 25. 6d. Payne and Son. THE "HE author of this Letter informs us, that' ever fince he
was able to read the New Testament, with any degree of rational attention, he has been led to consider the mystery of the Trinity in Unity as an object of faith too vast for human comprehension, and therefore best viewed in awful filence and adoration. About the same time, he says, he formed an opinion, which he has never seen the least reafon to alter, that the doctrine of Christ's humanity, as profelled and preached by Mr. Lindsey, is fubversive of every principle of Chris. tianity. But, though he utterly disapproves of Mr. Lindsey's tenets, he does not attempt to refute them by an appeal to the sacred writers. After what has been written on the subject, he does not apprehend that any thing he can add would have the least effect; he therefore studioully avoids all appearance of controversy; and confines his observations to those parts of Mr. Lindfey's writings, in which that author has mentioned fome very learned, pious, and respectable men, as patronizers of his opinion.
' I find, says he, very few, if any, those only excepted who reject the gospel revelation, that would not have thought it an injury to their characters to be ranked with your disciples. Surely the word unitarian, in this sense, could never have been used with less propriety, than when applied to such believers in the Christian system as Mr. Whiston, Dr. Clarke, fir Isaac Newton, bishop Hoadly, and even Socinus himself, who, ftrange as it may seem, was not, in your sense of the word, a Socinian; for all these, according to your own account, considered Christ as an object of worship; and if they had been called upon to sign 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 manuscript Liturgy, in the British Museum. On this subject, the author makes the following animadversions, among many others to the fame effect.
• It is pretty clear, from Dr. Clarke's writings, that he was too able, too discerning, and I hope too conscientious à man, to settle in his mind an opinion, that Christ was a proper object of worihip; and then, from that opinion, to draw the consequence, which, according to your account, must be contended for, that the Liturgy of the Church of England 4
oughs ought to be divested of all pafiages, in which prayer is addrelied to Christ. I must, therefore, suppose, I think I mights say, conclude, that Dr. Clarke's manuscript. Liturgy was merely experimental, and, as such, by him abandoned, though not deltroyed : or that it did contain fome pasiages in which prayer was addressed to Ciritt.'
In speaking of Mr. Whifton, as well as Dr. Clarke," he says : * could you, who believe that Christ had no exiflence be. fore he was born at Bethlehem, and Mr. Whitlon, who with Dr. Clarke, believed that he existed with the Father from the beginning, read the same service together? If you could, there is certainly fome mystery in the art of Liturgy-making, totally beyond my comprehension. Nor Can I fee why, if the fame words can be made to fit two such opposite opinions, and fatisfy those who in some way worship Christ, and those who worship him not at all, there needed all that labour which it cost you, to alter and amend Dr. Clarke's Liturgy.'
After many other observations on this subject, the author proceeds to the principal design of his address, the vindication of his friend, the late Abraham Tucker, Efq. author of the Light of Nature pursued, again it that injurious reflection, which he conceives Mr. Lindsey has thrown on his characters when he styles him · an unitarian Christian.?
« When I saw Mr. Tucker in the list of your « enlightened Unitarians,' I folemnly declare, says he, I could not have been more amazed, if I had seen his venerable name enrolled among the disciples of Mahomet.'
In consequence of this imputation on the religious fentiments of that writer, our author proves, by various passages in his works, • that he was not a believer in one syllable of Mr. Lindsey's chapter on the proper hunanity of Christ, but an enlightened Athanafian.'
At the conclusion of his Letter he suggests what influence he thinks Mr. Lindsey's Hifiorical View of the State of the Unitarian Doctrine and Worihip, may have on the peace and happiness of mankind, in their individual, social, civil, and religious capacities.
This writer appears to be a serious, orthodox believer, who views the Mystery of the Trinity in awful filence, religns his judgement to the incomprehenfibility of the fubject, and peaceably acquiesces in a doctrine, sanctified by the wisdom of ages, and established by the laws of the land.
Archæologia : Archæologia or Miscellaneous Tracts relating to Antiquity. Pub.
lished by the Society of Antiquaries of London. 'Vol. VII. 410.
ii. Is. in Boards. White. THE HỆ infticution of the Antiquarian Society has proved
the means not only of diffusing an acquaintance with antiquities, but of stimulating ingenuity to various conjectures and observations. The Archäologia, therefore, at the same 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 Inscription 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 sands, and supposed to have served as a tomb-stone. It is of granite, in the form of an inverted cone, three feet four inches high, and from eight inches and a half to fix inches and a half diameter. The inscription 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 translation of it according to Mr. Bohun.
6. The Bismela with a flat roof, this temple
2. Erected according to an old form, happening to be burnt down and laid sleeping 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 set thereof an
5. Example, and now lastly being purged from impurities and consecrated 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 obscure inscription Mr. Bohun endeavours to illustrate from history, and refers it to an event in the dynasty of the Fatemite caliphs.
Article II. is an Illustration of some Druidical Remains in the Peak of Derbyshire. By the Rev. Mr. Pegge. These remains are chiefly two ftones which were taken out of the ground about the year 1760, at Durwood, near Hartie-moor, where they lay by the fide of a large urn, half full of burnt bones. They are supposed to have been used for grinding corn before mills were invented; and this opinion Mr. Pegge endeavours to confirm by the authority of some authors, who have observed that the same expedient was commonly practised in other nations. Vol, LX. Sept. 1785.
Art. III. Historical Notes concerning the Power of the Chancellor's Court at Cambridge. By the Rev. Robert Richardion, D. D. late Rector of St. Anne's, Soho.
Art. IV. Observations on the Practice of Archery in Eng. land. By the Hon. Daines Barrington. In the numerous difquifitions made by Mr. Barrington relative to British antiquities, he discovers fo much laudable industry, and such an extent of information, as must render his obfervations peculiarly interesting to all the lovers of antiquarian researches. We shall therefore, for the gratification of our readers, fubmit to them a part of his remarks on the present subject.
• As some of our most signal victories, in former centuries, were chiefly attributed to the English archers, it may not be uninteresting 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 present almost annihilation.
" 'I his 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 tiyled artillier du roy, and we seem to have learnt this method of annoying the enemy from that nation, at leatt with a cross-bow,
• We her: fore find that William the Conqueror had a confiderable number of bowmen in his army at the battle of Haitings, when no mention is made of such troops on the fide of Haroid. I have upon this occasion, made'ufe of the term bow man, though I rather conceive that these Norman archers fhot with the arbalett (or cross-bow) in which formerly the arsow was placed in a groove, being termed in French a quadrel, and in Engifh a boli.
• Though I have taken some pains to find out when the shooting with the long-bow firit began with us, at which exercise we afterwards became so expert, I profess that I cannot meet with any pofitive proois, and must cherefore state such grounds for conjecture as have occurred.
• Our chroniclers do not mention the use of archery as ex. pressly applied to the cross, or long bow, till the death of Richard the First, who was killed by an arrow. at the fiege of Limoges, in Guienne, which Hemmingford mentions to have issued from a cross-bow. Joinville, likewile, (in his life of St. Lewis) always speaks of the Chriitian balitarii.
• After this death of Richard the First, 1199, I have not happened to stumble upon any pafiages alluding to archery for nearly one hundred and fifty years, when an order was issued by Edward the Third, in the titteenth year of his reign, to the sherives of most of the Engliih counties, for providing five hundred white bou s, and five hundred bundles of arrows, for the then intended war againit France.
Similar orders are repeated in the following years, with this difference only that the sheriff of Gloucesteríhire is directed to 4
furnish five hundred painted bows, as well as the same number of white.
• The famous battle of Cressy was fought four years afterwards in which our chroniclers state that we had two thousand archers, who were opposed to about the fame number of the French, together with a circumstance, which seems to prove, that by this time we used the long-bow, whilst the French archers fhot with the arbaleit.
• 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 strings of them. Now our long.bow (when unArung) may be most conveniently covered, so as to prevent the sain's injuring it, nor is there scarcely any addition to the weight from such a case; whereas the arbalest is of a most inconvenient form to be theltered from the weather.
• As therefore in the year 1342, orders issued 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 arbalest.
• We are still in the dark, indeed, when the former weapon was first introduced by our anceitors, but I will venture to shoot my bolt in this obscurity, whether it may be well directed or not, as possibly it may produce a better conjecture from others.
Edward the First' is known to have served in the holy wars, where he must have seen the effect of archery from a long-bow to be much superior to that of the arbaleit, in the use of which, the Italian ftates, and particularly the Genoese, had always been distinguished.
• This circumstance would appear to me very decisive, that we owe the introduction of the long-bow to this king, was it not to be observed, that the bows of the Asiatics (though differing totally from the arbalest) were yet rather unlike to our long.bows in point of form.
This objection, therefore, must be admitted; but fill poffibly, as the Asiatic bows were more powerful than the arbaleit, some of our English crusaders might have substituted our long·bows in the room of the Asiatic ones, in the same manner that improvements are frequently made in our present artillery. We might, consequently, before the battle of Creily', have had such a sufficient number of troops trained to the long-bow, as to be decisive in our favour, as they were afterwards at Poictiers and Agincourt.'
Art. V. Illustration of an unpublished Seal of Richard Duke of Gloucester. By the Rev. Dr. Mills, Dean of Exeter.
Art. VI. Conjectures concerning fome undescribed Ro. man roads, and other Antiquities in the County of Durham. By John Cade, Esq. of Durham.-This ingenious gentleman maintains, with great plausibility, that the traces of an ancient road in the county of Durham are the remains of Ryck