Eclectic Review on Dr. S. Smith's “Illustrations.” to arrest the pure stream of heavenly light, till they can be rendered more fit for their purpose by the miserable contrivances of human ingenuity? Keep back thy servants from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over us, then shall we be upright and innocent from the great transgression. Cordially as I love the Church of England, and in this country I am persuaded that the existence of true religion is involved in her existence, I cannot admit that any system should be supported by the suppression of the Scriptures." Again he says, "I know of no commentary on the Scriptures, or on any other book, of which it can truly be said that it is given by inspiration of God.' Away, then, with these profane and vain babblings, which would elevate the traditions and comments of men to the rank of heaven's blessed and lively oracles! Other writings are valuable, but these are above all value others may be wise, but these flow from the Fountain of Wisdom: others may be useful, but these are given for the conversion of the world."* This is not the language and sentiments of one individual in a party. If John Buncle has made any inquiries at all on the subject, he must be aware that in the passages I have quoted I have given the sentiments of both sides fairly; and I leave it to your readers to decide whether my expression, explained as I have explained it, is not justified. I am sorry to say, instances have come to my own knowledge, in which poor curates have been restrained by the high hand of ecclesiastical power, and that in the most tyrannical manner, from attending Bible-meetings; and have read most awakening sermons, addressed to country congregations, by affrighted High Church ministers, on the appearance of a little cloud "no bigger than a man's hand," indicative of the approach of that fearful thing a Bible Society. Yet, now, it proves that all this affection for the Church is not an affection for her doctrines, but for that spirit of non-inquiry in which Priests and Popery have flourished. Dealtry's Vindication of the Bible Society, pp. 31, 133. 83 If Dr. Marsh has really departed from the faith of the Church of England, as expressed in her Articles; if he has adopted larger and more liberal views, we cannot but lament that he should thus uphold her with all her sins upon her head, and discourage the free circulation of that volume, to which we must hope he himself owes his revulsion from Calvinism. But really it is too much to believe in the existence of liberal views of toleration, where we see a mode of proceeding so very opposite to the gospel spirit. I wish I were convinced that the High Church party are satisfied with themselves about their past concessions to Unitarian Dissenters. Joining the Evangelical in nothing else, it is not very likely they will unite with them against a sect to which, in a few points of doctrine, they approach a degree nearer than their Calvinistic brethren; but that they have a warm and hearty desire to extend the right hand of fellowship to Unitarians, I do not believe. If the continual insinuations of their organ, "The Quarterly Review," mean any thing, they seem to say that Unitarians have not been sufficiently grateful for the kind condescension already shewn them; and that there is no danger of their receiving more favours speedily. I do not, however, wish to add to the list of suspicions which, I fear, your correspondent will already deem "uncharitable" enough. With regard to politics, my own experience is decidedly of an opposite nature to his. The Evangelical clergy have, with very few exceptions, appeared to me to be strikingly devoid of interest, even in politics; and to leave the battle to be fought by High Church Tories and the Whigs and Reformers. Submissive they undoubtedly are; but this is from a feeling of reverence (which John Buncle, no doubt, will agree with me in thinking superstitious in this case) for the words of St. Paul, which they admit very literally. But I will not take up your time with discussions which are not as profitable as could be wished. SIR, Q. AM a Unitarian, but not without doubt and difficulty; consequently, very desirous of seeing all the agreea ble views of Unitarianism settled on a solid base. I cannot but wish that Mr. Belsham's Optimism were as sound as it is pleasing; and Dr. Southwood Smith's speculations as true as they are amiable. But when great men kill themselves, (in a very vulgar manner too,) and the former gentleman will moralize from the pulpit on the occasion, and virtually tell us, it is all for the best, just as it should be, and just as Providence designed it to be; however profound such observations, I cannot but suspect there is unsoundness about them somewhere; and though philosophy cannot answer him, I am perverse enough to think such views and sentiments not quite scriptural, and therefore no better than they should be. There is, I am aware, no gordian knot in the moral world which Mr. B. cannot, with great ease, untie in the cool speculations of his Necessarian philosophy: and whether a man dies by his own hand, by that of the executioner, or quietly in the domestic bed, he does, I suppose, through the glass of that philosophy, look on with the same moral complacency and satisfaction. For my own part, Mr. Editor, (and many others, I believe, share my weakness here,) I cannot avoid, in regard to certain moral phenomena in the world, thinking and feeling with the vulgar; and I fear I shall never be sufficiently enlightened to imagine that, on the subject of moral agency and moral evil, a subtile metaphysical argument is to be set against common sense, moral consciousness, general consent of mankind, and plain and powerful assertions of Holy Writ. These four voices seem to be in opposition to a good deal advanced by Dr. S. Smith in his "Illustrations of the Divine Government:" a book of so amiable a spirit and delightful sentiments, that I regret there should seem to lie any objection to its grateful argument and consolatory conclusion. My attention was drawn to his book a second tine by the circumstance of meeting with a Review of it in the Tenth Vol. (New Series) of the Eclectic Review; and I beg permission, Mr. Editor, to ask Dr. Smith (by the pages of your Repository) if he has seen that article? To my own judgment it is, Sir, a very powerful and impressive piece of writing, containing strong objections to the propositions and reasonings advanced by Dr. S.; calculated to make every thinking mind serious, and to induce the ingenuous Unitarian to pause on his creed, and feel diffident of its strength and correctness. I believe the Eclectic has made but an indifferent figure in former Numbers of your excellent Miscellany, and has given itself a notorious celebrity for deficiency of candour and liberality towards us: I have still the same confidence in your own superior temper, to admit the observations I send you on a very important subject; and it would be a great relief to myself to see a satisfactory reply to them from some one or other of your intelligent readers. Dr. Smith observes: "The misery produced by sin is designed to answer the same benevolent purpose in the moral world, which the pain occasioned by hunger accomplishes in the animal." The Reviewer observes upon this: "The reader will remark the evasion of the subject in this sentence. Let it be granted that the misery consequent upon sin is a purely beneficent infliction upon the subject of it; the question is not what good the misery does him, but what good the sin does him. He is made miserable, it seems, that he may become good; but, is he made wicked that he may be made miserable, that he may become good?" On the following definition of punishment by Dr. Smith ;-" Punishment is the infliction of pain, in consequence of the neglect or violation of duty, with a view to correct the evil;" the Reviewer remarks," Granting both the justness and the appositeness of this definition, the hypothesis proposed to us as alone worthy of a reasonable credence, is this (as we have before expressed it): Men are made wicked, that they may be punished, that they may become good. Now, let the reader observe, that that evil which terminates in its own ultimate correction or destruction, adds nothing to the well-being of the universe; but, to the whole extent of it, is simple evil. Nor does it make any difference if we choose to call the former portion of this evil, cause, and the latter, consequence; the former, sin; and the latter, punishment. Dr. Smith asserts, that he who chooses simple evil for its own sake, and rests in it Eclectic Review on Dr. S. Smith's " Illustrations." as an end, is a malevolent being. But evil that only cures itself, is simple evil. Here, then, again we perceive, that to support the doctrine of a benevolent causation of evil, it must be believed that sin will produce, to the subject of it, a positive additional advantage beyond what could result from an uninterrupted course of virtue. A little reflection will convince any one, that if evil does not produce a higher good, it is pure evil; and to choose pure evil, we are told, is the property of a malevolent being. But if it be said that evil produces a higher good, it must do so either to the subject of it, (that is, the sinner will be the better for his sin,) or it must procure this higher good to other creatures; but this is a supposition which, we imagine, the favourers of this final restitution could by no means allow, for there would then inevitably follow the ideas of partiality, of the subordination of individual interests and of the Divine sovereignty. Indeed, it would be impossible, after such an admission, to resist even Calvinism itself." In pages 553 and 554 of the Review, there is some reasoning (on the acknowledged principles of human nature) that might seem almost unanswerable. I hope you will authorize me to present it to the serious consideration of your readers. Towards the close of the article the Reviewer observes:-"We must briefly remark upon that part of Dr. Smith's volume, in which he adduces and discusses the evidence of Scripture upon the subject in hand. He employs many pages to very little purpose, as we think, in a critical examination of the terms aion, aionios, apollumi, olethros, thanatos, and kolasis. No peculiar obscurity appears to attach to any one of these words. The power of language is by no means solely or chiefly derived from the individual signification of words. The intention of a writer or speaker is primarily ascertained on the ground of the CONVENTIONAL sense of words taken in combination. The conventional sense of certain phrases and modes of expression, is, of course, more determinate than that of individual words: if it were not so, as all words have more or less extent of meaning, thought could never be communicated. If we must ever be retrograding from the obvious conven 85 tional intention of a sentence, to the power of the words of which it consists, language will be deprived of its faculty to convey any determinate proposition; it is resolved into an enigmatical mass, in which all meanings may float, indifferently and at large. Now, this is the very treatment to which the language of the Bible is every day subjected by theorists."-" God, in speaking to men by man, as his instrument, must unquestionably be understood as submitting his message to the established usages of human communication. On this principle it is affirmed, that the Divine veracity and our correlative responsibility, are involved in the rule, that the opinion or intention which we should not fail to attribute to a profane writer, using such or such expressions, are, without reference to the nature of the doctrine therein implied, to be received as the opinion or intention of the inspired writer who does employ them. In proportion to the infinite moment of revealed truth, is the importance of adhering to the principle, that inspired persons spoke and wrote under the presumption that they should be heard and read as other men are heard and read; so that when they employ those uncompounded forms of speech, which are ordinarily understood to convey an absolute sense, they also shall be allowed to intend an absolute sense," &c. &c. I fear trespassing on your pages, Mr. Editor, and, therefore, cannot do justice to the Reviewer's reasoning. I should be happy to have your permission to present to your readers more of what appears to myself a very formidable argument on the interpretation of Scripture phraseology. Bearing in mind the almost unquestionable conventional meaning of the terms used by our Lord, and his knowledge of the circumstances of his hearers, can we make the supposition that Jesus would use the language he did use in speaking of the future destinies of men, knowing the truth of the doctrine of Universal Restoration? The Reviewer justly remarks, p. 558, “The passages of the gospel, whose apparent sense it is attempted to invalidate, should be perused under the supposition that our Lord, who is surely free from the imputation of a sinister design, ut tered the threatenings recorded by the Evangelists, with the intention to suggest or to favour the doctrine of Universal Restoration; at least, if that doctrine be true, it could never be his design to generate in the minds of his hearers an idea, not only absolutely false, but, as is pretended, highly injurious to the Divine character, and quite destructive of all the sanctions of morality," &c. Dr. Smith and others speak in unqualified terms of the impartiality of God's providence to the children of men: permit me, Mr. Editor, in concluding this paper, to ask Dr. S., how the frightful disparity of men in the most important point, moral character and the means of its improvement, is reconciled with any definite sense of the term impartial? Dr. Smith has also, in his delightful views of Providence, and his illustrations of its wisdom and benevolence, boldly asserted, that, with respect to the moral world, every man is placed in circumstances, adjusted with infinite nicety to his natural powers and propensities. Where is the proof of this in fact? And if true, in fact, why does the moral world exhibit its present motley aspect; why all its discordancy, its folly, its madness, its vices, its crimes? Whence all the unfortunate results of birth, parentage and education? Why thousands and tens of thousands unhappy consequences of concomitant circumstances, if the Deity has always good in view, and his providence with unerring wisdom has adapted every circumstance in the moral world to produce good? This may be true in the final issue of things, and our present ignorance and limited views prevent us knowing it; but I submit to Dr. S., do present facts and appearances bear out a proposition so perfectly satisfactory? Much would many minds, besides my own, be relieved, Sir, by a clear proof of it. It appears to myself, Sir, that when we travel an inch out of the record, that is, when we stir a step from Scripture tuition and guidance in our reasoning on the ways of God, we are at once in a labyrinth, with endless error and perplexity before us: and it might seem a beautiful character of the wisdom and excellence of Scripture, that it comprises precisely what human nature appears to want in the present (Continued from p. 6.) Although some progress was made in the work of Reformation in the South of Italy, yet the success of the causé, if it be measured by the number and celebrity of the converts, was much greater in the northern states. The territories of Venice, in particular, became, at an early period, honourably distinguished by the attention that was excited in them to the religious inquiries and controversies of the age. written to Luther by Frobenius, a It appears, from a letter printer at Basle, which is dated in February, 1519, that, even previously to this period, the writings of that Reformer had been conveyed in considerable numbers to Italy, where they had been extensively dispersed, and read with avidity and approbation.* In the following year was issued the first Bull of Leo the Tenth against Luther and his writings, which was sent to the Senate of Venice, with instructions to have it proclaimed in that city. The Senate were, however, in no haste to render themselves a party in the quarrel. They thought it prudent, nevertheless, to make a show of compliance, and immediately a strict search was instituted by the ecclesiastical authorities, after the publications of Luther in the houses of the booksellers: but, with the exception of a single imperfect copy of one of his works, which was seized, they found that all that had been imported had Gerdes, Specimen Italia Reformatæ, pp. 4, 5. Calvus bibliopola Papiensis, vir eruditissimus, et musis sacer, bonam libellorum partem in Italiam deportavit, per omnes civitates sparsurus. Neque enim tam sectatur lucrum, quam cupit renascenti pietati suppetias ferre, et quaomnibus eruditis in Italia viris Epigramtenus potest, prodesse. Is promisit ab usque adeo tibi favet, Christique negotio, mata se missurum in tui laudem scripta, quod tanta constantia, tam viriliter tamque dextrè geris. The Nonconformist. No. XXIII. been disposed of.* This proceeding did not, however, suppress the spirit of inquiry which had been excited, The circumstance is thus related by Bernardus Shenkius, a German monk, residing at the time at Venice, in a letter to George Spalatinus, the Secretary of Frederick, Elector of Saxony, dated the 19th September, 1520: Legi quæ de domino Martino Luther petiisti, et certè bona fama viri diù apud nos fuit; dicunt autem: Caveat sibi à Pontifice. Ante duos menses decem libri de suis apportati, et statim venditi fuerant, antequam novissem. In principio verò hujus mensis supervenit mandatum Papæ, et domini Patriarchæ Veneti, inhibens libros, quos dominus Patriarcha apud librarios inves tigando unicum imperfectum invenit, et abstulit. Ego habere desideravi, sed præ timore librarius non vult adducere. Gerdes, ubi supra, p. 7. 87 but apparently served rather to extend and strengthen it. In 1524, Cardinal Campejus, who attended the Diet of Nuremburg that year as the Pope's Nuncio, bitterly complained, not only in respect to Germany, that it had embraced the doctrine of Luther, but also of Italy, because, even at that period, the writings of Luther were generally read at Venice. And he seems to have considered the case of the Italians as even more hopeless than that of the Germans: for such, he remarks, was the genius of the Germans, that whilst they readily received novel opinions, they as readily abándoned them; but that what the Italians had once embraced they steadily retained.* That the Cardinal's lamentations were not without good grounds, may be collected from some documents relating to this period; from which it appears that numerous converts had been gained over to the cause of the Reformation in the Venetian States. Luther was apprised so early as the year 1528 of the existence of these Italian Reformers; and, in 1542, he received a communication from them, in a letter which was writ ten by Balthasar Alterius, at that time Secretary to the English legation at Venice, "in the name of the brethren," as they are styled, of Venice, Vincenza and Trevigio."+ Melancthon, in 1522. The date of the Pontificate is Notwithstanding this show of vigour, the publication of the Bull was postponed; and, indeed, it seems doubtful whether the first Bull was ever published at Venice. In the year following (1521) the publication of a Bull took place, but this was probably the second Bull, which was issued on the 6th January, in that year. The reluctance of the Senate to give their sanction to this instrument, which excommunicated Luther, and all who possessed his books, or favoured his opinions, is evident from the manner in which they caused it to be made public in their city; for they would not suffer it to be read until after the people had been confessed, and nearly the whole of the congregation had quitted the church. The circumstance is thus related by Sheukius, in a letter to Spalatinus, dated the 5th April, 1521 : Unum dolens dico, quoniam Patriarcha Venetiarum secunda feria Paschat, jussu Pape, ab omnibus prædicatoribus, fecit excommunicari Magistrum Martinum Luther, et omnes habentes libros suos, quoscunque et fautores ipsius cujuscunque gradus et status, cum magna totius Germaniæ divisione, tanquam consentientis. In hoc tamen Domini Veneti prudenter egerunt, quod noluerunt hoc publicari, nisi postquam populus fuerat confessus, dimisso nempe coetu, aut maxima ejus parte.-Gerdes, ubi supra, p. 7; Seckendorf, Hist. Lu-dicuntur, quidam Basileam, et in Helvether, Lib. i. pp. 115, 116. A copy of the second Bull against Luther, printed by the authority of the Papal Government at Rome, in 1546, is now before me. There is a singular error of the press in the date of this instrument, vigesimo TERTIO being inserted for vigesimo PRIMO. Leo the Tenth was succeeded by Adrian, + Seckendorf, L. iii. § xcvii. pp. 401, et seqq.; Gerdes, pp. 61, et seqq. From this letter it appears that the friends of the Reformation in the Venetian States were at this time very narrowly watched, and that some of them had already been driven into exile.-Proscribuntur, the writer states, multi, quorum aliqui in Cenobates (forte Genabates) secessisse tias, alii in finitimas regiones, plurimi capiuntur, ut perpetuo tandem carcere contabescant: nullus tamen est qui eripiat innocentem, qui judicium faciat pauperi et orphano, qui patrocinetur gloriæ Christi. Omnes in unum conspirarunt, ut opprimant Dominum et Unctum ejus, nullibi autem magis sævit aut prævalet |