Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

ous how far this honorable appellation ought to be extended, while others perhaps circumscribe its use more than is either just or charitable. Suffer me, Sir, to offer my individual opinion.

I think that all those who reject the notion of a plurality of persons in the Godhead, (as it is expressed,) are evidently entitled to the appellation of Unitarians. No other question is agitated between the Trinitarians and Unitarians, considered as such, but the number of persons in the Deity; and as they decide on this one point, ought they to assume respectively the title of Trinitarian or Unitarian. I must confess that I cannot deem it just or liberal, or eligible in any respect, to narrow the pale of Unitarianism, by restricting its application to those alone, who are further distinguished by other tenets not immediately connected with this general question. What if like the Arians, a person believe in the Doctrine of the atonement, or in the preexistence of Christ-provided he do not believe him to be a person equal to the Father, and worthy of equal re gard and worship; is he not still an Unitarian if he hold, that "unto us there is but one God, even the Father?" The doctrine of the atonement indeed, at least the orthodox notion of it, I deem a worse error than that of the Trinity, inasmuch as it more immediately effects morality. But here again, it is but justice to observe, that some Arians do not believe this doctrine under any modification; while others understand it modified in such a way, as to lose all credit with the Orthodox. See Dr. Magee's opinion of the author of Ben Mordecai's letters, in p. 109, and of Dr. Taylor, of Norwich, in p. 120, of the work above quoted. I therefore regard the title Unitarian as a generic term, including ali specific differences, such as Socinian, Arian, &c.

I acknowledge, Mr. Editor, that it is not wise to dispute about names, but as all Christians are neither wise nor good men; as many through prejudice or malevolence make use of names as the instruments of reviling and persecution, both in politics and religion; and as I understand there has been a difference of opinion among Unitarians themselves concerning the proper application of that title, I have endeavoured to set this subject in its true light, as well as to wipe off Dr. Magee's sneering and illiberal asper

sion.

I have dwelt too long upon the former part of my text to pay due attention to the latter at present, but if I find

that you so far approve of this as to insert it in the Repository, I shall not fail to send you the remainder of my remarks concerning our "demanding to be distinguished from the other Nonconformists by the title of rational dissenters." In the mean time,

[blocks in formation]

My curiosity has of late been a good deal excited by a review in your magazine of a book entitled "Physical and Metaphysical Inquiries." The author's theory of heat seems, so far as I can judge, the most natural and satisfactory of any. His notions however, with regard to the self-existence of matter, are, I think, liable to considerable objections. What does he mean by the word matter? Does he mean an unknown something existing independent of its properties? The substance of Socrates? If so, it appears to me that he speaks without ideas, for our ideas of things are evidently produced by the action of their properties on our senses; either immediately, or through the aid of memory; consequently a body without properties can produce no ideas. But if by matter he means something which being possessed of properties, would without properties cease to exist, (or which amounts to the same thing, so far as we are concerned at least, would cease to exist as a fit subject for our animadversion) it will remain to be determined whether there are more of these matters than one. If he supposes that there is but one matter, how does he account for the vast variety of substances found in nature? For is it not evident that a body acting upon itself, never can produce a body different from itself: thus suppose oxygen a simple substance, no quantity of it however great, remaining by itself, for any length of time, could ever produce, say, water, or any other substance whatever: if then there was originally but one kind of matter, the vast variety of natural productions remains unaccounted for. We must suppose then, I presume, that there are more original substances than one. Now if these are independent of any

power exterior to themselves, might it not be expected that similar combinations should give similar products; thus, that two mild substances should produce one similar to themselves, and vice versa. But does not the combination of oxygen and azot, each of which substances is mild at least to our feelings, produce a substance, which to the same feelings is acid and corrosive in the extreme: but perhaps it will be said that mild bodies ought to produce corrosive bodies, and that our supposing the contrary arises from an incorrect analogy in our own minds; but in the former instance, if instead of azot, we substitute hydrogen, which to our sense of feeling possesses the same properties, a very different substance, as mild as the other is corrosive, is produced. How is this to be accounted for? It appears to me to point to the arbitrary will of a being perfectly distinct from and superior to eithe of the substances. I have thus far supposed the various matters to act upon each other, without observing the inconsistency of supposing them: self-existent at the same time. For does not the notion of self-existence, necessarily include that of immutability? But a body that is immutable cannot be acted upon; this last notion necessarily including that of change.

Thus, Sir, I have endeavoured to shew, that upon the hy pothesis of the self-existence of matter, the present phenomena of nature could not be accounted for. The argument drawn from its indestructibility, which the Inquirer uses for its self-existence, appears to me very unsatisfactory: "that," says he, "which cannot be destroyed must have the cause, of its existence within itself." Granted. But does it follow, that, that which we cannot destroy, (say rather annihilate,) must have the cause of its existence within itself? Would it not be rather absurd to suppose, (independent of experiment,) that we, ourselves material agents, could annihilate matter? We cannot consolidate uncombined hydrogen gas; nor crystallize alcohol; does it therefore follow that it is absolutely impossible that hydrogen gas can be consolidated, or alcohol crystallized?

If you think these observations worth inserting in your valuable Magazine, I shall probably in a future letter send you a few remarks on his notions of Deity, and am, Sir, Your very humble servant,

Glasgow, June 10, 1807.

And constant reader,

P

LETTER OF MR. EVANSON'S TO LORD REDESDALE, ON
THE CATHOLIC QUESTION.

SIR,

To the Editor of the Monthly Repository.

THE following Letter was written by the late Mr. Evanson, when the correspondence to which it relates occupied pretty much of the public attention, and was sent to me at that time by the author, for insertion in some one of the daily or periodical prints. It was not, however, published, from a circumstance which it would occupy too much room to explain, and which cannot now be the least interesting to your readers. But it appears to me, that at this time, when the public mind is again so much agitated with the Catholic question, the sentiments of a man of so sound a mind and so deservedly respected abilities as Mr. Evanson, cannot fail of being very acceptable to your readers. If you are of the same opinion, the letter is very much at your service, to insert in your valuable Miscellany. I am Sir, yours, &c.

Hackney, June 3, 1807.

J. SPURRELL.

To the Right Honourable Lord Redesdale.
MY LORD,

THOUGH neither Papist nor Protestant, yet being one of that much more comprehensive sect, man, like Chremes in the comedy, I feel myself nearly interested in whatever concerns the welfare and happiness of the human species. With this disposition, your Lordship will not wonder, that my attention should have been strongly attracted by the very extraordinary correspondence which the public prints have given us, as having passed between your Lordship and Lord Fingal, and afterwards between your Lord. ship and the Roman Catholic Bishop Coppinger, together with the narrative and appeal made to the public by the priest O'Neil, in vindication of his own innocence and the conduct of his ecclesiastical superior, against the very weighty, and, if not founded in truth, highly culpable charges, which in your letters to Lord F. your Lordship has thought proper to introduce against both. Mr. O'Neil's narrative is a very important document indeed. By explaining to us what is meant, and what has been so inhumanly and in more cases, without doubt, unjustly executed under the title of martial law; it has shewn us that the British government which has so long enjoyed the envied honour of being the first to abolish the irrational, ferocious use of the torture in avenging crimes of any kind, and particularly in forcing suspected criminals to confess themselves guilty when no satisfactory proof

of their guilt could be adduced, at the close of the 18th century had relapsed so deeply into barbarism as to erect military tribunals, in extensive districts of their dominions, with power to restore the practice of the torture in both those cases by such inhuman excruciating inflictions as are much more worthy of the history of the holy Office, than of the reign of George the third. When I consider, my Lord, the general unskilfulness of the members of such tribunals in the essential principles of jurisprudence; that they must often pronounce sentence under an ir. ritation of their passions by a sense of their personal danger, perhaps of injury actually received, stimulated also with the hopes of recommending themselves to the favour of those upon whom their professional advancement depends, by the display of an active zeal, in apprehending and bringing to punishment as great a number of culprits as possible: when I reflect upon the many false accusations they must inevitably receive from officious, erroneous or malicious informers, and how greatly the morals both of the officers who preside at, and the soldiers who inflict such barbarous cruelties must be depraved by an inhuman hardness of heart, before they can behold such savage scenes with so much unconcern, as by nicknaming them to make to themselves a kind of amusement ont of the most agonizing pangs of the unhappy sufferers: I turn with horror from the contemplation, and exclaim, how much have all they to answer for before God and men, who advise or promote the institution of martial law in any country, for any cause whatever! Surely, my Lord, the forfeiture of life, which is the ne plus ultra of all punishments, is an ample expiation of the guilt of the most atrocious crimes! To endeavour therefore by any kind of torments to render the few last hours of a condemned criminal painful, is mere ferocious wanton cruel. ty, which can be of no service respecting the wretched sufferer himself, and by instigating his partizans to retaliation whenever they may have it in their power, and tending to deprave the dispositions of both parties by examples of such inhuman barbarity, cannot fail of producing the most baneful effects upon the survivors. So unjustifiable is the infliction of any cruel tortures either before or after the conviction of the really guilty culprit. But where they have been inflicted as in Mr. O'Neil's case, upon a person not convicted of any crime, what proper satisfaction can be made to the innocent sufferer, or to the sacred cause of public justice? Your Lordship indeed is pleased to persist still in accusing Mr. O'Neil as guilty of the crimes alleged against him before the military tribunal. But the style of his affecting narrative exhibits so many marks of conscious integrity, candour and veracity, strongly confirmed by the endeavours of one Lord Lieutenant to prevent, and by his successor to recal him from transportation, that unless your Lordship can clearly estab

« PredošláPokračovať »