Immagini della pagina
PDF
ePub

and advocate? We also, as well as they, admit such a unity; but the Reviewer would be no better satisfied than I should, with admitting no higher unity than this.

Shall we then predicate specific unity of the Godhead? Is the name God descriptive of only a supreme power, which is exercised by different individuals? For example: there is one National Government in these United States, but there are three distinct branches; or more exactly in point, the Triumvirate of Rome was vested in three separate individuals, and yet there was but one Triumvi rate?

Is the term God a name of office only? We all say, No. Is it then properly specific? Is the term God a name of mere nature, like the term man; which may comprehend an indefinite number of individuals under it, all truly divine?

The Reviewer, as well as I, would revolt at such a supposition. What ever the distinction in the Godhead be, we do not think the Scriptures warrant us to admit such a unity, or rather such a plurality as this. The very object of the sacred writers, in affirming that Jehovah is one, in opposition to the polytheism of the heathen, was to oppose such a view of the Godhead. The heathen believed in specific unity. Their Dii majores were all of the same rank. Jupiter was only primus inter pares. Yet the heathens speak of the divine power, the Divinity, the Supreme Ruler of the world, &c. in the singular number; for the government of the gods, was viewed by them as one. Whatever distinction, then, we admit in the Godhead, we must stop short of this. Specific unity and Polytheism are perfectly consistent. But the sacred writers assert a unity, which is inconsistent with polytheism.

The Reviewer will unquestionably unite with me, in averring, that to assert physical or metaphysical unity of the Godhead, would be merely using words to which no possible meaning Vol. 3-No. VIII. 55

could be attached. At least, if they have any meaning, it is one about which we can never have any knowledge, whether it be true or false. It lies beyond the boundaries of human knowledge. What unity remains then but numerical? What can we mean by asserting that there is one God, except we mean to aver, that there is only one instance, in which the attributes of Divinity co-exist and unite, so as to form one complex Power or Being, whom we style God? I can conceive of no other intelligible sense of the proposition, that God is one. And to predicate (as I have done, after the example of multitudes of orthodox writers) numerical unity of God, or of his essence and attributes, is the same thing as to say, that God in regard to number is one. If this be not the sense in which he is one, (as above explained) I confess myself unable to affix any definite idea to the assertion, that he is one, in a sense which is admissible.

But does this assertion, at all preclude the possibility of a distinction in the Godhead; a distinction not of name merely, but a real one, that is, one which has truly an existence? Í answer, not at all. I appeal now, to the constitution of the Reviewer himself. The Reviewer is numerically one man. And yet, (to follow the anthropology of the Apostle,) he has a body, an animal life, and an immortal spirit; all exceedingly different from each other, and still united in one complex existence, so as to constitute, numerically, but one man. Now apply this illustration to the subject in question. God is numerically one. But may there not be distinctions in this one God, which are real, constitutional, (if I may be pardoned for the expression,) and which lie at the foundation of all the language of the Bible, respecting Father, Son, Holy Ghost? I do not say they are the same, as the distinctions in man; the same they cannot be, for God is not corporeal. I do not even say, that they are analogous (in the limited sense of this word) to

the distinctions in man; for this would be to say, that I know in what they consist.

Whether they are distinctions in what we call attribute, or substance, or relation to us, it would be presumption in us even to attempt to determine, because the Scriptures have left it wholly undecided. Thus much is clear. The sacred writers assert the unity of God; and they, at the same time, use such language respecting Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as leads us necessarily to infer a distinction. This, theologians of ancient and modern times have denominated personal; principally, no doubt, because language is employed in the Scriptures, in respect to Father, Son, and Spirit, such as we employ, when different persons, or individuals are spoken of. But to infer mere specific unity from this would be to contradict all those parts of Revelation, which assert that God is one, in opposition to such a unity; a unity which is entirely consistent with polytheism.

The two different modes of representing the divine Being, must necessarily modify each other. Such a unity as consists with distinction must be held; and such a distinction as consists with unity. In what the distinction consists, is not revealed, and is not therefore, a proper subject of inquiry. But, as in many other cases, we are warranted to say, in some respects, in what it does not consist. It does not consist in that which would destroy numerical unity; for this is the only unity which can be predicated of the Deity. It does consist in something (in what we know not) which renders it proper to represent Father, Son and Holy Ghost, in the manner in which the Sacred Writers have represented them. But in construing their expressions, we must ever remember the poverty of language, and how utterly inadequate the terms invented by the creatures of a day to express their own distinctions and relations, must necessarily be, when applied to designate the uncreated and invisible God.

This duly remembered would no doubt, hush to silence much of the disputes about the meaning of person, as applied to the Godhead; and bring us to see, that all we know is, that the sacred writers have taught us that there is a distinction, but not what it is; and that, on their authority, this truth is to be received, as a part of the fundamental instruction which they have given us, respecting God our Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier.

With this view of the subject before me, I may venture to say, that it is impossible for Unitarians to disprove the doctrine of the Trinity; for they can neither prove it a priori to be absurd, nor show it to be impossible. The religion of nature says nothing about it. They cannot borrow, therefore, propositions from it, and carry them to the exegesis of the scriptures, to explain away the assertions there found, because, in their view philosophy may require such an explanation. All that remains for them to show is, that the sacred writers have not asserted that, which necessarily implies a distinction in the Godhead. This has not yet been done; and this, I believe, is a greater task than will soon be performed.

In regard to the Reviewer's criticism respecting the rules of interpretation, I have but a few words to say. The Reviewer has not suggested how a Unitarian can be foreclosed, by laying down these rules. After reading his remarks several times over, I am unable to fix on the point with which he means to find fault. I had said that philology, and not philosophy, was to be the interpreter of scripture. Now it is possible, I acknowledge, to understand philosophy as embracing all the acts of reasoning, which the mind performs; and then, no doubt, the Unitarian might well say, I cannot dispense with philosophy in interpreting the scripture. But is it not obvious from the tenor of my Letters, that by philosophy is meant, speculations about the nature things, which do not enter into the

common laws of exegesis, and which are sectarian? The Unitarian, to be sure, will probably say, that he has a right to introduce these, in interpreting the scriptures. But may I not say then, I have an equal right to introduce my peculiar and party philosophy, in the same mauner? What is the result? Why, that there are two different and clashing rules to interpret the Bible. What must be done then? Obviously both must be abandoned. The fact is, that the general laws of interpretation are founded on general, common sense philosophy, and not on sectarian speculations. I have said that the latter should not be used as rules of exegesis. If the Unitarian be a reasonable man, he will accede, to this. If he be not he may refuse to accede, and may follow his philosophy in interpreting the Scriptures. Nor do I see, with the Reviewer, how he can be foreclosed from doing this, until he is weaned from his excessive attachment to his favourite philosoph

ical speculations, and comes to the investigation of the Scriptures, with the same system of rules to find the meaning of them, which he would apply to the explanation of any other books.

We have from modern Chemistry, a particular view of the elements of which air is composed. But Plato has quite another view. In interpreting Plato's words respecting the ele ments of the air, shall I make him speak our philosophy, or let him speak his own? The Unitarian may not indeed be foreclosed, by such an argument as this question suggests, from applying his particular philoso phy to the interpretation of the Bible: but ought he not to be? And such is the view, presented in the passage on which the Reviewer comments. At least, if it be not, I have failed to communicate the ideas which I had in my mind, at the time of writing it.

I am Yours, &c.
M. STUART.

[blocks in formation]

Literary and Philosophical Intelligence.

Proposals have been issued at Liverpool, Eng. for publishing by subscription, under the direction of William Roscoe, Esq. the works of the most celebrated Italian poets.

Monument to Copernicus.-A colos

sal monument is to be erected to the memory of this great astronomer at Warsaw, by voluntary contribution.

At the commencement at Union College, on the 25th ult. sixty-seven persons were admitted to the degree of Bachelor of Arts, and six to that of Master of Arts.

At the commencement at the University of Pennsylvania on the 26th ult. the degree of Bachelor of Arts was conferred on thirty-five; that of Master of Arts on eight, and that of Doctor of Medicine on one.

Mitchell's Cave.-A cave has been discovered in the town of Canajoharie,

66

Montgomery County, N. Y. of which the party who explored it, give the following account: They descended by a rope about sixteen feet, to a room eleven feet high and arched. At the extremity of this room they found a narrow passage, too small for a corpulent man like the Doctor. The rest of the party, through this passage, which is about twenty feet long, entered a second room more spacious than the first. They thence descended at various angles with the horizon, through narrow passes, from room to room, till they reached, in regular succession, the tenth apartment, besides several lateral rooms, leading out of these several apartments.

of their descent was more than five "They supposed the whole depth hundred feet; and much of the cavern probably remains unexplored. Innumerable stalactites are suspended from the ceilings of the rooms, and from the

projecting rocks in the walls. The mouth of the cave is about forty chains south of the line of the Erie canal."

It appears from a recent census, that the population of the Russian Empire amounts to 55,816,707 individuals, among whom are 38,262,000 who profess the Greek religion. Poland has a population of 2,732,324.

We publish, from the National Gazette, some facts connected with the

arrival of the Discovery ships in the

Polar Sea.

vanced to the southward. By observation, they found that when the true course of the Hecla was about S. S. W. the binnacle and azimuth compasses at the same time agreed in showing N. N. W. 1-2 W. making the variation to be allowed on that course, eleven points and a half westerly. It was erident, therefore, that a very material change had taken place in the dip or the variation, or in both these phenomena, which rendered it probable that they were making a very near approach to the magnetic pole.

"We now, therefore," says Captain On the 1st of August Captain Parry Parry, "witnessed, for the first time, entered Lancaster's Sound, which has the curious phenomenon of the directobtained much celebrity from the very ive power of the needle becoming so opposite opinions which have been weak, as to be completely overcome held with regard to it. To him it was by the attraction of the ship; so that particularly interesting, as being the the needle might now be properly said point to which his instructions more to point to the north pole of the ship. particularly directed his attention. On It was only, however, in those comthe 2nd, they sounded with the deep passes in which the lightness of the sea clamms, and found 1050 fathoms cards, and great delicacy in the susby the line; but as, where the sound- pension, had been particularly attendings exceed five or six hundred fath- ed to, that even this degree of uniformoms, there is some uncertainty, Capt. ity prevailed; for, in the heavier cards, Parry supposes the actual depth to the friction upon the points of suspenhave been from eight to nine hundred sion was much too great to be overfathoms. Sir George Hope's monu- come even by the ship's attraction, ment, which had been thought an island they consequently remained indifand in the former voyage, was now discovered to be a dark-looking and conspicuous hill on the main land. On the 30th, the Hecla had gained somewhat on the Griper, and was in lat. 74 deg. 25 min. 31 sec. long. 80 deg. 4 min. 30 sec.

On the following day they came near two inlets, in lat. 74 deg. 15 min. 63 sec. N. long. 86 deg. 30 min. 30 sec.; these they named Burnet's Inlet and Stratton Inlet. The cliffs on this part of the coast present a singular appearance, being stratified horizontally, and having a number of regular projecting masses of rock, broad at the bottom, and coming to a point at the top, resembling so may buttresses raised by art at equal intervals. Some islands, to which the name of Prince Leopold was given, were also stratified horizontally, but without the buttress-like projections.

From the time that Capt. Parry first entered Lancaster's Sound, the sluggishness of the compasses, as well as the amount of their irregularity, had been found to increase rapidly, though uniformly. The irregularity became more and more obvious as they ad

ferently in any position in which they
happened to be placed. For the pur-
poses
of navigation, therefore, the com-
passes were from this time no longer
consulted; and, in a few days after-
wards, the binnacles were removed as
useless lumber, from the deck to the
carpenter's store room, where they re-
mained during the rest of the season,
the azimuth compass alone being kept
on deck, for the purpose of watching
any changes which might take place in
the directive power of the needle : and
the true course and direction of the
wind were in future noted in the log-
book, as obtained to the nearest quar-
ter-point, when the sun was visible, by
the azimuth of that object and the ap-
parent time."

On the following day, (the 8th of August,) the directive power of the magnet seemed to be weaker than erer; for the North Pole of the needle, in Capt. Alter's steering compass, in which the friction is almost entirely removed by a thread suspension, was observed to point steadily towards the ship's head, in whatever direction the latter was placed. An accidental circumstance convinced Capt. Parry that

there was no current setting constantly in one direction. A small piece of wood was picked up, which appeared to have been the end of a boat's yard, and which caused sundry ainusing speculations among the gentlemen on board, who felt rather mortified to think that a ship had been there before them, and that, therefore, they were not entitled to the honour of the first discovery. A stop was suddenly put to this and other ingenious inductions, by the information of one of the seamen, who said that he dropped it out of his boat a fortnight before.

The vessels continued their progress, and several bays, capes, and headlands were discovered, and received names by the voyagers. On the 22nd, they had a clear and extensive view to the northward, free from ice; and they now felt that they had actually entered the Polar Sea. The magnificent opening, through which their passage had been effected, from Baffin's Bay to a channel dignified with the name of Wellington, was called Barrow's Straits, after the Secretary of the Admiralty.

In lat. 75 deg. 33 min. 12 sec. long. 103 deg. 44 min. 37 sec. an island was discovered, and Capt. Sabine, with two other officers, landed on it near the east point, which was called Cape Gillman. The gentlemen reported, on their return, that

"The remains of Esquimaux habitations were found in four different places. Six of these, which Capt. Sabine had an opportunity of examining, and which are situated on a level sandy bank, at the side of a small ravine near the sea, are described by him as consisting of stones rudely placed in a cir

cular or rather elliptical form. They were from seven to ten feet in diameter; the broad flat sides of the stones standing vertically, and the whole structure, if such it may be called, being exactly similar to that of the summer huts of the Esquimaux, which had been seen at Hare Island, the preceding year. Attached to each of them was a small circle, generally four or five feet in diameter, which had probably been the fire place."

The whole encampment appeared to have been deserted for several years; but very recent traces of the rein-deer and musk ox were seen in many pla

ces.

On the 2nd of September a star was seen, being the first that had been visible for more than two months. Two days afterwards, namely, on the 4th, at a quarter past nine, P. M. the ships crossed the meridian of 110 deg. west from Greenwich, in the latitude of 74 deg. 44 min. 20 sec. by which they were entitled to the reward of £5000. In order to commemorate the event, a bluff headland that they had just passed was called Bounty Cape. On the following day they dropped anchor, for the first time since quitting the English coast, in a roadstead, which was called the Bay of the Hecla and Griper, and the crews landed on the largest of a group of islands, which was called Melville Island. "The ensigns and pendants," says Captain Parry, "were hoisted as soon as we had anchored, and it created in us no erdinary feelings of pleasure, to see the British flag waving, for the first time, in these regions, which had hitherto been considered beyond the limits of the habitable part of the world."

[blocks in formation]
« IndietroContinua »