Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

The Truth and Consistency of Divine Revelation; with some Remarks on the contrary Extremes of Infidelity and Enthusiasm, in Eight Discourses, delivered before the University of Oxford, at St. Mary's, in the Year 1811, at the Lecture founded by the late Rep. John Bampton, Canon of Salisbury. By JOHN BIDLAKE, D. D. of Christ Church, Oxford, Chaplain to their Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Clarence. Oxford Parker. London: Longman. 1811. 8vo. pp.

250.

DR. BIDLAKE has already appeared before the public, both as a writer of sermons and a writer of poems; but it never has been our good fortune to become acquainted with him, in either capacity, until we met with his present work, which affords us a good opportunity of appreciating both the extent of his theological knowledge, and the inventive powers of his mind. On opening the volume before us, we were prepossessed in the author's favour, by the modesty of his preface. But it is vain to deny, because it cannot long be concealed, that this prepossession was gradually weakened as we proceeded through his pages; and we shut the book with a feeling of disappointment, rendered more painful by our favourable anticipations. But let us not pronounce sentence before we have summed up the evidence, at least before we have stated some of the grounds on which we have formed our decision.

The first Lecture is entitled, "On Infidelity in general." And here the author proposes to shew," that the evidences of revealed religion are capable of a very high degree of demonstration." He no sooner makes the proposal, however, than he appears to lose sight of it; and the sermon closes without a single attempt having been made, at least that we can discover, to carry it into effect. Instead of a chain of connected reasoning, leading to his

[ocr errors]

promised conclusion, we have a out cohesion or consistency, which mere school-boy declamation, withsets analysis at defiance, and leaves us in astonishment that an author, who renounces all claim to originality, and professes only" to extract or concentre" what he found in the able and ingenious writers who had gone before him, should have so dexterously missed every thing in their writings which was calculated to advance his object. We have abundance of assertion, indeed, and much that is asserted is very true. But then we have no argument, no proof, no demonstration; and these were what he had taught us to look for. We admit it to be perfectly right for preachers, in general, to assume the truth of revelation, and to build their rea sonings and exhortations, their invitations and remonstrances, on that assumption. But surely, when a preacher announces his intention of grappling with the infidel, he ought not to take for granted the very point in dispute, and give us only bare assertions; or disjointed and desultory observations, which point to no conclusion. What, for instance, shall we make of the following passages; or what place shall we assign them in a discourse intended to shew," that the evi dences of religion are capable of a very high degree of demonstra, tion?"

"It seems to be permitted by Divine Providence, that error should be opposed, to truth. Perhaps the latter may be elicited and confirmed by the same means which are successful in human discovery, Its lustre does not indeed burst on us with irresistible power, but sheds on us a milder light, better objects, that they are at once rendered acadapted to our capacity, and so ilinminating cessible and distinct. p. 7.

What does all this mean? But again.

"There is a spirit of presumption which resents instruction; and the temper of in

gratitude is often so rancorous, that it de rives a malicious satisfaction in repaying bounty with injury, and conciliation with insult." p. 9.

"There is another species of character, either of natural or acquired apathy, which appears incapable of being affected by any thing great or feeling." p. 11.

A good mind easily amalgamates with religion*; but one soured by discontent, or agitated by turbulent passions, will admit nothing exhilarating, and, like deeper colours, will absorb the rays of light. Such characters acquire a distaste for all that is good or excellent, and delight not in any contemplation which has a tendency to promote a love and veneration of the Divine Being. They look upon all the manifestations of his mercy and goodness with a sullen and a stupid indifference. In vain the sun cherishes or enlightens: they feel not its warmth: they are not kindled into love or gratitude." p. 12.

This may all be very eloquent: but what does it prove? Certainly nothing of what the author proposed to prove. But once more.

"Of Atheists we need not treat, since it may reasonably be doubted whether such really exist; for the impious often confess by their fears the weakness of their boast. Pretensions to such disgusting impiety are the effects of mental derangement, and are always accompanied with a total depravity of morals. It is the madness of wickedness, and the last state of corruption. But the manners of the Deist are more insinuating aud plausible, and by such the unsuspicious are too easily deluded. The one immediately alarms a good mind, and he carries in his defiance the same external signs of ferocity which characterize animals of prey: the other is at once fair and venomous, mild and subtle, gentle and treacherous: his words are enticing, but infuse a slow and a secret poison, which saps the moral constitution, and vitiates the soul." pp. 13, 14.

Here the preacher, who sets off with doubting whether such an animal as an Atheist exists, ends with

his mental qualities, but of his pera particular description, not only of sonal appearance, and with an exact specification of the generic marks by which he may be distinguished from the Deist. But this volume affords frequent instances of these petty contradictions, which

In other words, “a religious mind" (for Dr. Bidlake will hardly affirm that any other can be good)" will easily amalgamate with religion!"

lessness of a writer, and to shew serve to manifest the noble carehow well he can unite the licence of argumentative theology. of poetry with the more rigid rules To go no farther for an example than this first sermon: The author, after teaching us to believe "that the designs and principles of the infidel, however candid in appearance, are really unfair and malignant," (p. 8.) and that "infidelity is the crime of the profligate of every description," (p. 9.) proceeds to disclaim the uncharitable intention of accusing all infidels "of bad morals ;" nay, he grieves "that there should sometimes be found men of exemplary character, who yet are under this melancholy infatuation," (p. 10.) Notwithstanding this disclaimer, however, we find him, at the 14th page, representing the Deist's "life sions;" "he disguises vice under as ever at variance with his profesthe specious garb of some excellence," and "is the dupe and slave of his passions."

But it is time that we should advert to some of the religious sentiments of the author, which appear in this discourse. "A cheerful and easy temper," says Dr. Bidlake, on all the works of the Almighty "will incline us to look not only with delight, but to love his moral perfections, and to feel an interest in all that relates to him." We certainly are no enemies to cheerfulness. We believe it to be one of the natural fruits of true reli gion. Religion, therefore, may incline us to cheerfulness; but it is

ligion. On the contrary, we should not so obvious how a cheerful and easy temper should incline us to refounded in religious principle, is fear that such a temper, when not too nearly allied to thoughtlessness tive of the noble effects attributed and inconsideration, to be producto it by Dr. Bidlake. The gay. laughing, airy Oxonians, who listened to his sermon, might, indeed, not be unwilling to believe the preacher, and to take credit to

themselves for loving God's moral perfections, because their temper was easy and cheerful; but is this the feeling with which a minister of the Gospel would wish them to quit the house of God? The persons, of whom we read in the Bible, whose maxim was, "Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die," were probably as easy and cheerful as the greatest admirers of those qualities could wish them to be. But does either Isaiah or St. Paul regard such as enviable characters?

At the 27th page, we have another passage of the same equivocal, and therefore hurtful description.

"He may sincerely believe in the truth, who has not grace sufficient to resist temptation: even all profligate men are not in this sense infidels. They may always be promising themselves reformation. But here lies the distinction; if we consent to the sacrifice of principle, or if, having no faith, we profess what we do not believe, for interested motives only, this is indeed detesta ble hypocrisy. If men make ostentatious professions of humility, or of voluntary po verty, to cover the designs of artifice, and yet betray an eagerness to deceive; or privately enriching themselves overreach, or take advantage of a neighbour, their religion is indeed vain." pp. 27, 28.

And is not his religion also in deed vain, who has not grace suffi, cient to resist temptation; or who is profligate; even though he should promise himself reformation? This man knows his Master's will, and yet does it not. What, then, are the extenuating circumstances in his case (in the case of this profligate) which exempt him from the condemnation of the insincere professor? He may not be condemned for insin cerity; but will he not be condemn ed for profligacy! But Dr. Bidlake assumes that this profligate character may be a sincere believer. If so, what becomes of the doctrine main tained in other parts of this volume that "faith, in the sense of the articles and of Scripture, supposes goodness or virtue" (p. 199), and (p. 206) that the sincere believer" is to be known by his

fruits? But it would be endless to point out all the inconsistencies of this kind which are to be found in these sermons.

There is only another passage in this sermon to which we mean to refer, as indicating a defective view of the religion which the author has undertaken to defend. Speak ing of the infidel, he observes.

"He takes away the foundation of hope; he leaves us nothing to cheer the sadness, or to soothe the pains of existence. We are overwhelmed with misfortune; we are excruciated by pain; we linger under the tortures of disease; we pine under the langour of ill-health." p. 32.

Now in this, and much more of a similar kind which follows, there is no distinct reference to our redemption from the guilt and punishment of sin by the death of Christ, nor tó the renewal of our souls in the divine image by the power of the Holy Ghost, which are the primę blessings of the Gospel. We are far from meaning to intimate that Dr. Bidlake ought to be regard ed as not holding these essential points of the Christian faith, On the contrary, we perceive with plea sure a distinct recognition of the doctrine of redemption, in the subse quent discourses; and in the Lec. ture we are now considering, as well as in others, something is said, though indistinctly, about spiritual aid. What we complain of is this, that when contrasting the blessings of the Christian faith with the miseries of infidelity, he should have been able to merge, as it were, eternity in time,-to overlook, in his enumeration of blessings, those which exceed in importance all the rest, and which constitute what is emphatically cal led "the Gospel"-the glad news of salvation from sin and merited wrath, and of restoration to the fayour of God, and the hope of hea

[blocks in formation]

mark which has at least novelty to recommend it. "Before we can en tertain any faith in the Christian revelation, it is necessary for us to possess a firm conviction of the doctrine of a particular Providence, which constitutes the basis of reveJation," p. 36. But how should we know this doctrine but from revelation? We must therefore have faith in revelation, before we can possess à firm conviction of its truth. Dr. Bidlake, however, whimsically e nough, reverses this order, and makes the doctrine of a particular Providence the basis of revelation; though our faith in that doctrine is obviously founded on revelation, and our very knowledge of it derived from the same source. As for the rest of the sermon, it seems to be only an attempt, not very ably executed, "to extract and concentre" the Natural Theology of Dr. Paley.

The third lecture is "on the Mosaic," and the fourth "on the Christian Dispensation." Here Dr. Bidlake lays it down as a first principle, with respect both to the Mosaic and Christian dispensations, that if it can be made to appear that their doctrines "contain any proposition, or recommend any practice, contrary to the received opinions of the attributes of God, this would be a reasonable cause of objection." "But if a revelation contain all the characters of divinity which natural reason has agreed to be the attributes of God, then it comes impressed with the marks of its true origin," p. 105. Received opinions of the attributes of God! Received by whom? By the three hundred millions idolatrous disciples of Confucius, or by the almost equally numerous worshippers of the Grand Lama, and of Bramah, Vishnou, Seeva, and Buddha? By the Mussulmans and stupid idolaters of various descriptions spread over the continents of Asia and Africa, or by the Aborigines of America? "If a revelation has all the characters of divinity which natural reason has agreed to be the attributes of God,

then it comes impressed with the marks of divinity." What, then, are those attributes which natural reason has assigned to God? Where are we to look for them? In the wri tings of the Grecian or Oriental philosophers, or of those modern philosophers who, rejecting revelation, have trusted to their "natural reason"? That we are to try the truth of revelation by natural reason; what is this but the fundamental position of the Socinian scheme? Relying on this guide, the Socinians have rejected the doctrines of original sin and human depravity, of the divinity of Jesus Christ and the atonement offered by him for sin, of the agency of the Holy Ghost and the existence and influence of evil spirits. These they affirm that natural reason pronounces to be inconsistent with the attributes of God; and, proceeding on the principle of Dr. Bidlake, they have therefore rejected them.

It is not necessary, however, to refer to the Socinian creed in illustration of the fallacious and mischievous nature of the criterion of truth which is here proposed. What are" the received opinions" of the great mass of worldly men and women around us, respecting the attributes of God and the obligations of man? What does their "natural reason" teach them on these points?

[ocr errors]

God," say they, "is too good and merciful to make his creatures miserable, merely for indulging those natural propensities which his own band has implanted. Our pas sions and appetites would not have been given us by a wise and gracious Being, if he had not intended that we should indulge them." Is not this the kind of language which is daily heard from persons calling themselves Christians? In truth, the right knowledge of God is so far from being (as Dr. Bidlake's position supposes) a fruit of natural reason, the spontaneous product of the human mind, that it is one of the highest acquisitions of the true disciple of Christ. Our Lord himself de

clares it to be life eternal to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent. Dr. Bidlake is a great enemy to enthusiasm, and so are we. But we will venture to say, that the wildest enthusiasm which any Bampton lecturer has ever feigned, could hardly do more injury to the cause of religion than the sentiment thus soberly enounced by our author, if it were to be generally received. It would place our faith not on the undoubted declarations of Scripture, proved to be divine by the most overwhelming evidence, but on the varying opinions, the fallible reasonings of man. And thus in his better moments, with a happy inconsistency, does even Dr. B. himself argue in the following passage; so that we might have spared our remarks, and contented ourselves with setting the author to confute his own errors, had we not been anxious to avail ourselves of the opportunity of combating an absurd but too prevalent opinion.

«The declarations of God are plain. It is clear that man may offend; that God may be displeased; that a Saviour may purchase redemption for us. But when we forsake the plain sense of Scripture, and substitute our own fallible reasoning, we forsake a clear and direct path for the mazes of intricacy, then our light is turned into darkness." p. 108.

Dr. Bidlake gives us, at p. 106, a luminous statement, in the words of Scripture, taken from the fifth chapter of St. Paul's epistle to the Romans, of the doctrine of original sin, and salvation by the death of Christ. Had the whole volume been in unison with this passage, we should have had unmixed praise to bestow on its author. We proceed to the less grateful task of animadverting upon a few among many passages of a more questionable description.

"The Christian dispensation proposes its threatenings only to sinners, but invites the good by the softest persuasion," p. 111. And yet our Lord himself says, that he

[ocr errors]

came "not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance." He died "for the ungodly," for "sinners," for his enemies." What persuasion can be softer than that which God addresses not to the good, but to the bad? Let the wicked forsake his way," &c.

[ocr errors]

Though your sins be as scarlet they shall be as white as snow," &c. "Turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways, for why will ye die?" "0 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"

"We are told" (in Scripture we presume), "that we must act as ordinary men, and engage as such in the general system of life. If Christians, therefore, prove better than other men, it must proceed from their own application of the grace bestowed by Heaven. It is indeed reasonably to be expected that men will act as men, because all this is foretold; and against all this are we not frequently forewarned?" pp. 115,

116.

If the first clause of this quotation had not been contradicted by the last, we should have been disposed to ask Dr. Bidlake what the apostle meant, when he said "Be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your minds."

The parables of our Lord, observes our author, seem to prove "the folly of those who consider moral topics beneath the dignity of the preacher, or the faith of the Christian." We have quoted this passage, not for the purpose of controverting it, but for the purpose of introducing a few expla natory remarks. We do not deny that individuals may be found so absurd and ignorant as to object to any exposition of Christian duties from the pulpit. We believe, however, that their number is very small, particularly within the pale of the Church of England. The objection generally made_to_the preachers, whose defence Dr. Bid

« AnteriorContinuar »