_Philosophia Sacra, or the principles of natural Philosophy. Extracted
from Divine Revelation._ By the Rev. Samuel Pike.[533] Edited by the
Rev. Samuel Kittle.[534] Edinburgh, 1815, 8vo.
This is a work of modified Hutchinsonianism, which I have seen cited by
several. Though rather dark on the subject, it seems not to contradict the
motion of the earth, or the doctrine of gravitation. Mr. Kittle gives a
list of some Hutchinsonians,--as Bishop Horne;[535] Dr. Stukeley;[536] the
Rev. {237} W. Jones,[537] author of _Physiological Disquisitions_; Mr.
Spearman,[538] author of _Letters on the Septuagint_ and editor of
Hutchinson; Mr. Barker,[539] author of _Reflexions on Learning_; Dr.
Catcott,[540] author of a work on the creation, &c.; Dr. Robertson,[541]
author of a _Treatise on the Hebrew Language_; _Dr. Holloway_,[542] author
of _Originals, Physical and Theological_; Dr. Walter Hodges,[543] author of
a work on _Elohim_; Lord President Forbes (_ob._ 1747).[544]
The Rev. William Jones, above mentioned (1726-1800), the friend and
biographer of Bishop Horne and his stout {238} defender, is best known as
William Jones of Nayland, who (1757)[545] published the _Catholic Doctrine
of the Trinity_; he was also strong for the Hutchinsonian physical trinity
of fire, light, and spirit. This well-known work was generally recommended,
as the defence of the orthodox system, to those who could not go into the
learning of the subject. There is now a work more suited to our time: _The
Rock of Ages_, by the Rev. E. H. Bickersteth,[546] now published by the
Religious Tract Society, without date, answered by the Rev. Dr.
Sadler,[547] in a work (1859) entitled _Gloria Patri_, in which, says Mr.
Bickersteth, "the author has not even attempted to grapple with my main
propositions." I have read largely on the controversy, and I think I know
what this means. Moreover, when I see the note "There are two other
passages to which Unitarians sometimes refer, but the deduction they draw
from them is, in each case, refuted by the context"--I think I see why the
two texts are not named. Nevertheless, the author is a little more disposed
to yield to criticism than his foregoers; he does not insist on texts and
readings which the greatest editors have rejected. And he writes with
courtesy, both direct and oblique, towards his antagonists; which, on his
side of this subject, is like letting in fresh air. So that I suspect the
two books will together make a tolerably good introduction to the subject
for those who cannot go deep. Mr. Bickersteth's book is well arranged and
indexed, which is a point of superiority to Jones of Nayland. There is a
point which I should gravely recommend to writers on the orthodox side. The
Unitarians in {239} England have frequently contended that the method of
proving the divinity of Jesus Christ from the New Testament would equally
prove the divinity of Moses. I have not fallen in the way of any orthodox
answers specially directed at the repeated tracts written by Unitarians in
proof of their assertion. If there be any, they should be more known; if
there be none, some should be written. Which ever side may be right, the
treatment of this point would be indeed coming to close quarters. The
heterodox assertion was first supported, it is said, by John Bidle or
Biddle (1615-1662) of Magdalen College, Oxford, the earliest of the English
Unitarian writers, previously known by a translation of part of Virgil and
part of Juvenal.[548] But I cannot find that he wrote on it.[549] It is the
subject of "[Greek: haireseon anastasis], or a new way of deciding old
controversies. By Basanistes. Third edition, enlarged," London, 1815,
8vo.[550] It is the appendix to the amusing, "Six more letters to Granville
Sharp, Esq., ... By Gregory Blunt, Esq." London, 8vo., 1803.[551] This much
I can confidently say, that the study of these tracts would prevent
orthodox writers from some curious slips, which are slips obvious to all
sides of opinion. The lower defenders of orthodoxy frequently vex the
spirits of the higher ones.
Since writing the above I have procured Dr. Sadler's answer. I thought I
knew what the challenger meant when he said the respondent had not grappled
with his main {240} propositions. I should say that he is clung on to from
beginning to end. But perhaps Mr. B. has his own meaning of logical terms,
such as "proposition": he certainly has his own meaning of "cumulative." He
says his evidence is cumulative; not a catena, the strength of which is in
its weakest part, but distinct and independent lines, each of which
corroborates the other. This is the very opposite of _cumulative_: it is
_distributive_. When different arguments are each necessary to a
conclusion, the evidence is _cumulative_; when any one will do, even though
they strengthen each other, it is _distributive_. The word "cumulative" is
a synonym of the law word "constructive"; a whole which will do made out of
parts which separately will not. Lord Strafford [552] opens his defence
with the use of both words: "They have invented a kind of _accumulated_ or
_constructive_ evidence; by which many actions, either totally innocent in
themselves, or criminal in a much inferior degree, shall, when united,
_amount_ to treason." The conclusion is, that Mr. B. is a Cambridge man;
the Oxford men do not confuse the elementary terms of logic. O dear old
Cambridge! when the New Zealander comes let him find among the relics of
your later sons some proof of attention to the elementary laws of thought.
A little-go of logic, please!
Mr. B., though apparently not a Hutchinsonian, has a nibble at a physical
Trinity. "If, as we gaze on the sun shining in the firmament, we see any
faint adumbration of the doctrine of the Trinity in the fontal orb, the
light ever generated, and the heat proceeding from the sun and its
beams--threefold and yet one, the sun, its light, and its {241} heat,--that
luminous globe, and the radiance ever flowing from it, are both evident to
the eye; but the vital warmth is felt, not seen, and is only manifested in
the life it transfuses through creation. The proof of its real existence is
self-demonstrating."
We shall see how Revilo[553] illustrates orthodoxy by mathematics. It was
my duty to have found one of the many illustrations from physics; but
perhaps I should have forgotten it if this instance had not come in my way.
It is very bad physics. The sun, apart from its light, evident to the eye!
Heat more self-demonstrating than light, because _felt_! Heat only
manifested by the life it diffuses! Light implied not necessary to life!
But the theology is worse than Sabellianism[554]. To adumbrate--i.e., make
a picture of--the orthodox doctrine, the sun must be heavenly body, the
light heavenly body, the heat heavenly body; and yet, not three heavenly
bodies, but one heavenly body. The truth is, that this illustration and
many others most strikingly illustrate the Trinity of fundamental doctrine
held by the Unitarians, in all its differences from the Trinity of persons
held by the Orthodox. Be right which may, the right or wrong of the
Unitarians shines out in the comparison. Dr. Sadler confirms me--by which I
mean that I wrote the above before I saw what he says--in the following
words: "The sun is one object with two _properties_, and these properties
have a parallel not in the second and third persons of the Trinity, but in
the attributes of Deity."
The letting light alone, as self-evident, and making heat
self-demonstrating, because felt--i.e., perceptible now and then--has the
character of the Irishman's astronomy:
{242}
"Long life to the moon, for a dear noble cratur,
Which serves us for lamplight all night in the dark,
While the sun only shines in the day, which by natur,
Wants no light at all, as ye all may remark."