Pride of sight, an illustration Those who identify their own explanations of Scripture with the word of God are guilty of pride of reason. ....... 84, 85 The spirit of Orthodoxy inseparable from pride of reason The Trinitarians and the Unitarians compared in regard to pride of The New Testament compared with the orthodox system, in regard to The orthodox doctrines cannot be divested of their verbal mysterious- 94, 95 OBSERVATIONS, &c. MY DEAR FRIEND, LETTER I. You desire to have a compendious history of Heresy, and of the various means which have been employed by Christians to prevent it. Since, a few years ago, I undertook to write a history of the Inquisition, I have never lost sight of that subject. My daily reading has generally had some reference to it; and there are copious notes among my papers which attest how earnestly I have wished to accomplish the intended work. Were it not an historical task, and, consequently, one which demands research, I believe that, in spite of a broken constitution, I should not have found it (as has hitherto happened) totally above my power. But an old man, nearly confined to his room, cannot by dint of industry and perseverance supply the want of an extensive library of reference; and, as I see no immediate probability of removing this difficulty, I much fear that either my remaining mental activity, or my life, will be at an end before I can write my intended History of the Inquisition. Yet I am extremely anxious not to drop into my grave without imparting to my fellow-christians what I consider the most important part of the proposed work. I am convinced, that in vain should I accumulate narratives of horrors perpetrated by the various authorities to which we may, collectively, give the name of Inquisition, unless I defined the object against which their efforts have been directed. The awful realities of those efforts crowd upon my mind the moment that the name Inquisition is uttered; yet one full half of my subject assumes the character of a shadow every time I attempt to place it before me. What is Heresy? I well know the sufferings which this word has oc B casioned to millions of individuals who gloried in the name of Christians. I know that among the sources of bitter anguish which have sprung up in the Christian world, as distinguished from the ancient and from the still unchristianized societies, none can contend with Heresy. But when I ask, What is Heresy ? I find no one who can give me a satisfactory answer. Can it be, then, that the torrents of tears and blood which have been shed on account of heresy have been occasioned by a phantom, a mental shadow, a mere mist of the mind? Many, I suspect, will consider this question as totally unconnected with a history of the Inquisition, chiefly intended for the use of Protestants. Among such readers not one can be found ignorant of the meaning of heresy, as punished by that tribunal. "What (it will be said) is this speculative question to us? Let us have facts from which we may derive a clear and vivid idea of the excesses and horrors into which Roman Catholic bigotry is able to betray even sincerely pious men of that communion." Now, if I could acquiesce in this wish, I should be attempting a worse than useless work. I cannot add any new horrors to those which, in connexion with the Inquisition, both the pen and the graver have already laid before the public. We certainly have reason to be glad that such records have not been lost. But the bare repetition of pictures so shocking and heartrending is by no means instructive, and may be, in many cases, injurious. When dwelling upon the cruelties of the Inquisitors, such Christians as still consider it a moral duty to oppose heresy by the infliction of some kind and degree of suffering, are apt to exult in their own enlightened Christianity, and feel more and more confident that, by the mere diminution of punishment the act of persecuting religious error may be changed into an act of charity. But be it far from me to cherish such a delusion among Protestants, by casting unnecessary odium upon the Catholics. Yet such must be the effect of a history of the Inquisition which does not begin by settling the notions of Heresy and Orthodoxy. The Protestant's sympathy for those who have suffered in defence of his own opinions, or rather for opposing those he detests, may easily prove pernicious to both his intellect and heart. Sympathy, when originating in the interests of a cause with which we are identified, may be gross and passionate selfishness. The usual disguise of this perverted feeling is love of Christian truth. The generality of Protestants are satisfied when they tell you that they abhor the Church of Rome, because she opposes Christian truth by persecution. But these Protestants ought to remember, that it was in defence of Christian truth that the Inquisitors lighted up their fires. I foresee the inevitable result of what I have said. I know that the number of sincere Protestants who will not be shocked by this representation of the Inquisition is extremely small. On reading it, the brain of many well-meaning persons will be instantly seized with a feverish confusion, which, if encouraged by circumstances, would lead them to renew the old Smithfield scenes on the man who, calling himself a Protestant, has the boldness to assert that the Inquisition had Christian truth for its object. But let us consider what is that which men understand by Christian truth, when they accuse another of heretical error; in other words, what is that which the Catholics have thought it their duty to defend by severe punishments, and many or most of the Protestants by penalties or privations less revolting? 66 My fancy sets before me the immense variety of expressions by which, when these lines are laid before the public, the countenances of my readers will shew their disapprobation of the question which I have just now proposed. What! are Christians to be asked by one who professes Christianity, what is meant by Christian truth? Does this writer mean to insinuate that Christian truth has no real existence?" Still, I must insist upon having an answer to my question. For, seeing Christians shedding each others' blood during many centuries, and, even at this day, ready to draw the sword in favour of opposite doctrines, to which the various parties, respectively, give the name of Christian truth, I have a strong ground to believe that there is some grievous error concealed in those two words. Nor is this at all surprising. The more obvious and plain the leading terms of some questions appear, the greater the danger of their being used by the disputants in various and even opposite senses, without the least suspicion of inaccuracy; for nothing appears more free from obscurity than words of indefinite meaning, when they become familiar. What do divines understand by Christian truth? The answer, at first, appears obvious. "Christian truth (it will be said) is what Christ and his apostles knew and taught concerning salvation under the Gospel." Thus far we find no difficulty: but (let me ask again) where does this exist as an object external to our minds? The answer appears no less obvious than the former: "In the Bible."-Still I must ask, Is the MATERIAL Bible the Christian truth about which Christians dispute? "No: (it will be readily said) not the MATERIAL Bible, but the SENSE of the Bible."-Now (I beg to know) is the SENSE of the Bible an object external to our minds? Does any sense of the Bible, accessible to man, exist anywhere but in the mind of each man who receives it from the words he reads? The Divine Mind certainly knows in what sense those words were used; but as we cannot compare our mental impressions with that model and original of all truth, it is clear that by the sense of the Bible we must mean our own sense of its meaning. When, therefore, any man declares his intention to defend Christian truth, he only expresses his determination to defend his own notions, as produced by the words of the Bible. No other Christian truth exists for us in our present state. I feel confident that what I have now stated is a fact which every reflecting person may ascertain beyond doubt, by looking into his own mind: yet I know that few will attempt the mental examination necessary for the acknowledgment of this fact. A storm of feeling will rise at the view of the preceding argument, and impassioned questions, whether Christianity is a dream-whether Christ could leave us in such a state of uncertainty--whether there is no difference between truth and error, with many others more directly pointed at myself, will bring the inquiry to the end of all theological questions-abuse, hatred, and (were it not for the protection, alas! of the great and powerful multitude who, "caring not for these things,” take, nevertheless, more interest in the public peace than Gallio) severe bodily suffering, and perhaps death. |