Conversations on Religion, with Lord Byron
Second Conversation
At last I met Count G. in the street
of Argostoli, and he told me that Lord Byron had
resolved to depart to continental Greece in about ten days. I therefore determined to visit
him, both from a sense of respect due to him, and to gratify my own curiosity in hearing
and seeing a man so distinguished. I rode out to Metaxata, and fortunately found him at
home. He received me very politely, and offered me refreshments, which I declined: he then
said, “We must have dinner very soon.” I expressed my hope that if he
had any engagement he would tell me, and not from mere politeness allow me to interrupt
him; he said that he really had none, and was glad to see me, and have an opportunity of
conversing with me.
I told him I would have done myself the honour of visiting him before, but I
was afraid of intruding; I had, however, been preparing myself to be ready to meet him, and
probably had wasted
132 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
my time on subjects which he might deem of little
importance. He asked me what they were, and on being informed, he smiled, and said,
“These certainly are things which I do not trouble myself with at present. I
chiefly would desire to hear the motives and the reasons which influenced you to a
profession of Christianity, and which convinced you, as a man of sense and reflection,
of the truth of that religion.” He asked me what progress I had made in
converting B. and C., naming them.
I gave him a faithful and particular account, describing the effects on each,
according to their character;—I said, “The misfortune is, these young men
are all in health and strength; the world affords them pleasures and delights, which
fully occupy their time and care; and at present they esteem it to be both very
ungenteel and very unphilosophical, to be strict either in studying religion, or in
practising the duties which it inculcates: while their inclinations and prejudices are
such,” I added, “it is impossible to expect from them a patient
hearing, far less a serious examination of the evidence which I lay before them; for,
while I bring forward what I think may be useful, they are lying in wait for critical
objec-
tions, and often turn everything into ridicule; then
again discussions arise which terminate as distantly as possibly from the point at
which we set out.”
I confessed that my hopes were not strong, yet I would go on as long as they
wished to meet me, merely with the view of convincing them occasionally of their ignorance,
and of the impossibility of their reasoning justly on a subject, of which they knew so
little: it might hereafter be productive of benefit to them. If men are once brought, by
whatever external cause, to consider the necessity of the question, whether Christianity
is, or is not true, they will bestow on it much attention and study: if they do so, the
inevitable result will be a conviction of its truth.
Lord B. said that he had met with many who had talked in
this way. Some of them were clergymen, who used such arguments with the same indifference
with which they often read their prayers, and apparently because it was a part of the duty
for which they were paid. He knew one gentleman, a layman, who endeavoured to convert him.
He mentioned his name, which I forget; but his arguments, he said, did not make much
impression upon him, he did not know why.
134 |
CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION |
|
I remarked that the clearest arguments would be of no avail if they were
addressed to an inattentive or prejudiced hearer. “If your lordship,” I
added, “uses that reason, which God has given you, in investigating the evidence
of the Christian religion, you cannot fail to be convinced. If you reject it without
examination, then that same reason must compel you to admit, that you reject it without
knowing its principles, and are influenced not by sound reasonings, but by prejudices
resulting from the company you have kept, and from the natural reluctance which every
one feels to admit a doctrine so humiliating to the pride of man. If it be alleged that
men of great abilities have rejected Christianity, we say that men with equal abilities
have adopted it; and these knew more of the subject than those who rejected it: if a
man of talent adopts a system of infidelity, because others have done so, he cannot say
that he has acted a rational part, unless he can prove, what he would find it difficult
to do, that those men of high talents who received Christianity were delirious on this
point!”
“I have no wish,” said Lord
Byron, “to reject it without investigation; on the contrary, I am
very desirous of believing, for I have no hap-
piness in my present
unsettled notions on religion.”
“If that be the case,” I replied, “then you have
no time to lose. It is your positive duty, as well as your highest interest, to begin
immediately, and if you do so with a proper spirit, and persevere a sufficient time,
you will arrive at a firm conviction of its truth. You must pray humbly to God to grant
you, by his holy Spirit, a sense of your own iniquity, and a proper view of the
necessity of a Saviour; and when you have seen this, the propriety and harmony of the
doctrines of the Gospel will unfold themselves before you.”
“But I do not see,” he said, “very much the need
of a Saviour, nor the utility of prayer. Prayer does not consist in the act of
kneeling, nor in repeating certain words in a solemn manner. Devotion is the affection
of the heart, and this I feel; for when I view the wonders of creation, I bow to the
Majesty of Heaven; and when I feel the enjoyments of life, health, and happiness, I
feel grateful to God for having bestowed these upon me.”
“All this is well,” I said, “so far as it goes, but, to be a
Christian, you must go farther. Such feelings of devotion as these, I believe, every
one experiences, even the most wicked, for they are
136 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
forced upon
him by the wonders of the Creator, and by the nature of his own constitution. If
Christianity did not exist, such feelings might be excited; but as Christianity is
revealed to man, and is the only means, hitherto known, by which a sinner can be
reconciled to a holy God, and made fit for everlasting happiness, it imperiously
demands the attention of every one: for, if true, it follows inevitably, that
transitory moments of devotion and gratitude will not be considered as sufficient for
qualifying a man for heaven, if he reject that Saviour, the Son of God, who came to die
in his stead, that his sins might be forgiven, and that, by believing in him, his heart
and affections might be changed, and his conduct and conversation altered. I would
entreat your lordship to read your bible most attentively, with humble prayer, that
light may be given you to understand it; for, great as your talents are, without the
teaching of the holy Spirit, the whole book will be to you sealed, or at most an
entertaining history, or a curious fable.”
“I read more of the bible than you are aware,” said
Lord B.; “I have a bible which my sister gave me, who is an excellent woman, and I
read it very often.” He went into his bed-room on saying
this, and brought out a pocket bible, finely bound, and shewed it to me.
I said, “You cannot do better than read this; but if you have read
it so much, it is singular that you have not arrived at the understanding of it. I
shall shew you,” I added, “from the bible itself, the authority
which there is for a change of heart, before a person can be a true Christian, or
comprehend, in a proper manner, the truths contained in this wonderful book.”
I then turned over the bible to look for the third chapter of John, but as the chapters were arranged in a different manner from that to
which I had been accustomed, and with different titles, I leisurely observed them; in the
meantime Lord B. was waiting to be shewn the passage
referred to; and as I looked, I happened to say, “I cannot find the place so
readily in this bible as in the common bible.”
“Give it to me,” said Lord
B., “I will soon find it.” Of course from a feeling of
politeness I gave it to him, and told him that I wanted the third of John. I was already near the place, and should soon have found it, but when his
lordship wished for the bible, I could not withhold it. I mention this circumstance
particularly, because something
138 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
was founded on it, to which allusion
will hereafter be made. Lord B. found the passage, and we read the
solemn declaration, “That unless a man is converted, he cannot enter the kingdom
of heaven.”
I then said, “If your lordship will give me the bible, I will shew
you the authority for the other point, indicating the necessity of prayer with a humble
heart to enable any one to comprehend the truths of the Gospel.” I then read
to him part of the first chapter of the 1st Epistle to the
Corinthians, and part of the second, in which it is expressly declared that the
cross of Christ is to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness.
“God has confounded the wisdom of the wise, by means of the things which are
low and foolish; no human wisdom can spiritually discern the truths of the Gospel; man
must lay aside his own pride and wisdom, and submit to be taught by the Spirit of God.
We can know nothing of God, nor his ways, except as he teaches us; we must not come
forward with our own notions, to sit in judgment on what he reveals; and if he has
revealed to us any part of his will, he demands from us that to which he is entitled;
the submission which a child should pay to the instructions of a parent, and those who
do not this, will
never understand his will; while, on the
contrary, whoever does it, and prays for strength to God, will, for the same reason, be
taught it. With respect to the other point—Since we are born, from the fall of
our first parents, with affections and inclinations contrary to the will of God, and
grow up in indulging those to a greater or less extent in defiance of his precepts,
threats, and warnings, it follows that a change of heart and affections is equally
necessary, before we can be disposed to obey the will of God, or take the smallest
pleasure in doing it. Hence every one, whatever be his rank, must undergo this change,
which is a thing as certain as any fact within the circle of human knowledge, supported
by authority and reason; however much it has been ridiculed by many, in consequence of
the epithets which have been applied to this change, namely, new birth, regeneration,
conversion, and new light.”
“Of the wickedness and depravity of human nature, I have no
doubt,” said Lord B.; “I have
seen too much of it in all classes of society; and under the mask of politeness and
patriotism I have found so much vileness and villany, that no one, except those who
have witnessed it, can have any conception of; but these doctrines, which
140 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
you mention, lead us back into all the difficulties of original
sin, and to the stories in the Old Testament, which many who call themselves Christians
reject. Bishop Watson, if I mistake not,
rejected, or did not value the bible; the Waldenses, according to Gibbon, rejected it as being a mere history of the
Jews, and you will acknowledge that these were good Christians; and the history of the
creation and the fall is, by many doctors of the Church, believed to be a mythos, or at
least an allegory. Nay, your favourite author, Scott, does not venture to say that it was the devil who spoke to
Eve by means of the serpent.“
I replied, “that I was sorry to say that much of what he had
advanced was true. Whether or not Dr. Watson
undervalued the bible, I did not know; if he did, it was evident, that he was not a
real Christian, for the Old and New Testament must stand or fall together. I knew also
that many of the German divines, some of them professors of divinity in the colleges,
had professed their belief, that the history of these things was a fable or an
allegory; but,” I said, “this proves nothing, for we well know, that
many of these men are Socinians, or deists in disguise, and the truth or falsehood of
the thing cannot be decided on their
authority. If your lordship
had ever seen Dr. Moses Stewart’s work,
the Professor of Theology in Andover College, in America, on the Socinian controversy,
which is at present under discussion in America, you would see some specimens of German
divinity, which would astonish you, and shew you in what light you are to receive the
authority of the German divines! I do not remember distinctly what Gibbon says of the Waldenses, as it is some time since
I looked at him; but if he says they disbelieved the Scriptures, he must found his
statement on the authority of the Roman Catholics against them; for the calumnies
against this poor oppressed people were so many and great, that St.
Bernard, who appears to have been a pious man, was led sincerely to
believe them a set of heretics, and to wish for their conversion and suppression;
though we know now from the most unexceptionable documents, that these poor people
maintained the doctrines of Christianity in all their soundness and simplicity. With
respect to Mr. Scott, your lordship must have
cursorily observed what he says; for he has no doubt on the subject, and states, that
the whole scope of Scripture, as well as particular passages, point out that it was the
Devil; and you must have been 142 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
misled by some faint recollection
of his refuting Dr. Adam Clark, who entertains
the idea, that the serpent was formerly a beautiful ape; an idea so fantastic, that it
affords ground for ridicule and unbelief to those who cannot separate the errors of
professing Christians from the clearness and truth of the Christian
revelation.”
Lord B. arose from the sofa, and went to a
side—table to look at Gibbon, and we spent
some time in talking about this insidious enemy of Christianity. The statement was found as
his lordship had affirmed, but I pointed out that his authority was that of the church of
Rome, the persecuting enemy of these poor Christians, and I said that Jones in his history had so completely settled the claim
of these poor people to be considered as the true church of Christ, and the forerunners of
the reformation, that Christians of all denominations agreed on the subject. In speaking of
Gibbon, I admitted his claim as an eminent historian and fine
writer, but I pointed out his gross want of candour and fairness in matters relating to
Christianity; and I expressed wonder that any one should quote his authority on the
subject, when he is known to be a cowardly and underhand enemy, injuring it, as far as he
can, by hints and insinua-
tions, and often by perversions and
misrepresentations.
Lord B. said he was not aware that he had mistated or
misrepresented anything intentionally. I replied that it had been found to be the case by
Mr. Milner, and Mr.
Davis, the latter of whom has pointed out and numbered his errors and
misrepresentations; and though Gibbon referred to
one or two errors which Davis had committed, and which he in a second
edition acknowledged and corrected, yet he passes by the whole of the others which still
stand unanswered. “Look,” I said, “also at the insinuating and
plausible way in which he begins his history of the church, apparently in a very humble
and decent manner, but he soon shews the cloven foot; for he states positively that
Moses did not relieve the Jews, nor did the Jews believe in
the immortality of the soul; and then he quotes Warburton, whose ingenious but fanciful work cannot but be condemned by
every Christian.”
Lord B. asked me whether I had read Warburton’s theory. I said I had seen the work
repeatedly at a time when I had no interest in these subjects, and now, when I wish to see
it, I cannot get access to it. “I have read it,” said Lord
B.,
144 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
“or rather I have glanced over it. It
appears a learned and ingenious work, and I know there are many people who think very
highly of his theory.” I replied that I had seen an abstract of his theory
repeatedly stated, and could judge that it was easily refuted; “and
indeed,” I added, “when I go home I will put down some passages in the
Pentateuch itself, which, had Warburton looked at, he would not
have adopted so fanciful a theory.”
Lord B. said, “I should like to see
them.”—“Do you think,” he asked, “that the Devil
really appeared before God, as is mentioned in the book of Job, or is this only an allegorical or poetical mode of
speaking?” “I believe it in its strict and literal
meaning.” “What are your reasons for doing so?”
inquired Lord B. “First,” I replied,
“from the authority of our Saviour, who received this among the Jewish
Scriptures, as he never blamed the Jews for having entertained a wrong notion of those
books which they received as inspired; but, on the contrary, established them all, as
then and now received, to be the oracles of God, as is evident from the many passages
in which he refers to the Scriptures with the phrase, ‘it is written;’ and
where he expressly directs
them to search the Scriptures, for
they testify of him. In the second place, Ezekiel mentions
Job as a real personage, as does also the Apostle
James. In the third place, Satan is, in one sense,
as much a servant of God as the holy angels are, as he can only do what is permitted,
and the Almighty could crush him to nothing with a word, as easily as he called the
world into existence.”
“If it be received in a literal sense,” said Lord B., “it gives one a much higher idea of the
majesty, power, and wisdom of God to believe that the Devils themselves are at his nod,
and are subject to his control with as much ease as the elements of nature follow the
respective laws which his will has assigned them.”
He seemed pleased with the idea, and as it appeared to me that he must have
had some erroneous opinion similar to some of the Manicheans, with respect to the power of
God over Satan, or the evil principle, I left him a few moments to his
reflections, and when he turned towards me, I made a remark in reference to the idea, which
I supposed rested on his mind. “Although Christianity exhibits two principles at
work, one evil, and the other good, in the moral government of the universe and the
natural world, yet these are
146 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
very different from the two
principles of the Manicheans. In the latter system it would appear as if the good
principle had a great deal of difficulty in overcoming the evil principle. In the
former there are no such ideas conveyed. For the evil principle is represented as much
subject to the omnipotence of God, as it was before it became evil, and its existence
and operations are permitted by divine wisdom, only to such an extent, and for such a
time, as suits the purposes which the Almighty ruler has in view, and to this end the
evil spirit with all his legions of attendant evil angels are as much subservient, and
as easily rendered subservient, as the sand which is blown by the wind. I am not
ignorant of the absurd opinions which many divines and scholars have given respecting
every thing that concerns Job, and the nature and character of the
book which records his history: but an accurate and sober examination will shew, that
these opinions are all fanciful and founded upon conjecture and hypothesis, a mode of
argument which may be occasionally pleasing when used in illustrating a profane author,
but intolerable in alluding to one of those books included in the sacred Scripture. It
is either an inspired work, or it is not,—if it is not, it
should be excluded from the Scripture, and a little more sober reflection should be
shewn in treating of it, by those who call themselves Christians. When examined with
attention, it proves, and that in the most beautiful manner, the strictly evangelical
views which the patriarchs had of some of the most important doctrines,—indeed,
of all the essential doctrines of real religion, and that, too, before the promulgation
of the law from Mount Sinai. The omnipotence, purity, omnipresence, wisdom, and mercy
of God,—the depravity of human nature, the existence of a divine Redeemer, the
resurrection and the punishment of the wicked are clearly indicated; while the
erroneous views of Job’s friends with respect to the
invariable retribution of wicked men, even in this world, with
Job’s contrary opinion, the harshness of his friends,
and his own impatience, occasional despair, and presumption, though his principles are
sound, and his heart upright, are painted with equal
clearness.” Lord Byron again expressed how much the
belief of the real appearance of Satan to hear and obey the commands of God added to his
views of the grandeur and majesty of the Creator.
Another idea which seemed to please him was that which was furnished to him
by an answer I
148 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
gave to a question which he put, respecting the
formation of man after the image of God. “It is said in the Scriptures,”
said Lord B., “that man was formed after the
image of God, and yet God is a Spirit of which no image or idea can be formed, except
that it exists and has powers, and we are commanded not to make any image of God, nor
represent him by anything of a material nature; how then is man made after his
image?” I replied, “the image here mentioned refers to man as
created intelligent, pure, and holy in his mind and affections after the image of that
infinite knowledge, purity, and holiness, which is in the Godhead, which spirit or
image was lost at the fall on the introduction of sin, and requires to be renewed by a
power equal to its first creation, before it can be rendered fit for communion with God
and for heaven.”
He seemed satisfied with this answer, and reflected several moments on what
had been said. After a short pause I proceeded. “There are many great difficulties
which appear in the Scriptures to the minds of some, which are very easily answered
either by a little examination and comparison of the sacred books, or on inquiring from
the weakest Christian. And if Deists would only
make the
reasonable supposition that Christians have just as good powers of reasoning as they
have, and would not believe anything without proof and evidence more readily than
themselves, they would draw the useful conclusion, that many points which appear to
them either absurd or impossible, are susceptible of the clearest explanation; which
when given, excites the astonishment of the objector, and enables him to see the
brightness of the light which pervades every truth in the Scriptures.”
“This might do very well,” said Lord Byron, “in a matter of abstract reasoning, but how will you
account for that mass of superstition and hypocrisy which exists not only on the
continent, but even to some extent in England, and which I verily believe is the cause
of the infidelity of thousands. I have seen,” he continued, “on the
continent, both in France and Italy, such instances of hypocrisy and villany, and
everything that was detestable in those who were appointed to teach religion; and such
ignorance and superstition among the lower classes, particularly among the women, that
it is difficult for a man to give much attention to a subject which appears to be so
un-
150 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
certain and mysterious, and which produces such fruits
among its followers.”
“I hope your lordship,” I said, “will always
make a distinction between the use and abuse of a thing, nor charge the crimes and the
vices of false Christians to the real Christian, since every candid man must admit that
it is the want of belief and of the proper Christian principles and spirit which is the
cause of such horrible evils.”
“I always take care to do that” said Lord B.; “I know the Scriptures sufficiently well to
acknowledge, that if the mild and benignant spirit of this religion were believed and
acted on by all, there would be a wonderful change in this wicked world; and I have
always made it a rule to respect every man who conscientiously believes the Scriptures,
whatever external creed he may profess, and most cordially do I detest hypocrites of
all sorts, especially hypocrites in religion. I have known in Italy some instances of
superstition which were at once amusing and ridiculous. I have known a person engaged
in sin, and when the vesper-bell has rung, stop and repeat the Ave
Maria, and then proceed in the sin: absolution cured all. The sins of the
head, or dissent from
the Church, is heresy, and requires the
severest punishment: the sins of the heart were easily forgiven, they thought, by a
merciful God.” He then mentioned some anecdotes illustrative of his
statement.
I said, “that these facts only exhibited the extremely low state of
religion in the Romish church, and at the very seat of this abominable hierarchy; and
it was to be hoped that the efforts which were now making by the Bible and other
Societies, would tend in time to remove that darkness and superstition, and enable
every man to understand and value the sacred Scriptures. And it was the
duty,” I added, “of every one who witnessed such woful scenes of
depravity and blindness, to lend his assistance to remedy the evil.”
“The diffusion of knowledge,” said Lord Byron, “has diminished, I am afraid, the number
of the believers in Christianity; for in the dark ages, when, every body believed in
witches and ghosts, which the diffusion of knowledge has sent to their cells, the
belief of Christianity was more general than it is now, at least there were fewer
infidels.”
I replied, “that it was impossible to reason accurately on a
subject of so extensive a nature
152 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
by mere inferences, as so many
causes were at work, and the effects so various and complicated. On the one hand we
know that the heart might be sincere, and pure in faith before God, while the head
abounded with a great many erroneous views, owing to the state of darkness and
ignorance which prevailed in the middle ages; while, at this time, the head might have
clearer views of scientific, nay of religious subjects, and the heart remain
unconverted, neither loving nor believing in God, as revealed in the Scriptures. At the
same time it is not incompatible,—in the present day especially,—to find
clearness of head and purity of heart combined, though my observations lead me to think
that this is not a general result, as the most sincere and humble Christians are found
among the lower classes of society, whose knowledge in literature and science is of
course nothing. Whether there were more Christians in the dark ages than now, I would
not,” I said, “take upon me positively to decide, but, judging from
various circumstances, it appeared to me, that, granting the ostensible number of
Deists to have been greatly increased, the number of real Christians in the present day
surpassed those in the dark ages in a very great proportion. The
real state of the case can only be known at the last day; but taking in view the vast
variety of means constantly in action for the teaching and diffusion of Christianity,
it was reasonable to suppose, that a very great proportion of those to whom it is
addressed, especially in the middling and lower ranks of life, with which his lordship
was least conversant, received it; and the number we know will increase, for there are
mighty engines at work, which, by the blessing of God, will beat down every obstacle,
and renovate the face of the world. The progress of Christianity,” I added,
“is now so rapid, or at least of so sensible a nature, that it necessarily
attracts the attention of all men, more or less; nor is it a matter of surprise that
its enemies, from vanity and a desire to display their talents, should endeavour to
check its progress by their writings. The young, the vain, and the ignorant, adopt and
retail the paltry, and sophistical, and false reasonings of Deists, or Socinians, not
so much from conviction as from a desire to shew that they are emancipated from the
prejudices of the nursery; and there are many young men, who, in the delusion of
youthful vanity, actually think that they are no common philo-154 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
sophers, if they adopt and repeat the objections of Hume and Voltaire.”
“But since we have spoken of witches,” said Lord Byron, “what think you of the witch of
Endor? I have always thought this the finest and most finished
witch-scene that ever was written or conceived, and you will be of my opinion, if you
consider all the circumstances and the actors in the case, together with the gravity,
simplicity, and dignity of the language. It beats all the ghost-scenes I ever read. The
finest conception on a similar subject is that of Goethe’s Devil, Mephistopheles; and though of course you will give the priority to the
former, as being inspired, yet the latter, if you know it, will appear to you—at
least it does to me—one of the finest and most sublime specimens of human
conception.”
I smiled at the singular associations which brought such subjects together
in Lord B.’s mind. I said, I agreed with him as to
the first, though I had not before considered it in a poetical point of view; but the
grandeur of the circumstances readily struck me, when he pointed them out to me, but I was
not able to judge of the latter, as it was some time since I had looked at Madame de
Staël’s work on Germany, where an
abstract is given, and copious extracts are made from the work. “The authoress
praises it in very high terms; but,” I said, “whether owing to want
of taste or something else, I had never met with any conception of angels, whether good
or bad, or devils, or witches, which conveyed an idea sufficiently high of the goodness
of the one class, or of the wickedness of the other. Milton,” I said, “appears to me completely to fail
in his angels. His good angels are very good, but they are a little insipid, and the
bad angels excite more sympathy and less terror than perhaps he intended. The only fine
conception of its kind is the Diable
boiteaux, at least it seems to me more original than any other sketch of a
devil which I have seen.”
“Do you very much admire Milton?” asked Lord
B. “It would be heresy,” I replied, “to say
that I do not admire Milton, and in sober earnestness I admire his
talents as a poet, but I have no pleasure in the greater part of his Paradise Lost. The weakness of fiction is
strikingly manifest to him who knows the simple majesty of divine truth, and he who is
much impressed with the latter can have no enjoyment in seeing it
156 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
rendered subservient to fiction.” “I do not so greatly admire
Milton myself,” said Lord B.;
“nor do I admire Cowper, whom so many
people praise.” “Cowper happens to be my
favourite among the poets,” I said, “and he is so with a large class
of people, and will continue to be so, in proportion as real Christianity spreads, for
he has more of moral and divine truth in his poems than any other poet of his rank and
poetical abilities. My habits and studies do not lead me to read much poetry, and I am
probably a very incompetent judge; but, like many others, I have read
Cowper twice or thrice, and may read him oftener, but though I
have more than once resolved to read Milton, I have never fairly
read him twice, but tired after reading different passages.”
“Do you admire Shakspeare?” enquired Lord
B. “By no means to that extent which is generally
done.” “Neither do I,” said his lordship. “I
lately met with an invective in the Eclectic Review against our poets in general,
and in particular against Shakspeare, in which the critic, with
that sternness and intrepidity of mind which brings to remembrance the magnanimity of
the Puritans, accuses all the poets of having done little good in
their generation to the cause of virtue and religion; that their writings leave us
nothing to admire, except the mere eloquence and force of poetry, as their sentiments
are often vicious, licentious, and immoral; and with regard to
Shakspeare the admiration of the English for him, whether real
or affected, approached to idolatry.”
“I was pleased,” I added, “at the earnest and
manly tone of the Reviewers, so different from the insipidity and common—place
style of many of that fraternity in modern times, although the passage was extracted in
another Review as a proof of modern fanaticism.”
“Pope”, said
Lord B., “is undoubtedly one of the
greatest of the English poets, and his merits are little understood by many.”
I replied that he was certainly one of the best versifiers in the language, but he was not
a particular favourite of mine from his vanity, and from the attacks which he had made on
many of his friends: neither had he clear views of religion.
“But,” said Lord
Byron, “if you read Spence’s Anecdotes, you will find Pope’s
character placed in a clearer and more correct point of view than is often done, and
that as a friend, as a son, and
158 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
as a member of society, his
conduct was not only unimpeachable, but in the highest degree praiseworthy.”
I said that I had seen something from
Spence’s work in the Edinburgh Review. “Have you,” asked Lord
B., “seen any of the Reviews lately?” I answered, I had
seen the Edinburgh, in which there is a review of your lordship’s Tragedies. “Ah that is a
subject in which I have failed; I shall write no more tragedies I think,”
said Lord B. “Have you,” I asked,
“seen the review?” He said he had. “There are some
allusions,” I said, “to your lordship in another of the London Reviews—I think in the Literary Gazette—in which they express surprise at
your inconsistency, when you say in your Don
Juan, that, after Walter Scott, Jeffrey is the man with whom you would find most
pleasure in drinking a bottle of Port.”
“They are wrong, nor am I inconsistent,” said Lord B. “For though Jeffrey made a great mistake in the commencement, he was sufficiently
chastised for it, and from the time he was sensible of his fault, he has been uniform
in a more fair and honourable mode of criticism than some who profess to be more
decidedly my admirers. In
fact, he has done as much as could be
expected from one who was once my open enemy, and enmities you know should not be
everlasting.”
I said, “Certainly, Jeffrey
appears to censure your lordship with regret, and he does it in the prettiest, gentlest
terms possible, mixing expressions of high admiration for your abilities, with his
hopes that you will leave such subjects as Cain, and employ your talents on those which will be honourable to
yourself, and useful to others.”
“But,” said Lord B.,
“they have all mistaken my object in writing Cain. Have I not a right to draw the characters with as
much fidelity, and truth, and consistency, as history or tradition fixes on them? Now
it is absurd to expect from Cain, sentiments of
piety and submission, when he was a murderer of his brother, and a rebel against his
Creator.”
“That is true,” I replied, “but they blame you,
not for putting such sentiments in the mouth of Cain, but for not putting such sentiments into those of Abel and Adam, as
would have counterbalanced the effect of what Cain
said. And they moreover urge, that the sentiments of Cain are carried too far, even to the height of blasphemy,
160 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
and the effect of this is pernicious on many minds; especially
when no counterbalancing effect is produced from the sentiments of the other
characters: and, that being the case, it is naturally inferred, that many of the
sentiments belong not so much to Cain, as to your
lordship, and you have expressed them with all that force, vivacity, and energy, as
coming from the heart. The subject was unhappy, but though, from what I know, I believe
it would be impossible to expect from you as much strength and force in your
expressions of piety, as in those of doubt, and incredulity, and daring murmuring, yet,
it was a subject that required to be considered; whether such a work was calculated to
be useful to yourself or others; and there is no doubt it has been the reverse, and
will continue to be so. We know already that it has been productive of
mischief.”
“To myself it has,” said Lord
B., “for it has raised such an outcry against me from the bigots in
every quarter, both in the church and out of the church, and they have stamped me an
infidel without mercy, and without ceremony; but I do not know that it has been, or
ever can be, injurious to others.”
“I can mention one instance, at least, of its
mischievous effects which was told me a few days ago, by Colonel D.:” “What is it?” inquired
he. “Colonel D.,” I replied, “read in one
of the papers, of a man in distressed circumstances, who one evening brought Cain in his hand to a friend, and read some
passages of it to him, in which doubts of immortality, and of justice on earth, are
expressed,—and desired his attention to what you said. Next morning he shot
himself.” Lord B. looked serious. “I do not
quote this,” I said, “as a justification of the man, who may have
been driven to insanity before, and who might, in such a state, pervert the writings of
the best intentioned authors; but surely everything of a dubious or equivocal nature
should be avoided by every honest man, to prevent even the shadow of reason or occasion
for the commission of evil.”
“In what work,” asked Lord
B., “did this fact appear?” “It was in the
newspaper; whether true or false, I cannot say.” “I am very
sorry for it,” he replied, “whether it be true or false. Had I known
that such an event was likely to happen, I should never have written the book. I would
like to see the thing, and I shall ask D. about
it.”
I said, if he would permit me, I would take an opportunity of asking
Colonel D. in what paper it
162 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
was, and then tell his lordship, lest Colonel D. should imagine
that I had used his authority unreasonably.
“I certainly,” said he, “never anticipated that
the work would have been productive of evil; and in drawing the character of Cain, I prosecuted the conception of it, which the
Scriptures enable us to form of him, a daring unbeliever, and blasphemer, and a vile
murderer; nor can I conceive why people will always mix up my own character and
opinions with those of the imaginary beings which, as a poet, I have the right and
liberty to draw.”
“They certainly do not spare your lordship in that respect; and in
Childe Harold, Lara, the Giaour, and Don Juan, they are
too much disposed to think that you paint in many instances yourself, and that these
characters are only the vehicles for the expression of your own sentiments and
feelings.”
“They do me great injustice,” he replied, “and
what was never before done to any poet.” “But,” I
said, “although it may be carried too far, is there not, at least, some foundation
for the charge? Virtue and piety are qualities of too insipid a nature to excite a
vivid interest in the minds of too many readers; and in order to produce effect
and impression, beings of high talents and evil dispositions may
be drawn by the poet as well as figured by the painter; but unless care is taken in
drawing some good qualities, in which a noble and virtuous mind must feel delight, the
inference will be against the poet, if he seems unable or unwilling to draw anything
but that which is bad, however lofty the qualities and actions. Don Juan, as far as I have understood from the extracts
in the reviews, has no counterbalancing effect, in bringing forward good and virtuous
characters, nor by the punishment of the wicked; but the hero goes on, prosperous and
uncontrolled, from one vice to another, unveiling and mocking at the crimes and vices
of mankind.”
“Even in this work,” said Lord
B., “I have been equally misunderstood. I take a vicious and
unprincipled character, and lead him through those ranks of society, whose high
external accomplishments cover and cloke internal and secret vices, and I paint the
natural effects of such characters; and certainly they are not so highly coloured as we
find them in real life.”
“This may be true; but the question is, what are your motives and
object for painting nothing but scenes of vice and folly?” “To
remove the
164 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
cloke, which the manners and maxims of
society,” said his lordship, “throw over their secret sins, and shew
them to the world as they really are. You have not,” added he, “been
so much in high and noble life as I have been; but if you had fully entered into it,
and seen what was going on, you would have felt convinced that it was time to unmask
the specious hypocrisy, and shew it in its native colours.”
“My situation,” I replied, “did not naturally
lead me into society, yet, I believed, before the publication of your book, that the
world, especially the lower and middling classes of society, never entertained the
opinion, that the highest classes exhibited models of piety and virtue; nay, from
circumstances, we are naturally disposed to believe them worse than they really
are.”
“It is impossible you can believe the higher classes of society
worse than they are in England, France, and Italy, for no language can sufficiently
paint them.” “But still, my lord, granting this, how is your
book calculated to improve them, and by what right, and under what title, do you come
forward in this undertaking?” “By the right,” he
replied, “which every one has who abhors vice united with
hypocrisy.” “Then,” I added, “he
that teaches others, should be pure himself; and as your lordship
belongs to that class, you cannot complain, if they examine your own conduct to see if
your lordship has a right to become a reformer. From what I have seen of Don Juan, I cannot perceive that morality is
much inculcated in it, or that vice, united with hypocrisy, is held up to abhorrence.
On the contrary, it is a pure, unvarnished display of vice, and in language by no means
calculated to render the Don odious, or the subject odious, to any mind unfortified by
sound principles.”
“It is the plan,” said his lordship, “to lead
him through various ranks of society, and shew that wherever you go vice is to be
found.” “This is a fact already known,” I replied;
“and it has also been known by experience, that no satire, however witty,
poignant, or just, ever did any good, or converted, as far I have heard, one man from
vice to virtue. Neither Horace, nor Juvenal, nor Persius,
could stop the torrent of vice, and folly, and crime which inundated Rome, and which
finally overthrew it, notwithstanding all the declamations of these satirists. Nor have
I heard that Donne’s or Pope’s satires ever effected any good. Your
language is not so gross as that of Juvenal or
166 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
Persius, yet this is owing to the manners of the times; and while
your satire is useless, it will call down on your head the exclamations, both of the
virtuous and the vicious; of the former, because they do not perceive in you the proper
qualifications of a reformer of morals, nor believe that you have adopted the means
calculated to promote such an object, but rather the reverse; while the latter will
naturally hate him who unmasks those vices—more particularly if he be stained
with any himself.”
“But it is strange,” he answered, “that I should
be attacked on all sides, not only from magazines, and reviews, but also from the
pulpit. They preach against me as an advocate of infidelity and immorality, and I have
missed my mark sadly in having succeeded in pleasing nobody. That those whose vices I
depicted and unmasked should cry out, is natural, but that the friends of religion
should do so is surprising; for you know,” said he, smiling, “that I
am assisting you in my own way as a poet, by endeavouring to convince people of their
depravity; for it is a doctrine of yours, is it not? that the human heart is corrupted,
and therefore, if I shew that it is so in those ranks, which assume the external marks
of politeness and benevo-
lence,—having had the best
opportunities, and better than most poets of observing it,—am I not doing an
essential service to your cause, by first convincing them of their sins, and thus
enable you to throw in your doctrine with more effect?”
“This is a very ingenious turn which your lordship has given to the
question, but it will not do. The heart of man is viler than you, with all your
talents, can describe, and the vilest actions are often committed in secret by those
who maintain a fine character externally. All this is true. But you have not
conciliated these unhappy persons to yourself, nor to a new mode of life: you have not
shewn them what to do. You may have shewn them what they are, but you have neither
shewn them by precept, nor by example, the proper remedy. You are like a surgeon, if I
may use a simile from my own profession, who with diabolical delight tears the old
rags, ointments, and bandages, from the numerous wounds of his ulcerated patients, and,
instead of giving fresh remedies, you expose them to the air, and disgust of every
by-stander; laughing, and smiling, and crying out, how filthy these fellows
are.”
“But I shall not be so bad as that,” said Lord Byron. “You shall see what a winding up I
168 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
will give to the story.” I replied, “I shall
be glad to see any winding up, which can have the effect of remedying the pernicious
consequences of the first part of the work. But the best way,” I added,
“of remedying this is, for your lordship to study Christianity, now that you
have time, and the matter is pressed upon you, and then you will know and feel what is
right; and when you have exhibited proofs of your conversion, your attempts at
reformation will be better received and more successful.”
“But what would you have me to do?” asked his lordship.
“I do not reject the doctrines of Christianity; I want only sufficient proofs
of it to take up the profession in earnest; and I do not believe myself to be so bad a
Christian as many of those who preach against me with the greatest fury, many of whom I
have never seen nor injured. They furnish the suspicion of being latent hypocrites
themselves, else why not use gentler and more Christian means?”
“I do not commend their conduct. It is wrong and imprudent to
preach against individuals, either by name or character, and it is inconsistent with
the dignity of a minister of the Gospel. It is beside calculated to exasperate the
offender, rather
than to effect a reformation. But,” I
continued, “you must excuse these zealous preachers, for their very imprudence
proceeds from the high idea they have formed of your talents, and that whatever you do
or say is of infinite importance to the church. They think your writings promote
infidelity and immorality; and corrupt the youth who are disposed to admire your
genius, and bow to your authority, and they act as if the church was in danger. I am
not of that opinion, though it is desirable for your own sake, and that of all those
whose conduct and principles you may influence, that you should become a Christian. I
am not in the least afraid of Christianity, though your talents were much higher than
they are; though you were openly to fight against it, your exertions would produce a
very limited effect. They would not stagger the faith of the weakest Christian who
truly believed, as he could trace everything you said to a complete ignorance of the
true nature of Christianity; and as to the vicious, they have found occasions to be so
before your lordship was born, and will do so when you are dead and forgotten; and what
you could do, would only be to furnish the authority, and the occasion of excuse for
some vices, to those who would find others, did 170 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
you fail to
supply them. Those divines that preach against you have fallen into the same error with
many who write against poor Mr. Belsham, by
conceding as much as possible to him, and by soothing and praising him as much as they
can,—and more, perhaps, than they ought; differing in the manner in which they
treat him, but agreeing in thinking him, like your lordship, a most formidable enemy to
the church. Perhaps the best way would be to treat all such with silence and prayer, as
long as there are hopes of conversion; and, when this is gone, with pity.”
“But what excuse will you find for that preacher in London, about
whom they have lately raised such infamous calumnies, and who has written against me in
the Review with which he is connected, as well as preached against me? I do not
believe,” he said, “there is the least foundation for the calumny;
but how delighted he would have been, had it been raised against me! He would have
readily believed it, and many others would have done so too, perhaps; so that I shew a
greater degree of Christian charity in believing him innocent, than he would have done
towards me.”
“We do not know the heart,” I replied, “but we
judge from conduct and conversation. The gentleman to whom you allude may consider it
his duty to raise his voice against you as long as you continue in your present mode of
writing and acting; but change your conduct, and you will be received with joy and open
arms by him, and also by thousands who have never seen your face.”
“Of course a convert to any party is received with gratulation and
joy, and, especially, a convert like myself, to whom circumstances have given a much
greater degree of notoriety, as well by praise, as by censure, than I ever expected, or
desired.”
“Your lordship can remove the one, and increase the other, whenever
you please. You have only to examine the causes which prevent you, and you will find
that they are futile, and only tend to withhold you from the enjoyment of real
happiness; which, at present, it is impossible that you can find.”
“What, then, you think me in a very bad
way?” “I certainly think you are,” I replied;
“and this I say, not on my own authority, but on that of the Scriptures. No
Christian can say that he has been better than your lordship; on the con-
172 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
trary, many will acknowledge their hearts to have been more
sinful, and their lives as bad, though their rank and talents never placed them in so
conspicuous a point of view. But while they thus acknowledge themselves to have been as
bad, or worse than your lordship, they consider themselves entitled to
say,—considering you simply as a fellow creature, possessed of an immortal soul,
which will either be saved, or damned,—that your lordship must be converted, and
must be reformed, before anything can be said of you, except that you are bad, and in a
bad way.”
“But,” answered he, “I am now in a fairer way. I
already believe in predestination, which I know you believe, and in the depravity of
the human heart in general, and of my own in particular: thus you see there are two
points in which we agree. I shall get at the others by-and-bye; but you cannot expect
me to become a perfect Christian at once.”
“There is a wide difference between us, and there are more points
of variance than you have calculated,” I said. “Predestination is of
no importance in the present state of affairs, whether you believe it, or whether you
do not. The
other is important, and the first step, without
which, the others would not be useful. But, if you really believe, and feel that you
are weak, depraved, and helpless, then you will naturally inquire from whence help may
be derived. The Scriptures say,—‘Believe in the Lord Jesus
Christ, and thou shalt be saved.’ If you really feel that
you are lost, cannot save yourself, and need a Saviour, why not apply to Christ, and
seek him as your Saviour?”
“This is going too fast,” said Lord B. “There are many points and difficulties to clear up;
when that is done, I will consider what you say.” “What are your
difficulties?” I asked. “If the subject is of importance, why not
have them cleared and removed? You do not want time; you can reason, and reflect. The
means of clearing up these difficulties are at hand. If it were a question of poetry,
or of poetic literature, you would search and examine, and soon form your own judgment:
on a point of far greater consequence, why do you linger and delay?”
“This is true,” he said; “but here I am, the
slave of circumstances, surrounded by things, and people which distract my attention,
with nothing to lead me to the consideration of such subjects.”
174 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
“Your own judgment, and the consciousness of your own
happiness, and that you are not fulfilling the ends of your creation, should lead you
to the examination of the subject; and besides, there are no circumstances which bind
you with such irresistible power, that you cannot easily surmount and conquer them.
Religion must be sought after; your habits and studies must be subdued and laid aside
in part, till you have obtained this, and then we may expect to see fruits worthy the
high talents which God, whose revelation you neglect, has given you. I wish more
earnestly than before, that your lordship would study the subject night and day, till
you ascertain its truth, and your difficulties vanish. Every one would help you in your
research: small as my abilities and experience are,—they are at your service. And
I give you my testimony in the most solemn manner, that if you allow any worldly
circumstance to interfere with you, till you have succeeded in the search to which I
encourage you, you will have deeply to repent of your neglect.”
“Well, what would you have me to do? How shall I set about
it?” “Begin,” I said, “this very night to
pray that God would pardon your sins, and grant you understanding to find out the
truth, and continue praying on the one hand, and reading your
Bible on the other, and do it with an earnest desire and an unbiassed mind, and the
result will be what we so earnestly wish. I do not mean that you are to take the
subject on trust; examine it with the strictest scrutiny; weigh every objection, and
hear every answer, and give on each side the fairest play: if you do this with justice
and candour, you must believe. Ignorance is the mother of infidelity. High as are your
attainments, and contemptible as I am in those gifts in which you excel, yet I am ready
to prove to you, that, on every subject connected with Christianity, you are very
deficient; and that your difficulties, doubts and contradictions proceed from a false,
erroneous, and mistaken idea of the subject, which a little more knowledge would easily
and infallibly remove.
“Will your lordship bestow on these subjects an earnest and
attentive consideration? You will rejoice that you took my advice, when a deathbed
arrives; when the tumultuous pleasures of life, and the gay dreams of high ambition,
and rank, and fame, pass away, and when the value of life will concentrate in one
moment.”
“I shall most certainly study the subject,”
176 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
said his lordship seriously, “with due
attention.” “And will you,” I added, “keep in
mind that I requested you not to be discouraged at first, even though your difficulties
and doubts increase? and if the light, force, and clearness of the Christian scheme do
not at once appear to you, remember that it will, if you persevere; and you must admit,
that nothing can be gained, or understood, without time and labour. Keep your mind
unbiassed, fairly weigh every argument, and continue constant in prayer to God, in
whom, at least, you believe,—to give you that light which you at present
want.”
“But why are these difficulties so great?” asked
Lord Byron. “It is not necessary to mention
more, when I find sufficient already: there is, for instance, the doctrine of the
Trinity, which is alone quite appalling.”
“There is no more difficulty about this, than about any of the
others; but there is an increase of difficulty, according to the ideas you have formed
of it. Do you think, that the moment a man becomes a Christian, he loses his reason, or
any of his other faculties? Look around, and you will find that he is the most cool and
sober of all men, and is better qualified to weigh and
scrutinize
evidence, than those whose life is a scene of constant bustle and eagerness about the
thousand trifles which engage their attention. If the doctrine of the Trinity is
absurd, is it not likely that we could see its absurdity as soon as others? That it is
above the power of reason to analyze the nature of the Trinity, we admit; and reason
tells us that it must be so, till we can comprehend the nature of spiritual existence.
Deists, however, endeavour to comprehend, or think it their duty to try to comprehend
this mystery; and failing, reject it as absurd, and hence they ridicule faith—as
if faith consisted in believing what was unreasonable. All those who are ignorant of
real Christianity have these conceptions; and you, while you believe me reasonable on
other points, think that I have laid aside my reason in this. You have wrong notions,
not only of the nature, but of the object of our belief, which a little more knowledge
would rectify. Now I say that what we believe respecting the Trinity is perfectly
consistent with reason, and rests on the clearest evidence. We believe that God the
Father sent his Son Jesus Christ to die for sinners, to make an
atonement worthy of his justice, and prepare the way for their salvation; and that 178 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
the Holy Spirit applies this sacrifice by exciting faith in those
who embrace the way of salvation, and gradually sanctifies them, till they are fit for
heaven. We believe that there is but one God, and that the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit, are but one God, the same in substance, power, and glory. We believe this,
because the same names, and attributes, and works, are ascribed to them
indiscriminately, although in the scheme of redemption there appears a distinction
between the offices which each performs. Now keep in mind, that God is a spirit, the
modus existendi of which we are
perfectly unacquainted with, and shew me where is the absurdity of there being a
distinction of three in one essence, in the Godhead; the highest spiritual existence?
When we say there are three persons in the Godhead, we are compelled to make use of a
name drawn from material objects, which name deceives Deists, who think themselves
clear reasoners; yet they want candour to hear the statement we constantly
give,—that in using the word Person, we do it from necessity, and mean not that
there is as perfect a distinction between the persons of the Trinity, as between three
material objects. To say that three material objects are one and the same, would be both a physical, and mathematical absurdity;
because, however similar their bodies were in colour, weight, density, taste, &c.,
and in the particles of matter which composed them, yet they are essentially three
distinct bodies, and must, from the very nature of things, be so. It is absurd in a
Deist to say, that this must be the same with spiritual existences. The reasoning is
not, nor can be applicable, till he explains what spiritual existence is: when he does,
we shall then be able to estimate the weight of his reasonings. The highest reason can
explain neither the modus existendi of
spiritual essence, nor the modus operandi,
disjoined from matter. Believing this to be the case, we rest satisfied with the fact,
that there is a distinction in the unity of the Divine Being, so, however, as not to
divide the essence; and this rests upon the evidence which supports the whole of the
Scriptures. We see no absurdity in it, nor contradiction, nor anything that is
revolting to reason. When we confine ourselves to the fact of the three in unity of
essence, the source and fountain of spiritual existence, and that each acts a part in
the redemption of man, the Father decreeing, the Son fulfilling, the Spirit
sanctifying, we perceive a reve-180 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
lation suited to our wants,
consoling, and satisfactory. More could not have been revealed of the nature of the
Deity, nor of this three-fold distinction. What language could have been made use of to
convey to man ideas of spiritual existence, when from his nature he cannot form a
conception of mind, nor use one term relating to it which is not borrowed from matter?
If a man pry impertinently beyond what is revealed, and by his own reason speculate
about the Deity, and the distinct personalities, he must inevitably err. Not a step he
takes, not an inference he draws, but must lead him into absurdity and confusion. When
the soul is separated from its present fetters, it can then perhaps know more of the
nature of spiritual existence, and may know more of the real nature of the distinction
of the Godhead, though it seems impossible that it can ever know the Divine Essence;
otherwise what is created and dependent, would be equal to that by which it was
created, and on which it depends. You will see, therefore, that our belief is simply
founded on a fact which reason would never have discovered, revealed by God himself, so
far as it is necessary, inasmuch as it lies at the very foundation of the means of our
redemption. The Bible has wisely revealed the fact in a way which
is level to the meanest understanding, by embodying the person of the Divine Unity in
those offices which directly bear upon our happiness here, and salvation hereafter; but
it does not define the fact after the manner of schoolmen, nor give a dissertation on
the nature and attributes of the Deity, nor why, nor how they exist. All the absurd
errors that have arisen have been from the pride of human nature, for man would be
thought wise on subjects which he can never understand while in this present state, and
many of those writers who call themselves Christians have done incalculable mischief. I
would ask any man, whether he has a clear idea of spiritual existence unconnected with
matter. If he says he has, we must consider him insane, because the thing is
impossible. If he says he has not, then I would ask on what grounds he reasons about a
thing the nature of which he neither knows, nor can know in the present life. That God
is a spirit, and exists and acts, we know, but this knowledge comes to our mind through
the medium of matter, inferrible from effects which we know matter never could produce;
and we know that the self-existent Being, the Creator of all, has revealed to us his
182 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
attributes, and that he has sent his Son, who is God, and his
Spirit, who is God, to heal our wanderings, to restore us to happiness, and to
knowledge, and immortality. More than this the search of man can never discover, till
he lay aside the body with which he is clothed.”
“Then what would you do with those
Divines,” Lord B. said, “who
have written so largely on the Trinity, and the fathers of the Church, and the creed of
Athanasius, and others?”
“With respect to the creed of Athanasius, the sooner we get quit of it the better. Granting the
inferences to be fairly drawn from what is revealed, they are mere truisms, which the
mind perceives at once, and when announced with formality they have something ludicrous
in them to the wicked and profane, giving rise to parodies, as in the case of Hone. It throws not the least light upon the subject,
and being presented in one abstract form, which is never done in the Scriptures, it
provokes abstract discussions. The damnatory clause is reprehensible, for our minds are
so constituted, that there are many serious Christians who cannot conceive that these
reasonings are fair inferences from Christian revelation, and though they were, cannot
see the necessity of annexing
a damnatory clause to anything that
is of human composition. With regard to all the writers on the subject, I would make
the following distinction. Whenever a man confines himself to shew, by Scripture
proofs, that the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and that there is but one
Godhead, or unity of essence, he does what is his duty, and he uses that sort of
argument by authority, which is the only one suited to the case. But if he mixes
abstract reasonings and speculative deductions from the attributes of God respecting
the mode of existence, and the office of the three persons of the Godhead, it is
certain that he will either fall, or lead others into error. I am not familiarly
acquainted with those writings which have professedly treated of the subject of the
Trinity; but from what I have seen, it appears that many great divines, who relied on
the strength of their own talents, have been justly accused of leaning either to an
unity without the distinction of Trinity, or to tritheism. Dr. Samuel Clarke was accused of the former, and I am afraid gave too
great cause for it, from his language. But I am inclined to believe that his error
arose from an attempt to define and explain what is, to us, in our present state,
indefinable and incomprehensible; 184 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
for, conscious of his own
abilities, he attempted subjects that were beyond the reach of human capacity, as he
has done in his reasoning on the existence and attributes of the Deity à priori. Newton also is accused of having been an unitarian, though I know not
on what grounds. While on the other hand, Dr.
Waterland, who opposed Clarke, is accused of having
made use of language which savours too much of tritheism. I believe that it is utterly
impossible to reason on this subject but in the way of authority drawn from the
Scriptures, proving that the Son and Holy Ghost are equal to the Father, admit of a
distinction, but constitute but one divine essence. And, whoever attempts more, will
only shew his own absurdity, his want of sense, and his want of proper reverence for
the Scriptures. No humble Christian ever makes a mistake on this subject. He believes
what is revealed, he is conscious he cannot penetrate into these things, and he prays
to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as one and the same God, and to each according as
he views the offices connected with his own redemption. Deists, when they assert that
the Trinity is an incomprehensible and mysterious subject, forget that it is not so in
itself, but from the state of human nature, which cannot
comprehend the nature of spiritual existence were it revealed, and which has not been
revealed, precisely because it cannot be comprehended at present: but as much of it as
is revealed, is plain, easily comprehensible, consolatory, and satisfactory, and
implies no more difficulty than any other truth in the Christian revelation. But while
I have said so much on this abstract point, I cannot help expressing my surprise how it
happens that those who are not religious invariably wish to begin with the subject
which appears to them most difficult. The contrary is the case in all the other
sciences except religion. Some time ago, S. and
M. pressed me into discussion on
predestination. It was in vain I attempted to evade it by asserting they were too
ignorant to comprehend it, and that I would take up the subject at a future time. I
was, however, compelled to yield to them. But I could not make them understand, that if
the end was destined, the means must be so likewise, a connexion which they invariably
disunited, by alleging, that if a man was destined to be saved, it was of no importance
what he did, he must be saved. Now such a mode of reasoning is absurd, and its
absurdity would be seen, were it on any 186 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
other subject; but it is
impossible for any but a real Christian to reason fairly on Christianity. For if every
thing is destined, then the means must be destined, not the end only. Hence a man must
be saved, not because he does what he will, that is, uses any means, but because he
uses those means which are destined for salvation. But plain as this is, they could not
or would not see it, and pronounced the doctrine horrid and unphilosophical: that it is
so in their view of it, I readily admit, but it so happens that their view of it is
erroneous, the result of their own ignorance. On all these difficult
subjects,” I continued,“such as the nature of the origin of evil, the
fall of man, the nature of the Trinity, and predestination, I find many who are ready
to reason; and however they are disposed to acknowledge their ignorance of many of the
sciences, and their deficiency in every branch of literature, yet each thinks himself
sufficiently qualified by the strength of his own reason alone, without the help of the
Scriptures, of which sometimes they readily acknowledge their ignorance, to investigate
these subjects and to form just conclusions; and when it is found impossible to make
them comprehend these subjects, or feel their own ignorance, they throw the blame on
the doctrines of Christianity, and on those who believe and
defend them.
“This is the wisdom of the world, which by reasoning attempts to
find out God, but cannot; but it is not the conduct of those who, like children
listening to a parent’s voice, eagerly attend to the revelation which God has
given them, and who by prayer, meditation, and reading, endeavour to find out his will.
The former will never understand it—the latter will invariably succeed. I
therefore advise your lordship to lay aside these subjects for the present, and study
Christianity, not in the books of Divines, which are more or less imperfect, even the
best of them, while many are full of error; but to commence an attentive and honest
examination of the Bible itself, comparing passage with passage, till at last you will
find such harmony and clearness in all its parts, and such a light and brightness of
wisdom upon the whole, as will leave you in no doubt about its being from God, and its
containing the communication of the only way in which you can be saved.”
“You recommend,” said Lord
Byron, “what is very difficult. For how is it possible for a person
acquainted with the history of the Church,—
188 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
with the
writings more or less of the most celebrated Divines,—with the questions which
have been discussed, and which have convulsed the whole Christian world,—with the
errors, the strange and contradictory opinions, which prevail; and above all, to see
Christians at the present day split into so many sects and denominations, each envying,
hating, and often reviling, at least writing, against one another,—how is it
possible to see all this, and yet not inquire into many of those points which have been
so much agitated? We have sentences of one Council against the sentence of another;
Pope against Pope; book against book; sects rising up and dying away, and new ones
succeeding them;—the Pope against Protestants and Protestants against the Pope,
and against each other; Arians, Socinians, Southcotians, Methodists, Quakers,
Harmonists, and I do not know where to end. Why do these exist to perplex and puzzle
the mind? and does it not seem a fair conclusion,—let it alone, and let these
people fight among themselves, and when they have settled what religion is, then we can
begin to study it.
“I like, however,” he continued, “your mode of
religion very much; you knock away the de-
crees of councils; you
cast away everything that disagrees with Scripture; the books full of Greek and Latin,
of high church and low church divines. You would remove too, I dare say, many of the
abuses which have crept into church establishments. I doubt whether the archbishop of
Canterbury would consider you a very great friend, nor the Scotch presbytery perhaps.
On predestination, however, I do not think as S.
and M.; for it appears to me, just from my own
reflections and experiences, that I am influenced in a way which is incomprehensible,
and am led to do things which I never intended; and if there is, as we all admit, a
Supreme Ruler of the universe, and if, as you say, he has the actions of the devils, as
well as of his own angels, completely at his command, then those influences, or those
arrangements of circumstances, which lead us to do things against our will, or with
ill-will, must be also under his direction. But I have never entered into the depths of
the subject, but contented myself with believing that there is a predestination of
events, and that that predestination depends on the will of God.”
“You have placed it,” I said, “on its proper
foundation. With regard to some of your obser-
190 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
vations, the
difficulties you mention as lying in the way of Christianity are more apparent than
real, and are used only as excuses by those who have no inclination to study it. The
differences among Christians, the corruption and abuses of church establishments, are
certainly to be much lamented, and if I could remedy them, I would, and so would every
honest man, of whatever sect to which he might belong. If each who professed
Christianity, not only understood its doctrines clearly, in all their simplicity and
spirituality, but reduced them to practice in his life and conversation, the aspect of
our religion would be more bright and alluring than it has ever been, or is at present.
But, it must be observed, that many profess Christianity, who are not Christians; nay,
some teach it who are not so, since it is taken up by many as a liberal profession;
such as medicine, or law, by which they gain their daily bread. That such should act
according to their dispositions, characters, and circumstances, in a way different to
that which religion prescribes, and consequently, in a manner so contrary to its
precepts, as to throw a sort of odium and stigma on religion itself, in the estimation
of the careless and superficial, is not to be wondered at: it is
equally true, and still more to be regretted, that there are many weak Christians,
whose zeal and sincerity are undoubted, yet who, from the weakness of their
understanding, attribute an importance to things which are either indifferent or
unessential, and who (according to circumstances) either persecute those who think
differently, or are persecuted by others equally weak, who differ from them in opinion.
From these two classes of people, from their actions, and writings, and conduct, much
mischief ensues. Divisions, schisms, and dissensions, are produced; and the more keenly
each writes and reasons in defence of his own notions, or those of the party to which
he belongs, the more firmly he flatters himself he is in the right, and imagines he is
animated with a pure zeal for the church; when, in reality, he is simply gratifying a
busy, pragmatical disposition, and confounds the applause of an active partisan to a
particular church, with the fervour of a true Christian and follower of Christ. Though,
in consequence of these principles, divisions exist in name and external practice among
Christians, they afford no excuse to the deist; because a little attention would shew
him, that these differences are chiefly 192 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
in things indifferent,
and unessential, arising from the imperfection of human nature, or from the
imperfection of the Christian character, or from hypocrites who mix among them; but,
among all those sects that are entitled to the name of Christian, there is a perfect
agreement with respect to the fundamental principles. Though a Scotchman, for example,
I can conscientiously subscribe to all the articles of the church of England; every
Scotchman can do the same; so can all the Independents, Congregationalists, and
Methodists; and perhaps all real Church-of-Englandmen would subscribe to the
fundamental articles of the other denominations. The absurdity is, that a Scotchman
passing the Tweed becomes a dissenter, and an Englishman going to Scotland, becomes the
same; a zealous Presbyterian thinks that every church, not founded on presbyteries and
synods, is corrupt and unapostolical; a Church-of-Englandman attaches the same
importance to bishops, archbishops, deans, &c.; a zealous Independent thinks that
the church should be separated from the state, and each church independent of
another.
“All such opinions are decidedly wrong, and contrary to the spirit
and express precepts of
Christianity. A man of sense laments the
existence of such differences, and would, if he could, promote an intimate union among
all these orthodox sects, by removing those appendages in the externals of each, which
would enable all to approximate nearer to each other.
“The first sentiment which Chalmers ever published was, that all dissenters should be united to
the church by some legal measure, which would leave them free on points where, from
principle, or weakness of conscience, they differed; and that the name and stigma
attached to a dissenter should be buried in oblivion; for there is work enough for all
Christians, to preach and teach amidst the pagans which are born, live, and die around
us! Though I would sincerely wish to see this union effected, and the different
churches reformed, as far as some of the externals are concerned, I do not wish to see
this reformation attempted by Radicals: nor do I think that the attacks lately made on
the church establishment will have any other result, than to perpetuate the abuses
which all must admit. These Radicals have little loyalty, and less piety; at least many
of them have openly professed their deistical principles; and no honest man can join in
wishing
194 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
them success. Their arguments betray their ignorance; and
it is evident, if they could succeed, that they would maintain that a nation is as well
without, as with a church establishment. No Christian would ever wish to see the money
applied to teach religion and morality withdrawn: he might say, that it might be more
justly distributed, and given only to those who execute their duty; and that he would
like to see real religion flourish in every part of the nation, without the distinction
of churchman or dissenter; and that the funds should be applied in such a way, as most
effectually to promote these objects exclusively; and that means should be adopted
which should tend to repress the ambition of rank, wealth, and indolence, literary or
political.
“From such an union, however, I would exclude Arians, Socinians,
Swedenborgians, and fanatics of all descriptions; leaving to them, not only toleration,
but perfect liberty of conscience. These people have no right to the name of
Christians. The Arians deny that the Son is equal to the Father; although he himself
expressly declares that he is. The Socinians say, he is not a divine character; yet
these sects call themselves Christians, while they reject the testimony of Christ.
The other fanatics are too absurd in their fancies and
imaginations to be reasoned with.”
“You seem to hate the Socinians,” said Lord Byron. “Not the individuals,” I
replied, “but their principles. I believe their system a terrible delusion, and
that there is more hope of a deist, than of a Socinian, becoming a real
Christian.”
“But is this charitable?” he asked; “why would
you exclude a sincere Socinian from the hope of salvation?”
“I do not exclude him, and certainly I am no judge; nor ought we to
judge of the ultimate state of any one; but comparing the Socinian doctrines with those
in the Bible, the one or other must be wrong.”
“But they draw their doctrine from the Bible,” said
Lord B. “Yes, so do all the fools,
enthusiasts, and fanatics; so the Church of Rome founds a system of idolatry, as absurd
as ancient or modern paganism, on the Bible. The Socinians reject such parts of the
Scripture, as interpolations, or corruptions, which do not suit their scheme; they turn
literal things into metaphorical, and metaphorical into literal, until they succeed in
representing original sin, the depravity of our nature, the necessity of atonement, and
conse-
196 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
quently the whole necessity of a revelation, as
perfectly useless. Setting aside the evidence on which these doctrines stand, it is
obvious, according to their scheme, that there was very little need of a Saviour. The
truth is, the Socinians are all unregenerated men; their hearts require to be renewed
and their heads enlightened; and their danger is, that they have formed a false system
of religion, and cling to it in the hope of safety. If any of them are sincerely
seeking the truth, God will in due time teach them, and bring them out of their
Socinian delusion; but those who die believing it, die, as far as I can judge,
unregenerated, and consequently, according to the Scriptures, die in a most dangerous
state.”
“Their religion,” said his lordship, “seems to
be spreading very much. Lady B. is a great one among
them, and much looked up to. She and I used to have a great many discussions on
religion, and some of our differences arose from this point; but on comparing all the
points together, I found that her religion was very similar to mine.”
I said I was exceedingly sorry to hear that her ladyship was among such a
set, and I hoped that ere long she would see her error and danger.
“But,” I added, “were thousands more of the
great, and the noble, and the learned among them, Christianity will stand and raise
its head with ultimate success from amidst the ruins of superstition, ignorance,
idolatry, and damnable heresies.”
“I should have been pleased,” said Lord
B. “that you had known Shelley. I should like to have seen you argue together. You very much
remind me of him, not only in countenance, but in your manner of speaking. He was to
have been my companion in Greece, poor fellow! had the unfortunate accident which
deprived him of life not taken place.”
I replied, that I should indeed have been pleased, were he here now: not
that I might argue with him, but that time might have been given to him to change his
sentiments, and amend his life. “I never read any of his writings, but I have seen
some extracts from them in the
‘Quarterly Review’ and
most certainly it would be no honour to resemble him in his opinions, whatever it might
be to do so in other respects. From what he says there, he appears to me to have been a
man totally destitute of common sense. His poetry may perhaps be fine and sublime, but
to me it is perfectly unintelligible; unless so far as it appeared that
198 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
the poor man was a virulent hater of Christianity, and ascribed
all the evils and miseries of life to its introduction.”
“I do not at all mean to defend his sentiments,” said
Lord B., “nor to approve of the mode in
which he published them; but Shelley possessed
many virtues, and many excellent qualities, and you would have liked him as a
companion. He was cool in his manner; yet impassioned, animated, and eloquent in his
conversation. I was much amused with him and another gentleman,” (he
mentioned the name, but I forgot it;) “one was a Platonist, the other was not;
and, after long arguments, they converted each other.”
“A proof,” I said, “that the opinions of neither
were sound nor well weighed. Such things do very well for school-boys; but how a man of
sense can conscientiously believe in the numbers and ideas of Plato is to me inexplicable. I wish, sincerely, however, that Shelley had been alive, that the wanderings of his
imagination had subsided, and that he had become a sober, sensible man, a good
Christian, and an honest member of society.”
“He possessed,” said his lordship, “one of the
first Christian virtues, charity and benevolence.
His benevolence
was universal, and his charity far beyond his means.”
“This is a virtue,” I replied, “and esteemed
such among Christians, undoubtedly, but it is not a Christian virtue, unless it
proceeds from Christian principles. With Shelley
it surely could not be a Christian virtue. I admit that it is a virtue, a heathen or an
infidel virtue, if you please; and he has had, and let him have, as much praise from
men on account of it as he deserves: but in the sight of God it is nothing, for he has
declared that nothing is pleasing to him, but what proceeds from a proper motive and
principle, the fundamental point of which, belief in and love to Christ, was
unfortunately wanting in Shelley. His fate is lamentable. I heard
that he came out either to prosecute his inquiries with a view to overturn
Christianity, or to write a book with that intent. Poor man! he little knew against
whom he was fighting. His time came, and he died; died with his sins unrepented of and
unanealed,—a striking warning to others, as to the opinions they should form, the
mode in which they should live, and the necessity of preparing for death and
judgment.”
“I see,” said Lord B.,
“it is impossible to ex-
200 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
cite in your mind sympathy, or
obtain a proper degree of allowance, for an unfortunate man of fine genius and
imagination.”
“I have as much sympathy,” I said, “and more
than those who may praise and lament him the loudest; at least I ought to have more,
not because a fine poet was lost to the world, but because a fellow-creature died so
awfully and suddenly; and, in such a career of wild and infidel principles and
sentiments, was summoned to the presence of his judge.”
I observed that by this time the day was declining, and apologized to his
lordship for having detained him so long. “The subjects are perhaps more
interesting,” I said, “to me than to you, and in pressing them on
your notice, with a hope that they may do you good, I am apt to forget times and
seasons. I must now return to the city, and I trust and pray that your lordship will
give due attention to them; for without a belief in these doctrines, you can never be
happy here, nor safe hereafter. God has given you a fine understanding, a knowledge to
distinguish between right and wrong. Every subject to which you choose to direct your
attention you can master; but there is no art or science
which
you can learn by intuition. Bestow then as much of your time on the examination of
religion, as you would upon any other subject which may excite your interest, and you
will find that it is in every respect most reasonable: and I trust you will become,
what I hope one day to see you, an ornament and boast to your country, and an object of
joy to every honest and sincere Christian.”
“I intend to study the subject certainly,” said Lord B.; “you must give me time: you see I have begun
well; I listen to every thing that is said, but you cannot expect me to become a good
Christian all at once; you have found me, have you not? approach nearer to your
sentiments than you had expected.”
“You have indeed done so, and I rejoice at it; and I have no
hesitation in saying, that I have more hope of your lordship than of the others, with
the exception of one: for you have shewn more candour, and patience, than I could
possibly have expected.”
“Who is it that you have more hope of than
me?” “It is S.,” I said, “though of him I am not certain; the result of
all depends on the will of God: yet, judging by human probabilities and
202 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
means, I would augur well of S. He possesses
a wild and fanciful imagination, has never studied the subject, nor bestowed on it any
attention; his mind is full of a Christianity, the result of his own false conceptions;
he has therefore despised it; and even now, when he is better informed, his former
imaginations run away with him; and notwithstanding the knowledge he has acquired, he
bursts forth, and flies into the most fanciful objections, views, and absurdities. But
he possesses a sincere, open, and honest understanding; and if this has fair
play,—if life is prolonged to him, and his attention continue to be directed to
the subject, I have not the slightest doubt but it will terminate in conviction.
“As for the others, I do not know what to think or say. They seem
so hardened and indifferent, that the subject appears only as an exercise of their
reason, or a means of amusement and ridicule. It is difficult to keep your attention
fixed on the subject. You enter into other studies, amusements, and occupations, and
religion does not engage your thoughts; thus, you can never understand it. The
accidental circumstance of my being here has excited a transient interest and
curiosity, which will vanish probably as soon
as we are
separated. I shall do what I can among you, and the principal thing which I would urge
with you all, is your almost perfect ignorance of the subject, consequently the
necessity of studying it. With respect to myself, I have to request, that if I advance
an opinion which does not appear well founded, you will ascribe its insufficiency to
me; and I beg that you will throw the blame on me rather than on religion; for though I
may not be able to explain every thing well, or in a manner satisfactory to you, I beg
to assure you that others can. One thing is evident, that every one of you must change
your sentiments, and mode of life, before you can be safe; and if you reject religion,
it must be at your own peril, and not from any defect in the clearness, force, and
evidence of its truth.”
“I own,” said Lord
B., “the difficulty of fixing, and continuing one’s attention to
such subjects, considering the circumstances in which we are placed, and the strong and
urgent calls to other matters. I think, however, that I may say I shall bestow more
attention on it than I have hitherto done; but whether I shall reach the standard of
orthodoxy, I know not.”
“We have no standard of orthodoxy, except
204 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
the leading principles of Christianity, followed by a pure and pious life. I do not
wish you, nor any one else, to enter into the mazes of theological speculation.
Christianity is a practical thing: reduce it to practice, believing first in the
fundamental doctrines, and we shall all be satisfied.
“The best way of understanding the Scriptures, is to take the
Bible by itself, and examine its several parts, and what is obscure, or briefly
expressed in one part, will be found clearly and fully stated in another. The doctrines
are not presented to us in a systematized form, but are declared, applied, and implied,
and repeated, according to the actual circumstances of the people and the time in which
they were revealed. Many good men, from the love of system, have narrowed, and limited
the doctrine of the Scriptures; and in the systems which have been presented to us at
different times, there is much which is merely inferential, and, consequently, less
certain than that which is direct and positive. Although no system, at least none which
I have seen, is free from objections; yet, these are not without their use, inasmuch as
they present, in one strict, and concentrated view, the whole of the doctrines and
actions which ought to flow from them. We
should, however, never
forget that they are the compositions of men liable to error, and though they may be
read as assistants, they are never to be taken as the standard of our faith. Whenever a
difficulty or dispute arises, it must be settled by the words and meaning of the
Scriptures themselves, and not by any thing which an uninspired Christian may write or
say.
“I have very few books with me on religious subjects, and none
which present a complete view, or systematic arrangement of Christianity, except one.
It is perhaps the best that has been published, and I know of none which has been so
extensively useful, especially to the poor; and I acknowledge that I have derived more
instruction and improvement from it, than from works of greater fame and higher
pretensions. It is ‘Boston’s Fourfold
State,’ which describes man as he was in a state of innocence, before
the fall; in a state of condemnation after it; in a state of begun recovery, or
regeneration and sanctification; and in a state of happiness or misery. It has the
merit of being short; and though it is written in a plain, and rather antiquated style,
it is bold and energetic in its language: every assertion is supported by reference to
Scripture,
206 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
and it is full of matter and ideas, and some of them
striking and original: if you please, I will send it to you; I think that you may read
it with great advantage.”
“I shall read it with great pleasure,” said Lord B.; “I have not the least prejudice against the
style of our older writers, I am quite accustomed to it, and prefer the force and
energy of their language, to the soft harmonious periods of the present day, which have
more sound than sense.”
I now rose to depart; and I said to Lord
B., “Although I may perhaps have wearied your lordship with so long
a lecture, yet, I am so pleased with the attention you have shewn, and I have so much
hope that it may be useful, at least so far as to induce your lordship to prosecute the
study of Christianity, that I should feel great pleasure to have another opportunity of
conversing with you, if agreeable and convenient.”
“I shall be glad to see you at all times, and as often as you can
come out. I have no particular engagements. When my friends come from Argostoli, it is
on no fixed day.” “Does your lordship intend soon to go to
Greece?” “In about ten days or a fortnight all things will be
ready, I believe, for our departure; but there is nothing
that can prevent me from seeing and hearing you at any time; and if you should come
when I am out riding, just sit down, and take a book, and amuse yourself till I return.
You will find”—looking at the books on the
side-tables—“something to amuse you, although they are rather upon
profane than sacred things.”
Saint Athanasius (293 c.-373)
Alexandrian theologian who wrote against the Arians on the Trinity; the Athanasian Creed
(6th cent.) bears his name.
Thomas Boston (1676-1732)
Scottish minister, evangelical Calvinist, and popular author.
Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847)
Scottish divine and leader of the Free Church of Scotland; he was professor of moral
philosophy at St. Andrews (1823-28) and professor of divinity at Edinburgh
(1828-43).
Adam Clarke (1762-1832)
Methodist minister and scholar; he published
Memoirs of the Wesley
Family, 2 vols (1822) in response to Robert Southey.
Samuel Clarke (1675-1729)
English theologian and Newtonian philosopher whose
Scripture Doctrine
of the Trinity (1714) provoked the charge of Arianism.
William Cowper (1731-1800)
English poet, author of
Olney Hymns (1779),
John
Gilpin (1782), and
The Task (1785); Cowper's delicate
mental health attracted as much sympathy from romantic readers as his letters, edited by
William Hayley, did admiration.
Henry Edwards Davis (1756-1784)
Fellow and tutor of Balliol College, Oxford; he exposed Gibbons' plagiarisms in
An Examination of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Chapters of Mr Gibbon's
History (1778).
John Donne (1572-1631)
English poet, wit, and divine; he was dean of St. Paul's (1621-31).
John Duffie (d. 1854)
Lieutenant-Colonel of the 8th regiment, stationed at Cephalonia in 1823; he was Byron's
riding-companion and correspondent. He had served with distinction in the Peninsular War
and retired on half-pay in 1828.
Pietro Gamba (1801-1827)
The brother of Teresa Guiccioli and member of Carbonieri. He followed Byron to Greece and
left a memoir of his experiences.
Edward Gibbon (1737-1794)
Author of
The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
(1776-1788).
Johann Wolfgang Goethe (1749-1832)
German poet, playwright, and novelist; author of
The Sorrows of Young
Werther (1774) and
Faust (1808, 1832).
William Hone (1780-1842)
English bookseller, radical, and antiquary; he was an associate of Bentham, Mill, and
John Cam Hobhouse.
Horace (65 BC-8 BC)
Roman lyric poet; author of
Odes,
Epistles, Satires, and the
Ars Poetica.
David Hume (1711-1776)
Scottish philosopher and historian; author of
Essays Moral and
Political (1741-42),
Enquiry concerning Human Understanding
(1748) and
History of Great Britain (1754-62).
Francis Jeffrey, Lord Jeffrey (1773-1850)
Scottish barrister, Whig MP, and co-founder and editor of the
Edinburgh
Review (1802-29). As a reviewer he was the implacable foe of the Lake School of
poetry.
William Jones (1762-1846)
Bookseller, author, and Baptist minister; he published a
History of the
Albigensians and Waldensians (1811) and
Sermons on Primitive
Christianity (1837).
Juvenal (110 AD fl.)
Roman satirist noted, in contrast to Horace, for his angry manner.
Hon. Augusta Mary Leigh [née Byron] (1783-1851)
Byron's half-sister; the daughter of Amelia Darcy, Baroness Conyers, she married
Lieutenant-Colonel George Leigh on 17 August 1807.
Joseph Milner (1745-1797)
Evangelical divine and headmaster of the Hull Grammar School; he published
Gibbon's Account of Christianity Considered (1781).
John Milton (1608-1674)
English poet and controversialist; author of
Comus (1634),
Lycidas (1638),
Areopagitica (1644),
Paradise Lost (1667), and other works.
Henry Muir (1790 c.-1826 fl.)
The Health Officer at Argostoli when Byron visited; some notes on Byron were published in
Notes and Queries by his son, H. Skey Muir, in 1884.
Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
English scientist and president of the Royal Society; author of
Philosophae naturalis principia mathematica (1687).
Persius (34-62)
Roman poet, the author of six surviving satires.
Plato (427 BC-327 BC)
Athenian philosopher who recorded the teachings of his master Socrates in a series of
philosophical dialogues.
Alexander Pope (1688-1744)
English poet and satirist; author of
The Rape of the Lock (1714)
and
The Dunciad (1728).
George Scott (1825 fl.)
Assistant-surgeon of the 8th Regiment of Foot (1822-25); he was stationed in Cephalonia
where he was a friend of James Kennedy.
Thomas Scott (1747-1821)
English divine, originally a surgeon; he was rector of Aston Sandford (1801-21). He
published commentary on the Bible (1788-92) in weekly numbers.
Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822)
English poet, with Byron in Switzerland in 1816; author of
Queen
Mab (1813),
The Revolt of Islam (1817),
The Cenci and
Prometheus Unbound (1820), and
Adonais (1821).
Joseph Spence [Sir Harry Beaumont] (1699-1768)
English essayist, friend of Pope, Oxford Professor of Poetry, and patron of Stephen Duck
and Thomas Blacklock; author of
Polymetis: or, An Enquiry concerning the
Agreement between the Works of the Roman Poets, and the Remains of the Antient
Artists (1747).
Germaine de Staël (1766-1817)
French woman of letters; author of the novel
Corinne, ou L'Italie
(1807) and
De l'Allemagne (1811); banned from Paris by Napoleon, she
spent her later years living in Germany, Britain, and Switzerland.
Moses Stuart (1780-1852)
Yale-educated theologian; he was pastor of the Centre Church of New Haven (1806), and
professor of sacred literature in the Andover Theological Seminary (1810).
Voltaire (1694-1778)
French historian and man of letters; author of, among many other works,
The Age of Louis XIV (1751) and
Candide (1759).
William Warburton (1698-1779)
English Divine and man of letters; he was bishop of Gloucester (1759); he was the friend,
annotator, and executor of Alexander Pope.
Daniel Waterland (1683-1740)
An Anglican champion of orthodox theology admired by Coleridge; he was master of
Magdalene College, Cambridge (1713-40).
Richard Watson, bishop of Llandaff (1737-1816)
Regius Professor of Divinity, Trinity College, Cambridge and bishop of Llandaff (1782);
he published
Apology for Christianity (1776) in response to Gibbon,
and
Apology for the Bible (1796) in response to Paine.
The Eclectic Review. (1805-1868). Successively edited by Samuel Greatheed, Daniel Parken, and Theophilus Williams
(1814-36), and the poet Josiah Conder (1837-50). It was friendly to evangelical
publications.
The Quarterly Review. (1809-1967). Published by John Murray, the
Quarterly was instigated by Walter
Scott as a Tory rival to the
Edinburgh Review. It was edited by
William Gifford to 1824, and by John Gibson Lockhart from 1826 to 1853.
George Gordon Byron, sixth Baron Byron (1788-1824)
Don Juan. (London: 1819-1824). A burlesque poem in ottava rima published in installments: Cantos I and II published in
1819, III, IV and V in 1821, VI, VII, and VIII in 1823, IX, X, and XI in 1823, XII, XIII,
and XIV in 1823, and XV and XVI in 1824.