Conversations on Religion, with Lord Byron
Fourth Conversation
Soon after this, I had occasion to ride out to a village near Lord B., to visit some people who had been injured by the
falling in of a part of the road side, from under which sand had been dug. S. accompanied me, and when we had visited the people, we
resolved to pay a visit to Lord B. We found him with Mr. F., who had just arrived from Germany, and was on his
way to join the Greeks. Dinner was soon brought in, and there were present, Lord
Byron, S., and myself, Mr. F.,
Count Gamba, and Dr.
Bruno. The conversation was, of course, very general and only desultory: we
talked about Germany, the modes of education adopted there, and the opinion of the German
schools. Lord Byron then spoke of religion, and said, “he was
particularly struck with a remark of Bishop
Beveridge, in one of the tracts, in which he says, ‘that in our
best actions we sin.’ Do you remember the
passage?” “No,” I answered, “I
did not observe it.” “You are a fine
fellow to give me tracts for my conversion, without knowing yourself what they
contain.” So saying, he went into his bed-room, and brought out a tract, and
read a passage quoted from Beveridge. After he had done, I said,
“I now remember the passage, and the doctrine it contains is sound. You know
it is impossible for me to remember all I have read, or to retain in my memory what
every tract which I disperse contains. It is enough to know that, though some of them
might be written with more ability, they are all good. No man, who, like
Bishop Beveridge, has felt and known by experience the
depravity of his own heart, and compares his best actions, even his devotions, with the
purity of God’s law, as containing the expression of his will,—but must
feel and lament that sin, more or less, pollutes the best actions of our
lives.”
“I am not convinced,” said Lord
B. “of the justice of your opinion respecting the ghost-scene
in Samuel. I have been looking at the passage again, and do
not see that distinction you make about the witch of Endor having
been afraid when Samuel’s ghost appeared, as an apparition
which she did not expect.” He then went for his sister’s
234 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
Bible, and read aloud to us all the passage. As he read it, he made
no pause after the words, “she cried with a loud voice,” which is done
in our bibles, and from which, I believe, Scott
draws the conclusion, that these words imply that she made some exclamation from fear. If
she expected to see Samuel, or if in reality she expected to see some
spirit rise at her incantations, then she was either the dupe of her own credulity, or
there was more in witchcraft, as then practised, than modern philosophers are apt to admit.
But if the words “she cried,” implied, that she uttered an exclamation
of fear at, what was to her, an unexpected apparition; then we may infer, that she was
accustomed merely to use some juggling tricks and illusions, with a view of deceiving the
ignorant and the credulous, for the purpose of gain.
As the point itself was not one which was of the least importance, or likely,
by the discussion of it, to be useful, I did not wish it to be carried on; and after taking
up the passage and reading it, I said, certainly from the manner in which Lord B. had read it, there was no room for the idea which I
had thrown out,—that perhaps I was mistaken, and I would give the subject further
consideration.
Lord Byron had some jokes against Dr. Bruno, whom he laughed at for having said that the
head of a man will dance on the ground, after it has been separated from the body: this
Bruno explained properly. S. had been saying something at the corner of the table while he was
sitting next to Count G., which did not appear to be
very orthodox: his lordship called out to me, “Do you hear what
S. has been saying? Why, he has not advanced one step towards
conversion. He is worse than I am!” Mr.
F. having said something about the contradictions which appeared in the
Scriptures, Lord B. said, “That is going too far; I am so
much of a believer as to be of opinion, that there is no contradiction in Scripture,
which cannot be reconciled by an attentive consideration and comparison of passages.
What puzzles me most is the eternity of hell punishments. This I am not disposed to
believe and this is the only point of difference between me and the Doctor here, who
will not admit me into the pale of orthodoxy, till I can get over this
point.”
After several other desultory observations, the conversation again reverted
to religious subjects, and I was attempting to explain that no man could seriously have any
difficulty in ascertaining
236 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
whether he was a real Christian or not, as
he had only to compare his conduct and opinion, with what was required of him in the Bible.
I was explaining the great change that must take place in worldly men, when their hearts
are touched with the spirit of religion; “they have no longer,” I said,
“the same enjoyment in many things which formerly gave
pleasure.” “Certainly,” said Lord
Byron, “you must except some things, and grant that some can afford
enjoyment as well before conversion as after.” “I do,”
said I; “all legitimate or lawful pleasures can be enjoyed as well after
conversion as before, and even with a higher relish, since then we feel more
thankfulness and gratitude to that Being who grants them to us. But,” I
added, “there are many sources of pleasure, and many objects of pursuit, in which
worldly people indulge, that after conversion can give no further pleasure. When
converted, you endeavour to practice every virtue, from a love to God, and from a sense
of duty; and in doing this, the mind feels perfect happiness. All the objects of
worldly ambition,—such as wealth, rank, and fame—whether as merchants,
scholars, statesmen, or poets,—must be modified and
corrected.” “I perfectly agree with
you,” Lord Byron exclaimed,
“with respect to the profane art of poetry!” “This is
not profane” I said, “if exercised with proper motives: witness such
poetry as Cowper has given us, and see the
principles which he inculcates, and the beauty with which he paints virtue, and
reprobates vice, and the many inducements he holds forth in the most vigorous poetry,
for the practice of virtue and piety.” Some conversation took place about
Cowper’s insanity, whether it was before or after
conversion. I explained, that he had attempted to commit suicide before his conversion;
that it was during his convalescence Dr. Madan was
the means of enlightening his mind on religion; that his piety and happiness were equal, as
long as he lived with the Unwins, in the same neighbourhood with
Newton—that when he was engaged in writing
poems, and was seized with the ambition and feelings of a mere poet, his mind became again
unsettled and melancholy, and that it was to divert this, that some injudicious, but
well-meaning friends, urged him to the laborious task of translating Homer. Had his fame not risen as a poet during his life time,
and consequently, had not his vanity and ambition been excited,—had he lived
obscurely, quietly, and contentedly, as he 238 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
had before for many years,
in the practice of virtue, in the study and meditation of the Scriptures, and in writing
such books as the ‘Task’ or in
composing more of his beautiful hymns,—there is reason to believe that his mind would
have remained tranquil and sound. But the labour and anxiety of such a work as the
translation of Homer, unsettled his delicate and gentle mind, and
threw him into that state of melancholy despondency from which he never recovered.” I
then reprobated the life of Cowper, as written in the Edinburgh Encyclopedia, and said,
it was the most unjust and unfair of all the articles in that excellent work; and that I
was often inclined, obscure as I was, to write to the distinguished editor, and urge him to have it altered, as it could not
fail to give offence to every Christian reader, to every admirer of
Cowper, and to every lover of truth.
“Cowper,” I added, “is a poet
whose fame will increase with succeeding ages.” His lordship dissented from
me with respect to the greatness of Cowper as a poet.
The conversation turned upon the Socinians, and I was accused by some of the
party of being too severe on this sect,—that my opinions were too exclusive, and
narrow, and less candid and
charitable in judging of others than they
should be. I affirmed that this was a mistake. “That I pretended not to judge of
the final and eternal state of any one, but that there were opinions and practices,
which, when judged by the Bible, rendered those who held them incapable of obtaining
eternal happiness; since God had declared certain characters should not enter into the
kingdom of heaven. But as there was no sin too great for God to pardon, so any persons,
however criminal in their conduct and opinions, might be converted, and therefore
saved, even so late as the last moment of their lives. Of the worst people, therefore,
as long as they live, there is hope; but surely, it is not uncharitable to suppose,
and, indeed, to judge from the authority of the Scriptures, that those people who
continue to the end of their lives in sin, or in such damnable opinions as most of the
Socinians entertain, cannot have hope of salvation, without conversion by the grace and
power of God. It is no bigotry, therefore, to say, that such people, while they thus
live and think, have no share in salvation. It would be a false show of candour to
endeavour to hope so; we may pray for their conversion, knowing that the power of God
is sufficient to accomplish what to us is 240 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
hopeless or impossible.
Besides,” I said, “I must put you right with regard to another
point, in which you are all apt to err. It is a common opinion, that a serious
Christian thinks himself a better man than those who live in sin, or at least who are
not so strict and attentive to religious duties as he is; thence a worldly man
naturally thinks that he is puffed up with spiritual pride, and feels some indignation
at the censorious judgment which he forms of others, and is offended with his pride in
exalting himself by the comparison. It is natural for an unconverted person to think
and feel so, but he judges of the serious Christian in an ignorant manner. A serious
Christian is the best philosopher; his mind is turned constantly to the motives of his
own conduct, and the more he examines himself, the more astonished is he to find the
native blackness and depravity of his own heart, and the alloy which mixes itself with
his best actions and purest motives. Independently of the distinct precepts of the
Scriptures, he knows that he is not naturally a better man than the worst sinner around
him. Nay, that his motives and his inclinations have been as bad, if not worse, though
circumstances have prevented them from being developed: therefore he feels, that if he
no longer lives in a course of sin, this is by the grace and
power of God, which prevents and saves him from evil,—he is set to watch against
evil, from the very consciousness of his weakness. Instead of being elated with
spiritual pride, he becomes daily more humble; he ascribes everything to the mercy of
God, and he has no other feeling for a sinning brother, than that of compassion, and an
earnest desire to be useful to him, and to induce him to reform. Beside all this, he
knows that the grace of God extends overall, and that he bestows it on whomsoever he
will; he knows that the greatest sinner of his acquaintance may be arrested in his
career, and may become a much holier and better Christian than himself; ‘For
to whom much is forgiven, the same loveth much.’ These reflections,
therefore, prevent a Christian from self-approbation and spiritual pride, and in
proportion as he feels either the one or the other, which he may do momentarily, (as he
is not perfect,) in the same proportion does he depart from Christian principles;
and if a professing Christian habitually carries in his heart an idea of superiority
over his sinning brother, or feels pride in consequence, he may have the form, but he
has not the least of the spirit of Christianity; indeed 242 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
there is
more hope of an open profligate, than of him, who either deceives himself or
others,—perhaps both. Let us not be called bigoted, therefore, if we judge of you
and of ourselves by the Scriptures, and maintain those Scriptures from all perversion.
There is no more hardness of heart and inhumanity in us who believe in the eternity of
hell punishment, than in you who falsely flatter yourselves with the idea that you are
very liberal and humane, in professing to believe that hell punishment is temporary. We
believe what God has said. Had he said, that after a certain time passed elsewhere, the
unrepenting wicked, after due punishment, should be cleansed and raised to heaven, we
would have believed it, and rejoiced in the idea: but God has said otherwise, and the
will of the Christian is, to yield to the will of God. Whatever he does is right. If it
depended on me, judging by mere feelings of humanity, I would have all saved. Nay, I
would go further than you,—I would have no hell at all; but would pardon all,
purify all, and send all to equal happiness.” “Nay,”
exclaimed some of them, “I would not save all.” “I would
save,” cried his lordship, “my sister and my daughter, and some
of my friends,—and a few others, and let the rest shift for
themselves.” “And your wife
also,” I exclaimed, “No,” he said. “But your
wife, surely, you would save your wife?” “Well,” he
said, “I would save her too, if you like.”
The conversation now turned on several subjects of a common and trivial
nature, which it would be unnecessary to repeat, and shortly afterwards we took our leave.
Mr. F. accompanied us part of the way, but as
S. and myself were obliged to visit another of
the persons who had been injured in a neighbouring village, he pursued his way to Argostoli
with his guide, while S. and myself arrived there late in the evening,
conversing together on the strange character, and occasionally strange conversation in
which we had been engaged.
Sir David Brewster (1781-1868)
Scottish natural philosopher and editor of the
Edinburgh
Encyclopaedia (1807-1830). He contributed to the
Literary
Gazette and invented the kaleidoscope.
Francesco Bruno (d. 1828 c.)
Byron's physician on his second expedition to Greece in 1823-24; he was afterwards in
Switzerland, and died at Naples.
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.
George Finlay (1799-1875)
After study at Glasgow he fought in Greece where he saw much of Byron, afterwards buying
an estate in Attica. He was the author of
History of Greece, 7 vols
(1844-61).
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.
Homer (850 BC fl.)
Poet of the
Iliad and
Odyssey.
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.
Martin Madan (1725-1790)
The son of Col. Martin Madan and Judith Cowper; he was chaplain of the Lock Hospital for
repentant prostitutes (1750-80) and an advocate for polygamy. He corresponded with Lady
Huntingdon and John Wesley.
John Newton (1725-1807)
Evangelical clergyman who wrote the
Olney Hymns (1779) with
William Cowper; he was curate of Olney in Buckinghamshire from 1764.
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.