|
With the agreement of Dr. Martin Pulbruck, this sermon presented at Blackpool Unitarian Church, by Mr Eddie Buckley on Sunday 20th November 2005
To most people today, even Unitarians, the name of Dr. William Robertson is probably unknown. That - I venture to suggest - is - unfortunate and unfair to his memory. He was born in Dublin exactly 300 years ago today, on 16th October 1705, and so this day of his tercentary makes a good moment to try to evaluate ;" his achievement and put it in perspective. I am most grateful to Bill Darlison for agreeing to my taking the Service today in -/-order to commemorate Robertson. We have his picture hanging in the Cork Church - the picture reproduced on page 2 of your service sheets today -, and he is someone who deserves to be remembered gratefully and cherished by us. By contrast, most of us probably know in some degree of the Revd. Theophilus Lindsey, sometime Anglican Rector of Catterick in Yorkshire, who caused major anti-Establishment ripples in Georgian society by resigning his living in 1773 to move to London and establish the first overtly Unitarian congregation in England at a time when the open expression of Unitarian views was still, technically, a capital offence, Lindsey's original chapel in Essex Street was within the area of the present-day Unitarian HQ in London, although the congregation has now moved to the aptly-named Essex Church in Kensington, West London, Lindsey was a massive driving-force in the consolidation of Unitarianism in England during the forty or so years between his resignation from Catterick in 1773 and the passing of the Act (1817 'in Ireland) which lifted the "ban on expression of Unitarian views. Among Lindsey's other projects during this period he supervised the production of a Unitarian version of The Book oF Common Prayer, which appeared in 1774 - a version not very different from our First Service which, for this reason, we use this morning and the so-called Unitarian 'improved' Bible of 1806-1808, which, for example, segregated the Nativity story of Luke - as being secondary material - in distinctive print - a. decision (however- unwelcome to traditionalists) subsequently vindicated in the 1960's by computer-aided analysis. But if we most of us know of Theophilus Lindsey, far fewer are aware that the Anglican clergyman who, on Lindsey's own admission, paved the way for his actions in 1773-1774, was an Irishman (of Scottish descent), the Revd. Dr. William Robertson. Before going on to evaluate Robertson's aspirations and achievement, it is worth spending a short while looking at the life of this remarkable man. There are, as far as I know, three immediate tools for this; the entry in the old Dictionary of National Biography, the obituary which appeared in 'The Gentleman's Magazine', in September 1783 (from which I have reproduced, in enlarged form, the picture of Robertson), and odd details-- to be gathered here and there in Thomas Belsham' s famous 1873 biography 'Memoirs of Thomas Lindsey'. Attempts by me to recover surviving books and papers of Robertson's from Wolverhampton, where he was at the end of his life a headmaster, have, I regret to say, proved unsuccessful. As we have seen, William Robertson was born in Dublin - on October 16th 1705. His father was a linen manufacturer, and his mother was born Diana Allen, of a well-connected. Anglican family in Co.Durham, Young William was of a delicate constitution as a child, suffering in particular from eye problems, and did not go to school until he-was twelve/ when he attended. Dr. Francis Hutcheson's school in Dublin. He must have progressed well because in 1722, barely yet seventeen, he went to the University of Glasgow, from which lie obtained his M.A. three years later, in 1725 But in 1725 Robertson was involved in a major student protest about the appointment of a new university Rector. I read from the minutes of the University of Glasgow, as excerpted by Charles Morthland: "Mr. William Robertson, Student of" Divinity, having been accused of several disorders, and having been called and examined ..., the Faculty found, by his own confession, that he was accessory to a tumultuous insult upon the house of Hugh Montgomery, ... present Rector of the University. All which being contrary to the rules of good order and behaviour to be observed, by the Students of this University, especially Students of Divinity, the Faculty found him highly censureable for the same, ... and hereby do extrude the said Mr. William Robertson from this University". William. Robertson's father sought help in London from John, Duke of Argyll, and the Duke's brother, the Earl of Ilay and. a commission of inquiry followed, in 1726, which completely vindicated Robertson and restored him as a member of Glasgow University. Robertson, in the meantime, spent some months in London, in the words of his obituary, "in visiting the public libraries, attending lectures, and improving himself as opportunities offered" At the start of 1727, still, only 21, he returned to Ireland, and was made a deacon on January 14th, serving in Tullow, Co.Carlow... Ordination followed, on November 10th 1729, and at the age of 25 Robertson found himself Rector of Rathvilly in Co.Carlow and of Kilravels in Co.Wicklow. In the meantime, in 1728, Robertson had: married Elizabeth , Baxter, and they had. in all twenty-one children Elizabeth died, comparatively young - hardly surprisingly -, in 1758, and there are elements of tragedy in what followed. By the 1770s only four of the twenty-one children were still alive, two sons and two daughters, but these four in turn all died between then and. their father's death on 20th May 1783. So William Robertson had the misfortune of being predeceased by every one of his twenty-one children. Robertson remained at Rathvilly until 1759, when his bishop offered: him preferment. He must already by then have been having serious doubts about orthodox belief; for he declined the offer, returning; "his Lordship the most grateful thanks for his kindness, but -informing] him that he could not comply with the terms required, by law". Thereafter, though continuing at Rathvilly for a time, he omitted the Creed from all services, which progressively caused offence; hence he thought it the honest thing to do, in 1760, to resign his living. The next years were difficult, and. he moved .to England. Finally, in 1768, he was appointed to the Mastership of Wolverhampton Grammar School in Staffordshire, a post he held until his death. William Robertson and Theophilus Lindsey became increasingly well acquainted during the fifteen years up to the former's death in 1783, and Lindsey had the greatest respect and admiration for the older man - Robertson was his senior by eighteen years. Lindsey described Robertson on one occasion as- "this venerable father of Unitarian Nonconformity of our own days". And special mention should be made of Robertson|rs kindly disposition of character, Lindsey wrote that Robertson retained and kept up that serenity and chearful trust - which can only belong to the virtuous and innocent mind"; and Thomas Hollis, writing to Lindsey about Robertson on 2nd February 1768, observed: "you cannot, I think, but perceive a colossus' of a good man - there is great simplicity with ease in his behaviour; but I suspect under it - strong parts". Robertsons standing among Dissenters is illustrated by the fact that in 1772 "he was chosen one of the committee - in framing and presenting the famous petition to the House of Commons ..., praying to be relieved from the obligation of subscribing assent and consent to the thirty-nine articles, and all and every thing contained in the book of common-prayer" ( obituary). But, as I mentioned at the start of this Service, Robertson's aim, nonetheless, was not to depart further from 'The Book of Common Prayer' than absolutely necessary. He wished, not for a new liturgy, but for a 'Prayer Book liturgy', in his own words, "silent on all controverted, points". This is important, as we shall see, in relation to what Robertson hoped that the Church, i.e. the Unitarian Church or the Church when Unitarian, might be. Now, two things seem to me specially deserving of comment about 'Robertson-Lindsey' Unitarianism. And it is an inescapable fact that, in both these areas, Robertson and Lindsey actually failed, I regard, those failures as tragic, and have to say - this is an entirely personal view - that Unitarianism today would be infinitely the stronger if Robertson and, Lindsey had succeeded. What then was the nature of their 'failure'? First of all, their espousal of Unitarianism was essentially theological in foundation. In 1759 Robertson simply ceased to be able to continue to affirm the Creed, And when Lindsey intimated to his bishop, the Bishop of Chester, his intention to resign his living, Bishop Markham hoped to talk him out of it. But Lindsey's long reply to the bishop is illustrative of how deeply thought through his act of resignation was. Let me read some of what he said in that November 1773 letter: "I am constrained ... to tell your Lordship, that I am so persuaded of the strict unity of God, that though no one is further from condemning others that differ, I should hold it impiety in me to continue to worship Christ, or any other being or person". Too often today, we Unitarians are not theological enough - although, paradoxically, theological understanding has moved, and continues to move, in our direction. Modern Unitarians are meant to be tolerant and accepting of variety and diversity, but the one thing that many of us seem unable to accept, even embarrassed about accepting, is our own theological case. The discoveries and publication of evidence from sites such as Qumran and Hag Hammadi, and. of extra-canonical scriptural texts, over recent generations - not to mention works of analysis such as Professor Geza Vermes' most recent book, The 'Original Gospel of Jesus' (published in 2003), vindicate and validate our Unitarian, position theologically. And certainly Theophilus Lindsey and William Robertson would, be disbelieving at the extent now to which Unitarians are so concerned with other emphases - many of them social or at least non-theological - that they simply fail to reap the benefits of theological evidence which is more and more in their favour. The second 'failure' of Messrs, Lindsey and Robertson is just; as extensive. It seems reasonably clear from Lindsey's huge efforts directed towards Unitarian versions of 'The Book of Common Prayer and the King James's Bible that he viewed his Unitarianism as the rival and, ideally, the successor of the Established. Church, And Robertson' s aspiration for a Prayer Book "silent on all controverted points" tends in exactly the same direction, a Unitarian liturgical practice embodying establishment and formality, and shorn only of specifically Trinitarian elements. Modern Unitarians, who represent a tiny, often fragmented, sect of the larger Church, could well benefit from a measure of the incredibly bold 'Robertson Lindsey vision - of a world where the Unitarian theological view had become the majority norm and- where the so-called 'mainstream' churches had, rather like 'flat- earthers' or those who believed they could, create 'perpetual-motion' machines, become an outdated and discredited minority. By all means we should continue to extend kindness, tolerance and forbearance to others, especially when their views differ from ours - for those qualities are the imperative of the Christian social perspective. But William Robertson the Dubliner, on this- his three-hundredth anniversary, and Theophllus Lindsey should, teach us to have more confidence in our theological position. Let us carry their marvellous heritage with pride, and articulate it with the assurance of its essential truth. For Perenc David was right, absolutely right, when in 1579 he scratched laboriously on that prison wall the words "the dogmas of untruth shall fall". If we were "but alive to the reality around us, those dogmas have fallen, and continue to fall, to our potential benefit. Let us seize the opportunities thereby given, and remember William Robertson with gratitude as we do so. Amen, Dr. Martin Pulbruck |