Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

the realms of its jurisdiction." Without attempting to adduce the shadow of an argument against this impregnable position, ARGUS exclaims, that he has discovered in it "the cloven foot ;" and of course the wellknown owner of that foot-also, lurking under its dangerous principle! and, he then asks, "Is this Protestantism? Is this Christianity?" I reply, I am sure it is sound Christianity, and, therefore, it ought to be stanch Protestantism.

Horror-struck, like the witch of Endor, with the spectre which his own fears have conjured up, ARGUS cries out, "What, sir! shall we acknowledge that the civil power has a right to tolerate or proscribe, in matters of conscience?" And then he flies to Mr. Locke for protection, who asks, "What power can be granted to the magistrate for the suppression of a false religion, which may not, in time and place, be applied to the subversion of truth itself?" If it were possible that Mr. Locke could have been incapable of answering this question, I shall answer it for both him, and his zealous modern disciple: and I say, Let the magistrate be authorized to support and protect THE RELIGION OF THE BIBLE, and that only, and he can never abuse that power to the subversion of the truth! And it is equally certain, on the other hand, that no man can have any right, on a plea of what he calls "conscience," to introduce an antichristian establishment into a christian country. Where, I ask, could he obtain such right? Is it from the God of nature? Nay, the God of nature is the author of Christianity, and he has commanded its universal adoption; and he can give no man a right to transgress his own commandments. Is it from the laws of the country? Then those laws are themselves antichristian, and, as such, can have no moral obligation for their support.

The Bible, sir, is the only authorized guide of any man's conscience, and the conscience that opposes its authority can have no legitimate claim upon protection or respect, either from God, or from any christian government upon earth. war with both God and his church.

It is at

I now beg leave, once for all, to silence the formidable battery of my opponent, above quoted. Its first principle is, "that the civil magistrate should have no coercive authority in matters of religion, either for the suppression of heresy, or the maintenance of truth." Here, sir, is a grand fundamental principle in polito-theology, laid down ex officio for the government and direction of the whole christian world, by an anonymous and self-constituted dictator. I ask, therefore, upon what legitimate au

thority, human or divine, does it rest? And I answer, UPON NONE WHATEVER ! Where is it written, in any divine or human law? NoWHERE! Then let it sink into well-merited contempt! Not another word is necessary, to annihilate it.

Meantime, I ask, Does Christianity impose no moral obligations upon its disciples, and votaries, for its protection and preservation? And is there no power upon earth competent to take cognizance of, and resist the violation of its precepts ? Must the God of Christianity be blasphemed and insulted; his laws trampled under foot, and his worship suppressed, for the establishment of idolatry in its stead? and all this in a christian country? (for christian countries there are, and shall be, in the world, to the end of time, though opposed by arguments ten thousand times stronger than those adduced by ARGUS!) And must the government of that country not dare to move a finger in the suppression of these enormities, and for the vindication of its own religious truths? Preposterous absurdity! Advocacy of infidelity! Such licentious doctrines should be for ever scouted from the face of the earth, as opening the very floodgates of blasphemy and impiety!

Are not magistrates expressly constituted the guardians of the moral interests of the nations over which the providence of God has called them to preside, in Romans xiii. 1-5.?-And are they not there armed with the sword of justice, and declared to be God's ministers, yea, revengers, to execute his wrath upon him that doeth evil? And are not all men there required to obey them, for conscience sake, and upon pain of damnation for disobedience? And has ARGUS the temerity to assert that these commands of the Holy Ghost convey no authority to christian magistrates, to enforce christian precepts? and lay no obli gation on their subjects to obey them? Can any man, in his right mind, suppose, that the jealous God of Christianity would delegate such ample powers to christian magistrates, without any reference to the purity of his own worship, the first of all moral and religious duties? or the preservation of the precepts which he hath himself issued for the government of the world? Does Argus dare to charge the Almighty with such imbecility and folly as this absurd theory must presuppose? does, I hope he stands alone in the awful responsibility he thereby incurs!

If he

But, sir, if these principles be absurd in theory, they are absolutely horrific in their practical results. See these illustrated in the worship of Juggernaut, and in the self

torture and self-immolation of thousands of human victims, annually sacrificed at the shrines of idolatry in British India. According to the exquisite doctrines of Argus, these horrible superstitions should be held as sacred by the British christian governors of that peninsula, as the most hallowed institutions of our own holy religion, because, forsooth, they are the offspring of the purblind consciences and depraved hearts of their wretched votaries. And it would be a sacrilegious violation of their precious "liberty of conscience," to put a stop to them! Do not the united voices of Charity, Wisdom, Philanthropy and Piety, in this instance, imperatively demand the "coercive" interference of the British goverament, to suppress those diabolical rites ?-Most certainly they do; nor could "the secular power," with which the providence of God hath armed that government in India, be employed in any thing more pleasing to Him, or more advantageous to the moral and religious interests of the country.

Indeed, sir, as all political power is expressly said, (Rom. xiii. 1.) to be of God, that is, derived from him, and as the interests of true religion are both the primary and ultimate objects of all the providential arrangements of this world; so the secular government which does not use its power in a co-operative direction with those objects, is not answering the end designed by God in its institution ; and, consequently, is much more likely to inherit his curse than his blessing. But, according to the reasoning of Argus, this whole nation might become idolatrous, the churches be all turned into heathen temples or Turkish mosques, Juggernaut himself im ported from Hindostan, his statue erected in every market-town in England, and thousands of victims annually sacrificed at his shrine; while those persons, whom "the only true God" hath invested with all the legitimate power in the nation, and who are emphatically styled "the ministers of that God, for good to the nation, (Rom. xiii. 4.) must be tame and idle spectators of all this "abomination of desolation," without daring to move a finger for its suppression-because such interference would be an arbitrary and tyrannical encroachment upon the "liberty of conscience" of the nation!!!"

I might here, sir, with great advantage, retort the sarcastic sneer of your correspondent, in the shape of a contemptuous apology for my supposed delinquency, in advocating dangerous principles, upon the score of inadvertency and ignorance of

their natural results. I have now exemplified the practical issue of his system of non-interference with what he calls "liberty of conscience," illustrated by incontrovertible matters of fact; and I have proved it to be naturally productive of the most awful and disastrous consequences to the interests of religion, and the welfare of mankind. If Argus was ignorant of those consequences when he wrote, he is inexcusable in assuming so dictatorial a style of argument as he has adopted, while exposed to the possibility of being in error. If he was aware of them, and yet concealed them for the purpose of strengthening his own argument, his insincerity reflects disgrace upon his integrity: and in either case he is proved to be unfit for the office he appears to have assumed, namely, that of giving polito-theological principles to the British nation, if not to the whole world.

If it be said that the case I have alluded to is an extraordinary one, and therefore improperly urged against a general principle; I answer, the very possibility of the existence of such a case is sufficient to condemn the system under which it is permitted to operate for it proves it to be fundamentally wrong, and totally inadequate to answer its intended purposes: whereas, that which I advocate is not only incapable of any such results, but is the proper, the legitimate, and the divinely authorized palladium, for both the cure and the prevention of such atrocious enormities; namely, to require the civil magistrate to aid the ecclesiastical institutions of the realm in protecting the religion of

the BIBLE.

I believe, sir, the first pillar of ARGUS'S fabric is now completely demolished; and his second, equally fragile, antiscriptural, and fallacious, is soon likely to share the fate of its fallen predecessor. It runs thus: "Religion being purely a matter of individual and moral responsibility, cannot be adopted by a nation, as a sovereign, a form of government, or a code of laws, may be. National religion of such a kind is a mere worldly contrivance, and has contributed more than any thing else to the corruption and dishonour of religion." The fallacy of these assertions is self-evident to every candid mind which bestows a moment's reflection upon them. The very first postulate strikes at the root of all religious associations; and, if true, would totally demolish all those divinely authorized institutions described in the New Testament as ecclesiastical, yea, and episcopal also, which were enjoined on the primitive Christians, as essential parts of their reli

gion; and for the establishment and regulation of which, both the Son of God and the Holy Spirit made so ample and so special a provision.

[ocr errors]

66

The evident and direct tendency of this postulate is totally to unchurch Christianity, and to excommunicate it from all religious association, and thus to annihilate the communion of saints" upon earth! It goes to undermine the very existence of a public ministry, as well as to destroy all ministerial authority and responsibility; and, consequently, all church government, in the world. Let any man of common sense and common honesty, compare those de. structive, infidel-tending principles, laid down by your correspondent, with the fourth chapter of St. Paul's epistle to the Ephesians, and especially with verses 11, 12, 13, “And he gave some apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the BODY of CHRIST; till we all come in the UNITY of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man," &c.-And again, Obey them which have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account; that they may do it with joy, and not with grief, for that is unprofit. fitable for you," (Hebrews xiii. 17.) And finally, God saith to Ezek. ch. xxxiii. ver. 8: "When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will Irequire at thine hand." I say, let any man compare those scriptural declarations of corporate association and ministerial responsibility, with ARGUS's assertion, that "religion is purely a matter of individual and moral responsibility," and its dangerous fallacy will at once appear. In fact, sir, if this postulate were true, there would be an end at once to the whole system of Christianity as a social compact; and if any pastors existed, being equally destitute of authority and responsibility, they would become the natural subjects of ridicule and contempt. Sir, the king of Nineveh, heathen as he was, could have taught your correspondent a better lesson, and have shewn him that a public act of religion, enjoined by the authority, and enforced by the command of even the secular government, appeased the wrath of God, and secured that whole city from destruction.

"But," says ARGUS, "religion cannot be adopted by a nation, as a sovereign, a form of government, or a code of laws may be."

But why not? Is a nation, either physically,
morally, or intellectually, incapable of se-
lecting its own God, of embracing his word
as the guide of its faith and practice, and
instituting and supporting a ministry for the
extension and preservation of its religion?
Do not both Judaism and Christianity, yea,
and even Popery itself, plainly contradict this
equally groundless assertion?
Most cer-
tainly they do! Must such an adoption, for
instance, of genuine "Bible Christianity,"
necessarily be "a mere worldly contri-
vance," and "contribute more than" even
the grossest impiety aad blasphemy, "to
the corruption and dishonour of religion?"
Perhaps the fault lies in Christianity it-
self! Is it incapable of infusing its benign
influence into the minds of kings and states-
men? Can it not stem the torrent of political
corruption? And must it, in every such in-
stance, in spite of the omnipotence and ho-
liness of its divine Author, yield the palm
of victory to the prince of darkness? If
So, then it is incapable of evangelizing the
world, and totally inadequate to the pur-
poses for which its infinitely wise and gra-
cious founder designed it! If neither of
these causes operates to prevent the adop-
tion of Christianity as a "national religion,"
the impossibility of such an event ever
taking place, must be ascribed to the decree
of your correspondent ARGUS, which has
prohibited the experiment from ever again
being attempted! And yet this man talks
about "Christianity containing within itself
a principle of dissemination, whose power
is co-extensive with human necessity!!!"

Is there then, I ask, no "human necessity" for the conversion of kings and statesmen to the truth and power of genuine Christianity? And must "the kingdoms of this world" never "become the kingdoms of our God, and of his Christ?" How inconsistent is such reasoning, if I may honour it with that name!

As if ambitious to reach the climax of absurdity, your correspondent boasts that he has laid down," (ex officio, solus, et per se, of course, for I see no other authority,) "that even in a nation wherein the utmost freedom of representation subsists, the people have no right to tax themselves for the support of a national religion; nor has the government, as the delegates of that nation, any right to employ its powers for the support of that religion." Sir, it would be waste of my time, and of your columns, to attempt a refutation of such self-evident absurdity.

Your correspondent compares such a provision for religion to human slavery; and says that "both are subversive of the

christian law of reciprocal justice and mercy;" and that " the principle of the one is equally forbidden by Christianity with that of the other;" and that "the one robs a man of that personal freedom, the other of that religious liberty, which are the inalienable right of humanity." Sir, I am not about to advocate the cause of man-stealing, but I well know, that it was God himself who doomed the posterity of Ham and Canaan to the degradation of slavery (see Gen. ix. 25, and Dr. A. Clarke's commentary thereon); and I also know, that Onesimus was the slave of Philemon, and that, when he ran away from his master, St. Paul met with, and sent him back to his master, converted to Christianity, but without the slightest intimation that Philemon had violated any principle of Christianity by being the master or owner of a slave. But be that as it may, it is palpably ridiculous to say, that for a free nation to tax itself, by its representatives, for the support of its adopted religion, is to rob itself of its religious liberty; on the contrary, it is one of the noblest instances that can possibly exist, of the perfection of that liberty.

To conclude-for this controversy has far exceeded all the limits I had originally contemplated of its extent-ARGUS finally asserts, that "Mr. Tucker's principle reduces him to this dilemma: either a government must subsidize every system of religion, whether Christian, Mahometan, or Pagan, professed within its jurisdiction; or it must support, and even tolerate, only such as happen to be approved by itself: in the one case rendering the civil power ridicu lous, and subservient to the propagation of error and falsehood as well as truth; in the other, making it the engine of intolerance and oppression, as it would be altogether a pure accident, depending on the caprice of the ruler, whether the true religion or the false one should be patronized or proscribed."-p. 561.

This, sir, is another instance of your correspondent's misrepresentation of my principles. I am reduced to no such dilemma, as to suppose that the advocacy and protection of the religion of the bible involves either the patronage of paganism, or the propagation of error and falsehood, or the exercise of unjust intolerance and oppression. There is, indeed, a species of intolerance which the bible inculcates, and in which all its faithful advocates must participate, or else betray the important trust reposed in them; viz. it is eternally intolerant of infidelity and corruption, in all professedly religious institutions. But, I am sorry to say, it is the toleration, if not 2D. SERIES, No. 18-VOL. II.

the actual encouragement, of these vipers of "the carnal mind, which is enmity against God, and which cannot be subject to his law," that your correspondent appears inadvertently to cherish, under the specious, but insidious character, of "the most unfettered religious freedom. This expression alone, sir, (to retort his own phraseology,) fully exhibits the genuine "cloven-foot" of his cause. The principle is antinomian in the highest degree, and rejective of all restraint, as well as of all counsel and direction, from both God and man. It is the very flood-gate of infidelity, the sluice of spiritual rebellion, and the precise principle which drove the fallen angels out of heaven, and Adam and Eve out of paradise!

In perfect conformity with this rebellious principle, your correspondent avows his conviction that the renunciation of the degrading yoke of national Christianity by the British empire, would "tend, more than any thing else, to give her a vast elevation above the rank of heathenism, and confer upon her the true dignity of religious principle!!!" Does this theologian not know, that the moment a nation renounces Christianity,it instantaneously sinks into heathenish infidelity? Was not this fact proved, beyond the possibility of contradiction, by the French revolution of 1789 and 1790? And does ARGUS now wish to see it confirmed by the woeful experience of England? So it appears, sir!

In support of this hopeful and patriotic project, ARGUS asks, "if Christianity forbid all compulsory measures for supporting its institutions, how can a nation possibly be degraded by acting fully up to the principles of the religion it professes?" The fallacy of this delusive proposition lies in the hypothetical assumption if; and in the sophistical conclusion founded upon it. But where does Christianity forbid those mea. sures? Nowhere-but quite the reverse! By compulsory, your correspondent must here mean what is mandatory, obligatory, and punitive, for all other mental compulsion is out of the question.* And in my

*As the phrase "liberty of conscience," so also the word "compulsory," in this discussion, requires some definitive explanation:-Compulsion is always opposed to the will of the person against whom its force is directed; yet it may often be for his benefit to endure it. It is of three kinds, viz. physical, intellectual, and moral: the first is effected by force, the second by conviction, and the third by persua sion. The first is the popish method of gaining converts to its delusions; the second and third are those adopted by the Spirit of God, and the true ministers of Christianity, for the promotion of genuine religion. There is no possibility of infusing physical coercion into the belief of any given truth, or the practice of genuine piety. Conclusive evidence may compel a man to believe a demonstrated 2 L 162.-VOL. XIV.

turn I ask, "Is Christianity really destitute of all such means of support? and has it ever been so? from whence then came the apostolical authority for punishing with death, blindness, and delivery to Satan, the violators of both its moral and religious precepts, and its economical institutions, and the contempt of its authority? And what means the following promise made by the great Head of all the institutions of Christianity? And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter, shall they be broken to shivers; even as I received of my Father,' (Rev. ii. 26, 27.) Is there nothing compulsory' in these divinely-authorized acts of judicial vindication of Christianity?"

[ocr errors]

6

With these observations, sir, I take my leave of the spiritual and ecclesiastical portion of your anonymous correspondent's essay; and now beg leave, as he has, in its conclusion, glanced, with apparent satisfaction, at the admission of Papists into political power within these realms, to say one word or two in reply to that sentiment, and I shall then bring this long letter to a close.

He calls it "the triumph of civil and religious freedom, in the settlement of the Catholic question." Is then that question settled? Far, very far, from it! so far from it, that the concessions already made to the votaries of popish. superstition, have only inflamed the agitation of the question to a tenfold degree! The consequences of those concessions are only just beginning to develop themselves; and they will most probably advance, through their natural channels of civil war, rebellion, and massacre, to their legitimate end, viz. the total subversion of the Protestant establishments, both in church and state, in these realms.

The human mind, Sir, cannot well conceive a more absurd anomaly in principle, than is involved in the assertion of "a triumph gained to civil and religious freedom," by investing with political influence

fact or statement; and Divine authority may, by its moral influence, persuade a man to do what is agreeable to the will of God; and by operating upon his fears, his hopes, or his affections, enforce, by a kind of spiritual compulsion, obedience to the Divine commandments. The man then says, with his resigned Saviour, "Not my will, but thine be done!" Hence it is certain, that no physical compulsion can ever enforce either the belief or the practice of true religion; but it may and ought to restrain the open and flagrant violation of the precepts of true religion, both for the honour of God and the benefit of society. As religion is in its nature mandatory and obligatory upon man, so both divine and human authority may be lawfully combined in enforcing its practice by intellectual and moral compulsion.

a power, the very essence of whose constitution is, spiritual tyranny and religious despotism, of the very worst character; and which has ever been exerted for the preservation of the most intolerant and superstitious heresies; and a power which, acknowledging no superior power upon earth, has ever claimed the political, as well as religious, subjugation of the whole world to its despotic sway; and a power which has ever infused into its own political institutions, both the spirit and the practice of that arbitrary, dictatorial, and tyrannical character, which marks it as the destructive adversary of both piety and humanity, in every age and country where its direful influence has prevailed. Sir, I would desire no greater proof of the infatuation of that man's mind, who, professing to be a friend to "civil and religious freedom," ranks the investment of popery with political power, among the means of securing those inestimable blessings.

Your correspondent says, "He who

would exclude another from the fullest rights of citizenship, on account of his religious belief, must be unacquainted with, or inimical to, the true basis of civil liberty." To this strange misrepresentation of the case, I am unwilling to give an appropriate name. It is not, sir, as your correspondent ought to know, for the mere holding of heretical and destructive dogmata of theology, however atrocious these may be; but it is because the principles of popery place its deluded votaries beyond the reach of any moral obligation to support the interests of a protestant establishment or government; and, because those principles contain the stamina of inveterate and interminable hostility to protestantism; it is for these causes that I say, and every true protestant ought also to say, that no papist should be entrusted with political power in these realms. For, sir, in spite of all sophistical evasions of the fact, it remains an impregnable truth, that no papist can be true to his principles, or conscientiously support his character as such, who would not, when brought to a crisis, violate every other obligation, and sacrifice every other interest, and use all his political power for the benefit and extension of his own church, and its pernicious doctrines. A papist, therefore, can support a protestant church or state, only in so far as he is a traitor to his own principles !*

* While the popish clergy retain the power of absolving their subjects from the sacred obligation of an oath, and, especially, from one sworn upon the protestant scriptures, no man of common sense will place any value upon such oaths. And, still

« ForrigeFortsæt »