« AnteriorContinuar »
the enunciation; the whole thing will be- | are, it seems, quite willing to be bound to a belief of the Scriptures; they believe, they are content to be bound to believe, that God came down, in the cool of the day, and walked in the Garden of Eden; that he came down and talked to Moses in a Cloud; that the Red Sea opened and formed a sort of walls while the Israelites passed over; that the Sun and Moon stood still at the command of Joshua; that the walls of Jericho fell down at the sound of a trumpet; that five loaves and a few small fishes filled thousands of hungry people: all this, it seems, they are willing to believe as well as we Church people; and why, I should be glad to know, are they to be permitted openly to preach against the belief of Christ being God? Why do they not come, at once, and ask for leave to deny the whole as well as a part? They cannot comprehend how Christ can be God, by whom he was begotten. Oh, oh! And can they comprehend how the Devil came to take Christ up to the top of a high mountain, and to offer him all the kingdoms of the world? Can they comprehend how all the animals got into one single ark? Can they comprehend why Deborah and Barak sang the praises of Jael, who drove the nail through the head of Sisera, while he was asleep? No: they pretend not to comprehend these. They do, however, believe them as we Church people do; they do, like us, regard them as mystical; and, why, I again ask, cannot they accompany us through the whole of our faith?
come a subject of free discussion, and then it will puzzle any one to devise the means of criminating any man, who shall write upon the Christian System. Remove this great prop, and, in my opinion, down comes the fabric.The morality of the Gospel is nothing in support of Christianity, which stands upon faith; and, if you take away the divinity of Christ, where is ground for your faith? The morality taught by Christ was taught long before his birth. There was, as our Clergy show us every day, nothing new in the morality. It was the super-natural things that took place in Palestine that were new; it was the miracles, the resurrection, &c., and, if you take away the divinity of Christ, what becomes of all these? To suppose, that God had a son, after the manner of men, is something so monstrous, so low, so degrading, so absurd, so ridiculous, that it cannot live for a moment, except in a mind brutified by ignorance. And yet, this you must believe, if you believe that God and his Son are two distinct persons, and in nowise united in essence. What, then, is your belief, Mr. SMITH, or, rather, the belief of those in whose behalf the Bill is to pass into a law? That Christ was not the Son of God? Is this their belief? If it be, with what decency do they profess to believe the Scripture? With what decency do they call any one, and by way of reproach too, a Deist?- You say, that the Act of the 19th of the present King, requires ONLY "the general belief in the Doctrines of Christianity and the Scriptures? ONLY! Why, Sir, this Doctrine is the all-in-all. Without it there is no more in being a Christian than there is in being a Pittite or a Foxite, and, I should be very glad to see any one attempt to prove the contrary.
No, if this part is taken away, the whole fabric totters. An Act of Parliament will, in such case, allow people openly to say, that the great Creed of our Church is a falsehood. Our Church lays down one point of faith as indispensable in order to obtain salvation; and the proposed Act will permit any one to say, at the Church door, that no man need believe any such thing, for that the assertion is false, and that one of the most venerable of the Fa-bidden to say that they do not believe aċthers of the Church was a retailer of false- cording to the Church; they may keep sihoods.What, then, you will say, per-lence; that is their remedy; and I know haps, are people to believe what they can- not why they should be suffered to express not believe? "Cannot believe," pray their opinions about Christ, any more than what does that mean? The people, in I may not be suffered to express mine about whose belaif you bring forward the Bill, the Regent, or his Judges, or his Ministers.
Besides, what do they mean by being forced to believe this, or that? They are forced to believe nothing; they are only forbidden to tell any body that they do not believe so and so. That is all. If they will but hold their tongues and their pens, they may believe, or disbelieve just what they please. "Tender Consciences," indeed! And how are their consciences hurt, how are they violated, by a law which forbids the telling of folks that the Doctrine of the Trinity, a Doctrine some hundreds of years old, and taught by all our Bishops and Clergy, is false? They are not, as under some tyrannical governments, compelled to make open declarations that they do believe according to the Church; they are only for
well as others, opposed to the intended Act. Our Church says, that this doctrine is the basis of our faith; that to believe in the Trinity is absolutely necessary to our salvation; and, why, I ask, is a particular set of men to be allowed to endeavour openly to prevent us from entertaining this saving belief?. -I am no Doctor. I do not understand Greek and Latin. But I understand how to count my fingers; and it requires little more to enable any one to discover, that, if one sect be allowed to preach against one part of the Church faith, every other sect ought to be allowed to preach against any part of that faith which they may happen to dislike.—I dare say, that an Unitarian Priest will tell me, NO. He will, I'll engage for him, say, that people ought to be permitted to deny the Godhead of Christ, but that they ought not to be permitted to deny the authenticity of any Chapter in Genesis or Numbers. No such latter denial does not, probably, suit him. That might lead to consequences that he would not like. If those chapters were set aside, others might, and, at last, away might go the whole; there would then be no want of an interpreter, and his priestship would be at an end. No, no I am for no partial repeals. I am for a general Act, permitting every man to say or write what he pleases upon the subject of religion, or, I wish the whole thing to remain what it now is.
Let them hold their tongues and their pens, and their faith is absolutely without shackle!When Mr. EATON was tried, the Attorney-General, Gibbs, called for punishment upon the old man, because his book was calculated to endanger the souls of the people, by causing them to disbelieve the doctrines of Christianity. Now, of the Doctrines of Christianity the principal one is, that Christ is God; that there is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost; and that these are not three but one. This, our Church says, we must believe, or we cannot be saved. What, then, having Mr. Eaton's prosecution and punishment in our eyes, are we to think of a proposition for passing a law to permit people openly to preach, that this Doctrine is false; that this faith, upon which the Church tells us our salvation absolutely depends, has no truth in it; and that we ought to believe no such thing?
These are my reasons against the proposed Act. But, besides these, there are others. If the Unitarians are to have an Act passed to authorize hem to preach against the Trinity, why should not the Deists have an Act passed to authorize them to preach against Revelation altogether. If one Sect is to be indulged in denying what they do not believe, why not another Sect in denying what they do not believe? If I am told, that it is right to ease the Tender Conscience of the Unitarian, I ask why the Tender Conscience of the Deist is not to be considered? I have no objection to an Act of Parliament to allow men to say and to write whatsoever they please upon the subject of religion; but, if such an Act is not to be passed, I really can see no reason for this favour to one particular Sect. If this Sect be indulged in preaching against the Trinity, another may ask for permission to preach against the Resurrection, and so on, till, really, our laws will have chipped the whole of the Scriptures away and all the doctrines growing out of them, or ingrafted upon them. An Act to permit men to say and publish what they please upon the subject of religion would be much less hostile to the Church, than would be an Act giving permission as to one particular doctrine; because in this latter, the parliament seem to give up that doctrine to be demolished; whereas, if the permission were general, it would seem to proceed merely from a wish to remove all restraint as to men's faith.In short, I do not see why this particular sect should be indulged; and I am, on that ground as
wonder that the Clergy, so active as they are upon other occasions, where the interests of the Church are in question, should be so silent on this occasion. They cry out that the Church is in danger, when a few Roman Catholics want only to share in the good things under government; but, here, where the very bowels of the Church are aimed at, they say not a word! Is it, because they do not perceive that the Unitarians want to get at their temporalities? I do not know that they do; but, I dare say they would have no objection to come in for a small portion.
MR. CREEVEY.- -The case of this gentleman was argued, last week, in the Court of King's Bench, upon a motion of Mr. Brougham for a new trial, upon the ground of misdirection on the part of Judge Le Blanc, who presided at the trial at Lancaster.- I have inserted the proceedings below. They are of very great importance. The Court decided against him; and, in my opinion, decided very fairly.The only thing that Mr. Cree
vey has to complain of, is, that he could not set up the truth in justification; but, in this respect, he is upon the same footing as the rest of us. I was not allowed to prove the truth of my publication; nor is any man who is prosecuted criminally. If I were to detect a man in the act of theft, real, vulgar, poor-man's theft, and were to state the fact in print, he might indict me for it; might prosecute me; and I must be convicted; for, if there were a witness to the fact, I should not be allowed to produce him to prove the truth of what I had said. Therefore, Mr. Creevey's case is not singular. He has the same law for him as we all have; and, Mr. Brougham would have done much better to complain on this score; to make a general complaint against the law, than to stand upon any particular privilege.
can help it.- -The dry matter is this: shall the Catholics have a share of the seats in parliament, and of the high offices in the State, in the army, and in the navy, or shall they not; or, in other words, shall they come into a full share, with the Protestants, of the public money.Twist and turn the thing as you please; talk about superstition, bigotry, liberty of conscience, or what you like; but, at last, this is the plain, dry question. And, I do not think that the Protestants, who are now in the possession of these good things, will, if they can avoid it, permit these new and famishing candidates to come in and share with them.If I thought that the Bill was likely to pass, I should use my best endeavours to prevent its passing; because I think it is a Bill, calculated to make the Catholic Clergy the tools of the government, and to a much greater extent than the Church Clergy can be expected to be.
33 "GERMAN PATRIOTS.' -The subscription, I see, goes on for these people; and a correspondent begs me to think better of them. I do not think ill of the people of Germany. There are no bad people naturally. When they are bad, they are ment, and to hold all civil and military made bad by their governments. But, "offices, upon their taking and making a what I do think, is, that there will be no "certain Declaration and Ŏath, instead of population found in Germany disposed to "the Oaths of Allegianca, Abjuration, and resist Buonaparte. This is what I think, "Supremacy, and the Declarations against and I have heard no reasons in opposition" Transubstantiation and the Invocation of to my opinion. If it be merely a war of Saints, required by the present laws, soldier against soldier, my firm persuasion" except the offices of Lord High Chanis, that the French will triumph. How-" cellor, Lord Keeper or Lord Commis ever, it is useless to deal in conjectures and "sioner of the Great Seal of Great Britain, opinions. The proof is at no great dis-" or of Lord Lieutenant or Lord Deputy, or Chief Governor or Governors of Ire"land. Roman Catholics are also to conCATHOLIC QUESTION.Upon this sub-tinue disqualified to hold or to present to ject a Bill is now before the House of Com-" any office, benefice, place or dignity, mons, the second reading of which stood belonging to the Established Church, or for Tuesday last, when Sir JOHN COX. "the Church of Scotland, or to any EccleHIPPISLEY moved to put off the matter by "siastical Court of Judicature, or to any referring to a Committee an inquiry into the "of the Universities of this realm, or to existing laws against the Catholics. "the Colleges of Eton, Westminster, or This, I must confess, greatly astonished" Winchester, or to any public School of me, who always regarded this gentleman Royal or Ecclesiastical foundation within as the great champion of the Catholic cause, "this realm, otherwise than as they are but who, it seems, has now discovered "by the law, as now existing, qualified them to be a very dangerous body; or, at "to hold, or presented to the same.least, to entertain notions very dangerous "No Roman Catholic shall present to any to the Church and State. His motion "Protestant advowson; if any ecclesiasti was lost by a great majority; but, I do not "cal patronage be attached to any office to believe, that the Bill will, at this time," which a Roman Catholic is appointed, become a law for all that.It is, as I "the patronage shall be executed by such said before, a question of temporal inte- " Protestant Privy Councillor as His Marests; and, it is not likely, that those, "jesty may appoint. Roman Catholic
who are in possession of good things, will" Clergymen shall take an oath, purportadmit others to share with them, if they "ing that they will not recommend, sanc
-The Abstract, which I here insert, will shew, in a moment, that this is the case." This Bill enables Roman Ca"tholics to sit in either House of Parlia
"conspiracies and attempts whatever, that "shall be made against his person, crown,
or dignity; and I will do my utmost endeavour to disclose and make known to "His Majesty, his heirs, and successors, "all treasons and traitorous conspiracies.
born subject, having been resident in the" which may be formed against him or "kingdom five years immediately previous" them; and I do faithfully promise to to consecration, shall exercise the func- "maintain, support, and defend, to the tions of Bishop. These are the heads "utmost of my power, the succession to to Mr. Grattan's Bill, to which Mr. "the Crown (which succession, by an "Canning has proposed several supple- " Act entitled, An Act for the further. mentary clauses to the following pur-limitation of the Crown, and the better. port:-That every Roman Catholic Bi- securing the rights and liberties of the. shop to be hereafter appointed shall ob- subject,' is, and stands limited to the tain a certificate from five English Ca- "Princess Sophia, Electress and Du-. tholic Peers, named in the bill, as to his chess Dowager of Hanover, and the. loyalty; and any Bishop officiating with-" heirs of her body being Protestants);. out this certificate, may be sent out of hereby utterly renouncing and abjuring "the kingdom. That all bulls or briefs" any obedience or allegiance unto any "received from Rome, shall be immedi-" other person claiming or pretending a "ately communicated to Commissioners" right to the Crown of this Realin. I da. appointed by the bill, namely, five Ca- " declare, that I do not believe that the "tholic Peers, the Roman Catholic Bishop" Pope of Rome, or any other foreign "of the London district, the Lord Chan- Prince, Prelate, State, or Potentate, hath, "cellor, and one of the Secretaries of State," or ought to have, any temporal or civil "being a Protestant, excepting such bulls "jurisdiction, power, superiority, or pre56 as relate to the spiritual concerns of indi- "eminence, directly or indirectly, within. "viduals, which must be certified upon "this Realm: I do further declare, that it. "oath to be purely of such a nature.-The" "penalty of not complying with that pro
is not an article of my faith, and that I do renounce, reject, and abjure the opi-. "nion, that Princes excommunicated by,
the Pope or Council, or by the Pope and There" Council, or by any authority of the See. "of Rome, or by any authority whatsoever, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any person whatsoever. I do swear that I will defend, to the utmost of my power, the settlement and arrangement of property within this "realm, as established by the laws. I do. "swear that I do abjure, condemn, and
detest, as unchristian and impious, the "principle, that it is lawful to destroy or
vision, is, that they are liable to be sent "out of the kingdom.The Commis❝sioners to be sworn to secrecy." is a similar provision for Ireland."The Commissioners to certify for the loy"alty of Bishops to be five Irish Catholic" "Peers. The Commissioners for the in"spection of bulls to be the same five Peers, "the Roman Catholic Arch-bishops of "Dublin and Armagh, the Lord Chan"cellor, and Secretary of State, or one of "the Privy Council, being a Protestant." -In the event of the death or absence from the kingdom of any of the five Catholic Peers in either of the kingdoms, a "substitute to be appointed by His Ma"jesty from among the remaining Catholic "Peers; or, if there should not be a suf"ficient number of Catholic Peers, any "Roman Catholic Gentleman, possessing "a landed estate of £1,000 a year may be "appointed. The following is the new "oath: ——' I, A. B. do hereby declare," ever. I do also declare, that it is not an "that I do profess the Roman Catholic" article of the Roman Catholic Faith, nei"Religion and I do sincerely promise" ther am I thereby required to believe or "and swear that I will be faithful and hear profess, that the Pope is lillible, or "true allegiance to His Majesty King "that I am bound to obey any order, in its "George the Third, and him will defend" own nature immoral, though the Pope or "to the utmost of my power against all any Ecclesiastical Power should issue or
any ways injure any person whatsoever, "for or under the pretence of such person. "being an Heretic. I do declare solemnly "before God, that I believe that no act, in "itself unjust or immoral, can ever be
justified or excused, by or under the pre"tence or colour that it was done, either "for the good of the Church, or in obedi ence to any Ecclesiastical Power whatso
tion, or concur in the appointment or ❝ consecration of any Bishop, of whose loy"ally they are not well informed. Persons discharging spiritual functions without taking this oath, will be guilty of a misdemeanour. None but a natural
"of whose loyalty they are not well in-
‹‹ direct such order: but, on the contrary,
others in any attempt to overthrow or "disturb the same. And that I will make "known to his Majesty, his heirs and suc(6 cessors, all attempts, plots, or conspira"cies whether at home or abroad, which "shall come to my knowledge, for effect"ing either of these purposes. I do solemnly, in the presence of God, profess, "testify, and declare, that I do swear this "Oath, and make this Declaration, and "every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words, without any ❝evasion, equivocation, or mental reser❝vation whatever, and without any dis"pensation, already granted by the Pope, "or any authority of the See of Rome, or "any person whatever, and without think-" ❝ing that I am, or can be acquitted before "God or man, or absolved of this Decla"ration, or any part thereof, although the "Pope or any other person or authority "whatsoever shall dispense with or annul "the same, or declare that it was null and "void from the beginning.-So help me "God."As to their swearing, I do not care a straw for that; but, I do not like the power of punishing those Clergymen, who may concur in appointing any Bishop,