Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

wickedness of the human heart! BECAME A CHIEF INSTRUMENT IN PRO

CURING THOSE LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS WHICH HAVE BROUGHT

SCANDAL UPON HIS COUNTRY." These are sufficient to prove that the chief persecutors believed the trinity, and preached the deity, atonement, and grace of Christ.

Take, thirdly, another extract from the orthodox Eclectic Review. Speaking of Lausanne, the writer observes: "Its ecclesiastical establishment is Protestant and Presbyterian, nominally CALVINISTIC." The orthodox ministers of London held a public meeting "to express their abhorrence of the persecution and their sympathy with the persecuted." Take one extract from their resolutions on the occasion. This is the passage. "That it is with astonishment and sorrow that this body has received, from different and credible sources, the infor→ mation, that in Switzerland, which used to be regarded as an asylum of those who fled from persecution, and particularly in the Canton of Vaud, under a Protestant government and PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, a severe persecution has been for more than a year exercised upon peaceable citizens, of spotless moral and political character, for no alleged crime, but the fact of their thinking it their duty to dissent from the church establishment of that country, and their attempting accordingly to hold assemblies for religious worship, in the way which to them appears most agreeable to the Holy Scriptures, and most conducive to their own moral improvement." These are sufficient to prove that the persecutors are known by the name of Calvinists and Presbyterians.

Take, fourthly, another extract from the orthodox Eclectic Review. Here it is. "Our readers are probably well acquainted with the fact, that the doctrines which aroused the horror of the Landamman and the Council of State, were no other than the very confession of faith which, SINCE FIFTEEN HUNDRED AND SIXTY-SIX, HAS BEEN THE LEGAL FORMULARY OF THEIR OWN NATIONAL CHURCH." Take a quotation from an Address to the Council of State by three of those ministers who were banished. Here is the passage. "Our fathers having been brought to a true knowledge of the gospel and faith in it, deemed it their duty, both for the information of the other Reformed churches of Europe, and as a means of preventing the return of false doctrines among themselves, to draw up declarations of their belief. The Helvetic Confession of Faith was then published, and was approved by the churches of France, England, Holland, Poland, Scotland, Hungary, and Germany. That confession remains in the midst of us, an inestimable monument of the true and solid piety of our ancestors in general, and particularly of their spiritual guides; of their undisguised and sincere adoration of God, the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit. OUR CONFESSION OF FAITH, the plain and faithful expositions of truths which bring salvation to every one who believeth, IS PRESERVED IN

FORM, but set aside in substance." These are sufficient to prove that the persecutors still give their assent to the Calvinistic confession of faith.

And, finally, who have been concerned in persecuting the unitarians at Geneva? Let this question be answered by one of their first divines. These are the words of Professor Chenevière. "We may number among the antagonists of the Geneva clergy, the pastors of Lausanne, who broke off all connexion with them. At their head was Dean Curtat, who took every opportunity of speaking and writing against the Genevans, with all his wonted violence. He laughed at the attacks on his neighbours, which he beheld from the height of his orthodoxy as from an impregnable fort; he was ill able to conceal his joy, when he saw them insulted, nor did he show much repugnance to insulting them himself. This man, otherwise intelligent, well informed, and full of zeal, is violently prejudiced against Geneva; he would speak of that city in the words formerly used, Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" This said Dean is the man whom the orthodox Dr. J. P. Smith acknowledged to "hold the Deity of Christ." And these are the persecutors, both of the unitarians, and of their own more zealous Calvinistic brethren. I could produce an abundance of evidence in support of the questions stated; but I have quoted enough from orthodox writers of acknowledged credit to prove my five propositions. So that there remains no cause for doubt on this question. The persecutions have been carried on by one orthodox party against another which is a little more rigid and zealous. Very much like the war waged by Dr. Beecher and his New England friends against Dr. Beman and his New York friends, because they made use of more violent measures to get up their revivals. I feel constrained to aver, that if you knew any thing about the religious persecutions of Switzerland, you could not help knowing, that unitarianism had nothing whatever to do with them; that they have been perpetrated by those who believe the doctrine of the trinity; who preach the deity, atonement, and grace of Christ; who assent to the Calvinistic confession of faith; and who are called Presbyterians and Calvinists.

IX. CONSCIENCE.

Perhaps you will now aver, that you and the other leaders of your party have been actuated in all your measures by the dictates of your conscience. Sir, what is conscience? Is it a guide of conduct any farther than it coincides with the plain instructions of Jesus? Can we innocently follow, what we call its dictates, in opposition to the explicit injunctions of the gospel? If we may, the Bible is no sure guide of duty. If we may, the heathen may as well remain in ignorance of the Scriptures; for they already follow their conscience, and, on this ground, one conscience must be as good as another. What! Can we safely follow those suggestions of our minds which we call the dictates of

conscience, in open disobedience to the plain precepts of revelation? Is not this a most dangerous principle? Will it not lead to the most abominable practices?

Will lead, did I say? Has it not led thousands of professed Christians to commit the most unchristian deeds? What was the plea of James and John for invoking fire from heaven on the opposers of their Master? Conscience. What was the plea of the beloved disciple for forbidding one who did not follow in his company to preach the gospel and work miracles? Conscience. What was the plea of the early converts for dividing into sects and calling themselves by the names of their favorite preachers? Conscience. What was the plea of the Catholic Church for erecting the Holy Inquisition and murdering thousands of believers who dissented from her creed? Conscience. What was the plea of Calvin for imprisoning and banishing Bolsec, and causing the death of Servetus? Conscience. What was the plea of our Pilgrim fathers for expelling the baptists, and hanging the witches, and killing the quakers? Conscience. And is it a sufficient excuse for such unrighteous deeds to say they were perpetrated in obedience to the dictates of conscience? Were the persons concerned exempt from all guilt, because their cruel barbarities were performed in compliance with the pretended sanctions of revealed religion?

And, Reverend Sir, permit me to ask you one fair question. Can you reconcile all the measures of the orthodox party with the plain commands of Jesus? I have not room to enter into many particulars. Try their proceedings by this one rule of our Saviour: "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them." Now compare many of those actions which I have had occasion to introduce into this publication, with this divine direction. Can you aver, that the leaders of the orthodox party, in the use they make of human creeds; in their terms of ministerial intercourse; in their ecclesiastical tribunals; in their measures for establishing feeble churches; in their denunciations of unitarians; in their statements respecting the Reformers, Pilgrims, Catholics, Universalists; and in all their other measures for maintaining and propagating their religious faith; can you honestly aver, that, in all these particulars, the leaders of your party have done towards unitarians as they would have had unitarians do towards themselves in exchange of circumstances? I put this question to your conscience. I ask you to answer it candidly, as in the presence of your final Judge. Place yourself in the situation of unitarians. Remember that they are entitled to equal rights and privileges with other men. Remember that they have as much at stake as other Christians, and have no more interest in embracing error than the orthodox. Remember that they are endowed with all the attributes of human nature; and that their only crime consists in obeying Jesus Christ according to the best of their judgment. If, when you consider

these things, you admit that the orthodox have not in all these instances obeyed the golden rule; then you confess that they have sometimes mistaken their will, their party spirit, their prejudice, the remains of their corrupt nature, for the dictates of a Christian conscience. But if you contend that in all these things, they have strictly done unto others, as they would have others do unto them, then I must be permitted to thank my heavenly Father, that all Christians do not possess such a conscience. And on this principle, I know not why you may not adopt any measures which you can obtain power to execute.

But, Sir, before you recommend obedience to such an unhallowed principle, I beseech you to reflect seriously on the consequences. Sir, it is this plea of conscience for the commission of unchristian deeds, which has so sadly disgraced and so nearly ruined the Christian church in ages past. There is scarcely an article in the Christian code, which has not been violated by zealous Christians under this plea of conscience. I regard this as the fundamental error of Christendom at the present day. I consider this crror as infinitely more detrimental to the cause of Christ, than the erroneous speculations of all the Christian errorists in the world. For it is a practical error. It strikes at the very foundation of Christianity. It destroys all confidence in revelation. It sets up the unsubdued inclinations of every fanatic or hypocrite as the inspired rule of duty. I fear this error is producing a blighting influence in your denomination, to say nothing of any others. I do hope, for the salvation of our common faith, that a reformation will immediately be effected in all denominations. I do hope the plain teachings of Jesus will be made the only standard of faith and practice by all who profess to be his followers. Nothing but this can ever produce a genuine revival of pure and undefiled religion. Nothing but this can ever secure union and harmony among Christians. Nothing but this can ever cause the glad tidings of the Gospel to be received by the unbelieving world.

X. CONCLUSION.

Reverend Sir,

My Letters on Religious Liberty are now finished. When I wrote my introduction, I firmly believed that a sufficient number of facts was at hand to establish my position. But I had then no conception of the multitude of cases which have since come to my knowledge. If my statements and arguments make a one-hundredth part of the impression upon the minds of others, that the investigation of this subject has made upon my own, I shall be fully satisfied. For in such a case, the general conclusion of the public will be, that the following proposition has been perfectly demonstrated: The measures attempted and adopted by the leaders of the orthodox denomination, for the preservation and propagation of their peculiar views of religion, are subversive of free inquiry, religious liberty, and the principles of congregationalism.

[ocr errors]

Should either you or any of your party be disposed to notice this publication in any form whatever, I hope you will remember six things in particular. I hope you will remember that the question at issue between yourself and unitarians is not, Whether the orthodox frequently talk, and write, and preach, and publish about free inquiry, religious liberty, and the principles of congregationalism. Look at Goldsmith's Englishman within the walls of a prison. Because he was eternally vaporing about liberty, do you conclude that he enjoyed perfect freedom?

. Whether

I hope you will also remember, that the question is not, the orthodox are sincere and conscientious in all their talking, and preaching, and praying, and publishing, and acting, in relation to unitarians. Who was ever more sincere and conscientious than Paul, when he persecuted the early converts, and consented to the death of the first Christian martyr? But does this convince you that such conduct was justifiable, because instigated by the dictates of a misguided conscience?

I hope you will likewise remember, that the question is not, Whether one or a few of the many facts adduced in this publication may be disproved, or satisfactorily explained. This is indeed possible. For I have selected the cases recorded from a great variety of documents. I have aimed to take, not always the most striking, but those which could be most easily, readily, and conclusively proved by legal evidence. If, in stating so great a number, there should happen to be one or more, not so much to the purpose, or not so well attested, or not so true in all its details, it would be nothing strange; and would by no means weaken or destroy the general conclusion. I do not say this, because I suspect any thing of the kind; but because some of your writers are too apt to forget the rules of honorable controversy. If they can find one defective argument in one hundred, the ninety and nine which they cannot answer are neglected, and the unsound one is held up before the ignorant as a fair specimen of the writer's accuracy and reasoning.

I hope you will further remember, that the question is not,-. Whether the unitarians are guilty of the same or more aggravated offences. For if you could prove the truth of every charge I have quoted from your writers; if you could make the world believe that they are totally depraved, wholly averse to all good, wholly inclined to all evil, very demons in human form, your object would not be accomplished. For all this would neither relieve you from the accusations preferred, nor lighten the burden of proof by which they are supported. Neither do I say this, because I admit the justness of the orthodox denunciations; but because some of your writers are too apt to leave the real point at issue, when charged with illiberal or unchristian measures. I have no wish to justify any thing wrong in one party any more than in

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »