Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

was much greater simplicity than at present, and that expressions which shock the ear of modern refinement, were then considered altogether proper. Hence we find in other ancient writings besides the Bible, the same kind of style; and it is therefore treating the latter very unfairly, to object to it on this account. As to "placements," it may be observed, that in a nation where that general system of fornication is practised, there is no chance for particular houses of ill-fame; but it is a strange argument, that the nation, all of whose habitations are brothels, are more moral than another which has only special ones. However, just such an idea of morality is to be expected from the author of "Moral Physiology," who thinks that publication a moral one. But, at any rate, one would suppose, that such an individual need not have his modesty so excessively tortured by the honest simplicity of ancient writings. One word as to the progressive moral improvement of man without revelation; and that is, there is no such thing. Wherever Christianity has not been embraced, mankind keep on as bad as they were when that religion first made its appearance on the earth. Yet no sooner is it received in any country, than it puts an immediate period to their abominations. But philosophy and infidelity do not do this. These facts outweigh a thousand fanciful theories to the contrary.

If my opponent really wishes to retain his position between theism and atheism, he is welcome so to do. But then he must not expect me to let him alone there, because every controvertist is answerable to his antagonist for the consequences of the position by him assumed. If, to escape the difficulties of theism, he were to embrace atheism, so be it; yet, in doing this, he would have to defend the absurdities of atheism. But if he thinks he has nothing to do by being a nothingarian, he does for once mistake. He says he does not affirm or deny a God. Why? Because he sees no evidence on the subject. Then let him open his eyes, and exercise his reason; for 'tis the height of irrationality to suppose, that the evidence will not preponderate the one way or the other, when there is either wisdom immense or none at all concerned in the question. I do not ask him to explore the regions beyond the stars, or to pry into the unrevealed counsels of omniscience. But I ask him to look at himself, and say if his own frame does not exhibit appearances of perfect wisdom and consummate skill. Or will he say that it exhibits no wisdom, no skill at all? 'Tis the one way or the other, and a fair subject of reasoning too; and, so far from being a free inquirer, he is no inquirer, unless he will exercise his judgment in so plain and tangible a case. If, however, he will be so unreasonable as to refuse to form an opinion on the subject, let him take the consequences of that course. He says he sees no reason for denying a God. Very well, then; if the destruction of cities by earthquakes and volcanoes is no reason for denying the God of nature, neither is the destruction of cities by the sword a

reason for denying the God of the Bible. Let him therefore cease to urge this objection henceforward, while he retains his present position, not forgetting that he has the fooleries of atheism to defend besides. Had not this question a bearing on the present subject of discussion, I should not have introduced it; but it has a most important bearing. Sceptics have yet to learn, that their shafts are aimed at the God of the universe, as well as at the God of Israel, and that downright atheists are the only consistent, thorough-going infidels among them all.

I doubt not, sir, but that there was sufficient cause for a change of government in France at the time of her former as well as her latter revolution. I doubt not but there were abuses in the national church that needed reform. And England, perchance, had there her emissaries to foment disturbances, and instigate excesses. But to attribute the hostility of revolutionists、 toward the sovereign of the universe, to a desire merely to revolutionize their earthly government; to explain their violence against Christianity itself to be nothing more than an attempt to reform their church; to represent the creatures of Pitt as having been the authors of the principal atrocities, when those atrocities were committed by the rulers of France-by her Robespierre, her Marat, her Danton, and her other bloodhounds of infidelity, and sanctioned by her National Assembly, by the citizens of her capital, and even by the French nation:-this, sir, is rather too great a tax on our credulity, and rather too little a regard to the history of those times.

It is well known, that the writings of infidel philosophers were the cause of that convulsion, and that their leading object was, the subversion of religion. "Crush the wretch!" was a favourite expression of Voltaire, their leader, in relation to the saviour, in his correspondence with his brother infidels. And just before the breaking out of the revolution, the idea of moral obligation was exploded among the infidel clubs throughout France, by which they were prepared for the perpetration of any enormity whatever that would promote their diabolical plans. The great majority of the nation had become infidels, when the sanguinary drama was opened. The following vivid description of that day of infidelity and blood, is taken from Horne's Introduction to the Study of the Scriptures. For his authority, he refers to the Abbé Barruel's Memoirs of Jacobinism, Gifford's Residence in France during the years 1792-5, vol. ii., and Adolphus' History of France, vol. ii.

"The name and profession of Christianity was renounced by the legislature, and the abolition of the Christian era was proclaimed. Death was declared by an act of the republican government to be an eternal sleep. The existence of the deity and the immortality of the soul were formally disavowed by the National Convention; and the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead was declared to have been only preached by superstition for the torment of the living. All the religions in the world

were proclaimed to be the daughters of ignorance and pride, and it was decreed to be the duty of the convention to assume the honourable office of disseminating atheism (which was blasphemously affirmed to be truth,) over all the world. As a part of this duty, the convention further decreed, that its express renunciation of all religious worship should, like its invitations to rebellion, be translated into all foreign languages; and it was asserted and received in the convention, that the adversaries of religion had deserved well of their country. Correspondent with these professions and declarations, were the effects actually produced. Public worship was utterly abolished. The churches were converted into 'temples of reason,' in which atheistic and licentious homilies were substituted for the proscribed service; and an absurd and licentious imitation of the pagan mythology was exhibited, under the title of the 'religion of reason.' In the principal church in every town, a tutelary goddess was installed, with a ceremony equally pedantic, frivolous, and profane; and the females selected to personify this new divinity, were mostly prostitutes, who received the adorations of the attendant municipal officers, and of the multitudes whom fear, or force, or motives of gain, had collected together on the occasion. Contempt for religion or decency became the test of attachment to the government, and the gross infraction of any social or moral duty, was deemed a proof of civism, and a victory over prejudice. All distinctions of right and wrong were confounded. The grossest debauchery triumphed. Then proscription followed upon proscription; tragedy followed after tragedy, in almost breathless succession, on the theatre of France; almost the whole nation was converted into a horde of assassins. Democracy' " (not American democracy,)" and atheism, hand in hand, desolated the country, and converted it into one vast field of rapine and of blood.' The moral and social ties were unloosed, or rather torn asunder. For a man to accuse his own father, was declared to be an act of civism worthy of a true republican; and to neglect it was pronounced to be a crime that should be punished with death. Accordingly, women denounced their husbands, and mothers their sons, as bad citizens and traitors; while many women-not of the dress of the common people, nor of infamous reputation, but respectable in character and appearance-seized with savage ferocity between their teeth the mangled limbs of their murdered countrymen. France during this period was a theatre of crimes which, after all preceding perpetrations, have excited in the minds of every spectator amazement and horror. The miseries suffered by that single nation, have changed all the histories of the preceding sufferings of mankind into idle tales, and have been enhanced and multiplied without a precedent, without a number, and without a name. The kingdom appeared to be changed into one great prison; the inhabitants into felons; and the common doom of man commuted for the violence of the

sword and bayonet, the sucking boat and the guillotine. To contemplative men, it seemed for a season as if the knell of the whole nation was tolled, and the world summoned to its execution and its funeral. Within the short time of ten years, not less than three millions of human beings are supposed to have perished in that single country by the influence of atheism."

And

This, then, was "the noble struggle to put down tyranny!" this the "period when the power of truth and of justice shone so conspicuously!" And was Lafayette in very deed the father of a tragedy like this? Not he. I will not libel him by an admission of the charge. No, sir. He was not even for subverting French monarchy, but only for reform. He the father of such an infernal rebellion against heaven and earth? Nay; he could not even ride the whirlwind and direct the storm, but was himself compelled to flee his country to preserve his life. was there in all this no hostility to religion? What then would have been so? Was it no religious persecution for these myrmidons of hell to commit what Mirabeau himself declared in a similar case to be robbery, by confiscating the legal property of the church? to compel the clergy to subscribe a creed made by an infidel National Convention, or relinquish their means of subsistence? The working clergy escape indeed! Yes! such "workies" as Talleyrand & Co., who were ready to sign any creed, and swear fealty to any government, to retain their places. Such of the clergy it seems escaped the national odium, and that too for the very thing for which they ought to have received it. From such hypocritic demagogues, may God in his infinite mercy preserve the American church and nation. But will it seriously be pretended, that there was no conspiracy against religion, when the very doctrines of Christianity, and even Christianity itself, were proscribed? when public worship was abolished, and the churches converted into temples of atheism? nay, when all the religions in the world were proclaimed to be the daughters of ignorance and pride, and when the very existence of the deity was formally disavowed by the National Convention? A strange church reform this! Sir, I am tonished to witness such a disregard to fact, to screen French infidelity. Far be it from me to attempt to excuse the corruptions of the church of Rome. I admit that church, without hesitation, to be the very Babylon of the Apocalypse. But as it is, it is order and excellence, compared with infidel anarchy and misrule. Nay, the fabled hells of the heathen had a comparatively salutary effect on the multitude, and held the world together. Nor is the crudest creed of the wildest horde that roams the desert, a hundreth part so injurious to the interests of mankind, as is the sceptic's rejection of revelation. One sentiment only is more pernicious: 'tis that which makes the Bible the encourager of crimes that hurry us hence, by sending us the sooner to heaven! No! sir; enough, enough have we seen of the reign of infidelity, not to wish its re-instalment. We have

as

seen what a nation is, not without revelation, but against it. One such experiment is enough, quite enough, to make Christendom most solemnly pause, ere they try another. They will need something more than dreaming speculation, and reckless denial of facts notorious the world over, to induce them, after this, to rebel against the government above. They have learnt, that however God may comparatively wink at the ignorance of the heathen, the nations of Christendom are not to extinguish the light of revelation to them vouchsafed, with impunity. They have learnt, that revelation is extremely necessary for them, now that they have it, both in point of interest and obligation.

Before noticing what my opponent says touching the persecution of the quakers by the puritans, I will just bring into view his assertions relative to belief. He says no sincere belief is a fault; that it is not to be cast aside, or changed, or resumed at pleasure; that we can as well add a cubit to our stature, as an article to our creed; that it is involuntary, coming to us unsought, and deserting us unrequested. All this he says to excuse his scepticism, and fault the Bible for requiring belief in that. Now let us apply this rule to the case of the puritans. Their belief that the Salem sufferers were witches, and that they ought to execute them, and whip and banish and hang the quakers, 66 was not a fault. It was involuntary, coming to them unsought." Nor should he marvel, that an advocate of the Bible can be found in the nineteenth century. This advocate believes the Bible; and his "belief is not to be cast aside at pleasure; it is involuntary, coming to him unsought." But men will of course act according to their belief. Why then does my opponent denounce the puritans for acting according to theirs? Nay, how is the Bible itself pernicious, if "no belief can destroy the influence of the light within ?" How admirable is consistency! and with what facility do the abettors of error slide from position to position for the time being!—I will add, before leaving this point, that Christendom in the days of the puritans had but just emerged from the darkness of the antiChristian apostacy, and that all parties partook more or less of the intolerant spirit of the age; and, what is more, that the Bible does no where enjoin the persecution of quakers, and therefore, that it makes nothing against that book, though that persecution was ever so blameworthy on the part of the puritans. And I will further add, that I shall prefer the Bible and my own consciousness, before the theory of Brougham, or any other man.

ORIGEN BACHELER.

« VorigeDoorgaan »