Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

selves, yet nevertheless prate about their disbelief, forsooth, of the authenticity of the preliminary chapters of Matthew and Luke, on no other ground than Mr. Belsham's "Calm Inquiry," published as it now is "in a cheap form to facilitate and extend its circulation"! The consequences of instilling into the minds of Christians an opinion, or even a distrust, that the preliminary chapters in Matthew and Luke are "absolute falsities," must necessarily be most baneful. Perhaps there is nothing so closely associated with the belief of Christians in general, as the very facts which those identical chapters detail respecting our Lord's nativity, forming as they do in every town, in every village, and in every house and cottage, the constant themes of rejoicing at those annual festivals, which are the anniversaries of that momentous epoch which brought "glad tidings of great joy to all people," and on which occasion the heavenly host lauded the all-bountiful and beneficent Giver, saying, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will towards men." The narrative of those most interesting events was engraven on their memories in their earliest childhood, in a way, too, and at a season, calculated to render the impression indelible. It has grown with their growth, and strengthened with their strength: and in minds like those of the multitude, faith in the truth of such facts relating to the blessed Founder of Christianity, and belief in the truth of Christianity itself, must stand or fall together. It is impossible without the worst consequences to attempt to separate the two: destroy the one, and you shake the other to its very centre. The great majority of Christians are, from various causes, unable to sift such matters for themselves; but they have been taught (and truly taught) to believe that the New Testament contains the revealed word of the Almighty. As such they have appreciated it justly as a jewel above all price. They have drawn from it, with religious reverence, the practical inculcation, "to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly before God." As a whole, they have venerated it hitherto as above all suspicion, spotless and pure; when they are told, possibly by an authority highly respectable in point of talent and moral conduct, and moreover greatly influential from his station and office, that one hundred and seventySIX verses are complete falsities," what is in many instances the inevitable, the lamentable consequence? Why, the whole work sinks in their estimation, just as the reputation of any individual, whom they had been accustomed to revere as a model of uprightness and goodness, would sink on his being convicted of a vile falsehood, or an atrocious act of criminality: and all confidence, as well in the integrity of the one as in the authenticity of the other, would alike receive an irrecoverable shock. But the mischief doth not stop there: it prepares a highway for the march of Deism; for many of those individuals who have been so initiated in partial infidelity, are but too well prepared to tolerate the reasoning-" Why, if these four chapters which for so many centuries have been received as true, are now as clearly proved, as they are positively asserted to be, absolute falsities, it is very possible that there may be other chapters, which deeper investigation may shew to be equally spurious; nay, it is not impossible that there may be but too good a foundation for the Deistical assertion, that the whole is a cunningly devised fable!'"

66

6

If YE, the "philosophizing Gentile believers" of the age, must indulge yourselves in wild conjectures and arrogant hypotheses in matters of theological controversy, yet do not-in mercy do not-bereave the sober-minded, single-hearted and pious Christian, of one atom either of his devotional reverence for, or of his unbounded confidence in, the purity of that book

whose divine assurances of a future state of blissful immortality, beaming on his recollection when goaded by the anguish of worldly affliction to the very verge of despair, are at once more gratefully soothing and reanimating, than to the benighted and dismayed traveller, through those murky wilds of the desert where the savage brute roams relentless, are the earliest scintillations of the morning gleaming through the gloom. That the narrative should have been made the subject of attack at all, is deeply to be regretted; for the poison will be imbibed by many, whom no antidote to counteract its operation will ever reach. Convinced, as the writer of these remarks fully is, that the cause of Christianity, the present and future happiness of individuals, and the well-being of families and society at large, would be all greatly prejudiced if the opinion respecting the falsity of the preliminary chapters in Matthew and Luke were to become more prevalent, it would be to him a source of the highest satisfaction if he could but feel himself justified in entertaining an expectation that this his humble effort will in any degree be conducive towards vindicating the credibility and pure integrity of the holy Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

It remains for him to state, that if the strong feelings under which he is sensible that he has written, have exhibited themselves in any part of his observations, it behoves him, before he concludes, to protest in justice to himself, that they are directed entirely towards the doctrine itself, and in no degree personally against the advocate for such doctrine, much less has he been led away by any spirit of intolerance or party zeal : for, however strong may be his opinion upon particular points of doctrine, he cannot but feel that those who totally differ from him may possibly be in the right. In his judgment, that person must have his mind imbued with more or less than human wisdom, who can venture to pronounce that his own doctrinal sentiments alone are sterling truth, and the tenets of all others who may happen to differ from him but merely base alloy.

Every rational inquirer, however superior may be his faculties of penetration and discrimination, cannot but be conscious, it is presumed, that the immeasureable sublimity of the subject too far transcends the limited powers of his shackled mind, for him ever to indulge the hope of infallibility. Perhaps in proportion as an individual becomes enlightened, does he entertain more firmly the persuasion that it is utterly hopeless to expect that his darkened intellect can ever attain sufficient energy and lucidness of vision to enable him competently to comprehend the subject: and it may be, that he often repossesses himself after a range of thought, but to exclaim, in a mingled tone of humility and awe, "It is high as heaven-what can we KNOW?" And whatever creed may be the result of his anxious investigation, and however soundly rooted he may occasionally consider it, yet must a distrust frequently come across his mind, if duly sensible of his own fallibility, and cause him in doubt and fear mentally to prefer, to the great Source of all Wisdom, all Power, and all Goodness, a fervid though silent prayer, in the spirit of the following lines of the poet:

"If I am right, thy grace impart,

Still in the right to stay!

If I am wrong, Oh, teach my heart
To find that better way!"

Weymouth, Jan. 31, 1827. .

W. H. ROWE.

QUESTION OF THE COMPETENCY OF HERETICS AND UNBELIEVERS AS JURORS AND WITNESSES IN AMERICAN COurts.

SIR, Hackney, March 5, 1827. FROM Some of the publications sent me by my friends the Universalists of America, which I referred to in my former letter, (p. 176,) and which I have since received, I learn that the competency of unbelievers, and even of some Christian believers, to serve as Jurors and to give evidence in courts of justice, has been called in question in the United States of America.

The first case of this kind is thus related in The Philadelphia Universalist Magazine, Vol. II. p. 315, in an extract from The American Watchman and Delaware Advertiser of Jan. 7, 1823:

"In a trial in the court of Oyer and Terminer, held at Newcastle in November last, of a man indicted for ****, one of the Jury impannelled was, on his being called, challenged by the Attorney-General, who proceeded to shew cause for the challenge, by propounding to him, under the direction of the court, the following questions, and requiring his answers thereto : "Q. 1. Do you believe in the obligation of an oath ?

"A. 1. An honest man, to speak the truth, requires not an oath to bind him; and a dishonest one will not be bound by an oath.

"Q. 2. Do you believe in the existence of a God?

"A. 2. It appears reasonable to believe, that all things are governed by a superior intelligence rather than by a blind fatality.

"The same question being repeated and a more direct answer required, Juror replied,

"2. I do believe in the existence of a God.

"Q. 3. Do you believe in a future state of rewards and punishments? "A. 3. I am ignorant of them. The subject is beyond my comprehension.

"The Court, on hearing the answers of the Juror to the questions proposed, decided that he was incompetent to serve as one of the Jury. He was consequently rejected, although it was the prisoner's wish that he should pass between him and his country."

Another case of judicial bigotry, in which a witness was rejected on account of heresy, is described (in an extract from the Boston Patriot) in the Boston Universalists' Magazine, Vol. VII. pp. 113, 114.

"In a case tried before Judge Hallowell and a special Jury, in the District Court of Philadelphia, Nov. 14, a man was offered as a witness for the defendant, who, on being interrogated by the plaintiff's counsel as to his religious belief, declared, that he did not believe in a future state of rewards and punishments after this life, but that the only punishment for sin was in the present state of existence. The Judge, after argument, refused to admit him to be qualified as a witness. He quoted in support of his opinion the decision of the Supreme Court of New York, as delivered by Chief Justice Spencer, that no testimony is entitled to credit, unless delivered under the solemnity of an oath or affirmation which comes home to the conscience of the witness, and will create a tie arising from his belief that perjury would expose him to punishment in the life to come; on this great principle rest all our institutions, and especially the distribution of justice between man and man.'

[ocr errors]

Upon this judgment, so unworthy of a functionary in a Free State, the editors of the work from which I have taken the extract, make the following remark,

"By the above decision, the honourable Judge informs the public, that had the man whom he would not admit to be sworn, been dishonest enough

to deny his religious belief, he then would have admitted him to swear! And he furthermore informs the public, that if he did not fear a punishment in a future state he should entirely disregard the institutions of society, and especially the distribution of justice between man and man."

A precedent had been set in this precise case which Judge Hallowell would have shewn wisdom in taking as his guide. I gather the particulars from "An Extract from a Letter, dated Elkton, 4th April, 1822," in the Philadelphia Universalist Magazine, Vol. I. pp. 285, &c. At the County. Court of Cecil County, held at Elkton, a suit was brought before the Hon. Richard T. Earle, Chief Judge, and the Hon. Lemuel Purnell and Thomas Worrell, Associates. The case having been stated to the Jury, and the Chief Judge having called upon the counsel for the defence to produce their evidence, a witness was brought forward, William Miller, who had been a Methodist preacher, but had become an Universalist.

"Just as he was going to be sworn and give in his evidence, one of the counsel for the plaintiff (Gale) rose and objected to Mr. Miller's giving evidence in court at all, as he was instructed by his client [John Miller, but no relation to the witness, himself also a Methodist preacher] to say, that Mr. Miller did not believe in a state of future rewards and punishments. An Infidel' exclaimed Carmical, the other counsel for the plaintiff. Upon which the progress of the cause was arrested; a considerable interest was excited in all the spectators; a consultation took place between the three judges, legal authorities were appealed to and read, and a witness named John A. Simpers was produced by the plaintiff's counsel to throw out of court Mr. Miller's testimony, which was important, by invalidating his qualifications to testify upon the grounds of his religious belief. All that this Simpers could swear was, that Mr. Miller had publicly declared his belief that our Saviour died for all mankind; that all mankind would be saved, and that he did not believe in a state of future rewards and punishments. The court having asked the witness if Mr. M. ever to his knowledge had denied his belief in the existence of God, and he replied in the negative; Mr. M. then obtained permission of the court to interrogate the witness. Mr. M. asked him if he, (Mr. M.,) so far from disbelieving the Scriptures, had not always appealed to them as the bulwark of his faith? The witness' knowledge was such, that he was constrained to reply in the affirmative. So that Mr. M.'s principles brightening so upon investigation, because bottomed upon the truth, the Chief Judge immediately ordered the clerk of the court to proceed to swear him without further hesitation. Thus was an attempt overthrown, which, had it succeeded, might have gone to establish a precedent whereby Universalists would have been, at least in this county, and perhaps this state, in a measure disfranchised."

Every sensible man must rejoice in the defeat of this attempt to exclude a man from the relations of civil life on account of his religious belief; but the end here aimed at is the natural consequence of all inquiry into the faith of individuals before judicial tribunals. The inquiries would begin with unbelievers, but they would go on to interrogate and disqualify misbelievers, that is, all who did not believe, or rather repeat after, some arbitrary standard that might chance to be acknowledged by the court. Bigotry is always bad, but it is worst of all on the judicial bench: the Inquisition as carried on by churchmen is odious, but it is supremely detestable when "the holy office" is administered by civil judges. Wishing and hoping that our own courts may resist the evil in its beginning, and that all persons summoned as jurors or witnesses may beware of legal snares for conscience, ROBERT ASPLAND.

I am, Sir, yours, &c.,

[blocks in formation]

I AM inclined to think that the great majority of my Unitarian brethren feel assured of the authenticity of the Baptismal Commission as recorded in the existing copies of St. Matthew's Gospel. Now my own fixed and only not unalterable conviction is, that the words " in the name of the Father," &c., are even more unquestionably than those in St. John's Epistle an interpolation. And the ground of that conviction is, that the text is point blank opposed to the uniform testimony of Scripture history as to the FACT of baptism in the apostolic age, and utterly irreconcileable with the Apostle Paul's repeated references to that fact and his arguments upon it. I am unwilling to trespass on your pages by dilating on these grounds of objection, and my purpose will be answered if my opponents will oblige me by replying to the following queries :-In what form do they believe that Baptism was administered at the period immediately subsequent to our Saviour's ascension into heaven? What evidence have they that the apostles were cognizant of a commission to baptize in the three names? How do they reconcile St. Paul's mention of Baptism, Gal. iii. 27, Rom. vi. 3, et seq., Ephes. iv. 5, 1 Cor. i. 13, Col. ii. 12, with the fact of baptism having been administered in or into more than one name? Feb. 25, 1827.

J. T. CLARKE.

"REPORTED BURNING OF A JEW."

To the Editor.

SIR,

Feb. 19, 1827.

A FEW months ago the public papers asserted that a man had been lately burnt to death in Spain for heresy. When opinion had expressed itself pretty loudly on this incredible outrage, the Spanish authorities circulated documents denying the fact, and in your last Number, p. 144, your respect for "truth and the character of the age," induces you to consider these documents as entitled to credit.

These documents have only added mendacity to cruelty. The fact is incontestable, that in the month of August, in the year 1826, a Catalonian schoolmaster named Brosquil, who lived in the Barrio de Ruzasa in the city of Valencia in Spain, suffered the penalty of death on the solitary accusation of "Deism." At his trial a strong opposition to this barbarous sentence was made by the minority of the judges, but their resistance was over-ruled by the majority, and the decree for his execution was confirmed by the mandate of the King. Every species of contumely accompanied the unhappy but most courageous man, (for he refused to retract or to disguise his opinions,) both on the way to and at the place of execution. The saints and images were veiled in all the streets through which the procession passed, and the crosses which are always attached to the gallows in Spain were torn

away.

The difficulty of communication with Spain has hitherto prevented more minute details from reaching England, but a time will doubtless come when this and other deeds of darkness and ferocity will be exposed to the world.

J. B.

« ПредишнаНапред »