On this page

• Text (2)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    late file laWBoFCdd , and be odioqs in his sight for its conduct against an individual , aftd an individual , in the pursuance of a meritorious object , may act in a manner to draw upon himself the just punishijaents of the state . As an instance of the former , we may ' quote tJie case of the persecutors , Roman imperial

    and Roman popish : and of the latter the case of injudicious men , who in their abhorrence of idolatry have subjected ttietfiselves to iust punishment , for breaking the idols worshipped by their sovereigns . Our Saviour has drawn the true line , when he ; says , render to Caesar the things which are Csesar ' s , and to God the things which are God s . "

    By Caesar was meant the sovereign existing in our Saviour ' s time , and it applies to the sovereign of every state , by whatever name he or they may be called . We may render to the civil power , allegiance and duty , in every thing which does not belong to God : but in what belongs to God we are to submit to privations , banishments , death itself , rather

    than break through our highest obligations . In trying every question by this rule , we shall find , that the sovereign of a state can never have real cause of complaint against Christian subjects , and that they will be in fact his best subjects ; for there is nothing in Christianity incompatible with civil government ; but

    men calling themselves Christians , may set up claims , which their religion does not authorise them to make , and governments may usurp a power which is in direct of him

    opposition to the precepts , whom they call their Lord and Saviour . Both are amenable to his authority , and it behoves them both to repent of their errors , when they are pointed out ; and at any rate to receive with Christian charity , Christian admonitions .

    we will suppose then , that the claims of our brethren the catholics , were , sub-* nitte < j [ to a committee of real Christians * tvho of course denied to the legislature the right of making ariy law contrary to the precepts of our Saviour , and to the subject the right of claiming any privilege from the state on account of ariy peculiar religious opinions . The catholics then demand to be admitted to all

    civil rights in common with their Protestant b ** thren , arid bring as proofs ° f the propriety of their claims , that they are . willing to give every test of c * vil allegiance , that can be required : they sufe also , that they differ from

    Untitled Article

    « . <> - their brethren in having sepafate places of worship , and a separate form of discipline . The conimitee would inquire into the nature of the worship , to see whether it interfered , with the laws of the land ; and finding that they had no obscene meeting , nor clandestine tumultuous assemblies , that access was

    always open to the civil magistrate to their places of worship , they would not scruple to allow them , as far as worship was concerned , all civil rights . But proceeding in their inquiry , they find a certain form of discipline subsisting among them , and that the affairs of the community are regulated by officers not

    apj > omted by themselves butbya foreign * er . This will naturally excite farther investigation , and they find that this foreigner is the subject of another powerf and that power is openly at war with their own country . The catholics in reply , observe that they correspond with the subject of the enemy only upon

    religious matters , and an intercourse is absolutely necessary for the preservation of their religion . May not the committee justly determine : the legislature of every country has a right to prohibit its subjects from all intercourse with the enemy . The Christian religion offers no grounds whatever for encroaching upon this right . We shall grant to >

    you all civil rights ; but , the right of corresponding with the enemy is not a civil one , and there is no reason for granting you a privilege above your fel ~ low subjects * This seems to us a convincing argument , built upon true Christ tian principles ; and shewing that popery is incompatible with Christianity ^ It might be said then , that popery cannot be tolerated . Such a conduct does

    not become Christians , nor is it authorized by the experience of the past . The popish was at one . time the universal religion ; the Protestants are dissenters from it ; and still form , ; only the minority in the Christian world ; Though the Papists cannot demand as a right the correspondence with the pretended head of the church , whilst he is an

    enemy to this country ; yet we know that licences are granted continually to subjects for the sake of trade , or other causes , to correspond with the enemy , and what is granted for trade , might be allowed for religion . Of course , the person permitted to be sent to the popej must state his business ta the gov ^ rmrwant , hi ? route , and his tune " of "' stay . * VY «

    Untitled Article

    Slati of Public Afairs . 67

    Untitled Article

    VOL , V , o

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Feb. 2, 1810, page 97, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2401/page/49/