On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
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.
-
-
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
• - » and the vieWs and motives which infiu- * ehced him in it- "— -but I think he is s mistaken in asserting that Elymas ( was punished " for the wilful rejection t of the evidence given to the divine i mission of Jesiis , by the testimony of i
miracles /* Surely this was a crime by no means peculiar to Elymas , neither are we justified in imputing this crime to Elymas , unless Mr . Scott can shew that he had witnessed any miracle before that which deprived him of sight . His guilt was precisely that of some modern infidels . Sergius Pauius
desired to hear the word of God , and Elymas endeavoured b y his sophistry to prevent the natural effect of the apostle ' s argument ; he sought to turn away the deputy from the faith . Full of all subtilty and all mischief as he was , and already possessed of some influence over the mind of his friend ,
he would probably have succeeded , but for the exercise of PauPs miraculous power . Any other miracle might have produced the same effect on the candid temper of the deputy ; and as it was not the practice of our Saviour or his
apostles to inflict disorders , though they frequently removed them , we are justified in believing that there are modes of opposing the progress of Christianity peculiarly deserving of temporal punishment .
Having shewn that Elymas acted the same part as some unbelievers of later date , I now come to another division of Mr . Scott ' s argument , in which he inquires €€ whether the treatment of Bar-Jesus can , in any respect , be
considered as a precedent for us to follow ? " And first , I must notice a misconception of the case ; I do not know that any one contends for the right of punishing a man on account of his dissent from the religion of the Establishment . The Roman Catholic
and the Protestant sectary are allowed the open profession and quiet enjoyment of their peculiar modes of faith and worship ; but Christianity , in its most comprehensive sense , including the divine mission of our Lord , and the doctrine of a future state of reward
and punishment , " is part of < the common law of the land . " Our civil institutiohs , our moral character as a nation , our ideas of social duty , our feelings of self-respect , are all founded upon that standard of right and wrong % vhich is held forth by the religion of
Untitled Article
Jesus , Nay , ttfe very Deists themselves , whose sublitite ? frtuSes have called forth feiieh cilbqiieiifc panegyric , borrow the noblest -of t&ose virtues from the pr ^ bfe ^ ts of Kfim , who knew what was in man , thdugh they have not the candour to ac&nowledge thd
source of their pure and dignified morality . Thi ^ beftig' the case , if the blasphemer , thei scoffer the daring violater of the national law , the reviier of the national faith , the misleader of the simple , the abuser of the ignorant , the corruptef of youth , the destroyer of all that is sacred and venerable— -if
this man be not a propel * object of punishment , shew me the offender who deserves it I For the protection of this offender , Mr . Scott would impose an absolute restraint upon the exercise of lawful authority . When they " can produce similar evidence of their being divinely commissioned ; when thev can divinely commissioned ; when they can
act under the same especial authority and under the same divine impulse with the apostle ; then , but not till then , let them punish the unbeliever in their creed ; then , but not till then , let them adduce the punishment of Bar-Jesus as a sufficient scriptural authority for delivering over the opposer of their religious system into the hands of the civil power /'
We have seen that the preservation of one ingenuous mind from the sophistry of an Infidel was deemed by the inspfred apostle sufficient to justify an unwonted use of his miraculous power ; then , shall the Christian magistrate sit with folded arms , and , because he cannot work a miracle , permit
the minds of thousands and tens of thousands to be perverted with impunity ? Ought he not rather , under the limitations of Christian benevolence , to exercise that power with which he is entrusted in defence of the dearest
interests of men ? / beseech you , says St . Paul , be ye followers of me . No , says Mr . Scott , you must not follow Paul ' s example , unless you can produce similar eviaence of being divinely commissioned * Can he then
suppose it possible that an apostle , acting under divine impulse , would perform an action unlawful for Christians in general ? Let us also remember that this apostle was Paul ^ Pfcul , who on various occasions so carefully distinguished when he spoke by commandment , by permission , or after his
Untitled Article
On the Punishment of UnbeUeifers . 13
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Jan. 2, 1821, page 13, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2496/page/13/
-