These intentions can easily be tested in the present case; for whatever authority is given to Government, a corresponding obligation is binding on subjects: if the ruler may make laws in religion, the subject may not disobey them and therefore either Government has no such authority, or it is the duty of all subjects to accept the religion of the State. Our religious obligations will thus depend not upon truth, but upon geography.

In everything properly belonging to civil rulers, all subjects are bound to obey; society rests upon this foundation; if then religion be the province of Government, conscience is subordinate to civil authority.

But it is admitted on all hands, that there are occasions which justify the assertion of conscience against all interference: what then are these circumstances?

They must arise out of the constitution of man as expressive of the intentions of the Creator. "In political as in natural science, nature cannot be governed, but by obeying her." The question then comes,how far is the authority of Government in religion, consistent with the nature of man?

If conscience be supreme, then Government is not supreme: if the former have authority, the latter is excluded.

The first point for establishing a religion, is to fix upon a creed, and form of worship, as obligatory upon the whole society or nation. And if the magistrate is competent to decide upon this, it is the duty of all good subjects to accept such creed, and perform such worship.

But since religion requires sincerity, every subject is under obligation to assent heartily to the Government theology.

There ought consequently to be some fitness in the decision of rulers, to gain the consent of subjects; whereas the only reasons they can present as civil rulers, are the rewards or punishments annexed to their doctrines, which have no appropriate force of proof.

Having therefore no inherent power of gaining consent, laws are unfit means of enforcing religion.

66

But a second and equally fatal objection to any such Government authority, is presented by the existence and nature of CONSCIENCE; not only is there nothing in the nature of a legislative enactment to secure intellectual conviction, but in religious questions, conscience naturally inspires with aversion against those sentiments which we disbelieve. These signals, planted by God himself," in the breast of man, are the very things which have provoked the tyranny of men, who have thus obtruded into the province reserved by Jehovah, as his peculiar dominion. This contradiction of authorities,-conscience and the magistrateproduces civil discord, when by enforcing a religion against the convictions of men, the civil power infringes upon the natural liberties of the subject, and the inalienable prerogatives of the Creator.

This anomaly in civil society, produces what we seé at present, practical disorder, the State supporting institutions, which a great number of subjects are openly and conscientiously seeking to overthrow!

But it will be said, that "poets, philosophers, and jurists, warn us to lay the foundation of civil society in an acknowledgment of Divine

Providence."

We however can recognize Providence only by obeying its laws, and

since we are by this PROVIDED WITH A CONSCIENCE, evidently intended to be supreme in religious concerns, we best acknowledge and submit to Providence, by not infringing its highest laws.

True Atheism would enforce any form of religion from civil policy, because Atheism disregards both the consience of man, and the authority of God.

This is the denial of Providence, and a subversion of all the Creator's laws.

Some however seek to evade this conclusion, by a compromise between law and conscience, pretending that the choice of a creed by the Legislature, does not commit all subjects to its acceptance; but only appends certain advantages to the State Creed.

This is a still greater anomaly, constituting a "Legislature without subjects; the right to govern, without the duty of obeying and if this be admitted for one law, it destroys the force of all lans, and completely destroys the bond of civil society. Thus, toleration is introduced: but this is inconsistent with the duty of the State to regulate in affairs of religion, since in no other matter is toleration thought of.

Either the Government has no authority in religion, or it is criminal in admitting any doctrines contrary to those established. It is bound to carry out its religious laws, with the same rigour and exactness as any other, or to abandon such laws altogether.

An establishment is founded upon a denial of all claim to toleration, and the one or the other should be withdrawn. The power that may establish, cannot tolerate with any consistency. TOLERATION IS AN INSULT TO BOTH PRINCIPLES; it both denies men's freedom, and practically abandons the magistrate's authority.

A parent may not tolerate those vices in his children, which he is bound and able to correct. The original idea and practice of StateChurchism in England, admitted of no toleration; Dissent was rebellion, and now rebellion is legalized: but this has happened only because the State and the Church were too weak to carry out their claims; they have been wearied into TOLERATION, WHICH IS THE EARNEST OF FINAL

EMANCIPATION.

IV.

Under this department, sceptical objections, and systems or principles advocated as hostile to Christianity, are dispassionately considered.

THE INFIDEL'S CANDOUR, AND SCRIPTURAL
KNOWLEDGE.

THE following instance of candour and Scriptural knowledge, is presented to our readers, as another warning against the unfairness of some who are very earnest in enlightening the people on the errors of the Bible. We shall not pretend to enter into every mistake and fallacy contained in the quotation,-mistakes as to facts and doctrines in the Bible, fallacies of logic as to the process by which the Scriptures lead men into crimes.

There is no excuse for the ignorance or unfairness exhibited in the whole piece, which is a libel at once on the word of God, and the common sense of men. Those who argue against the Scriptures, ought first to understand them, and next to treat them with fairness.

But there is a very close affinity between the way in which Roman Catholic Priests quote and refer to the Bible to prove their mummeries, and the way in which professed infidels mangle and misrepresent the Book which they seek to disparage.

Our readers may judge, from the following specimen :

RELIGION IN REFERENCE TO RUSH AND THE MANNINGS.

WE have spoken generally of the antagonism which should be always on the alert to resist the prejudices of the public. Not less wanting is a journal to mark the progress (which every day affords) to a sounder state of opinion, upon things divested of religious interference. It would be an ample task, and a pleasant one, to note the admissions in our favour made in the public transactions in the newspapers, in the polemical literature of the religious, and in the passing works of the day intended for general reading. We may also mention how necessary it is to have a journal to rebut the charges against infidels. It is an old invention of the enemy to attribute infidelity to the criminals of society, or, reversely, to ascribe all crimes to infidelity. It requires a MORAL diagnosis of the facts, to show that crimes are rather to be referred to religion, than attributable to the want of it. The past year hias afforded two remarkable criminal cases-Rush and the Mannings. Rush was shown to be a reli

gious man; family prayers were offered up morning and evening, collections were raised for religious purposes; EVEN during the trial he would have drawn inferences from the Bible, in defence of himself. He was religious his idea of religion, his reading the Bible, his knowledge of a God and of a future state of rewards and punishments, did not deter HIM from committing murder; and with religion in HIS MOUTH to the last, he suffered the penalty of the law, attesting his innocence as he paid the forfeiture of his notorious guilt. None of the public COULD well assert that Rush's crime arose from want of religion, therefore it was not attempted; but there was no attempt to show that he belonged to the ranks of the religious, and how impotent were prayers offered up to Providence, "to lead us not into temptation, and to deliver us from evil;" how impotent was the reading of the Bible to prevent the crime. Religion and the Bible seem always convertible into crime: therein the criminal has a motive to commit crime, which the infidel is indeed without. "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord," and there are innumerable instances of his execution of it in the Bible, through the medium of his chosen people. To revenge himself on the Jermy's was one motive which actuated Rush, and he found a justification of it in the Scriptures. The other inducement was the love of gain, and it would be easy to show that plunder and murder went generally together, and were the joint purpose of the Almighty of THE OLD Testament, and of his people, Israel.

Religion was at least a principle in Manning's mind; it was shown in evidence to have been brought out frequently to combat the premeditation of the murder, and we must suppose that Manning's THEOLOGY finally adapted itself to murder. Religion to prevent crime, religion to produce repentance, or religion as law, justice or punishment, sure to fall on the offender, in apprehension of hereafter if not in reality hereseemed EQUALLY inefficacious on the Mannings. Manning, who was devout, endeavoured to show the persuasion to crime was in the materialism of his wife. He said his wife had used the language of Solomon, that the body was but as other earth, and did not rise again. However, the chaplain's attention was drawn to it, who said that Mrs. Manning had not given any sign of such opinion, and her orthodoxy appeared very satisfactory to him. Therefore the charge of infidelity, as the cause of the crime was arrested in the bud. Very likely, in his theological disquisitions previous to the crime, Manning may have discussed this with himself, or with the surgeon, whether he could go to heaven if there were a future state. Did the more impressionable religious state of the man make him preferable to the woman? The feeling of the public was, if we may argue from the Times leader, more against the man than the woman. There was aiding and abetting in every step towards the consummation of the crime, with an evident endeavour to reconcile it with his religious scruples, as well as with the judicial consequences in this world. The public felt something of the contempt for Manning which his wife felt. She had courage, which he did not possess. There was a moral and matter-of-fact HYPOCRISY in Manning, which seems to be innate in many of the religious temperament. He appeared to be against, and he would go with, his wife in preparing the murder; he would do a

little, or BY HALVES, not enough, as he thought to constitute a murderer. Probably religion, as we have said in the case of Rush, so in the case of the man Manning, may have justified, in HIS course of thought, the murder of O'Conner. O'Conner was an adulterer, adjudged to death? in the Bible, and a person, as Mrs. Manning reasoned, who had done. them an ill turn, and Manning did not like him. It is not we only who say religion is so easily convertible into crime-Shakspere holds the same opinion. It cannot be said that Mrs. Manning was at all influenced by the existence, or non-existence, of religious belief; it was NIL in her mind: family prayer and going to church, fashionable in good society, as the Times says, made no impression upon Mrs. Manning, a lady's maid of the aristocracy. We therefore! are exonerated from Mrs. Manning, and we give the complete credit of Manning to the religious world.

In reply to this wild imagination, we may suggest some of those reflections and difficulties which will occur to an infidel who understands

the question. He might reason as follows:

According to this, if there be any religious men who do not commit crimes; they are hypocrites; for "religion and crime are convertible;" it is the weakness of the religious public, which calls a man hypocrite, who whilst making profession of religion, does some disgraceful action: for we see, that this is the only consistent profession. Undoubtedly the Churches are in a very low state of spirituality, but the religious leaders have not hit on the true cause; they are always complaining, that their flocks do not live up to their privileges; and this is very plain, for whilst "crime and religion are convertible," there is very little crime amongst professors, as compared with others, especially the swell mob. Policemen may have to attend theatres and free and easies, but the regular worshippers at chapels, forget their true vocation, which is to prepare for a swing. There was one consistent quaker about two years ago, but the Society of Friends must confess it is an exception and not the rule. How seldom do we hear of a member of an Independent or Baptist Church, coming under the hand of Jack Ketch! Truly then religion is at a low ebb, and it is time the Churches were stirred up to a consistent walk and conversation. So notoriously is the public gulled upon this subject, that if a man wants to pass off as particularly honest, he never thinks of setting up for a stout blasphemer, but takes to family prayer! Surely there is something rotten in the State of Denmark; since what is convertible with crime, is a cloak to hide criminal intentions.

Yet it cannot be doubted, that the Bible teaches the doctrine of murder, for it says thou shalt not kill; and introduces Cain as an example to all believers.

"In this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should hate one another: like Cain who was of that Holy one, and slew his brother." (1 John iii. 12.) (See also Gen. iv. 9-12.)-" And the Lord said unto Cain, where is Abel thy brother? and he said I know not: Am I my brother's keeper. When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth." (Gen. ix. 6. Exodus xx. 13.)

And we are plainly taught that vengeance is ours, because "Vegeance