Page images
PDF
EPUB

not do not cast earth into them, with the Philistines; neither prefer broken pits before them, with the wicked Jews. Others have laboured, and you may enter into their labours. O receive not so great things in vain: O despise not so great salvation. Be not like swine, to tread under foot so great things; neither yet like dogs, to tear and abuse holy things. Say not to our Saviour, with the Gergesites, Depart out of our coasts: neither yet, with Esau, sell your birthright for a mess of pottage. If light be come into the world, love not darkness more than light if food, if clothing, be offered, go not naked, starve not yourselves. Remember.......the admonition and menacing of St. Augustine; They that despise God's will inviting them, shall feel God's will taking vengeance of them. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God; but a blessed thing it is, and will bring us to everlasting blessedness in the end, when God speaketh unto us, to hearken; when he setteth his word before us, to read it; when he stretcheth out his hand and calleth, to answer, Here am I, here we are, to do thy will, O God. The Lord work a care and conscience in us to know him and serve him, that we may be acknowledged of him at the appearing of our Lord JESUS CHRIST: to whom, with the Holy Ghost, be all praise and thanksgiving. Amen."

T.

THE BIGOT.-NO. v.

Letter from a Brother Bigot.

As an introduction to the letter from a Brother Bigot which I propose to give, let me premise an extract from a previous one, from the same quarter, to which it refers.

"I thought to have told you, for your refreshment and encouragement,something of some good friends and brother Bigots abroad: but I believe I must reserve this for another communication. Perhaps I ought to have told you how I became a Bigot: for such Bigots as we, are no Bigots born and bred. On the contrary, I was nursed in the very lap of Liberalism, both in politics and religion; and I have been obliged for myself, under guidance and a blessing from on high, to search and sift the whole system to the very bottom: and therefore I KNOW, SO as very few can know, what miserable folly and wickedness it is. As such I have renounced it all, and I have taken God's word to be my only rule and guide in all my conduct and opinions; and that (as you justly observe) determines every thing. I know that truth is found of all who truly seek it; and that those who do not know and love the Lord Jesus Christ, whatever they may pretend of lové to truth and wisdom, do in reality hate them both for Christ is wisdom and Christ is Truth itself-immutable and eternal Truth and Wisdom. And I have so learned this, that the errors and opposition of all men else do only afford fresh proof of, and confirm, the truth which I maintain. Thus much then about myself, that we may fully understand one another. And as the enemy is in front,

and we are called to the battle, I will only give you my motto, from an oldfashioned ballad, in which a son of ancient kings is introduced using expressions which the Christian soldier (who remembers that he is a king as well as a priest unto God) may fitly apply to himself: for he knows his own dignity, however poor and despised he may be, and is content to be, upon earth.

This only I retain

Of all our honours past,

And this shall still our pride remain
Our glory to the last,—

That when my father's sword
I draw for truth and right,
Then-cloth'd with majesty restor❜d,
And with ancestral might-

This poor, despised stranger,
This wanderer in the earth,

Shall stand as bold in front of danger
As kings which gave him birth:

Then all and each shall hear

A king and warrior's shout,

While from this eye they see with fear
A kingly soul look out.

Here follows the second letter:

"Good Brother and true,

"Having yet a little time to spare, I must write you again a few words, because I perceive that some persons do not a little wince to find themselves set down among Papists, in your paper No. II., because they advocate the Popish cause. One thought, however, has occurred to my mind, which has satisfied me that you are right, and that Papists they certainly are. For, who were the first Protestants? Those who came out of Babylon, separated themselves from an apostate church, and resolutely protested against antichristian errors and abominations. Now, then, it is evident that those only who would do the same are worthy to be called Protestants. But would those who have sided with the Papist on the late question, ever have found in their hearts to do so? I am persuaded they would not. They would have reasoned with themselves, that such harsh measures could do no good-that schism certainly was a fearful sin— that they might do much more good by remaining where they were, by conciliating, by shewing love, by scattering the good seed in a quiet and secret manner, by gradually persuading their brethren to renounce some of their errors: and so with their politic measures they would have thought to prevail upon Popery to become No Popery. (A hopeful scheme truly!!!) But to set up the standard of Divine truth, to denounce the Pope as antichrist, to take the sword of the Spirit and attack idolatry, to drag forth the secret iniquities and corruptions of " the mother of harlots," to open the chambers of imagery and let in the light of truth upon them, that heaven and earth might join to loathe and abhor them-would they not have started at all this? would they not have done much to tie the hands and impede the efforts of those who did it? Well, then, they are no Protestants. A man may be a Papist, because his father was such before him; and to be a Protestant for no better reason, is to be no Protestant at all. So also a man may be a Papist by mere tame acquiescence, and by taking opinions upon trust: but let not men think to be Protestants in this fashion; this is mere Popery; just what the Pope requires in the laity. Set them down, therefore, for Papists, till they shew something of a truly Protestant spirit; till

they come forward and protest against the errors of this time, as boldly as our fathers did against Popery.

Protestants truly! I marvel what it is that they protest against! except it be against the efforts and protestations of us Bigots :-much as the Remonstrants in Holland did against the true and zealous Protestants in that country, and so made common cause with the Papists, who liked them very well, and (wherever they had influence) endeavoured to put Remonstrant preachers in the Reformed churches. In truth, these friends of the Papists, if you want a distinguishing name for them, may fitly be called Remonstrants. Their liberalism stamps them as belonging to that class, as well as many of the opinions which they hold.

Others do not like to be told that our country is unchristianized by Act of Parliament. I do not actually pretend to say that you are the author of the article on Ireland in which this is asserted, but certainly the writer is one of us; and I conclude that you, as a Bigot, hold the same opinion. Well, then, on this subject too I have a few thoughts at your service.

The Popish Bill, considered as an Act of the British Legislature, is an annulling of our national protest against Popery. The Constitution of 1688 declared and maintained, that Popery is a system so corrupt and abominable, such a mystery of oppression and deceit, that no Papist can be trusted to hold any office in the government or legislature of a Protestant country. This was the spirit of the Protestant constitution then established. This was implied in its very nature, and in all its provisions. A more plain and direct, but not a stronger, protest against Popery, was contained in the Oath and Declaration taken and made by every member of the legislature. All this is now done away. The protest may be made by individuals, but the national protest is altogether withdrawn; and, on the contrary, it is solemnly declared that a Papist is as fit and competent to govern and legislate for this once Christian country, as a Protestant. With one or two vain and unmeaning exceptions-just enough to testify to all the world that the framers of the Act knew they were doing wrong, but not enough to serve any good purpose-every office of trust and responsibility and authority is thrown open to the Papists: and there is no security against their using that power to establish their own apostate and domineering church upon the ruins of Protestantism, except an oath, which, according to the authoritative declaration of their church, is altogether null and void-yea, which they are perjured in taking. So that Protestantism and Popery, Christ and Antichrist, are set together upon the seat of authority and government! And what is this, virtually, but an utter rejection of Christ? for He must have supreme dominion, or none at all. There can be no concord between Christ and Belial, any more than we can serve at once both God and mammon: if we attempt to serve both, we reject God altogether; if we seek to bring about any such concord, we renounce Christ utterly. So that, with this abominable Act, the nation (as speaking by its supreme legislature) has ceased to protest against Popery: it is therefore no longer Protestant. And if it be no longer Protestant, it cannot, so long as Antichrist exists and reigns, be Christian either, in the judgment of any true disciple of our pious Réformers. A Christian church or nation, as a plain point of Christian duty, must not only embrace and profess the truth, but renounce and protest against antichristian and idolatrous errors, even as every Christian in baptism renounces the world, the flesh, and the devil. But this Act not only tolerates the Papists: it unites with and approves them; it gives them power, authority, and honour, and affords them every facility for demanding and obtaining more.

Yet further: let it be observed, that the late Act, while it allows a Papist to be a member of the Government, effectually precludes a true Protestant from being so. A Papist may be a member of the cabinet, and, in full accordance with the principles of his church, may pursue any line of conduct which he

[blocks in formation]

considers suited to promote the interests of that church. But a Protestant cannot act there, as an honest and consistent Protestant. I do not hereby mean to say, that he cannot, as to his private convictions, be a Christian, and a Protestant but he cannot act as such in the government; he cannot speak as such in the cabinet; he cannot protest against Popery: for then you would have a divided cabinet again, and one of the King's ministers openly and continually insulting and condemning another. According to the spirit and natural operation of the Act, no Protestant can hold any situation or office in the government who is not willing to unite with Papists, and give them the right hand of fellowship. That is to say, power and authority in the State are, from this time forward, only open to such Protestants as are no Protestants at all; while they are fully open to Papists of the worst and most dangerous sort! I affirm, then, that with this awful Act the nation has ceased to be Protestant; that it has become popish and antichristian; that our country is unchristianized by Act of Parliament! Q. E. D.

"Such, then, being the nature and character of the measure, shall British Protestants, can British Christians, connive at it and acquiesce in it? Are we not in duty bound to lift up our voices in solemn protest against it? Shall it stand upon record to future ages, that, such an Act being passed, the Protestants of Great Britain quietly consented to it, and so made it their own? This would amount, indeed, to a public and national rejection of God and His Anointed : and would not God require it at our hands?

"Who, then, will lift up their voices against it? Who are engaged in preparing petitions, plain and decided, for the repeal of the late Act, and of all the Acts which have been passed in favour of the Papists, from the first fatal and foolish concessions in 1778 to the present year inclusive? Who are determined that the voice of true Protestants shall yet be heard? I have been long revolving this matter in my mind ; and, when I have drawn up my petition, I shall lose no time in sending you a copy. I trust you will find it such as might reasonably be expected from an old-fashioned Protestant, a zealous Churchman, and "A BROTHER BIGOT."

As to what my much-esteemed and bigoted Brother observes respecting Protestants who favour the Papists, intimating that in his opinion they omit to protest, I must inform him that there are some amongst them who protest against the doctrines of Popery very loudly; but not loud enough to make any alteration in the opinion already expressed concerning them, by

THE BIGOT.-NO. VI.

On "the simple Exhibition of Truth."

A BIGOT.

My bigotry has the natural effect, of leading me to abhor many things which other people approve; and to suspect evil in many things, wherein others apprehend no harm. Accordingly, I have a great suspicion of current phrases. False principles prevail on all sides: and these current phrases are their circulating medium. But, if the phrase be clothed in the dialect now coming into use, to the exclusion of the English language, my bigotry is roused to tenfold suspicion. Men are such rogues in these days, that they shrink from the use of our old Saxon English; because, if conveyed in this, an idea is expressed. But they, when they converse, do not want to express their ideas, but to wrap them up. Hence they employ by preference the modern

dialect; which is of great use to qualify a bad meaning, to set off a foolish meaning, to hide a want of meaning, to convey a tricky meaning, and also to conceal the true meaning; so as fully to make good the apophthegm of the Frenchman, who said that the use of the eight parts of speech is, to conceal our thoughts.

Now that phrase, "the expulsive power of a new affection;"-I hardly know what to make of it. I doubt it means more harm than good. For what is the principle? These modern phrases, I say, are used to communicate false principles. I know there is a false principle very generally circulating, and it is this: that when a person is openly depraved and irreligious, we have merely to give him a better direction this is all that is necessary: he needs no change of nature or of heart only give him a better direction, and all will be right. Then comes in "the expulsive power of a new affection:" the popgun power of some new passion is to drive out those by which he is at present influenced, just as one pellet drives out another; nothing further is wanted; and all will then be right.

Now I, a Bigot, have a strong suspicion, that thus to use the phrase, and so I have heard it used, is only one way of telling a lie. A change of some sort does certainly take place. But then it is only such a change as is constantly taking place in worldly persons, without religion's having any thing to do with the matter: for example, when an idle person becomes covetous, and in consequence active and industrious, his covetousness driving out his idleness: which is merely a natural process, leaving his soul as far from salvation as it was before; or, at the utmost, one devil driving out another. Therefore it is a particularly heinous offence when this phrase is used by religious professors, in speaking upon religious subjects. The old-fashioned way of speaking of a person really made a believer, was, that he was converted. But now men exclaim-their eyes rolling as if they would turn round in their sockets-" a remarkable instance of the expulsive power of a new affection!" Remarkable it may be; but if that is all, I am afraid that he is just where he was, and that those who think it sufficient are not far from him.

But now for another phrase: "the simple exhibition of truth." This, perhaps, has not yet become quite so current as the other; but it threatens to do so, and therefore it is high time for a Bigot to protest against it. The way of using it is this; a plausible one, certainly. "You clergymen have nothing to do with controversy in the pulpit. Why not avoid doubtful questions? Steer clear of all such subjects. Above all, have nothing to do with prophecy. Stick to your texts, and be satisfied with a simple exhibition of the truth.'”

6

Now I, a Bigot, in reasoning with an opponent, for the most part hate to make concessions, because they savour of modern candour and liberality, which are unprincipled and base things. But let me just state what I concede to this phrase, to prevent being misunderstood. I concede, then, that preachers are to avoid ambitious ornament; that they are not to aim at the preaching of self; that they are not to go

« PreviousContinue »