We are about to return to a subject which is, we well know, to some of our readers, rather unpalateable. But it is in vain for them, as for us, to think of escaping from it. It is one of the necessities of the times; and it is a growing and advancing one.

How general, nay, how almost universal, is the wish expressed, to keep theological questions out of the debates of the House of Commons. Yet, in spite of all that men can do, theological questions will obtrude themselves; and we find each succeeding year's discussions becoming more religious, and more polemical in its bearing, than the former one! So it must be; and it is mere folly and childishness to hope to beat back the advancing tide, or to interpose between the collision of opposing opinions.

Nor can any good reason be given why men should wish to suppress such discussions; except, indeed, that which is really the secret motive of their dislike,-a sense of their own ignorance and incompetence. Religion has been

looked

That is the word which must be our rallying cry for the future; for it is the word which most annoys and vexes our foes. This was very distinctly exhibited in the recent debate on national education. The question soon shewed itself to be, Whether the state was bound to teach the Truth alone, or was free to teach Truth and Falsehood indiscriminately. The highest and best-principled speaker on the Conservative side, Lord Ashley, at once took the strongest and only tenable ground, and asserted, that if the state undertook the work of public education at all, it was bound to teach the Truth, and that alone. He was replied to by an unworthy opponent, indeed; but that opponent frankly, and without hesitation, avowed the main and central principle of modern infidelity. This speaker (Mr. Hawes) remarked:

upon, in their education, as a sort of superfluous accomplishment; and they now fear to touch upon a subject which must discover their own deficiencies. This, in addition to the universal distaste which dwells in the heart of man, by nature, to think of God, and his laws, and his future judgment, any more than can be helped, will furnish a sufficient elucidation of the perpetual effort which is visible, to shut out, or to put down, all theological discussions in parlia

ment.

"But the noble lord said, rather than the state should not teach the truth, it ought to teach nothing at all. He should like to know by what high authority the noble lord had ascertained "the truth." (Loud cheers.) He should like to know how it became any member of the Christian church to say, I am right, and all who differ from me are wrong."

highest and holiest sanctions. Expefrequent diencies and policies will no longer

answer the

Purpose; nothing less than will suffice to maintain

"THE TRUTH"

this warfare.

This is the mode by which popular and fashionable Infidelity now works. It knows better than to dispute the truth and authenticity of the Holy Scriptures: this would bring on an examination of the facts and evidence, in which Infidelity well knows that it would be worsted. It prefers, therefore, the more insidious course, of leaving the authority of Holy Writ unassailed; but alleging, or, rather, taking for granted, that this revelation of God's will is so vague, and may be so variously interpreted, as to be tautamount to no revelation at all. "The Bible! oh, yes, the Bible, of course; but who will venture to say that he understands the Bible, or that his interpretation of it is the true one?" In this way a seeming acquiescence is yielded, and a man will profess himself a Christian, a Protestant, and even a Churchman, who yet denies with Mr. Hawes, that any man has a right to suppose that he knows what is truth, and what is falsehood; and will reso

note of the whole matter,-THE TRUTH! But we have here touched the key

lutely maintain that the state is as much bound to teach Mohammedism and Popery, if the people prefer those delusions, as it can be to diffuse that Divine Truth which God, in his infinite mercy, has given us in His own word!

And the next step is, at once to deal with men as mere animals, as brute creatures, and to put all the motives and sanctions of religion wholly out of view. The gentleman (!) who managed to palm himself on the electors of Ipswich as a Conservative, and who now, with the coolest assurance, nightly misrepresents those who sent him to the House of Commons, without betraying even the least consciousness of the disgrace which attaches to such frauds; this Mr. Gibson said, in the same debate:

"Let the house remember, that their business there was to regard mere civil rights, without reference to different religious persuasions, and that they were bound to contemplate man as man, and not as members of particular sects in religion."

The conceited ignorance of this "let the house remember," is almost amusing; even while one's choler is excited by the grossness of the folly thns dogmatically enunciated.

"To

contemplate man as man, and not as members of particular sects in religion!" Why, does not this babbler know that man has been properly described as "a religious animal?" Has he not yet acquired such a smattering of "useful knowledge" from his study of the Penny Magazine, as to know that in no part of the world can man be found without religion? that it is, in short, an essential of his very existence; and that, consequently, the "philosophers" who would legislate for man without a conscience and without a creed, are legislating for that which does not exist; and might as reasonably enact laws to establish schools for the sphinxes and the mermaids!

Really the folly of these people is quite prodigious. The point we have just touched upon is but a single feature in the case. The whole of this Education debate consisted, on their side, of a series of the most obvious non sequiturs. Think of men gravely arguing by the hour, that the population was sunk in heathenish vice, and

the evil by teaching the children of the poor, arithmetic, geography, and mechanics! And doing this, too, in the teeth of their own friend Bulwer's clear and unanswerable proofs, that in France crime abounds the most in those districts where education the education of" useful knowledge"-is the most widely diffused!

66

The word of inspiration has rightly described this sort of "philosophy." The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." "He hath said in his heart, God hath forgotten; he hideth his face; he will never see it."" There is no other term than that of " folly,” or its concentration, "madness," which can properly describe the monstrous absurdity of those who would seriously legislate for men as if they had no consciences, and looked to no hereafter. The astute atheist, conversing freely with his friend on these matters, checked his discourse when his servant came into the room. "We must be cautious," said he, "how we speak of such things before these fellows, lest they should knock us all on the head." There can be no doubt that atheism, followed to its true results, would lead every one to the simple course of grasping as much of this world's possessions, and securing as much sensual enjoyment, as he could, without the least regard to any other consideration; and this principle, introduced into a commonwealth, leads to inevitable anarchy.

If we would have social existence, then, we must have a religion. The unanswerable argument of Dwight, on this subject, can hardly be too often repeated:

"6 Should an advocate for the doctrine which I oppose, demand proof that religion is indispensable to the welfare of a free country, this is my answer. Morality, as every sober man, who knows any thing of the subject, discerns with a glance, is merely a branch of religion; and where there is no religion, there is no morality. Moral obligation has its sole ground in the character and government of God. But where God is not worshipped, his character will soon be disregarded; and the obligation, founded on it, unfelt and forgotten. No duty, therefore, to individuals, or to the public, will be realised or performed. Justice, kindness, and truth, the great hinges on which free society hangs will be unprac.

sist the passions of man. Oaths of office, and of testimony, alike, without the sanctions of religion, are merely solemn farces. Without the sense of accountableness to God, without the realising belief of a future retribution, they are employed only to insult the Creator, deprave the juror, and cheat his fellow-men. This sense nothing but religion can inspire or preserve. With the loss of religion, therefore, the ultimate foundation of confidence is blown up, and the security of life, liberty, and property, buried in the ruins.

"In aid of these observations, I allege that no free government has ever existed for any time without the support of religion. Athens, Sparta, and Rome, stood and fell with their religion, false and gross as it was, because it contained some of those great truths and solemn sanctions, without which man can pos. sess no conscience, exercise no virtue, and find no safety. To their religion, Britain, Switzerland, and the United Netherlands, have owed most of their happiness and their permanency; and might say to this celestial denizen, in every period of their prosperity, as the devout and humble Christian to his God, Having obtained help of thee, we have continued to this time.'

"In the history of the globe, there is recorded but one attempt, seriously made, to establish a free government without religion. From this attempt has sprung new proof that such a government, stripped of this aid, cannot exist. The government, thus projected, was itself never established, but was a mere abortion; exhibiting doubtful signs of life at its birth, and possessing this dubious existence only as an ephemeron. During its diurnal life it was the greatest scourge, particularly to those for whom it was formed, and generally to the rest of mankind, which the world has ever seen. Instead of being a free, just, and beneficent system of administration, it was more despotic than a Persian caliphate; more wasteful of life, and all its blessings, than an inundation of Goths and Vandals. Those who lived under it, and either originated or executed its measures, were the authors of more crimes than any collection of men, since the termination of that gigantic wickedness, from which nothing but an universal deluge could cleanse this polluted world.

"These evils, my antagonist is further to be informed, were the result of the only experiment ever made, of erecting a government without religion. They are the only specimen of the genuine efficacy of infidelity and atheism on the mind and on the happiness of man, during

opportunity which they have enjoyed, of possessing an unlimited control over human affairs. Until the remembrance of this experiment shall have been lost, it can never be made again.

"Finally, he is to be informed, that it is wiser, more humane, and more effectual, to prevent crimes than to punish them. He is to be told what he cannot deny, that religion is the only great preventive of crime; and contributes more, in a far more desirable manner, to the peace and good order of society, than the judge and the sheriff, the gaol and the gibbet united. He is to be reminded that mankind, with all the influence of religion added to that of civil government, are still imperfectly governed; are less orderly, peaceful, and friendly to each other, than humanity must wish and that, therefore, he who would willingly lessen this influence is a fool, he who would destroy it a madman."

;

But we anticipate the rejoinder which is already on the opponent's tongue;that Dr. Dwight's argument applies solely or chiefly to "general religion," and not to those peculiarities by which one sect is distinguished from another. "Do you not see," it will be said, "that the late government plan of education, against which you were so wrathful, made the fullest provision for the constant inculcation of this general religion,' and only kept out of sight, and confined to the separate apartment,' those special' doctrines about which Christian men are so apt to differ."

At the first glance, this view of the case has a very specious appearance; but a few moments' reflection dissipates the delusion. To admit that men, holding very different views of Christian truth, may yet, amidst all their differences, be each of them sincerely religious, and each of them substantially safe, is one thing; and to say that all the matters about which they differ are wholly immaterial, and had better have been sunk in oblivion, is quite another. One man may complete and round off his scheme of Christianity in one way, and his neighbour in another, and both, in their different ways, may be safe, and both may be useful. But if you were to attempt to expunge from the creed of each, all the matters touching which any difference of union existed, you would render each of their creeds incomplete; and in any incomplete system no vitality can exist. In like manner, to admit into a school those few general ideas on which