The Sun.
London, England, 1826-12-07 00:00:00

DEISM.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

Sin—l cannot sufficiently express my surprise to set the pro-
priety of tolerating the baneful and pestilent doctrines of Deism
'made the subject of debate in a British Parliament I Neither can
I, as a sincere Christian, suppress my indignation at finding a
Member of the Hon. Body of the House of Commons loudly ad-
vocating so unworthy a cause, and prostituting the abilities, with
which the Almighty has gifted him, as well as the influence with
which ha has been entrusted by hie fellow•countrymvn, to such
perverted purposes. And what are the hardships, from which
Mr. Hume so loudly calls for a release for his protege, Mr.
Taylor ? That forsooth he is not placed on a footing with other
4, Protestant Dissenters !" Protestant Dissenters does he
style Deists? He would have more nearly hit the mark had he
denominated their', Dissenters from right reason and common
sense.

What, is there no difference to be made between the man who
denies Christianity altogether, and him who only dissents in some
few inconsiderable minor points ? , Is an open and avowed opposer
of those tenets, which are the established doctrines of his country,
and which conduce so much to its happiness and welfare, to be
placed on a level with him who strictly adheres to those opinions ?
But Mr. Home quotes the acceptance of the oaths of Jews,
Ilindous, and Maltninetaus, as an argument few the admitaiun of
Deists to the like privileges, and then, in the plenitude of his elo-
•Aslsr!!,r, i'stittost,-41issate.101.*Q entete,ip
" What is a Jew but a Deist ?" Now here the Learned Gentle-
man is in error, for the Jews, if they adhered to the religion of
their ancestors, would believe as much in a trinity as Christians
do ; and I conceive that, in swearing a man in a court of justice,
it is not his private opinions, but his public professions, that are
considered, not what his real sentiments are, but what, in accord-
ance with the religion he professes, they ought to be ; and there-
foie the oath of a Jew, upon the Old Testament, is accepted, bias-
much as be professes himself to be *Jew; and without inquiring
into his-own individual ideas, he is looked upon, in the eye of
the law, as a good Jew, concurring in the right doctrines of his
nation. But furthet, even in the present perverted state of their
belief, they should be styled not neigh, but Theists ; and
though this, at first sight, may seem like making a distinction
without a difference, or cavilling at words, the only apparent dif-
ference of the terms existing in the derivation, the one from the
Greek, oEos, an& the other from the Latin Deus, both signifying
God; yet there is nevertheless a very considerable distinction to
be observed between the Deist, in the common acceptation of the
term, and the Theist. By the Deist we understand one who
denies divine inspiration altogether, and looks upon the Deity
merely as a first cause, while the Theist, on the other hand, ))41-
Heves in and confesses the truth of Divine Revelation, but denies
the Divinity of the Messiah, or second person in the Trinity :
thus' this argtnnent of the Hon. Gentleman being false in its'
'premises, must of necessity fall to the ground.

Mr. Hume enlarges, too, upon the admission of Hindoos to
give evidence, whom he styles infidels. I will ask him, why are
these men to be stigmatised with so strong an epithet ? It is.
most true, they do not believe in Christ; but why is it? They
have not, for the moat part, so much as heard of him: it would
therefore be unjust and unreasonable to expect them to believe in
Him, of whom they have not heard, nor can they with justice be
called infidels, until they have been taught and have refused to
believe. It is this Deist, this freethinker, who may deservedly
be distinguished by that opprobrious name, he having been taught
the word of truth,:and having rejected it. But it is added, that "the
profession of a belief in God was surely sufficient for the purpose
of taking an oath in a court ofjustice, if those,.who did not believe
in God, were permitted to be sworn there." In what instance,
let me ask, has this been the case? I know of no erne, save an
Atheist indeed, who can, be so spoken of; and a professed
Atheist, who would not take the usual oath, would be as much
rejected as a Deist. If, however, Mr. H. means Ilindoos, I must
again beg to set him right, and assert that the Hindoo, although
his ideas he somewhat different from Mr. Humes, (and I have my
doubts whether they be not much better), believes as much in the
existence of a God as he himielf does. The premises, therefore,
of this argument being, as in the last, weak and erroneous, it
must consequently be considered as exploded.
It does then appear to me that a man, openly professing the
tenets of Deism, is not to' be in any degree tolerated ; neither
4;1414 he to be suffered to propagate his baneful, doctrines ; there
should, tnethiuks, a law he passed, for the severe punishment of
any such person'; not that I would he understood to imply a wish
to shackle the mind of any man, by no means, Ist his thoughts
be as free and unrestricted as the wind—give him entire and per-
feet freedom of conscience. I desire enly to curb his tongue,
lest he pOur his poison into the ears of others. The Jew indeed
rn,tY safely enough be tolerated, since he only injures himself, and
is a very rare thing to hear of a Christian having judaized ; but
the Deist is a most dangerous person to be let loose upon the earn •
In unitY, he easily worms himself round' the minds of others, and
too
often.'"cceetle by, his wily and specious arguments in making
murderer,.einaslllfPoie°th greater horror even then a
the as
himself.
Nay,
i more, the Deist surely should
be regarded with as great, yea, w
andwhich he probablylatterdepriv
would shortly have laid down,.
while hapless victim of a life merely
temporal,
while the former asses • the soul, and not only
robs those of his fellow "notes, as it were,
administered soli.c;ereaturresno, whootmnhevellassstuinecessg
life
elloyf
happiness and bliss, but rrGdiu"
e
condemns them to eternal punishment,
misery, and torment.

Surely then such a one is not hardly treated in being deprived
of some of the temporal privileges, of
which his fellow-country-
men are possessed, when he is inflicting, or at least trying to in-
Pict, such deep immedicabls wounds on their eternal interests.
I would recommend Oat Mr. Hume be sent into solitary con-
finement, to reflect upon his many inconsistencies, and to learn
better sense of the respect due to the House of Commons, and of
the duty he owes to those persons who have elected him to repre-
sent them in that Honourable Body.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
NO DEIST.