Monongalia mirror. [volume] (Morgantown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1849-1855, 1854-08-12

lis allowed to think in the recesses of hi:
bosom, and is not required to do any
act forbidden by God, let him rejoice in
his liberty. Apostles and Martyrs de-
sired no morel If an American lady
is permitted to indulge her private
thoughts, and not compelled to become
u prostitute, let her be grateful for her
liberty. The heroines of the Bible
sought no nobler privilege! Q, but il I
those early Christians" ,"-apostles,and
confessors, and martyrs, could speak,
they would rebuke this libel upon their
truth and loyalty to Jesus And sure
ly he never drew his first breath in this
land, who thus interprets freedom OF
soul, and would propose such models
for our imitation. sf 4a.
To sustain his assertions as to the low
views which tho early Christians enter
tanned OF religious liberty, Bishop
Hughes refers to the Apologies of JUS
tin and Tertullian. To those Apollo
gies l, at once, and confidently appeal.
They utterly refute the calumny. JUS
tin presented two addresses 10 the EN-
peror, Tertullian one; and both plead
for the right 10 worship and serve God
freely according to conscience. The
object of these apologies was, to vindi-
cate the Christian religion and to secure,
for Christians, freedom from persecu-
ton for their worship. Nor were these
applications in vain. Heather Empe-
rors granted privileges which are now
denied in Europe by Kings and Rulers
miscalled Christian. s, sas a-l.
The best, the only authentic church
history is the Bible. 1t is, THE Acts
Of the Apostles" And what are the
rights which the early Christians assert.
ed, according to this inspired record
Is it only liberty to exercise the intel, j.
lect, and not 10 be coerced to deeds of
idolutry and vicel BY no means. On
every page we find those inspired men
claiming the very right for which we
now plead, the right TO worship God ac-
eording to their consciences. Nay they
went much farther. They asserted
their right to speak and preach boldly
in the name Of Jesus. In Jerusalem,
between them and the Sanhedrim, and
wherever they travelled, between them
aud the governments, the whole contro-
versy turned upon religious liberty; the
Sanhedrim and the Rulers seeking to
abridge that liberty, and the disciples
rejecting their authority, exclaiming,
"Whother i, be right TO hearken unto
God or unto you, judge ye. Who art
thou that judgest another mans servantl
To his own master no standcth OF fal-
leth." :,
Those who presented the Memorial
to Congress entertain the same views
of religious freedom which the apostles
held, and which were most dear to all
Christians until Christianity became cor
rupled by the union of Church and
State. The Archbishop has referred to
Tertullian but what does he say 2
Human .jiuris ct naturali 2Otestatis. IN
;i;caaquc quod' potaerit colere. ssd nee
religioni;s est cogere religiOnem, qua
suscipi sponte debut, aon ei.' Z" 1t is the
natural civil right of every one to .wor-
ship whatever hc may choose. Nor is
| it the office of religion to force religion,
which must be received voluntarily, not
by force" This is the very right which
the Memorial seeks to secure, and the
two arguments urged against it scarcely
deserve the name of sophistries.
First, it is said that the liberty Of
conscience is only the right to Judge of
tho character of actions, and "is beyond
the reach Of Governments. They might
as well attempt to pass laws regulating
the exercise of memory as regulating
the decisions of mans conscience. y
Here is one argument, but what has it
to do with the object for which Con.
press has been memorializedl
1t would not be difficult to prove that
spiritual despotism has sought to regu.
late even the decision of mans Con,
science, aud that men have been murder.
cd as here,ics for the inward exercises
of their souls. But freedom to worship
God is much more than freedom Of tho't
and opinion. The Gospel demands not
only The heart, the inward homage, but
the external profession and obediencs.
Christianity hasits ordinances, its exter-
nal observances and to punish for obey
ing these, is as tyrannical us it would be
to eintlict penalties for the inward pro-
ccsses of thought. Jesus requires not
only "fai,h in the heart" but "con-
fession with the mouth" His disciples
are no, only to believe, but to be bapli.
zed, to meet and partake of the supper,
and mot to forsake the assembling of
themselves together" for Worship
What mockery to prescribe and impris.
on men for dbeying these preccpts ac.
cording to their conscientious convic-
tions, and then to pretend that liberty
of conscience cannot be infringed.-
Would our Roman Catholic fellow citi-
zens bo satisfied, if the liberty of cou!
science ruarauteed in the Constitution