Letter To Sir Samuel Shepherd Part 2

A FELLOW-INQUIRER AFTER TRUTH.

(Copy.)

To the Editor of the Morning Chronicle.

Sir,

I was one of those who saw Mr. Eaton stand in the pillory for what has been called an attempt to overturn the religion of his country. The manner in which the spectators behaved during the execution of this severe punishment, was, in my opinion, highly creditable to the liberality of the age. I think I may venture to say, there was hardly an individual present who did not sympathise with the unfortunate man; he was cheered by numbers during the whole time of the punishment; and many efforts were made to convey various kinds of refreshments to him.

As one of those who wish well to the interests of the Christian religion, I own I was shocked upon this occasion. I have always conceived this religion to be perfectly independent of the arm of authority for its support, and to require only to be heard and examined to bear down every species of opposition. I cannot but consider that it has made its way against power, learning, and philosophy, united to destroy it; nor can I refuse to draw from this the deduction, that it will equally withstand all the efforts of abuse, sophistry, and calumny.

When I see any set of men resort to punishment, instead of argument, in its defence, I can with difficulty conceive they are serious in the belief of its doctrines, for the smallest reflection might convince them, that such a course is the most effectual method they could take to lower its estimation, and to cover it with discredit. It betrays that diffidence and fear for the result which a man thoroughly impressed with the truth of the Christian doctrines would surely not be the most likely to entertain. I cannot bring myself, therefore, to believe, that those who manifest a zeal to crush the enemies of Christianity by the arm of the law, are themselves acquainted with that religion. I imagine them, on the contrary, to be men whose time and attention have been completely ingrossed by secular affairs, and who believe the Christian religion as they would believe the Mohammedan, merely because their fathers believed it before them.

Let those cruel persecutors reflect for a moment on the injury they are thus doing to the very cause they are pretending to support. Let them consider that religion can be defended only by argument, or by force; and that it cannot be defended by the union of both; for it is in vain to say, it may be defended by argument, when the reasonings on one side only can be heard aloud, while those on the other draw down on the head of the user of them pillory and imprisonment. It is certainly a very unequal conflict when one of the combatants may make use of an argument or a halter at his discretion. It is like a battle between a pugilist and one armed with a stiletto, which, though he may not use at first, he knows he can use if hard pushed. Such defenders of Christianity would do well to remember, that the means they are resorting to are those which so successfully promoted the cause of infidelity in France. Had the same pains been bestowed in refuting the productions of Rousseau, Diderot, and Voltaire, which were employed in burning their books and punishing the authors, France and the whole of Europe might, at this day, have exhibited very different spectacle.

The progress of liberal opinion has been very rapid, indeed, of late years; and though Judges and Attorney-Generals, whose daily pursuits, certainly so unfavourable to liberal and comprehensive reasonings, are generally among the last persons to shake off antiquated prejudices, yet they too, however slowly, will, unquestionably, at last, be borne down by the tide of public opinion.