« PreviousContinue »
4 or 500000 Men in it; and if it had 4 or 500000 Men in it, then it might very well be able to furnish half the vaft Army of the Philistines afterwards. And so my Account of that Army is established, while Sir Isaac's remains under very great Difficulties ; fince if the Israelites were the Shepherds, they could not be supposed to make any Part of an Army against themselves.
Your Friend has made a very ingenious Conjecture concerning the Wonder that the Babylonians enquired after. I believe he is right, so Than't insist upon it as any Proof of what I intended, nor can I think I need. The Scripture is plain, and Sir Ijaac's Opinion wants a superiority of Reasons, I am,
Upon the Right of the MAGISTRATE to inftiet
Our Magazine for May last did not reach us, at this distance, till the
middle of July, otherwise I fou'd sooner have sent an Answer to the Question propos d in it, p. 260, (by Mistake 206,) dated from EastLothian, and sign'd Clemens. Perhaps others may have been beforehand with me; however, as different Solutions of important Difficulties are of use, you may please to insert the following Answer in your Magazine for Auguft.
If Self-preservation be the prime Law of Nature (as is supposid in the Question) 'tis plain no Man can have a Right to take amvay his own Life, because this wou'd be a Right inconsistent with that prime Law, and imply a Contradiction, viz.a Right to do a Thing, which, by the prime Law of Nature he is oblig'd not to do.
But, on the other hand, if Self-preservation be the prime Law of Nature, it must follow, that every Man has a Right to defend his own Life, against any other who attacks it, even at the expence of the Life of that other, if he can no way else secure himself.
This then is that Right (the Right of Self-defence) which every Man in Society has given up to the Magistrate, excepting Cases of extream Exigence, where timely recourse cannot be had to publick Authority,
If the People had a Right (for I chuse to use that Word rather than Power) over their own Lives, and upon entring into Society had resign'd that Right, it wou'd follow, that the Supreme Magistrate might take away every Man's Life at pleasure ; but as the People never cou'd have any such Right, all the Right chey can give, and all the Magistrate can derive from them is, a Right of defending the Innocent againit the Injurious, which can only extend to the Life of the Subject, so far as is neceslasy for the Security of the Society; a Realon which will in no Cafe justify Suicide. I thall be glad to hear that this gives Satisfaction to your Correspondent, and am, Sir,
Your humble Servant, Aberdeen, July 22. 1737
Upon the same Subject,
before I had so much as heard of his Question, and perhaps your ingenious Correspondents have said enough to thew the Gentleman who, in June, p. 344. remarks upon it, that those who derive the Authority of the Supreme Magistrate from the People, need not be puzzl’d with Clemens's Query, viz. Whether the People bave not as good a Right to take away their own Lives, as to give the Magistrate Authority to do it. Yet I do not see that any of their Answers have superceded mine; the Solution I have given may serve to inforce the Truths they have asserted, and to obviate some Objections to which they may be liable, for want of having explicitly shewn, as I have plainly done, how the whole Body of the People can give the Civil Magistrate a Right to take away Life, when not one of them has a Right to take away his own; since 'tis cer. tain, as the Gentleman, in p. 344. justly remarks, that No Man can give more Autbority to another than be bas bimself. Which Objection my Answer has entirely remov'd. Two of your Correspondents, p. 241, 242. seem indeed to imply, that, which I have more directly laid down, to be the only solid Foundation for the Authority of the Magistrate over the Life of the Subject, as deriv'd from the People, viz. Their having given up to him that Right, which every,Man has by the Law of Nature, to defend his Life or Property against any one who attacks it
. But as this is not express'd in either of their Answers, I am persuaded mine will not be thought unuseful, to set that important Matter in the clearest Light; for a Right neceffarily deduced from the prime Law of Nature, Selfpreservation, leaves not the least ground upon which to justify the unnatural Crime of Self-destruction, and takes off all necessity of having recourse to the immediate appointment of God, for the Authority of the Civil Magistrate to punish with Death; a Dilpute which has been started on this Occasion, of no small Importance to be decided.
I believe the Gentleman who thought Clemens had puzzl'd those that derive the Authority of the Magistrate from the People, wou'd be more puzzld, on his Side, to thew at what Time, or in what Manner God has given any Authority to Civil Magistrates, distinct from that which himself owns they receive from the People, who, he says, Have a Power of chusing and alligning over this Sovereign Autbority to one or many, according to tbe Conftitutions of the several States and Kingdoms in the World. But how cou'd they do this, if that Authority was not firit vested in themselves? for (as was before observ’d) No Man can give more Authoriry to another than be bas bimself. And might not we urge one of those very Texts, to prove that the People have this Authority, which he brings to support the contrary Doctrine? Gen. ix. 6. Whoso sheddeth Man's Blood, by Man Jeall his Blood be lhed. For this is not an Authority given to Magistrates, but a Law given to Noah and his Sons, and in them to all Mankind : The People derive indeed the Authority to punish with Death (and so they do the Right of Self-defence, and all other natural Rights) from the immediate Appointment of God, but he has left to them to institute Government, and to aflign over to their Governors whatever Power is ne. cessary for the Safety of the Society. The other Texts, Rom. xii. which
the Gentleman builds upon, must be understood in a Sense consistent with Falt, and it is very evident, as far as we know any thing from History, that all the Governments that are, or have been in the World (excepting the particular Case of the Iraelites ) were of human Institution, whether establish'd by Force or by Compact, and must be maintain'd either by the express or tacit Consent of the People. And
yet Government is very properly said to be the Ordinance of God, &c. as he is the God of Order, and Author of that rational and social Nature, of which Govern. ment is a necessary Consequence. I am,
Sir, Your humble Servant, Aberdeen, Sept. 28. 1737
A Serious Addrefs to the CLERGY and LAITY of the
Church of ENGLAND.
S the Clergy of these Kingdoms make great Complaints, and with
too great Reason, of a general Disposition in the Laity to with draw, or abridge the Maintenance allow'd by the Laws of God and Man, to those who minister in holy Things, I would beseech the Reverend Clergy, in the firit place, to consider conscientiously, whether fome Usages and Omissions, something approv'd or conniv'd át by many of their own Order, and appearing, on the first View, very inconlittent with the Vows aud Obligations of Ministers, do not partly contribute to so unreasonable and criminal Dispositions in the Laity.
I am so far from thinking or saying, that the present Clergy of the Church of England are more liable to Censure and just Objeciion than their Predecessors, that I am perswaded few Ages fince the primitive, or, perhaps, no Country but our own, can boast of so learned, and, generally speaking, fo regular a Clergy as our Church is now bless’d with. But the best of that Order are of like Passions with other Men, and have their Treasures in earthen Vessels; and in so great a number of Men, and in so general a Corruption of Manners, it can be no breach of Charity to suppose, that many have more regard for themselves than the Flock, in taking upon them, and acting in, the Character of Clergymen; and therefore, it is no wonder, if ill.dispos’d Men throw Aspersions upon the belt, and the conscientious Part of the Laity find too much to lament in the more unworthy.
But I think the following Objections have occafiond the greatest Clamour ever since the Reformation, viz. An insatiable Thirit after Preferments, facrilegious Pluralities, unconscionable Nonresidence, and even ftarving of Curates, which are too generally practis’d by Clergymen, tho' disclaimd and lamented by the more Conscientious. And there Practices no Considerations can reconcile to the plain and sincere Layman's Sentiments, however a Wharton, or other interefted Çaluiit may bias the.Consciences of some worldly Clergymen.
Now tho’ few are fit to instruct those who by Profession and Merit are our Instructors in Christ Jesus, and in the great Things of another World, yet Perions of almoit any Capacity, with Charity and Sincerity annex'd, may put others in mind of their Duty in Things of a manifest
Obligation: And whether the following Enquiries relate to Things of that kind, I would beg of all the Clergy, and especially of those directly concern'd, seriously to consider; and that for the Peace of their own Consciences, the successful Discharge of their Ministry, and the Salvation of Souls; and (if lower Confiderations may be admitted) that their judging and correcting themselves may prevent severer Correction from other hands.
Query 1. Whether the nature of the ministerial Office, and the solemn Stipulation with whith it is undertaken at Ordination, does not oblige every Clergyman to strict and personal Labour, for promoting the End of his Ministry; or allows any Liberty of delegating and transferring his Charge, unless in Cases of real Necessity; and what those Cales of Necessity are ?
2. Whether any conscientious Clergyman (except in such Cases of real Necessity) can be casy with feeding the Flock generally and habitually by Proxy, with Food which he neither prepares nor administers; or can be so well assured of another Man's Ability and Integrity, as he may be of his own ?
3. Whether, if his Proxy, or Curate, be thought fufficient, it be not a manifest Injustice to lay almost all the Labour upon him, and, at the same time, to deprive him of almost all the temporal Advantages annexd by Law, the Bounty of our Forefathers, to the Office ?
4. Whether if 80 or 100 l. per An. be thought too small a Maintenance, or Encouragement for the Rector or Vicar, 15 or 20 l. per Ann, can be judg:d any way equal for the Curate and his family, for buying Books and all other Necessaries?
5. Whether a Clergyman's withdrawing himself, his Labours and Studies, after so solemn a Dedication of all to the Interests of Religion, and Salvation of Souls, be not more Criminal, and has more of the Guild of Sacrilege in it, than the Laity's withholding of Tythes and Oblations.
If the Answer to these and other like Queries, should be in favour of some Pluralities and Non-residence, it may Itill further be ask'd :
1. Whether any conscientious Clergyman can use such Liberty, unless his Conscience tell him, that his use of it is apparently for the greater Advantage of the Church? And that it may be so,
2. Whether every Clergyman is not in Conscience restrain'd from accepting Benefices at unreasonable Distance, and oblig'd to divide his Labours and Residence betwixt the two Benefices, suppos'd to lie within Compass, that is, to officiate in the Forenoon at the one, and in the Afternoon at the other, or alternate Sundays at each; and, on the whole, to lahour so much personally in both, that the Parishioners may have reasonable Edification from himself, whatever Pains his Curates may take in his Absence? Confequently,
3. Whether to absent generally from one, or both, that the Incumbent may live at ease, "in Town or at Court, in a State attendance on a Bishop's or Nobleman's Table, or Chappel, be not leaving the Flock at Adventures, proflituting his sacred Function, and eating the Bread of the Lord without doing his Work? And again,
4. Whether any Clergyman, having solemnly promis'd at his Ordination, to teach and exhort, as well the Sick as Whole, within his Cure,
and taken the particular Cure upon him, in the Name of the Lord, and on his Knees at Institution, can with a good Conscience leave that Cure again to a poor Hireling, and meanly become a Curate himself in some richer Parish, for the Addition of 10l. per Annum, or some other less justifiable Motive?
5. Whether, when two small Benefices lie not convenient for being supplied by one Man's Labour, and neither will afford a Competency for a Curate, and at the same time an Overplus worth a Pluralilt's defiring, such Benefices should not always be kept separate and under the Care of two distinct Incumbents, fince one of them must necessarily be poorly provided for by a poor Pluralist, when no Curate, except one scandalous, insufficient, or very necessitous, will accept his 15 or 161. a Year? A poor Man that opprefseth the Posr, is like a sweeping Rain which leaveth no Food. Prov. xxviii. 3.
6. Whether every Pluralist is not strictly oblig'd to find out a Curate of Integrity and sufficient Ability, or to make him such, by Advice, ditecting and assisting his Studies, and lending him Books, &c. and to allow him a liberal Subsistance; as one half of the Benefice he supplies; or more, where a Moiety is not a Competency ?
Laptly, Upon the whole, Whether the Clergyman who is always in quest of greater Preferment, as if that were the sole End of his Function, he that is penurious in dispensing the heavenly Manna himself, who receives 2, 3, or 400 l. a Year for Service, that, in any reasonable Estimate, deserves not above 30 or 40 s. who higgles about holy Offices, and will do no more than human Laws, the Censures of the World, and other mean Considerations oblige him to, can think himself the follower of those who were instant in Senson and out of Season, who knowing the Terrors of the Lord perswaded Men, and who were willing to spend and be Spent for the Gospel of Christ ??
I am very unwilling to ask Questions of our Right Reverend Father's the Bishops, but with their Lordhips would ask themselves, whether the Obligations of Residence (whenever they can be excus d from Parliament and Convocations) of personal Watching and Labour, of Superintending their Clergy and their ecclefiaftical Courts, of examining into the Qualifications of the Candidates for Holy Orders, of Confirming parochially, of urging their Clergy to Residence, Catechising, and other Branches of the pastoral Office, be not, at least, equally strong on them, as their refpective Duties are on the Inferior Clergy? And whether the thirit of Translations, their long Absences, unreasonable Commendams, being a Bishop in one Discese, and a subject Presbyter in another, &c. can be of good Example to the lower Clergy, or be reconcil'd to the Spirit of the Gospel, and the ancient Canons ?
I would next propose fome Hints, or Queries, to the Consciences of Laymen, concerning the Shire they have in making a corrupt, worldly, and unedifying Clergy, by abusing the Truft of Patronage repos'd in them, and thereby making the Consciences of Clergymen, and Salvati. on of Souls, a Sacrifice to their Covetousness, by using unlawful Means for providing for Sons, or Brothers, and to those Ends keeping up the monitrous Privilege of qualifying Chaplains, fupporting a piece of religious Pageantry in their Families at the exp.ne of many neglected Souls, iftarved Curates. But I must confue myself, as present, to the last