Page images
PDF
EPUB

sword; which is in its consequence, whatever it may be in its principle, downright popery." The words in the italic character are omitted by the letter-writer.

To what purpose these passages are quoted I cannot imagine: they have no reference to the question in debate, but are part of an argument brought to assert the spiritual jurisdiction of the church. There are some, we know, who, to destroy the spiritual authority of the church, deny that the church is derived from the institutions of Christ or his Apostles, and assert it to be a mere creature of the state. And their conclusion is right; for if the church be derived from a temporal power, she can claim from that no spiritual jurisdiction: but then these men are equally (if not more) zealous against the temporal power of the church as against the spiritual. To them therefore I argue; if the church be derived from the state, it must derive a power from the state for its support; as all civil societies and incorporations have, in virtue of their incorporation, some civil power for their own preservation: therefore I say, in the first passage, "if the authority be of this world, it must be supported by the power of this world;" that is, if the church derives all her authority from the state, she must have a state (temporal) power to support that authority. On which I infer in the second passage: "consequently those who are for throwing all spiritual power out of the church, and introducing into the room of it a power derived from the civil magistrate, must, to exempt the consciences of men from a spiritual jurisdiction, (which is their aim,) submit them to a temporal; which is in its consequences-downright popery." That is, to give the church as such a temporal power, which is the consequence of deriving her authority from the state, is downright popery. And now what is this to the purpose? Is here one word about the magistrate's power in matters of religion; or any thing parallel to what the bishop says except the mere sound of words? But let us go on.

The next passage is in p. 12. of the letter, and 8 of the sermon. The passage stands thus in the letter.

666

My kingdom is not of this world.' This may serve to show the meaning and extent of our Saviour's argument, and how contrary it is to the genius and spirit of the Christian religion to found its faith in temporal punishments.. The powers

which are derived to the church from Christ the head are purely spiritual; the punishments she inflicts are of the same nature, and the effect of them is generally suspended till the offender comes to another world."

This passage likewise stands under the first head in the sermon, which was to show that the church has no temporal powers as such; and the passage speaks only of the powers derived to the church from Christ the head. And what has this to do in a debate about the magistrate? Because the church has no temporal power, will it follow that the magistrate has none? If not, why was this place produced at all?

[ocr errors]

6

But here the letter-writer has shown his art and his sincerity at once: the bishop deduces all his doctrine, with respect to the no authority of the church and magistrate, from this single sentence, my kingdom is not of this world.' The letter-writer thought it to his purpose that I should do so too; and therefore he has added at the beginning of this passage taken from my sermon, my kingdom is not of this world;' whereas I begin a new distinct paragraph with these words, (and refer back, not to a single text, but to all I had said on the subject,) this may serve to show,' &c. The paragraph before does not end with those words, my kingdom is not of this world,' but with these, now is my kingdom not from hence:' and they stand joined to what goes before, and not introducing what follows in the passage quoted.*

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

At this rate my friend may make me agree with whom he pleases if he meant me an honor, I have reason to excuse his zeal, but I desire for the future that he would serve me in an honester way.

The next passage is in page 12. of the letter, and p. 12. of the sermon. "The truth of the matter lies in a very narrow compass: the church has no right to impose penal laws on any account: in matters purely of a religious nature, the state has no right neither."

I overlook the false pointing of this passage in the letter; it does me no other injury than making nonsense of my words; and that I can forgive. The stress of the quotation lies in the last words: "in matters purely of a religious nature, the state has no right neither."

* See Vol. iii. p. 298.

I have already told the reader what I mean by matters purely of a religious nature in this debate; that I distinguish between opinions in religious matters considered only as they affect the consciences of men, and as they come to show themselves in practices of ill consequence to public peace. In the former case I call them matters purely of a religious nature, and have expressly distinguished them in this sermon from pure essential religion. And if my friend had looked to the end of the passage, the beginning of which he here produces, he would have seen my meaning; for of these matters of purely a religious nature I say : "of such matters perhaps there may be great scarcity in the world; for the passions of men work themselves into their religious concerns; and the controversy grows insensibly into a struggle for power and superiority; and it becomes him (the magistrate) to stir and to drive conscience out of the state to its proper seat, the heart of man; whither his power neither can nor ought to follow it." Now the matters of purely a religious nature in the beginning of the passage, in which the state has no right, must be the same with those in the end of it, which the magistrate's power neither can nor ought to follow; and these are declared to be points of conscience, whilst they are in their proper seat, the heart of man.

[ocr errors]

It is true indeed that the expressions, matters of purely a religious nature,' and 'pure religion,' are too near a-kin in sound, whilst they stand for such different ideas. But, alas! I am not arrived to an authority that will bear me out in discarding old words and coining new ones; or raising new images to represent old notions; and therefore must be content to speak as the world speaks, and shift as well as I can with the difficulties of my mother-tongue. It is observable, however, that in the use the letter-writer makes of this passage, he has thought fit to leave out the word 'purely.' This being the first good office he has done me, I ought to thank him for it; for considering the use that has been made of this and words of the like import, I am very willing to part with my share of them; though the letter-writer, for a reason which he and I know, ought to have shown more tenderness to such a significant word.

The next passage is in p. 15. of the letter, p. 6. of the ser

mon.

"The honor of God is best consulted by complying with the gracious designs of his Providence; and the honor of religion best secured by promoting the ends of it. And since our Saviour has told us that the design of his coming into the world, and the end of the religion he taught, was not to destroy but to save men's lives, there can be no greater indignity offered to God, no greater contempt shown of Christ, or blemish cast on religion, than to make religion, which was designed to save men, the means and instrument of destroying them. The argument reaches to all methods of propagating religion which are hurtful or injurious to men, as well as merely to the destroying them by the fire and sword; for the Son of man no more came to injure and abuse men than he did to destroy them; and the argument is equally strong against injuring or abusing our fellow-creatures in order to propagate the faith, as it is against destroying them."

This passage is at the very beginning of the first head of discourse, intended to exclude the church, as such, from temporal power; I put the plea for temporal power in the church in the same manner that the church of Rome puts it: "the whole weight of the argument lies on the honor of God and religion; from which topic the doctrine of extirpating heretics fetches its main support. I answer this plea in the words above: extirpating heretics by church power was the case in view, which I show to be inconsistent with the honor of God and religion; and say expressly that this argument holds with respect to all methods of propagating religion that are hurtful and injurious. And what then? Propagating religion is one thing, and punishing men for actions against the plain laws of Christ, to which they own themselves subject, is another. It is one thing to say that it is opposite to the maxims of Christ to encourage by temporal rewards religion as it is virtue and charity; which his lordship affirms in the passage set opposite to this in the letter; and another to say, as I do, that the faith is not to be propagated by hurting or abusing men.

In order to remove an objection against what I here say of

injuring and abusing men, I state it myself in the next words after the passage.

"It is true that all punishments do not come under the notion of injuries or abuses, since many are calculated for the benefit of offenders," &c.

I answer this by saying, that "however good a reason this may be for exercising temporal punishments in the cause of religion, it can signify nothing in the present case; unless the church be vested with a power of dispensing temporal punishments; for this reason cannot create a power where it is not.”

What then was the present case in which I was concerned? Have I not plainly expressed it to be, whether the church were vested with temporal power? And what is this to the letter-writer's point? I am speaking of the power of the church; his lordship of the power of the civil magistrate; and my good friend says we both speak of the same thing.

The next passage is part of this very argument, and follows the words last quoted: it is guarded before and behind against all mistakes but wilful ones.

After having said," this reason cannot create a power (in the church) where it is not; it can only direct the exercise of it (that is, in the magistrate's hand) where it is;" I add the passage quoted by the letter: " and therefore, to those who urge the conveniency of temporal punishments in matters of religion, we answer with our blessed Saviour, 'ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.' The kingdom of Christ is not of this world, nor is it to be erected or supported by worldly power." Here the letter ends. I go on : "he has not intrenched on the civil magistrate's authority, or granted any part of their commission to his disciples."

I can make this passage no plainer: if my friend cannot see that I speak here of church power, and not of civil power, I have no help for him.

The passage in page 17 of the letter has been considered already: the five next and only remaining passages made use of by the letter-writer are:

1. "Thus much is certain; the magistrate has no right to punish men for the mistakes in their judgment, or errors of their conscience."

« PreviousContinue »