66 upon this occasion declared, that they had rejected him that he should not reign over them: and as his "former political reign is founded on a supposed compact between the Almighty Sovereign and his "people, that original compact being now solemnly renounced on the part of the people, there must "of course be a dissolution or end of the Theo He begins with calling the Theocracy a dark principle. And yet, the account he gives of it shews, that he did not find it dark; and, what was worse, could not, with all his endeavours, make it so. He calls it imaginary; and yet the very History he quotes to prove its short duration, shews, even by his own proof, it was not imaginary, but real. Indeed, if that civil Government, which is founded on ORIGINAL COMPACT, were dissolvable at pleasure, that is, as soon as one of the contracting parties was grown weary of it (which this Decider on Government and Laws expressly says it is), then Government, on its most legitimate foundation, would be the most dark and imaginary of all things. When the Parliament rose up in arms against Charles I. they wanted just such a Preacher as this (and yet they had many precious ones), to assure them, that their renouncing the King's Authority had fairly dissolved the Monarchy, and brought it to a lawful end. For the Leaders of that body, it is plain, knew nothing of this secret, and were therefore at a great deal of pains to prove, and at last could hardly get themselves believed, that Charles himself had broken the original Compact. But unless this Compact stands upon a different footing from all other compacts in the world, we may safely pronounce, that a bargain or agreement, which has been * Sermons, vol. iii, pp. 373, 374. made made between two parties, can never be dissolved but by the consent of both of them; or by a fundamental misdemeanour in one; if the other party chuses to exact the forfeiture. Now, in the case of the Jews under Samuel, there was a renunciation, it is true, on the part of the People, or, in plainer English, a REBELLION. But God did not give way to it; he ·would not (as on the principles of civil justice he might) exact the forfeiture; which was, the withdrawing his protection. All this will be proved at large in its place. The Theocracy, therefore, still continued under their Kings; which were indeed no other than the anointed, or the Viceroys of GOD.-Such is our Preacher's success in attempting to shew Mr. Locke's principle to be dark and imaginary. Let us see next whether he has better fortune in proving. his own to be clear and solid. Now his way of justifying the Law, which punished idolatry with death, without the aid of the theocratic principle, is this." As the end for which the civil "constitution of the Jews was formed, viz. to prevent "their being overrun with idolatry, (which, as it "prevailed amongst the neighbouring nations, cor 66 66 rupted their internal sense of the difference of good "and evil, and banished humanity and decency, and many of the most considerable and important of "the social virtues, by introducing shameful impuri"ties and human sacrifices, quite detestable to nature) as the end, I say, for which the civil constitution of "the Jews was formed, appears, when thus explained, "and abstracted from all consideration merely reli"gious, to be wise and gracious in itself; and as the σ judicial Laws in that scheme of Government were "admirably adapted to subserve and advance this "wise and gracious end; it necessarily follows, that "idolatry, "idolatry, which would have frustrated the whole de sign of the Constitution, and have entirely dissolved "and destroyed it, must, upon the same reasons that are allowed to be just in all other Policies, have "deserved capital punishment *." Here we see our Preacher approves himself just as skilful in the end of Civil-government, as he did before, in its nature and essence. He appears not to know (what he might have seen proved in the two first volumes of this work) that civil Society must have one particular, distinct, and appropriated end; and that this end can be no other than security to the temporal liberty and property of man; because (as is there shewn) all other ends may be attained without civil Society. This then is the only proper end of Government. Yet our Preacher falls into that exploded conceit, which makes any attainable end, so it be a good one, the legitimate business of civil Society, as such which confounds this society with all others, there being no way to keep the Civil distinct, but by assigning it an end peculiar to itself. But his subject happening to be the Jewish government, it secured his reasoning from the glare of the absurdity. And his false and fallacious account of the end of its institution, with which he introduces his reasoning, gave a certain plausibility to the nonsense which followed. It is in these words, The end for which the civil constitution was formed, was to prevent their being overrun with idolatry. Now, by civil constitution, a fair reasoner should mean (where the question is concerning the efficacy of a mere civil Government, in contradistinction to the Religious) the civil constitution of the Jews as it was so distinguished. But, in this sense, the end of the civil constitution of the Jews was Pages 375, 376. VOL. V. # the same with all other, namely, security to men's temporal liberty and property. It is true, if by their civil constitution, he meant both civil and religious, which here indeed was incorporated, and went under the common name of LAW; then indeed its end was to prevent idolatry; but then this is giving up the point, because that incorporation was the consequence of the Theocratic form of Government, or, to speak more properly, it was the THEOCRACY itself. Thus he comes round again to the place on which he had turned his back; and, before he knows where he is, establishes the very doctrine he would confute. In a word, our Preacher was got out of his depth; and here I shall leave him to sink or swim; only observing, that this great advocate of religious liberty has done his best (though certainly without design) to support a principle the most plausible of any that Persecutors for opinions can catch hold on, to justify their iniquitous practice; namely, that civil government was ordained for the procuring all the good of all kinds, which it is even accidentally capable of advancing. And to make sure work, he employs that adulterate gloss, which They so artfully put upon their wicked practice; viz. that it is for the support of morality: for who is so purblind that he cannot spy immoralities lurking in all heretical opinions? And thus it is that our Preacher defends civil Government, in punishing opinions: The idolatry of the neighbouring nations (says he) corrupted their internal sense of the difference of good and evil, and banished humanity and decency, and many of the most considerable and important of the social virtues. A reason constantly in the mouths, whatever hath been in the hearts of Persecutors, from St. Austin to St. Dominic *. * See note [D] at the end of this Book. II. We II. We come, in the next place, to shew, that this THEOCRACY, as it was NECESSARY, so it would have an easy reception; being founded on the flattering notion, at that time universally entertained, of TUTELARY DEITIES, Gentilitial and Local. Thus, to carry on his great purpose, the Almighty very early represented himself to this chosen race, as a Gentilitial Deity, The GOD of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob*: Afterwards, when he preferred Judea to all other countries for his personal residence (on this account called HIS LAND †), he came under their idea of a Local Deity: which notion was an established principle in the Gentile world, as we have shewn above, from Plato. It was originally EGYPTIAN; and founded in an opinion that the earth was at first divided by its Creator, amongst a number of inferior and subordinate Divinities. The Septuagint translators appear to have understood the following passage, in the song of Moses, as alluding to this opinion; -When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. For the Lord's portion is his people: Jacob is the lot of his inheritance: For, instead of, according to the number of the children of Israel (which if they found in the text, they understood no more than later critics) they wrote κατὰ ἀριθμὸν ̓Αγγέλων Θεξ, ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF THE ANGELS OF GOD. Which at least is intelligible, as referring to that old notion, original See Jer. x. 16. and li. 19. + Levit. xxv. 23. Deut. xi. 12. Ps. x. 16. Is. xiv. 25. Jer. ii. 7. Chap. xvi. ver. 18. * Deut. xxxш. 8, 9. Ezek. xxxv. 10. Chap. xxxvi. |