Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

judge for himself, and govern his actions by his own judgment, in all matters pertaining thereto. And, as a learned writer * obferves, whofe juft remark I have already quoted, "What is one man's, and every man's right, another man's con"science cannot oblige him upon any juft grounds to oppose."

[ocr errors]

Thus, I have gone thro what I propofed, and, I think, have fully fhewn, that civil governours have no authority, in matters of religion. However, if those, who are otherwife-minded, fhould think, that the principles, I reason from, are not well-grounded, or that I have not reasoned juftly from thofe principles; let that be shewn, and I shall think myself concerned to confider it. But if they should make their appeal, not to the understandings, but to the paffions of men, by endeavouring to render me contemptible; fuch perfons, and fuch reafoning, I shall defpife. To conclude: Truth is what every man has a natural and an undoubted right to. By truth, I mean the truth of things, or truth, as it ftands oppofed to error: and, therefore, every man has a right to conviction, when he is in error, that is, he has a right to hear what others can propofe to him, and likewife to propofe his own opinions to the world, together with the grounds upon which his judgment is determined in their favour. This being the only way to his conviction, because it is the only way by which the weakness, or falfenefs, of thofe grounds can be discovered. So that if the advocates for truth and error were at full liberty to make out their claims, by producing their evidences, and by being admitted to a fair hearing, truth would then have fo much the advantage of error, that I doubt not but it would ride triumphant thro the world.

*See Dr. Rogers's Civil Establishment of Religion, Page 141.

TREAT IS E XXXV. Reflections on National Punishments.

Wherein two Objections, urged against what is advanced, in the Author's Difcourfe on the Grounds and Extent of Authority and Liberty, with Refpect to civil Government, are examined. İn Answer to a private Letter from a Gentleman.

[ocr errors]

SIR,

Received your Letter, in which you have fent me your thoughts on my Reflections on the Grounds and Extent of Authority and Liberty, with Refpect to civil Government, viz. That what I have offered would be conclufive, were it not for two things which, you conceive, lie as objections against what I have advanced. "Namely, firft, That many texts of fcripture, as well as experience, are fuppofed to tell us, that a whole fociety have fuffered afflictions from God, for "that a part of them have neglected to worship God, or for worshiping him in "a manner not agreeable to his will, &c." And you query, Whether it will not follow, that governours have a right to oblige, or reftrain men, with respect to religious actions, fecing, upon the prefent fuppofition, fociety is manifeftly interested therein? To which you add, "fecondly, That I have allowed, that the liberty

་་

[ocr errors]

berty of individuals may be restrained, in thofe cafes in which the good, or hurt, of the fociety is concerned." And you query, as before, Whether it will not follow, that governours ought to abridge the liberty of individuals, in the affair of religion? Upon which I obferve, that, I think, the ftrength of your fecond objection arifes from what you have prefumed in your first, viz. That God does afflict, or punish, societies of men, for the omiffions, or actions, of fome individuals; which actions, or omiffions, are not injurious to the fociety any other way, than as they induce Almighty God to correct and punish it for their fakes. This, I think, you must mean, or elfe I cannot perceive, how what I have allowed can be urged against me with any ftrength. And, therefore, as both your objections are founded upon the fame principle; fo my fhewing the groundlefness of that principle will be an answer to them both. And, accordingly,

I obferve, That the principle your objections are founded upon, and upon which the juftness of your reafoning depends, I think, may reasonably be disputed. For as virtue and fin are only and wholly perfonal; fo, in reafon, both rewards and punishments, whether in this life, or another, ought to be only and wholly personal also. That is, as one man is not, nor cannot be virtuous, or criminal, by the good or bad actions of another; any otherwife, than as he voluntarily is a fharer in, or a contributer to those actions: so, in reason, he ought not to be rewarded, nor punished, upon their account. And, therefore, it may justly be queftioned, Whether the forementioned principle does not reflect dishonour upon the moral character of our heavenly Father? That is, Whether it be the produce of, or whether it be contrary to justice, wisdom, and goodness, for God to reward and punish men in the lump? To reward, or punish, upon account of men's being good, or bad, and to reward and punish good and bad men together, and alike ; I fay the question is, Whether this is a mark of wifdom, justice, and goodness, or, of their contraries? For if wickedness be the only ground of divine refentment, and if goodness be the only ground of divine approbation, as, in reafon, they ought to be; then, I think, it may justly be urged, that none but bad men ought to feel the effects of the former, and none but good men to reap the fruits of the latter. It may likewife be farther urged, that if rewards and punishments, in this life, are intended to excite men to perform good actions, and to prevent them from their contraries; then, national rewards, and national punishments, are not adapted to answer fuch ends, these being dealt forth upon good and bad men together, and alike: fo that the one cannot be an encouragement to goodness, nor the other a difcouragemeut to vice and wickedness. And if this be the truth of the cafe, then, I think, it will follow, that the principle, you reafon from, is not well grounded.

you

What found the forementioned principle upon is, that many texts of fcripture, as well as experience, are fuppofed to declare it. As for experience, I think, that makes no fuch declaration. And, as to the fcripture. I think, it may justly be queftioned: because the Prophet Ezekiel, or, rather Almighty God, by his mouth, affures us, that no fuch thing can juftly be charged upon the divine conduct. The purport of the xviiith chap. of Ezek. is to fhew what is more particularly expreffed in ver. 20, viz. The foul that finneth, and that only, it shall die. The fon fhall not bear the iniquity of the father; neither fhall the father bear the iniquity of the fon: the righteousness of the righteous fhall be upon him, and upon him only, and the wickedness of the wicked fhall be upon him, and upon him only. And an appeal is made to the

under

understandings of men, whether fuch a procedure is not just and equal; as at ver. 25. Hear now, O houfe of Ifrael, is not my way equal? &c. Which fuppofes, that the contrary procedure, in punishing one for the faults of another, and which is apparently the cafe in national punishments, would be unequal, that is, unjust. And the above declaration is made, to vindicate the divine conduct from the charge of iniquity, that is, from the charge of punishing the innocent and the guilty together, and alike, which was groundlesly judged to be the cafe, with refpect to the Babylonifh captivity, and to fhew the groundlefness of that perverfe proverb, which the Jews had taken up; viz. The fathers have eaten fower grapes, and the childrens teeth are fet on edge. And whereas it is faid at ver. 3. As I live, faith the Lord God, ye fhall not have occafion any more to use this proverb in Ifrael; which feems to imply, that there had been occafion given for the use of it in times paft; the meaning is, not that God would take different measures in his dealing with, his creatures, in this respect, for the time to come, than he had taken with them in times past, and thereby prevent giving occafion for the use of that proverb any more in Ifrael: but the meaning is, that as God, by the mouth of his Prophet, fully declared, what is the rule of action to himself, in the diftribution of punishments, viz. that he will not punish the innocent for the faults of the guilty, tho most nearly related to him; and that every one fhall fuffer for his own fins only, and not for the fins of another; I fay, after fuch a declaration, the Jews would not have reason, as they before groundlefly thought they had, for the ufe of the aforefaid proverb. And that this is the truth of the cafe is manifeft from the question afked in the precedent verfe, viz. What mean ye, that ye ufe this proverb concerning the land of Ifrael? &c. which is as much as to fay, that this power was groundless, and an unjust reflection upon the divine conduct. Thus, again, at ver. 25. Yet ye fay, the way of the Lord is not equal. Now, the iniquity, which the Ifraelites charged upon the divine conduct, refpected only what was prefent and past, and not what was to come: and, therefore, God must refer to his prefent and past conduct, and not to what he would do in time to come, when he appealed to the houfe of Ifrael, to judge of the equity of his dealings with them. And as juftice and equity, which, in the prefent cafe, confift in punishing every man for his own fins only, and not for the fins of another, are here declared to be the rule of action to God, with respect to his dealings with the children of Ifrael: fo they are moft certainly a rule of action to him in every cafe, and to all people, both yesterday, to day, and for ever. And, therefore, I think, it ought not to be prefumed, that the fcriptures make any declarations contrary thereto.

If it should be urged, that the oppreffions which the children of Ifrael suffered from the neighbouring nations, and their captivities, are, in fome inftances, at least, confidered in the Bible, as puniflments from God for their idolatry; in which cafes, the innocent and the guilty fuffered alike. I answer, God is fometimes, in the fcriptures, faid to do what his agency is not at all concerned with; and which, strictly fpeaking, is the produce of the diforderly and ungoverned appetites and paffions of men. Thus, Exod. iv. 21. And the Lord faid unto Mofes, when thou goeft to return into Egypt, fee that thou do all thofe wonders before Pharaoh which I have put in thine hand; but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go: compared with chap. viii. ver. 15. But when Pharaoh saw that there was refpite, he hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had faid. Here we fee, that tho God is faid to harden Pharaoh's heart, yet that stubbornness or hardness of

[blocks in formation]

heart is charged upon Pharach himself, as, in justice, it ought to be. For to fuppofe, that God, by his agency, injected stubbornness into the heart of Pharaoh, and then punished him for that ftubbornnefs, is to impute iniquity to our Maker. And, therefore, when God is faid to harden Pharaoh's heart, this is only a foretelling, that Pharaoh would harden his own heart, as is evident from the verfe I laft cited; ir. which Pharaoh is faid to harden his heart, as the Lord had faid. Again 2 Sam. xxiv. 1. And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Ifrael, and he moved David against them, to fay, Go number Ifrael and Judah; compared with 1 Chron. xxi. 1. And Satan food up against Ifrael, and provoked David to number Ifrael. Here we see, that the very fame thing is afcribed in fcripture to God and to Satan, viz. the ftirring up a fpirit of pride and vainnefs of mind in David; which led him to number Ifrael and Judah. But this could not be God's act; becaufe, if it were, then, he moved David to do what is difpleafing to himself, which is most abfurd to fuppofe. From both thefe inftances, I think, it is plain and evident, that a thing action being afcribed to God, in fcripture, is not a proof, that it was, in reality, done by him; feeing, in the inftances before us, he is faid to do what his agency was not concerned with. Again, with refpect to what is reprefented in scripture, as punishments from God; God is faid to do what he was not, in the least, concerned with an inftance of which is more immediately to the prefent purpose. Thus, 2 Sam. xii. 11, 12. Thus faith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee, David, out of thine own houfe, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives, in the fight of this fun: for thou didst it fecretly; but I will do this thing before all Ifrael, and before the fun. Compared with chap. xvi. ver. 21, 22. And Ahitophel faid unto Abfolom, Go in unto thy fathers concubines, which he hath left to keep the house, and all Ifrael fhall hear that thou art abhorred of thy father; then fhall the hands of all that are with thee be strong. So they Spread Abfolom a tent upon the top of the house, and Abfolom went in unto his fathers concubines, in the fight of all Ifrael. Here we fee, that the vileft actions are, in fcripture, afcribed to God, and confidered, as punishments from him upon others: when he, of all others, was the fartheft from being concerned in those actions. And this was manifeftly the cafe, with respect to the captivities of the children of Ifrael, and the oppreffions with which their neighbours oppreffed them; these were fo far from being, ftrictly speaking, punishments from God, that, on the contrary, they sprang from the vitiated appetites and paffions of men. And, therefore, I think, a mode of fpeech, ufed in fcripture, ought not, in reason, to be urged, in prejudice, of the moral character of our heavenly Father. Tho I am fenfible, that, with respect to this and many other points, fome men are apt to put the cafe upon a defperate if Jue; and chufe rather, that God should be juftly chargeable with iniquity, and the fcripture with contradictions, than that their religious principles, or their unreasonable power, fhould want a fcriptural fupport. Upon the whole I obferve, That if the principle, you reafon from, is not well grounded, as, I think, I have fhewn it is not: then, the objections, founded upon it, lofe their force. And, confequently, my reafoning, in the tract here referred to, with respect to Civil Government having no Authority, in Matters of Religion, is just and conclufive, for any thing that has yet been fhewn to the contrary. I am, SIR, Your much obliged humble Servant, &c. FINI S

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »