to the sentiments of Rome, to an exact conformity to which, it was judged necessary, that by all possible methods of squeezing and wrenching, maiming and interpolating, they should be brought. Nor has the revisal been confined to books written on religious subjects, but extended to all subjects, politicks, history, works of science, and of amusement. Nay, what is more, the pope came at last to claim it as an exclusive privilege, to prohibit, and to license, not for Rome only, and the ecclesiastical state, but for all christendom, at least for all the countries wherein his authority is acknowledged, insisting, that what he prohibits, no prince whatever, even in his own dominions, dares license, and what he licenses, none dares prohibit. The first of these has been generally conceded to him, though not perhaps punctually obeyed.

The second occasioned a violent struggle in the beginning of the last century, between the pope and the king of Spain, on occasion of a book written by cardinal Baronius, containing many things in derogation of that monarch's government and title, and traducing, with much asperity, many of his ancestors, the kings of Arragon. The book was licensed at Rome, but prohibited in the Spanish dominions. The monarch stood firm in his purpose, and the pope thought fit to drop the controversy, but not to renounce the claim. This Rome never does, actuated by a political maxim formerly suggested, of which she has often availed herself when a proper opportunity appeared. A more particular account of this contest you have in father Paul's discourse on the constitution and rules of the inquisition at Venice. How great would be the consequence of this papal privilege, if universally acquiesced in, any person of reflection will easily conceive. Who knows not the power of first impressions on any question, the influence of education, and the force of habit, in rivetting opinions formed in consequence of being uniformly accustomed to attend to one side only of the question. All these advantages the pontiff would have clearly in his favour, could he but secure to himself that high prerogative, and become, in effect, our supreme or only teacher.

LECTURE XXV.

HAVING discussed, in the two preceding lectures, what relates to the concealment of scripture, and of all the publick offices of religion, by the use of an unknown tongue, and to the check given to the advancement of knowledge by the index expurgatorius, I intend, in this discourse, to consider the third grand expedient adopted by Rome for securing the implicit obedience of her votaries, namely persecution.

Nothing is clearer, from the New Testament, than, that this method of promoting the faith is totally unwarranted, as well by the great author, as by the first propagators of our religion. His disciples were sent out as sheep amidst wolves, exposed to the most dreadful persecutions, but incapable of ever giving to their enemies a return in kind, in a consistency with this signature of Christ's servants; for in no change of circumstances will it suit the nature of the sheep to persecute the wolf. As it was not an earthly kingdom which our Lord came to establish, so it was not by carnal weapons that his spiritual warfare was to be conducted. The means must be adapted to the end. My kingdom, said he, is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight. Worldly weapons are suited to the conquest of worldly kingdoms. But nothing can be worse adapted to inform the understanding, and conquer the heart, than such coarse implements. Lactantius says with reason, Defendenda est religio non occidendo, sed moriendo, non sævitia sed patientia. To convince, and to persuade, both by teaching and by example, was the express commission given to the apostles. The only wea pons which they were to employ, or which could be employed, for this purpose, were arguments and motives from reason

and scripture. Their only armour, faith and patience, prudence and innocence, the comforts arising from the consciousness of doing their duty, and the unshaken hope of the promised reward. By means of this panoply, however lightly it may be accounted of by those who cannot look beyond the present scene, they were, in the spiritual, that is, the most important sense, invulnerable; and by means of their faith, as the spring which set all their other virtues in motion, they obtained a victory over the world.

Beside the declared enemies from without, pagans and infidel Jews, whom christians had, from the beginning to contend with, there arose very early, in the bosom of the church, as had been foretold by the apostles, certain internal foes, first to the primitive simplicity of christian doctrine, and afterwards by a natural progress, to the unity, sympathy, and love, which, as members of the same society, having one common head, they were under the strongest obligations to observe inviolate. From the very commencement of the church, the tares of errour had, by divine permission, for the exercise and probation of the faithful, been sown among the good seed of the word. The only remedies which had been prescribed by the apostles against those who made divisions in the christian community, founding new sects, which commonly distinguished themselves by the profession of some erroneous doctrine, "or at least some idle and unedifying speculation, were first, repeatedly to admonish them, and afterwards, when admonitions should prove ineffectual, to renounce their company, that is, to exclude them from their brotherhood, or excommunicate them; for the original import of these expressions is nearly the same. On this footing matters remained till Constantine, in the beginning of the fourth century, embraced the faith, and gave the church a sort of political establishment in the empire.

From the apologies of the fathers before that period, (so the defences of our religion written by them are named) it is evident, that they universally considered persecution for any opinions, whether true or false, as the height of injustice and oppression. Nothing can be juster than the sentiment of Tertullian, which was, indeed, as far as appears, the sentiment of all the fathers of the first three centuries. "Non religionis est "cogere religionem, quæ sponte suscipi debeat, non vi." And to the same purpose Lactantius, "Quis imponat mihi necessi"tatem vel colendi quod nolim, vel quod velima non colendi? "Quid jam nobis ulterius relinquitur, si etiam hoc, quod vo"luntate fieri oportet, libido extorqueat aliena?" Again, "Non est opus vi et injuria; quia religio cogi non potest, ver

Y y

66

"bis potius quam verberibus res agenda est, ut sit voluntas." Once more, "Longe diversa sunt carnificina et pietas, nec potest aut veritas cum vi, aut justitia cum crudelitate con"jungi." Their notions in those days, in regard to civil government, seem also to have been much more correct than they became soon after. For all christians, in the ages of the mar tyrs, appear to have agreed in this, that the magistrate's only object ought to be the peace and temporal prosperity of the commonwealth.

But (such alas! is the depravity of human nature) when the church was put on a different footing, men began, not all at once, but gradually, to change their system in regard to those articles, and seemed strongly inclined to think, that there was no injustice in retaliating upon their enemies, by employing those unhallowed weapons in defence of the true religion, which had been so cruelly employed in support of a false: not considering, that by this dangerous position, that one may justly persecute in support of the truth, the right of persecuting for any opinions will be effectually secured to him who holds them, provided he have the power. For what is every man's immediate standard of orthodoxy but his own opinions? And if he have a right to persecute in support of them, because of the ineffable importance of sound opinions to our eternal happiness, it must be even his duty to do it when he can. For if that interest, the interest of the soul and eternity, come at all within the magistrate's province, it is unquestionably the most important part of it. Now as it is impossible he can have any other immediate directory, in regard to what is orthodox, but his own opinions, and as the opinions of different men are totally different, it will be incumbent, by the strongest of all obligations, on one magistrate to persecute in support of a faith, which it is equally incumbent on another by persecution to destroy. Should you object, that the standard is not any thing so fleeting as opinion: it is the word of God, and right reason. This, if you attend to it, will bring you back to the very same point which you seek to avoid. The dictates both of scripture and of reason, we see but too plainly, are differently interpreted by different persons, of whose sincerity we have no ground to doubt. Now to every individual, that only amongst all the varieties of sentiments can be his rule, which to the best of his judgment, that is, in his opinion, is the import of either. Nor is there a possibility of avoiding this But such is the intoxication of power, that men, blinded by it, will not allow themselves to look forward to those dreadful consequences. And such is the presumption of vain man, (of which bad quality the weakest judgments have commonly the greatest share) that it is with difficulty any

recurrence at last.

one person can be brought to think, that any other person has, or can have, as strong conviction of a different set of opinions, as he has of his.

But to return to our narrative. When the secular powers had changed sides, and were now come to be on the side of christianity, this was the manner, on the subject of religion, in which some men among the clergy began to argue. Princes ought to be considered in a twofold capacity; one is, that of christians, the other, that of princes, in both which characters they are bound to serve God: as christians, by observing the divine commandments, like every other disciple of Christ: as princes, by purging the church of all schisms, heresies, and blasphemies, punishing all transgressors of the divine precepts, but more especially those who, by the transgressions abovementioned, violate the first table of the decalogue: for as those sins are committed more immediately against God, they are much more heinous than theft, adultery, inurder, or any sins committed against our neighbour. Now under the general denomination of sins of the first table, every sect (were their verdicts to be severally taken) would comprehend almost all the distinguishing tenets of every other sect. And though, in support of their plea, they might have many specious things to advance, they would all be found to lean on a false hypothesis.

First, it is false, that the concerns of the soul and eternity fall under the cognizance and jurisdiction of the magistrate. To say that they do, is to blend the very different and hardly compatible characters of magistrate and pastor in the same person; or, which is worse, to graft the latter upon the former, the sure method of producing a most absurd and cruel despotism, such as obtains in all Mahometan countries: nor is that much better which prevails more or less in popish countries, especially in the ecclesiastical state, and in Spain and Portugal, where the magistrate is grafted on the pastor, or rather on the priest.

Secondly, it is false, that spiritual concerns, if they did fall under the cognizance of the magistrate, are capable of being regulated by such expedients as are proper for restraining the injuries of violence and fraud, and preserving tranquillity and good order in society. Though, by coercion, crimes, which are outward and overts acts, may effectually be restrained, it is not by coercion that those inward effects can be produced, conviction in the understanding, or conversion in the heart. Now these in religion are all in all. By racks and gibbets, fire and faggot, we may as rationally propose to mend the sight of a man who squints, or is purblind, as by these means to enlighten the infidel's or the