infidels, that we may not make ourselves partakers of other men's sins, and draw down the judgments of God on the nation in which we live: I answer, that this argument so evidently takes it for granted, that persecution is for the glory of God, and will be a proper expedient for promoting the true religion, that what I have said, under the former heads, is an abundant answer to it. I shall not therefore enlarge on this as a distinct topic, but proceed to another of much greater importance. 3. The most plausible argument, in favour of the doctrine we oppose, is taken from the penal laws, which made a part of the Jewish constitution. It is urged here, that God did, in the strongest terms, expressly appoint, that all who taught or practised idolatry amongst the Jews, should be punished with death*; and that many severe executions were accordingly done on this statute: not only by the prophet Elijah†, an extraordinary divine messenger, but likewise by Jehu, and Josiah §, and other princes amongst them ; who, far from being censured, were applauded and rewarded on this account. If we answer here, as we most easily and naturally do, that the merciful genius of the christian dispensation is so different from the rigour and severity of the Mosaic law, that no argument can be drawn from the one to the other; it is pleaded, that this will at least serve to overthrow the greater part of our discourse, which was intended to prove the natural absurdity and immorality of persecution; unless we will allow, what surely no christian can, that a natural immorality was made an essential part of a divine institution. It will be proper, therefore, to examine this matter a little more largely; which I shall the rather do, because I think it has seldom been handled with the accuracy which it requires. Now, I apprehend, the solution of this difficulty will depend on considering, on the one hand, the limitations attending these penal laws; and, on the other, the peculiar circumstances of the Jews, to whom they were given. 1. Let us consider the limitations which attended these penal laws. They affected only the inhabitants of the land of Canaan; and animadverted only on some overt act, whereby they publicly declared a revolt from God to idols. There was no commission given to the Jews, to arm themselves for the propagation of their faith amongst their heathen * Deut. xiii. 6, 18. +1 Kings xviii. 40. 2 Kings x. 25. neighbours; nor was there any express law, to pursue any Israelite with the sword, who settling among idolaters in foreign countries, should conform to the religion of them. Though, for reasons afterwards to be mentioned, his part in the land of Israel would undoubtedly have been forfeited. And, it is farther to be remembered, that even with regard to the inhabitants themselves, the law only took cognizance of some overt act of revolt. Had God given a large confession of faith to the Jews, to every article of which he had required them, on some high penalties, to subscribe their assent, a much stronger objection against what I have advanced would have arisen from such a constitution. But this was so far from being the case, that the Sadducees, erroneous as they were in some of the most important articles of natural as well as revealed religion, were not only tolerated, but, without any direct violation of the Mosaic law, were frequently promoted to offices of high dignity and authority. Now there is a most evident difference between a law thus limited, and an universal allowance of religious severities, to Jews or others, in any such circumstance as they should think fit. And, were the particular reasons ever so unknown, the former might be allowed, as consistent with the divine perfections, without laying a foundation to infer that the latter might be so. As there was an apparent difference between God's requiring Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and his publishing a general declaration, allowing any parents whatsoever to sacrifice their children, whenever they should suppose that the glory of God, and the interest of religion, would be advanced by it. Thus the limitation of these penal laws destroys the argument which might be drawn from them, in favour of persecution in general. And, if it still appear a difficulty, that, even with these limitations, they should be enacted, I hope the point may be yet more fully cleared up, by considering, 2. The peculiar circumstances whereby the Jews were distinguished from all other people. Now here, the extraordinary discoveries which God made of himself amongst them, and the peculiar manner in which he stood related to them, as their king, concur, both to vindicate the equity of the laws in question, and to prove that no reasonable consequence can be drawn from them, in favour of persecution, in any other nation upon earth. It is surely of some importance, to recollect the extraordinary discoveries which God had made of himself to them, though the whole stress of the point does not lie here. The miracles which he had wrought amongst them, in order to prove his Deity, and the vanity of idols, were of the most awakening and convincing nature; and these were not only delivered to them by credible report, as they are now delivered to us; but God was, from age to age, raising up prophets, with a power of renewing these wonders before their eyes. Nay, he had interwoven into their constitution, certain periodical, and most extensive and obvious miracles, not only in the extraordinary fruitfulness of every sixth year, when, after the ground had been exhausted in the five preceding years, the poorest harvest must naturally have been expected; but, also in the safety of their borders, though surrounded with enemies, when all the males were gone up to worship, even in the very heart of their coun- · try, as they were obliged to do three times in the year, between the beginning of March, and the end of September; which is the most proper time for armies to be abroad. Now, God, the searcher of all hearts, might know, that nothing but obstinate and incorrigible wickedness could make a man an idolater, in such circumstances as these. And conse. quently, he might righteously condemn him to death, and appoint his fellow-creatures to execute the sentence. But no argument can be drawn from thence for inflicting the like punishment on another person, who is not as expressly sentenced by the divine law, and whose opportunities of better knowledge are not, and cannot be entirely the same. But it is farther to be considered, as of the utmost weight in the present argument, that God also stood in a peculiar relation to the people of Israel, as he was their temporal king, as well as their God. Their government, as you well know, was different from that of all other nations: it was indeed a Theocracy, as Josephus very justly calls it; their whole system of civil laws being enacted by God, and their magistrates appointed by him. And when they came to have kings, as other nations had, yet even these kings were to be considered but as the viceroys of God: as appears by their being obliged to transcribe his law, when they begun their reign; to consult his oracle on all extraordinary exigences; and, from his interposing in various cases both in Judah and Israel, to transfer the crown from one person and family, to another. Now, in consequence of this peculiar system of govern ment, God thought it proper, as it apparently was, to annex certain temporal privileges to their obedience to him; and they held their estates, and possessions in the fine country they inhabited, not by one absolute donation to them, and their heirs for ever; but through succeeding generations, as tenants to the crown, upon an express condition of certain homages to be paid to God, as the great proprietor; renouncing all dependance upon, and all subjection to any of his competitors. Now it was plainly equitable, that, as the counterpart of these advantages, they should be subjected to some peculiar temporal punishments; if, while they claimed these privileges, they falsified that allegiance which was the condition of them; in which case they suf fered, not merely as idolaters, but as traitors. I will further add, that as God was determined, in the course of his providence, to send national judgments upon them, in case of a national revolt to idolatry, which he accordingly always did, it was a merciful as well as just severity, thus to animadvert, upon the first appearances of this aggravated crime, to which they were strongly inclined; and by which, if it prevailed amongst them, they must be universally undone. But, as all these circumstances were peculiar to the Jews, I hope you are, by this time, fully convinced, that it is most absurd to draw an argument in favour of religious severities in general, from the penal laws of the Mosaic institution*. I have been so large on this head, that I must only hint at those weak and contemptible arguments which are brought, 4. From some abused passages in the New Testament. And indeed I should hardly mention them, but to expose them; and to shew to what wretched straits ingenious and interested men must be brought, when they will condescend to make use of such arguments: for, after all, to their shame I must say, the chief texts which I find produced for their purpose, by popish writers, are two; which I am persuaded, a wise and honest man might have read a thousand times before he had ever dreamt of such a consequence from them. Christ gave Peter a commission to feed his sheep+; and that must, say some, imply a power in the church, and especially in the pope, as the head of it, to kill wolves, that is, heretics. As if an argument, from this figurative expression, to so distant a circumstance, could be allowed against such strong evidence, both of scripture * I have not mentioned the argument which some have brought from Job's saying, that idolatry is a wickedness to be punished by the judge, Job xxxi. 28. because it is so evident that Job speaks unadvisedly with his lips, in some instances, as he himself owns, Job xl. 3-8. xlii. 3-6. And I think, if we grant there were in his days such a law in Arabia, as made idolatry capital, it can never be proved of divine institution from these words, any more than it can be argued from Judah's sentence against Tamar, Gen. xxxviii. 24. that there was then a divine law for executing women while they were big with child. and reason. But I must do them the justice to say, their grand argument is behind: and it is couched in those words, Compel them to come in*. But, what compulsion and violence must be offered to these words, before they will be of any service in the cause of persecution! How often have they been told, that this relates only to friendly importunity, like that which the disciples used to engage Christ to spend the evening with them at Emmaus, when, as the evangelist expresses it, They constrained him ? And how absurd it would be to suppose servants sent out with sword in hand to force in guests to an entertainment, I think you will easily apprehend t. Another argument a little more specious than either of these might be brought from the corporal punishments inflicted on blasphemers in the apostle's times §, but it is to be considered that these were the effects of a miraculous power, and consequently had a proper tendency to convince the understanding of the sufferers and spectators, of the divine mission of those with whom the hand of the Lord thus remarkably was. It is therefore most absurd to talk of substituting the power of the magistrate instead of these extraordinary penalties, unless the magistrate can inflict them the same way; and then we will acknowledge they merit not the name of persecution, but come under that singular exception which we admitted in the beginning of the discourse. I have the pleasure to assure you that these wretched arguments, or rather empty shadows of argument, are the most material which I have seen produced from the New Testament in favour of religious severities. It is the glory of that sacred book, that it affords no better arguments in so infamous a cause. And I cannot forbear observing, that the silence of the New Testament on this head is a strong argument against persecution, and would have been so, had the apostles omitted the many passages before quoted, in which they seem directly to oppose it. I know it may be said, the sacred writers did not advise the primitive christians to use violence, because their religion was then in its infancy, and they had no power in their hands. Yet, one would imagine, that if the apostles would have approved I think the word avάyxaw occurs but nine times in the New Testament, Mat. xiv. 22. Mark vi. 45. Luke xiv. 23. Acts xxvi. 2, xxviii. 19. 2 Cor. xii. 11. Gal. ii, 3, 14. vi. 12. It is only in the 4th and 5th of these places, that it can refer to the use of secular power. Παραβιαζομαι is used twice, Luke xxiv. 29. Acts xvi. 15. and in both those places can signify no more than friendly importunity. § Acts v. 5, 10. xiii. 11. 1 Cor. v. 13. 1 Tim. i, 20. |