Page images
PDF
EPUB

4 or 500000 Men in it; and if it had 4 or 500000 Men in it, then it might very well be able to furnish half the vaft Army of the Philiftines afterwards. And fo my Account of that Army is established, while Sir Ifaac's remains under very great Difficulties; fince if the Ifraelites were the Shepherds, they could not be supposed to make any Part of an Army against themselves.

Your Friend has made a very ingenious Conjecture concerning the Wonder that the Babylonians enquired after. I believe he is right, fo fhan't infift upon it as any Proof of what I intended, nor can I think I need. The Scripture is plain, and Sir Ifaac's Opinion wants a fuperiority of Reajons. I am,

Sir, Yours,

R. Y

Upon the Right of the MAGISTRATE to inflict
CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS.

Mr. Urban,

You

"Our Magazine for May laft did not reach us, at this diftance, till the middle of July, otherwife I fhou'd fooner have fent an Answer to the Question propos'd in it, p. 260, (by Mistake 206.) dated from EastLothian, and fign'd Clemens. Perhaps others may have been beforehand with me; however, as different Solutions of important Difficulties are of ufe, you may please to infert the following Anfwer in your Magazine for Auguft.

If Self-prefervation be the prime Law of Nature (as is fuppos'd in the Question) 'tis plain no Man can have a Right to take away his own Life, because this wou'd be a Right inconfiftent with that prime Law, and imply a Contradiction, viz. a Right to do a Thing, which, by the prime Law of Nature he is oblig'd not to do.

But, on the other hand, if Self-prefervation be the prime Law of Nature, it must follow, that every Man has a Right to defend his own Life, against any other who attacks it, even at the expence of the Life of that other, if he can no way elfe fecure himself.

This then is that Right (the Right of Self-defence) which every Man in Society has given up to the Magiftrate, excepting Cafes of extream Exigence, where timely recourfe cannot be had to publick Authority.

If the People had a Right (for I chufe to ufe that Word rather than Power) over their own Lives, and upon entring into Society had refign'd that Right, it wou'd follow, that the Supreme Magiftrate might take away every Man's Life at pleafure; but as the People never cou'd have any fuch Right, all the Right they can give, and all the Magiftrate can derive from them is, a Right of defending the Innocent againit the Injurious, which can only extend to the Life of the Subject, fo far as is neceflary for the Security of the Society; a Reafen which will in no Cafe justify Suicide. I fhall be glad to hear that this gives Satisfaction to your Correfpondent, and am, Sir,

Aberdeen, July 22. 1737.

Your bumble Servant,

C.C.

Upen

I

Mr. Urban,

Upon the fame Subject,

Find there were several Anfwers to Clemens in your Magazine for July, before I had fo much as heard of his Question, and perhaps your ingenious Correfpondents have faid enough to fhew the Gentleman who, in June, p. 344. remarks upon it, that those who derive the Authority of the Supreme Magiftrate from the People, need not be puzzl'd with Clemens's Query, viz. Whether the People have not as good a Right to take away their own Lives, as to give the Magistrate Authority to do it. Yet I do not fee that any of their Answers have fuperceded mine; the Solution I have given may ferve to inforce the Truths they have afferted, and to obviate fome Objections to which they may be liable, for want of having explicitly fhewn, as I have plainly done, how the whole Body of the People can give the Civil Magiftrate a Right to take away Life, when not one of them has a Right to take away his own; fince 'tis certain, as the Gentleman, in p. 344. juftly remarks, that No Man can give more Authority to another than be has bimfelf. Which Objection my Anfwer has entirely remov'd. Two of your Correfpondents, p. 241, 242. feem indeed to imply, that, which I have more directly laid down, to be the only folid Foundation for the Authority of the Magistrate over the Life of the Subject, as deriv'd from the People, viz. Their having given up to him that Right, which every Man has by the Law of Nature, to defend his Life or Property against any one who attacks it. But as this is not exprefs'd in either of their Anfwers, I am perfuaded mine will not be thought unufeful, to fet that important Matter in the clearest Light; for a Right neceffarily deduced from the prime Law of Nature, Selfprefervation, leaves not the least ground upon which to juftify the unnatural Crime of Self-destruction, and takes off all neceflity of having recourse to the immediate appointment of GOD, for the Authority of the Civil Magistrate to punish with Death; a Difpute which has been started on this Occafion, of no fmall Importance to be decided.

I believe the Gentleman who thought Clemens had puzzl'd those that derive the Authority of the Magiftrate from the People, wou'd be more puzzl'd, on his Side, to fhew at what Time, or in what Manner God has given any Authority to Civil Magiftrates, diftinct from that which himself owns they receive from the People, who, he fays, Have a Power of chufing and affigning over this Sovereign Authority to one or many, according to the Conftitutions of the feveral States and Kingdoms in the World. But how cou'd they do this, if that Authority was not first vested in themselves? for (as was before obferv'd) No Man can give more Authority to another than he has himself. And might not we urge one of thofe very Texts, to prove that the People have this Authority, which he brings to fupport the contrary Doctrine? Gen. ix. 6. Whofo fheddeth Man's Blood, by Man ball his Blood be bed. For this is not an Authority given to Magistrates, but a Law given to Noah and his Sons, and in them to all Mankind : The People derive indeed the Authority to punish with Death (and fo they do the Right of Self-defence, and all other natural Rights) from the immediate Appointment of GOD, but he has left to them to inftitute Government, and to affign over to their Governors whatever Power is neceffary for the Safety of the Society. The other Texts, Rem. xiii. which

the

the Gentleman builds upon, must be underflood in a Senfe confiftent with Fact, and it is very evident, as far as we know any thing from Hiftory, that all the Governments that are, or have been in the World (excepting the particular Cafe of the Ifraelites) were of human Inftitution, whether establish'd by Force or by Compact, and must be maintain'd either by the express or tacit Confent of the People. And yet Government is very properly faid to be the Ordinance of God, &c. as he is the GoD of Order, and Author of that rational and focial Nature, of which Government is a neceffary Confequence. I am, Sir, Your bumble Servant,

Aberdeen, Sept. 28. 1737.

C. C.

A Serious Addrefs to the CLERGY and LAITY of the

[ocr errors]

Church of ENGLAND.

S the Clergy of thefe Kingdoms make great Complaints, and with too great Reafon, of a general Difpofition in the Laity to withdraw, or abridge the Maintenance allow'd by the Laws of GoD and Man, to those who minifter in holy Things, I would befeech the Reverend Clergy, in the first place, to confider confcientioufly, whether fome Ufages and Omiffions, fomething approv'd or conniv'd at by many of their own Order, and appearing, on the first View, very inconfitent with the Vows aud Obligations of Minifters, do not partly contribute to fo unreasonable and criminal Difpofitions in the Laity.

I am fo far from thinking or faying, that the prefent Clergy of the Church of England are more liable to Cenfure and juft Objection than their Predeceffors, that I am perfwaded few Ages fince the primitive, or, perhaps, no Country but our own, can boaft of fo learned, and, generally speaking, fo regular a Clergy as our Church is now blefs'd with. But the best of that Order are of like Paffions with other Men, and have their Treasures in earthen Veffels; and in fo great a number of Men, and in fo general a Corruption of Manners, it can be no breach of Charity to fuppofe, that many have more regard for themselves than the Flock, in taking upon them, and acting in, the Character of Clergymen; and therefore, it is no wonder, if ill-difpos'd Men throw Afperfions upon the beft, and the confcientious Part of the Laity find too much to lament in the more unworthy.

But I think the following Objections have occafion'd the greatest Clamour ever fince the Reformation, viz. An infatiable Thirft after Preferments, facrilegious Pluralities, unconscionable Nonrefidence, and even ftarving of Curates, which are too generally practis'd by Clergymen, tho' difclaim'd and lamented by the more Confcientious. And thele Practices no Confiderations can reconcile to the plain and fincere Layman's Sentiments, however a Wharton, or other interefted Cafuift may bias the Confciences of fome worldly Clergymen.

Now tho' few are fit to inftruct thofe who by Profeffion and Merit are our Inftructors in CHRIST JESUs, and in the great Things of another World, yet Perfons of almost any Capacity, with Charity and Sincerity annex'd, may put others in mind of their Duty in Things of a manifest

Obligation: And whether the following Enquiries relate to Things of that kind, I would beg of all the Clergy, and efpecially of thofe directly concern'd, ferioufly to confider; and that for the Peace of their own Confciences, the fuccefsful Difcharge of their Ministry, and the Salvation of Souls; and (if lower Confiderations may be admitted) that their judging and correcting themselves may prevent feverer Correction from other hands.

Query 1. Whether the nature of the ministerial Office, and the folemn Stipulation with whith it is undertaken at Ordination, does not obligé every Clergyman to strict and perfonal Labour, for promoting the End of his Miniftry; or allows any Liberty of delegating and transferring his Charge, unless in Cafes of real Neceffity; and what thofe Cafes of Neceffity are?

2. Whether any confcientious Clergyman (except in fuch Cafes of real Neceffity) can be eafy with feeding the Flock generally and habitually by Proxy, with Food which he neither prepares nor administers; or can be fo well affured of another Man's Ability and Integrity, as he may be of his own?

3. Whether, if his Proxy, or Curate, be thought fufficient, it be not a manifeft Injustice to lay almoft all the Labour upon him, and, at the Tame time, to deprive him of almost all the temporal Advantages annex'd by Law, the Bounty of our Forefathers, to the Office?

4. Whether if 80 or 100l. per An. be thought too small a Maintenance, or Encouragement for the Rector or Vicar, 15 or 20 l. per Ann, can be judg'd any way equal for the Curate and his Family, for buying Books and all other Neceffaries?

5. Whether a Clergyman's withdrawing himfelf, his Labours and Studies, after fo folemn a Dedication of all to the Interefts of Religion, and Salvation of Souls, be not more Criminal, and has more of the Guilt of Sacrilege in it, than the Laity's withholding of Tythes and Oblations.

If the Answer to thefe and other like Queries, fhould be in favour of fome Pluralities and Non-refidence, it may ftill further be ask'd:

1. Whether any confcientious Clergyman can ufe fuch Liberty, unless his Confcience tell him, that his ufe of it is apparently for the greater Advantage of the Church? And that it may be fo,

2. Whether every Clergyman is not in Confcience reftrain'd from accepting Benefices at unreasonable Distance, and oblig'd to divide his Labours and Refidence betwixt the two Benefices, fuppos'd to lie within Compafs, that is, to officiate in the Forenoon at the one, and in the Afternoon at the other, or alternate Sundays at each; and, on the whole, to labour fo much perfonally in both, that the Parishioners may have reafonable Edification from himself, whatever Pains his Curates may take in his Abfence? Confequently,

3. Whether to abfent generally from one, or both, that the Incumbent may live at cafe, in Town or at Court, in a State-attendance on a Bifhop's or Nobleman's Table, or Chappel, be not leaving the Flock at Adventures, proflituting his facred Function, and eating the Bread of the Lord without doing his Work? And again,

4. Whether any Clergyman, having folemnly promis'd at his Ordination, to teach and exhort, as well the Sick as Whole, within his Cure,

and

and taken the particular Cure upon him, in the Name of the Lord, and on his Knees at Inftitution, can with a good Confcience leave that Cure again to a poor Hireling, and meanly become a Curate himself in some richer Parish, for the Addition of 10l. per Annum, or fome other lefs juftifiable Motive?

5. Whether, when two fmall Benefices lie not convenient for being fupplied by one Man's Labour, and neither will afford a Competency for a Curate, and at the fame time an Overplus worth a Pluralift's defiring, fuch Benefices should not always be kept feparate and under the Care of two distinct Incumbents, fince one of them muft neceffarily be poorly provided for by a poor Pluralift, when no Curate, except one fcandalous, infufficient, or very neceffitous, will accept his 15 or 167. a Year? A poor Man that opprefeth the Poor, is like a sweeping Rain which leaveth o Food. Prov. xxviii. 3.

6. Whether every Pluralift is not ftrictly oblig'd to find out a Curate of Integrity and fufficient Ability, or to make him fuch, by Advice, ditecting and affifting his Studies, and lending him Books, &c. and to allow him a liberal Subfiftance; as one half of the Benefice he fupplies, or more, where a Moiety is not a Competency?

Lafly, Upon the whole, Whether the Clergyman who is always in quest of greater Preferment, as if that were the fole End of his Function, he that is penurious in difpenfing the heavenly Manna himself, who receives 2, 3, or 400% a Year for Service, that, in any reasonable Eftimate, deferves not above 30 or 40s. who higgles about holy Offices, and will do no more than human Laws, the Cenfures of the World, and other mean Confiderations oblige him to, can think himself the Follower of those who were inftant in Season and out of Seafon, who knowing the Terrors of the Lord perfwaded Men, and who were willing to spend and be Spent for the Gospel of Christ?

I am very unwilling to ask Queftions of our Right Reverend Fathers the Bishops, but with their Lordships would ask themselves, whether the Obligations of Refidence (whenever they can be excus'd from Parliament and Convocations) of perfonal Watching and Labour, of Superintending their Clergy and their ecclefiaftical Courts, of examining into the Qualifications of the Candidates for Holy Orders, of Confirming parochially, of urging their Clergy to Refidence, Catechifing, and other Branches of the paftoral Office, be not, at leaft, equally ftrong on them, as their refpective Duties are on the Inferior Clergy? And whether the thirit of Tranflations, their long Abfences, unreasonable Commendams, being a Bifhop in one Diocese, and a subject Presbyter in another, &c. can be of good Example to the lower Clergy, or be reconcil'd to the Spirit of the Gospel, and the ancient Canons?

I would next propofe fome Hints, or Queries, to the Confciences of Laymen, concerning the Shire they have in making a corrupt, worldly, and unedifying Clergy, by abufing the Truft of Patronage repos'd in them, and thereby making the Confciences of Clergymen, and Salvation of Souls, a Sacrifice to their Covetoufnefs, by ufing unlawful Means for providing for Sons, or Brothers, and to thofe Ends keeping up the monstrous Privilege of qualifying Chaplains, fupporting a piece of religi ous Pageantry in their Families at the exp.nce of many neglected Souls, Aarved Curates. But I muft confine myself, at prefent, to the laft

Article,

« PreviousContinue »