6

Far from it. But his inquiry was not what they deserved, but what it became him to do, what suited the cause of piety, humanity, and universal love in which he was engaged. The question, Have they deserved this favour?' used in the way it has been of late, savours very little of the disciple of him who said, If ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans ⚫ the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, 'what do ye more than others *?'

It is remarkable, that among the many slanders cast upon our Lord by his enemies, one of them was, that he was a Samaritan. Calumny, an insidious liar, seeks always, in order to gain credit to her lies, to give them some sort of connection with truth; for this renders them more efficacious in imposing on the rabble. Somewhat of this artifice appears in all the aspersions thrown upon our Lord. It was then impossible that, from such a people, his open disapprobation of the virulence with which they spoke of Samaritans, and the inhumanity which they harboured in their hearts against them, should not draw upon him that ignominious epithet. And if things proceed but a little longer with us, in the train they have been in of late, may we not expect to see every man of moderation amongst us, who values a conformity to the spirit and precepts of his master, more highly than the blind applause of the deluded multitude, branded as a papist, or at least a friend to popery ?

* Matth. v. 46, 47.

Some have proceeded so far, as was lately observed by an honourable gentleman in the House of Commons, as to publish inflammatory pamphlets recommending the dissolution of all the bonds of society with papists. The author seems to have taken the Jewish treatment of the Samaritans, which our Lord so plainly reprobates, for his model. I freely own, my model is the reverse of his. It is the disposition and sentiments of Jesus Christ. I am glad to find that those who have assumed the title of Friends of the Protestant Interest, (however much I disapprove their conduct in other respects) have, with marks of disapprobation, disclaimed the unchristian performance. In regard to the writer, my first and most earnest wish is, that, by the blessing of God, he may arrive at the knowledge of Christianity, and become a Christian himself; for hitherto his knowledge has gone no deeper than the surface. And if that wish cannot be obtained, my second is, that he may no longer dishonour the name of Protestant, if he bear that name, but turn papist altogether, of which he is more than two-thirds already, and these two-thirds not the most amiable part of the character.

But to return; if, with respect to retaliation, such were the maxims of our Lord Jesus Christ, as has been represented, and such was the pattern given by him, can we, who profess to be his disciples, imagine that these ought to have no influence in determining our conduct? Had the Apostle Peter any meaning, or were they mere

6

words of course that he used in telling us, that we are specially called to the imitation of Christ, who, 'when he was reviled, reviled not again, when he 'suffered, he threatened not, but committed him'self to him that judgeth righteously * Was it meant to serve for a lesson to us, or as a vain boast of his own virtue, and that of his fellow-apostles, that Paul exclaimed, Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it; being defamed, we entreat t.' But perhaps they did so, because they were then weak, and could do nothing better. They could not then retaliate in so effectual a manner as to answer their purpose, and therefore thought it prudent to submit, and make the best of the circumstances which they could not remedy. I have heard that some popish casuists, when pushed by adversaries who contrasted their methods of propagating the faith with those of the Apostles, have replied in this manner: but I should be sorry to think that any protestant were capable of adopting a casuistry which tarnishes, or rather annihilates, the most shining virtues of the saints and martyrs of Jesus, and renders their example of little or no significancy to us.

Thus, I hope, it has been made sufficiently evident, that neither the example nor the precepts either of Christ, the divine author of the evangelical institution, or of his Apostles, authorise the use of the sword or any such carnal weapons for the ad

1 Peter, ii. 21, &c.

+1 Cor. iv. 13.

vancement of religion; that they fortify our minds with meekness, faith, and patience to bear, but in no case permit us to inflict persecution, not even in requital of that which we ourselves have formerly been made to suffer; that the necessary consequence of such unsanctified measures is to subvert the power, for the sake of establishing the form, of godliness, and to make us sacrifice the spirit of our religion, that charity which animates the whole, to a mere lifeless figure.

CHAP. II.

The Conclusions to which sound Policy would lead us, in regard to the Toleration of Papists.

As to the propriety, considered in a political light, of giving such a toleration to Papists in Scotland, as has been already granted in England and Ireland, I must observe, in the first place, that this is a point, the decision of which belongs properly to the legislature. To me it appears particularly improper in ecclesiastical judicatories to meddle with it. It is a question solely regarding the safety of the body-politic. If the constitution will not be endangered by such a measure, the principles of

reason, and consequently of sound policy, and also the principles of Christianity, as has been shown, lead us to conclude that it ought to be adopted; otherwise, not. Now the question in regard to the danger of the constitution is surely of the department of the estates of the kingdom assembled in parliament. And though every little borough-corporation, parish meeting, society of artificers and others, corporate and not corporate, weavers, coblers, porters, &c. &c. presume that they are wise enough to direct the King, Lords, and Commons, and that they themselves understand better what concerns the interest, security, and government of the nation, this absurd conduct cannot hurt such societies. They have no reputation to lose. Great allowances ought to be made, and will be made, by superiors, for their folly and ignorance. But would it become the supreme judicatory, and representative of this national church, in imitation of such examples, to step out of their line, and without the most urgent necessity, to obtrude upon the legislative body, their advice unasked? Nothing, in my opinion, would more effectually lessen the dignity of that venerable court. There is but one case in which I conceive there would be any propriety in such a measure; and of this I shall take notice afterwards.

But some will object, Why do ye talk of going

beyond our line? Are not our ecclesiastical assemblies the natural guardians of our religion? Who then so proper as they to give warning of the danger, and to use the precautions which