« EelmineJätka »
not of Tyrants, who set themselves above both; it will not be improper to examine this matter to the bottom; especially as the enquiry is so necessary to a perfect knowledge of the civil advantages, resulting from an established religion.
We must at present then lay aside our ideas of the ancient modes of civil and religious societies; and search what they are in themselves, by nature; and thence deduce the institution in question.
I shall do this in as few words as possible; and refer those, who desire a fuller account of this matter, to a separate discourse, intitled, THE ALLIANCE BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE *.
In the beginning of the first book, where we speak of the origin of civil Society, the reader may remember we have shewn the natural deficiency of its. plan; and how the influence and sanction of Religion only can supply that defect.
Religion then being proved necessary to Society; that it should be so used and applied, and in the best way, and to most advantage, needs no proof. For it is as instinctive in our nature to improve, as to investigate and pursue Good : and with regard to the improvement of this in question, there is special reason why it should be studied. For the experience of every place and age informs us, that the coactivity of civil Laws and Religion, is little enough to keep men from running into disorder and mutual violence.
But this improvement is the effect of art and contrivance. For all natural Good, every thing constitutionally beneficial to man, needs man's industry to make it better.
better. We receive it at the provident hand
• See Vol. VII.
of Heaven, rather with a capacity of being applied to our use, than immediately fitted for our service. We receive it indeed, in full measure, but rude and unprepared.
Now, concerning this technical improvement of moral good, it is in artificial bodies as in natural; two may be so essentially constituted, as to be greatly able to adorn and strengthen one another : But then, as in this case, a mere juxta-position of the parts is not sufficient; so neither is it in that; some union, some coalition, some artful insertion into each other will be necessary.
But then again, as in natural bodies the artist is unable to set about the proper operation, till he hath acquired a competent knowledge of the nature of those bodies, which are the subject of his skill; so neither can we know in what manner Religion may be best applied to the service of the State, till we have learned the real and essential natures both of a State and a Religion. The obvious qualities of both sufficiently shew, that they must needs have a good effect on each other, when properly applied; (as our artist, by his knowledge of the obvious qualities of two natural bodies, we suppose, may make the like conclusion) though we have not yet got sufficient acquaintance with them to make the proper application.
It behoves us therefore to gain a right knowledge of the nature both of a civil and of a religious Society.
I. To begin with civil Society: It was instituted either with the purpose of attaining all the good of every kind, it was even accidentally capable of producing; or only of some certain good, which the Institutors had in view, unconcerned with, and unat
tentive to any other. To suppose its end to be the vague purpose of acquiring all possible accidental good, is, in politics, a mere solecism; as hath been sufficiently shewn by the writers on this question *. And how untrue it is in fact, may be gathered from what hath been said in the beginning, of the origin of Society. Civil society then, I suppose, will be allowed to have been instituted for the attainment of some certain end or ends, exclusive of others : and this implies the necessity of distinguishing this end from others. Which distinction arises from the different properties of the things pretending. amongst all those things, which are apt to obtrude, or have, in fact, obtruded upon men, as the ends of civil government, there is only this difference in their properties, as ends; That, one of them is attainable by civil Saciety culy, and all the rest are easily obtained without it. The thing then with that property or quality must needs be the genuine end of civil Society. And this end is no other than SECURITY TO THE TEMPORAL LIBERTY AND PROPERTY OF MAN. For this end (as we have shewn) civil Society was ins vented; and this, civil Society alone is able to pro
The great, but spurious rival of this end, the SALVATION OF Souls, or the security of man's future happiness, belongs therefore to the other division. For this not depending on outward accidents, or on the will or power of another, as the body and goods do, may be as well attained in a state of nature, as in civil society; and therefore, on the principles here
See Locke's Defences of his Letters on Toleration. This appears to have been Aristotle's opinion-quon pèd & drápisa. το θήλυ, και το δέλον" έδέν γάρ ή φύσις σούει τοιέτον, οίον χαλκοτύπου την Δελφικήν μάχαιραν πενιχρώς, αλλ' εν προς έν, &c. Pol. 1. i. c. 2.
delivered, cannot be one of the causes of the institution of civil government; nor, consequently, one of the ends thereof. But if so, the promotion of it comes not within the proper province of the Magistrate.
II. Secondly, as to religious Society, or a Church. This being instituted to preserve purity of faith and worship, its ultimate end is the SALVATION OF SOULS: From whence it follows,
1. That the religious Society must needs be soveREIGN, and INDEPENDENT ON THE CIVIL. Natural dependency of one Society, on another, arises either from the law of nature, or of nations. Dependency by the law of nature, is from essence or generation, Dependency from essence there can be none. For this kind of dependency being a mode of natural union and coalition; and coalition being only where there is an agreement in eodem tertio; and there -being no such agreement between two Societies essentially different, as these are, there can possibly be no dependency. Dependency from generation is where one Society springs up from another; as corporations, colleges, companies, and chambers, in a city. These, as well by the conformity of their ends and means, as by their charters of incorporation, betray their original and dependency. But religious Society, by ends and means quite different, gives internal proof of its not arising from the State; and we have shewn by external evidence *, that it existed before the state had any being. Again, no dependency can arise from the law of nations, or the civil law. Dependency by this law is, where one and the same people composing two different Societies, the imperium of the one clashes with * See Book III. sect. 6.
the imperium of the other. And, in such case, the lesser Society becomes, by that law, dependent on the greater; because the not being so, would make that absurdity in politics, called imperium in imperio. But now civil and religious Society, having ends and means entirely different; and the means of civil Society being coercive power, which power therefore the religious hath not; it follow's, that the administration of each Society is exercised in so remote spheres, that they can never meet to clash : And those Societies which never clash, necessity of state cannot bring into dependency on one another.
2. It follows, That this independent religious Society hath not, in and of itself, any coactive power of the civil kind: Its inherent jurisdiction being, in its nature and use, entirely different from that of the State. For if
, as hath been proved, civil Society was instituted for the attainment of one species of good (all other good, requisite to human happiness, being to be attained without it) and that civil Society attains the good, for which it was ordained, by the sole mean of coercive power;, then it follows, that the good, which any other kind of Society seeks, may be attained without that power; consequently, coercive power is unnecessary to a religious Society. But that mean, which is unneces- . sary for the attainment of any end, is likewise unfit; in all cases, but in that, where such mean is rendered unnecessary by the use of other means of the same kind or species. But religious society altains its end by means of a different kind; therefore coercive power is not only unnecessary, but unfit. Again, Ends, in their nature different, can never be attained by one and the same mean. Thus in the case before us : coercioe