civil power; and if their principles are destructive of the civil - government, they may be rooted out by the civil sword. On this principle many penal laws have been enacted in this kingdom against popery; not on the weak supposition that no man's conscience ever led him to be a papist, but on the known truth, that a papist must always be an enemy to the constitution of this government; which has therefore a right to secure itself against his practices by the terror of temporal punishment, notwithstanding the pleas of conscience and religion: and this argument may be applied to all sects professing principles destructive of the legal constitution. It is only when difference of opinion produces such acts as concern the public peace, that it comes under the jurisdiction of the magistrate. Penal laws are not laws of the church, but of the state, and are enacted to prevent the growth either of principles or practices conceived to be dangerous. The subject's conscience cannot bind the magistrate's power from acting in its proper sphere a thief might pretend that his conscience persuaded him that the goods of Christians were in common; but this would not be a sufficient plea in a court of justice; and if so, it can be no general rule that conscience ought to be exempt from penal laws. The church has no right to impose penal laws on any account; nor has the state in matters purely of a religious nature but if the controversy should breed convulsions that affect the civil government, it becomes the magistrate to drive conscience out of the state into its proper seat, the heart of man, whither his power neither can nor ought to pursue it. As on the one side the magistrate has no right to punish men for the errors of their conciences, so neither is it his duty, when he calls a man to account for his actions, to inquire whether those actions were suggested by his conscience; nor indeed could he arrive at the truth of these matters: but if the action tend to breed mischief in the state, the magistrate has a right to punish it without considering whether it be

a religious action or no. if men would attend to the just consequences of their own principles; but they assert that, as the magistrate has nothing to do with conscience, he cannot punish men for acting according to their conscience; that is, his authority is suspended by the plea of conscience, in which case he must of necessity in the administration of justice enter into the examination of conscience. If the just consequences of the principle be attended to, the truth will be clear. As the magistrate has nothing to do with conscience, and has no right to punish the errors of it unless they affect the public good, so neither can the pleas of conscience supersede his authority in any case proper for his cognizance: this topic enlarged on and examples given. The limits of spiritual and civil power may be thus defined: the ministers of Christ not being of this world have no right to exercise power in it: the civil magistrate, as he is of this world, is not to be excluded from the affairs of it by any pretence of religion: pure religion cannot be injured by this, as it never interferes with the magistrate's right: those whose doctrines or practices are destructive of civil government, must answer to God for perverting religion, and to the magistrate for disturbing the public.-III. What has been said applied to the present occasion. The only two things which the church of Rome can insist on are determined against them by the text. For, firstly, whatever religious differences there are between us, their means of conversion are unjustifiable: and, secondly, notwithstanding their pleas of religion, the civil power has a right to punish their practices, and did justly exercise that right in the case of this day. The great cruelty of the Catholics in their attempt of this day enlarged on the mercy of God in turning their malice from us on their own heads the memory of the event deservedly distinguished in the British calendar, &c.

Disputes on this head would cease,

:

Nothing is to be more feared by an Englishman than the

prevailing power of popery: to design its advancement is to design the ruin of the state, and the destruction of the church. It is shown that no interest is to be served by fomenting jealousies between the people and their rulers; but that those who wish well to the succession will endeavor that there may be a mutual confidence and good opinion between the people and the princes of the blood, &c. A recommendation to men to enjoy the tranquillity of the reign, and to show their zeal for religion in dutiful behavior to their governors, and in mutual love and charity, rather than in disputes; to let the purity of their religion be expressed in the innocence of their lives, that at the restoration of peace they may exemplify the words of the Psalmist, when mercy and truth shall meet together, &c.: above all they are exhorted earnestly to pray for the good queen; and that when she shall be called to everlasting glory and a better crown, God in his mercy would tenderly regard these kingdoms, and hide them under the shelter of his wings till the danger be overpast.

DISCOURSE III.

Preached before the Lord Mayor at St. Paul's Cathedral, Nov. 5, 1712.

LUKE, CHAP. IX.-VERSES 54. 55.

And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

WHAT provocation the disciples had to call fire from heaven to consume the Samaritans, may be learned from the 51st and following verses: And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem, and sent messengers before his face and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. And they did not receive him, because bis face was as though he would go to Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.' The hatred between the Jews and Samaritans was founded in a religious controversy; and had proceeded so far, that all offices of common humanity had ceased between them; insomuch that when our Saviour asked a woman of that country but for a little water to drink, she marvelled at it, and said, 'How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? John iv. 9. The reason of her wonder is added in the next words; for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.'

From the 20th verse of the same chapter we may gather what the foundation of this quarrel was: Our fathers,' says the woman, 'worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.' This account is likewise confirmed by Josephus, who tells us that there were perpetual quarrels and animosities between the Jews and Samaritans, occasioned by a contest concerning the holiness of their temples; the one affirming the temple at Jerusalem to be holy, and that all Jews ought to send their offerings thither; the others affirming the same concerning the temple in Mount Gerizim.

It was about the time of the Passover that our Saviour took this journey to Jerusalem, as we may collect from what is said in the 51st verse: And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem.' The time that our Saviour was received up, we know, was at the Jewish Passover; and this time being come when this journey was made, shows it to be about the time of the celebration of this feast. And this may account, together with what has been already said, for the unkind reception which the disciples met with in Samaria. The Samaritans finding them on a journey to Jerusalem about the time of the Passover, concluded that they were going to celebrate the feast there, and consequently were such as esteemed the temple of Jerusalem to be the true place of worship, and were despisers of the temple in the mount of Samaria. For this reason they refused to afford them any entertainment in their village, but sent them out to prosecute their journey without the necessary refreshments for it. This raised the indignation of the disciples: they immediately call to mind the story of Elias; it was in Samaria that Elias had destroyed the captains and their fifties with fire from heaven; the place itself prompted them to imitate the noble vengeance that had once before been executed there they knew that a greater than Elias was there now, and had been more barbarously treated: why not then the like exemplary punishment? Why should not the fire of heaven come down to consume the enemies of God's own Son, as once it did to destroy the enemies of his prophet? Warm with these thoughts, and full of resentment for their Master's honor, they apply to him, 'Lord, wilt thou that we command