« PreviousContinue »
T H E following extract from Locke's letter on toleration, together with Mr. Wesley's reply, has been sent to the author, with a request to answer it, in his power, says the writer of the letter. Mr. Locke in a profound manner opens the gate of toleration to all mortals, who do not entertain any principles injurious to the rights of civil society: but my correspondent is surprised that such an impartial writer should make an oblique charge on the Roman Catholics, if it were were not grounded on truth.
a W E cannot find any sect that teaches ex-v
" pressly and openly, that men are not obliged U to keep their promise ; that princes may be
f© dethroned by those that differ from them in A a ff religion,
** religion, or that the dominion of all things " belongs only to themselves. _But never." theless we find those, that say tl 3 same thing " in other words. What else do they mean " who teach, that faith is not to be kept with " heretics ? What can be the meaning of their " asserting that kings, excommunicated, forfeit V their crowns and kingdoms ?--That domi
" nion is founded in grace, is an assertion by *
'** which those that maintain it, do plainly lay a " claim to the posseffion of all things. I say, a these have no right to be tolerated by the St magistrate."v '
Again : " That church can have no right to a be tolerated by the magistrate, which is con" stituted upon such a bottom, that all those
' ." who enter into it, do thereby, ipso facto, de
F* liver themselves up to the protection and " service of another prince : for by this means " the magistrate would give way to the setting " up of a foreign jurisdiction in his own coun" try, and suffer his own people to be enlisted, " as it were, for soldiers against his own go" vernment. Nor does the frivolous and falla** cious distinction, between the court and the ." church, afford any remedy to this inconve** nience; especially, when both the one and " the other, are equally subject to the absolute il authority of the same person; who has not
i* only power to persuade the members of his
i* Church to whatever he lists, either as purely
** religious, or as in order thereunto', but also " can' enjoin it them', on pain' of eternal fire.
a It is ridiculous for any one to profess him:
a self to be a Mahometan only in his religion' ;
'* but in every thing else a faithful subject to' a
a Christian magistrate, whilst at the same time, '
** he acknowledges himself bound to yield '" blind obedience to the Mu'sti of Constituti" nople; who himself is entirely obedient to " the Ottoman emperor, and frames the feign" ed oracles of that religion accordingv to his ** pleasure. "But this Mahometan, living a" mongst Christians, would yet more appa" r'ently renounce their government, if he ac-L
"* knowledged the same person, to be head of
V his church, who is the supreme magistrate in'
z. the state;" _
MR. O'LEARY's ANSWER,
M R.* Locke's supposed principles are fully' answered in *f Loyalty asserted." With every respect due to so great a man, he was as ignoi rant of the Catholics' creed, as any of the London rioters. " That the dominion of all things " belongs to the faints," was the doctrine of Wickliff, Huss, and the English regicides in the time of Charles the first: a doctrine condemned by the council of Constance, in thirtieth proposition extracted from Huss's writings.
Mr. Locke, in shutting the gates of toleration' against the professors of such a doctrine, fully justifies the'emperor Sigismundin putting Huss to death :. as that tuthappy man not only preached, but practised it. In matters more Within the verge of his knowledge, I widely differ from Mr. Locke. When he denies any innate ideas, or the least notion of a God implanted in our souls, independent of the senses, I prefer the Cartesian philosophers, meffieurs de Portroyal, the bishop of Rochester, and several others who were of a different opinion. But, Þwhen. 'he supposes that " the same person who' " is head of the church, is the supreme magisYf. state in the state ; that the pope can frame
ff the r" the feigned oracles of Catholic religion, as
" the Mufti can frame them for the Turks, 'by " the direction of the Otroman emperor ;_ that " he can persuade the members' of his church ** to whatever he lifts, and enjoin it them, on " pain of eternal fire," &e. my honest, good English philosopher was either snoring, or as ignorant of the Catholic creed, as the old woman that used to bring him his toaPt and ale, when he was writing on government, against fir Robert Filmer*s Patriarcha.
The universities of Paris, Valentia, Toulouse, Poictiers, Bourdeaux, Bourges, Rheims, Caen, &e. that is. to say, the oracles of the doctrine taught in their respective countries, knew their creed better than an English philosopher could teach them. They have sligmatized those assertions obtruded on the public by Mr, Locke; and, in the condemnation of Santorellus, who asserted that the pope could depose kings guilty of heresy, qualify his doctrine as " new, false, erroneous, contrary to the word ** of God, calculated to bring an odium on the U see of Rome, to impair the supreme civil ** authority thatdepends on God alone, and to " disturb the public tranquillity."
Such is the doctrine of Catholics; and had Mr. Locke read hiitory, or been candid enough to acknowledge it, he would have found the