(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Children's Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Political Science Of The State"

THE STATE'S RELATIONS TO RELIGION.          489
cine, agriculture, or political economy, fixing its place and
giving it certain privileges by law. Thus the state is "an
authority essentially sovereign over human life," and " must
naturally have a proportionate responsibility. Standing as it
were in the place of God, it should imitate God's government,
wherever the imperfections of humanity do not render such
imitation impossible. It seems then an uncalled-for assertion
to maintain that it should regard the bodies of men only,1'
and the wider doctrine of the old philosophers is surely better
in accordance with the state's sovereignty. Here Arnold
enters into a refutation of Warburton's opinions in several re-
spects, growing out of his position that the state ought to
teach the three fundamental principles of natural religion, the
being and providence of God with the natural essential differ-
ence between moral good and evil, yet not as " promoting
our future happiness but our present,'* and as being the
foundation and bond of civil policy, whereby the doctrine that
the sole end of civil society-is the conservation of body and
goods is not contradicted. The state also must punish evil
on other principles, according to Warburton, than those of
pure morality and religion, and is unable to reward virtue. On
these points^ Arnold observes first, that temporal or present
happiness is the same in kind with future, and were this the
state's immediate object, conservation of body and goods
would be but a small part of it. Again to the position that
the state cannot reward virtue he replies that the church is
equally unable to do the same ; it professes to believe in such
rewards, and teaches such a faith through its public teachers,
as it does through its members, but it goes no further. To
the remaining position that "the state punishes on other
principles than those of morality and religion,'* as, for in-
stance, " on account of and in proportion to the malignant
influence of wrong-doing on civil society," Arnold replies that
this imputation peculiarly touches the state and is one to
which every society composed of human beings is liable.
It might be, and has been maintained that the church—how-
ever related to the state—has no punishment of its own ; its