JOHN LOCKE,
A Third Letter for Toleration (1692)

A Third LETTER for Toleration.

 

---

 

CHAP. I.↩

SIR,

THE Business which your Letter concerning Toleration found me ingaged in, has taken up so much of the time my Health would allow me ever since, that I doubt whether I should now at all have troubled you or the World with an Answer, had not some of my Friends, sufficiently satisfied of the Weakness of your Arguments, with repeated Instances, perswaded me it might be of use to Truth in a Point of so great Moment, to [...]lear it from those Fallacies which might perhaps puzzle some unwary Readers; and therefore prevailed on me to shew the wrong Grounds and mistaken Reasonings you make use of to support your new way of Persecution. Pardon me, Sir, that I use that Name, which you are so much offended at: for if Punishment be Punishment, though it come short of the Discipline of Fire and Faggot, 'tis as certain that Punishment for Religion is truly Persecution, though it be only such Punishment as you in your Clemency think fit to call moderate and convenient Penalties. But however you please to call them, I doubt not but to let you see, that if you will be true to your own Principles, and stand to what you have said, you must carry your some [...]egrees of Force (as you phrase it) to all these Degrees which in Words you declare against.

You have indeed in this last Letter of yours, altered the Question; for pag. 26. you tell me the Question between us, is, Whether the Magistrate hath any Right to use Force to bring Men to the true Religion? Whereas you your self own the Question to be, Whether the Magistrate has a Right to use Force in matters of Religion? Pag. 76. Whether this Alteration be at all to the Advantage of Truth or your Cause, we shall see. But hence you take occasion [...]ll along to lay load on me for charging you with the Absurdities of a Power in the Magistrates to punish Men, to bring them to their Religion: Whereas you here tell us they have a Right to use Force only to bring Men to the true. But whether I were more to blame to suppose you to talk coherently and mean [2] Sense, or you in expressing your self so doubtfully and uncertainly, where you were concerned to be plain and direct, I shall leave to our Readers to judg; only here in the Beginning I shall endeavour to clear my self of that Imputation, I so often meet with, of charging on you Consequences you do not own, and arguing against an Opinion that is not yours, in those Places, where I shew how little Advantage it would be to Truth, or the Salvation of Mens Souls, that all Magistrates should have a Right to use Force to bring Men to imbrace their Religion. This I shall do by proving, that if upon your Grounds the Magistrate, as you pretend, be obliged to use Force to bring Men to the true Religion, it will necessarily follow, that every Magistrate, who believes his Religion to be true, is obliged to use Force to bring Men to his.

You tell us, That by the Law of Nature the Magistrate is invested Pag. 31.with coactive Power, and obliged to use it for all the good Purposes which it might serve, and for which it should be found needful, even for the restraining of false and corrupt Religion: And that it is the Magistrate's Duty, to which he is commissioned by the Law of Nature, Pag. 35. but the Scipture does not properly give it him.

I suppose you will grant me, that any thing laid upon the Magistrate as a Duty, is some way or other practicable. Now the Magistrate being obliged to use Force in Matters of Religion, but yet so as to bring Men only to the true Religion, he will not be in any Capacity to perform this part of his Duty, unless the Religion he is thus to promote, be what he can certainly know, or else what it is sufficient for him to believe to be the true: Either his Knowledg or his Opinion must point out that Religion to him, which he is by Force to promote; or else he may promiscuously and indifferently promote any Religion, and punish Men at a venture, to bring them from that they are in, to any other. This last I think no body has been so wild as to say.

If therefore it must be either his Knowledg or his Perswasion that must guide the Magistrate herein, and keep him within the Bounds of his Duty; if the Magistrates of the World cannot know, certainly know the true Religion to be the true Religion; but it be of a Nature to exercise their Faith, (for where Vision, Knowledg and Certainty is, there Faith is done away) then that which gives them the last Determination herein, must be their own Belief, their own Perswasion.

[3]

To you and me the Christian Religion is the true, and that is built (to mention no other Articles of it) on this, that Jesus Christ was put to Death at Jerusalem, and rose again from the Dead. Now do you or I know this, (I do not ask with what Assurance we believe it, for that in the highest Degree not being Knowledg, is not what we now inquire a [...]ter) Can any Magistrate demonstrate to himself (and if he can to himself, he does ill not to do it to others) not only all the A [...]ticles of his Church, but the Fundamental ones of the Christian Religion? For whatever is not capable of Demonstration (as such remote Matters of Fact are not) is not, unless it be self-evident, capable to produce Knowledg, how well grounded and great soever the Assurance of Faith may be wherewith it is received; but Faith it is still, and not Knowledg; Perswasion, and not Certainty. This is the highest the Nature of the thing will permit us to go in [...]atters of revealed Religion, which are therefore called Matters of Faith: A Perswasion of our own Minds, short of Knowledg, is the last Result that determines us in such Truths. 'Tis all God requires in the Gospel for Men to be saved: and 'twould be strange if there were more required of the Magistrate for the Direction of another in the way to Salvation, than is required of him for his own Salvation. Knowledg then, properly so called, not being to be had of the Truths necessary to Salvation, the Magistrate must be content with Faith and Perswasion for the Rule of that Truth he will recommend and inforce upon others; as well as of that whereon he will venture his own eternal Condition. If therefore it be the Magistrates Duty to use Force to bring Men to the true Religion, it can be only to that Religion which he believes to be true: So that if Force be at all to be used by the Magistrate in Matters of Religion, it can only be for the promoting that Religion which he only believes to be true, or none at all. I grant that a strong Assurance of any Truth settled upon prevalent and well-grounded Arguments of Probability, is often called Knowledg in popular ways of Talking: but being here to distinguish between Knowledg and Belief, to what Degrees of Considence soever raised, their Boundaries must be kept, and their Names not confounded. I know not what greater Pledg a Man can give of a full Perswasion of the Truth of any thing, than his venturing his Soul upon it, as he does, who sincerely imbraces [4] any Religion, and receives it for true. But to what Degree soever of Assurance his Faith may rise, it still comes short of Knowledg. Nor can any one now, I think, arrive to greater Evidence of the Truth of the Christian Religion, than the first Converts in the time of our Saviour and the Apostles had; of whom yet nothing more was required but to believe.

But supposing all the Truths of the Christian Religion necessary to Salvation could be so known to the Magistrate, that in his Use of Force for the bringing Men to imbrace these, he could be guided by infallible Certainty; yet I fear this would not serve your turn, nor authorize the Magistrate to use Force to bring Men in England, or any where else, into the Communion of the National Church, in which Ceremonies of humane Institution were imposed, which could not be known, nor (being confessed things in their own Nature indifferent) so much as thought necessary to Salvation.

But of this I shall have occasion to speak in another Place: all the Use I make of it here, is to shew, that the Cross in Baptism, kneeling at the Sacrament, and such like things, being impossible to be known necessary to Salvation, a certain knowledg of the Truth of the Articles of Faith of any Church, could not authorize the Magistrate to compel Men to imbra [...] the Communion of that Church, wherein any thing were made necessary to Communion, which he did not know was necessary to Salvation.

By what has been already said, I suppose it is evident, that if the Magistrate be to use Force only for promoting the true Religion, he can have no other Guide but his own Perswasion of what is the true Religion, and must be led by that in his Use of Force, or else not use it at all in matters of Religion. If you take the latter of these Consequences, you and I are agreed: if the former, you must allow all Magistrates, of whatsoever Religion, the Use of Force to bring Men to theirs, and so be involved in all those ill Consequences which you cannot it seems admit, and hoped to decline by your useless Distinction of Force to be us [...]d, not for any, but for the true Religion.

'Tis the D [...]y, you say, of the Magistrate to use Force for pro [...]ing the true Religion. And in several Places you tell us, he is o [...]liged to it. Perswade Magistrates in general of this, and then [...]ll me how any Magistrate shall be restrained from the Use of [5] Force, for the promoting what he thinks to be the true? For he being perswaded that it is his Duty to use Force to promote the true Religion, and being also perswaded his is the true Religion, What shall stop his Hand? Must he forbear the Use of Force till he be got beyond believing, into a certain Knowledg that all he requires Men to imbrace, is necessary to Salvation? If that be it you will stand to, you have my Consent, and I think there will be no need of any other Toleration. But if the believing his Religion to be the true, be sufficient for the Magistrate to use Force for the promoting of it, will it be so only to the Magistrates of the Religion that you pro [...]ss? And must all other Magistrates sit still, and not do their Duty till they have your Permission? If it be your Magistrate's Duty to use Force for the promoting the Religion he believes to be the true, it will be every Magistrate's Duty to use Force for the promoting what he believes to be the true, and he sins if he does not receive and promote it as if it were true. If you will not take this upon my Word, yet I desire you to do it upon the strong Reason of a very judicious and reverend Prelate of the present Church of England, In a discourse concerning Conscience, printed in 4to, 87. p. 18. You will find these following Words, and much more to this Purpose: Where a Man is mistaken in his Judgment, even in that Case it is always a Sin to act against it. Though we should take that for a Duty which is really a Sin, yet so long as we are thus perswaded, it will be highly criminal in us to act in contradiction to this Perswasion: and the Reason of this is evident, because by so doing, we wilfully act against the best Light which at present we have for the Direction of our Actions. So that when all is done, the immediate Guide of our Actions can be nothing but our Conscience, our Judgment and Perswasion. If a Man, for Instance, should of a Jew become a Christian, whilst yet in his Heart he believed that the Messiah is not yet come, and that our Lord Jesus was an Impostor: Or if a Papist should renounce the Communion of the Roman Church, and join with ours, whilst yet he is perswaded that the Roman Church is the only Catholick Church, and that our Reformed Churches are Heretical or Schismatical; though now there is none of us that will d [...]ny that the Men in both these Cases have made a good Change, as having changed a false Religion for [...]ruo one, yet for all that I dare say we should all agree they were both of them great Villains for making that Change, becauso they made it not upon honest [6] Principles, and in pursuance of their Judgment, but in direct contradiction to both. So that it being the Magistrate's Duty to use Force to bring Men to the [...]rue Religion; and he being perswaded his is the true, I suppose you will no longer question but that he is as much obliged to use Force to bring Men to it, as if it were the true. And then, Sir, I hope you have too much Respect for Magistrates, not to allow them to believe the Religions to be true which they profess. These things put together, I desire you to consider whether if Magistrates are obliged to use Force to bring Men to the true Religion, every Magistrate is not oblig'd to use Force to bring Men to that Religion he believes to be true?

This being so, I hope I have not argued so wholly besides the purpose, as you all through your Letter accuse me, for charging on your Doctrine all the ill Consequences, all the Prejudice it would be to the true Religion, that Magistrates should have Power, to use Force to bring Men to their Religions: and I presume you will think your self concerned to give to all these Places in the first and second Letter concerning Toleration, which shew the Inconveniences and Absurdities of such an use of Force, some other Answer, than that you are for punishing only such as reject the P. 24. true Religion. That 'tis plain the Force you speak of is not Force, my way applied, i. e. applied to the promoting the true Religion only, but to the promoting all the National Religions in the World. And again, P. 29. to my arguing that Force your way applied, if it can propagate any Religion, it is likelier to be the false than the true, because few of the Magistrates of the World are in the right way. You reply, This would have been to the purpose, if you had asserted that every Magistrate may use Force your indirect way (or any way) to bring Men to his own Religion, whatever that be. But if you asserted no such thing, (as no Man you think but an Atheist will assert it) then this is quite besides the business. This is the great Strength P. 27. of your Answer, and your Refuge almost in every page. So that I presume it reasonable to expect that you should clearly and directly answer what I have here said, or else find some other Answer than what you have done to the second Letter concerning Toleration. However acute you are in your way in several places on this occasion, as p. 11, 12. for my Answer to which I shall refer you to another place.

To my Argument against Force, from the Magistrates being as liable to Error as the rest of Mankind, you answer, That [7] I might have considered that this Argument concerns none but those who assert that every Magistrate has a right to use Force to promote his own Religion, whatever it be, which you think no Man that has P. 15. any Religion will assert. I suppose you may think now this Answer will scarce serve, and you must assert either no Magistrate to have right to promote his Religion by Force, or else be involv'd in the Condemnation you pass on those who ass [...]rt it of all Magistrates. And here I think, as to the decision of the Question betwixt us, I might leave this Matter: but there being in your Letter a great many other gross Mistakes, wrong Suppositions, and fallacious Arguings, which in those general and plausible Terms you have made use of in several places, as best served your turn, may possibly have imposed on your self, as well as they are fitted to do so on others, and therefore will deserve to have some notice taken of them; I shall give my self the trouble of examining your Letter a little farther.

To my saying, ‘It is not for the Magistrate, upon an Imagination of its Usefulness, to make use of any other Means than what the Author and Finisher of our Faith had directed;’ you reply, Which how true soever, is not, I think, very much to the P. 31. purpose. For if the Magistrate does only assist that Ministry which our Lord has appointed, by using so much of his coactive Power for the furthering their Service, as common Experience discovers to be useful and necessary for that End; there is no manner of ground to say, that ‘upon an Imagination of its Usefulness, he makes use of any other Means for the Salvation of Mens Souls, than what the Author and Finisher of our Faith has directed.’ 'Tis true indeed the Author and Finisher of our Faith has given the Magistrate no new Power or Commission, nor was there any need that he should, (if himself had had any Temporal Power to give:) for he found him already, even by the Law of Nature, the Minister of God to the People for Good, and bearing the Sword not in vain, i. e. invested with coactive Power, and obliged to use it for all the good Purposes which it might serve, and for which it should be found needful; even for the restraining of false and corrupt Religion; as Job long before (perhaps before any part of the Scriptures were written) acknowledged, when he said, that the worshipping the Sun or the Moon, was an Iniquity to be punished by the Judg. But though our Saviour has given the Magistrates no new Power, yet being King of Kings, he expects and requires that they should submit themselves [8] to his Scepter, and use the Power which always belonged to them, for his Service, and for the advancing his spiri [...]ual Kingdom in the World. And even that Charity which our great Master so earnestly recommends, and so strictly requires of all his Disciples, as it obliges all Men to seek and promote the Good of others, as well as their own, especially their Spiritual and Eternal [...]se, by such Means as their several Places and Relations enable them to use; so does it especially oblige the Magistrate to do it as a Magistrate, i. e. by that Power which enables him to do it above the r [...]e of other Men.

So far therefore is the Christian Magistrate, when he gives his helping Hand to the furtherance of the G spel, by laying convenient Penalties upon such as reject it, or any part of it, from using any other Means for the Salvation of Mens Souls, than what the Author and Finisher of our Faith has directed, that he does no more than his Duty to God, to his Redeemer, and to his Subjects, requires of him.

The Sum of your Reply amounts to this, that by the Law of Nature the Magistrate may make use of his coactive Power where it is useful and necessary for the Good of the People. If it be from the Law of Nature, it must be to all Magistrates equally: And then I ask whether this Good they are to promote without any new Power or Commission from our Saviour, be what they think to be so, or what they certainly know to be so. If it be what they think to be so, then all Magistrates may use Force to bring Men to their Religion: and what Good this is like to be to Men, or of what use to the true Religion, we have elsewhere considered. If it be only that Good which they certainly know to be so, they will be very ill enabled to do what you require of them, which you here tell us is to assist that Ministry which our Lord has appointed. Which of the Magistrates of your time did you know to have so well studied the Controyersies about Ordination and Church-Government, to be so well versed in Church-History and Succession, that you can undertake that he certainly knew which was the Ministry which our Lord had appointed, eithat of Rome, or that of Sweden, whether the Episcopacy in one part of this Island, or the Presbytery in another, were the Ministry which our Lord had appointed? If you say, being [...]mly perswaded of it, be sufficient to authorize the Magistrate to use Force; you with the Atheists, as you call them, who do so, give the People up in every Country to the coactive Force of the Magistrate, to be employed for the assisting the Minis [...] of his Religion: [9] And King Lewis of good right comes in with his Dragoons; for 'tis not much doubted that he as strongly believed his Popish Priests and Jesuits to be the Ministry which our Lord appointed, as either King Charles or King James the 2d believed that of the Church of England to be so. And of what use such an exercise of the coactive Power of all Magistrates, is to the People, or to the true Religion, you are concerned to shew. But 'tis (you know) but to tell me, I only trif [...]e, and this is all answered.

What in other places you tell us, is to make Men hear, consider, study, imbrace, and bring Men to the true Religion, you here do very well to tell us is to assist the Ministry: and to that 'tis true, common Experience discovers the Magistrate's coactive Force to be useful and necessary, viz. to those who taking the Reward, but not over-busying themselves in the care of Souls, find it for their Ease, that the Magistrates coactive Power should supply their want of Pastoral Care, and be made use of to bring those into an outward Consormity to the National Church, whom either for want of Ability they cannot, or want of due and friendly Application, join'd with an exemplary Life, they never so much as endeavoured to prevail on heartily to embrace it. That there may be such Neglects in the best-constituted National Church in the World, the Complaints of a very knowing Bishop of our Church in a late Discourse of the PASTORAL CARE, is too plain an Evidence.

Without so great an Authority I should scarce have ventured (though it lay just in my way) to have taken notice of what is so visible, that it is in every one's Mouth, for fear you should have told me again, that I made my self an occasion to shew my Good-will toward the Clergy. For you will not, I suppose, suspect that eminent Prelate to have any Ill-will to them.

If this were not so, that some were negligent, I imagine the Preachers of the True Religion (which lies, as you tell us, so obvious and exposed, as to be easily distinguish'd from the False) would need or desire no other Assistance from the Magistrates coactive Power, but what should be directed against the Irregularity of Mens Lives; their Lusts being that alone, as you tell us, that makes Force necessary to assist the true Religion; which were it not for our depraved Nature, would by its Light and Reasonableness have the advantage against all sal [...]e Religions.

[10]

You tell us too, That the Magistrate may impose Creeds and Ceremonies; indeed you say sound Creeds and decent Ceremonies, but that helps not your Cause: for who must be Judg of that P. 13. sound, and that decent? If the Imposer, then those Words signify nothing at all, but that the Magistrate may impose those Creeds and Ceremonies which he thinks sound and decent, which is in effect such as he thinks [...]t. Indeed you telling us a little above in the same page, that it is a Vice not to worship God in Ways prescribed by those to whom God has left the ordering of such Matters; you seem to make other Judges of what is sound and decent, and the Magistrate but the Executor of their Decrees with the Assistance of his coactive Power. A pretty Foundation to establish Creeds and Ceremonies on, that God has lest the ordering of them to those who cannot impose them, and the imposing of them to those who cannot order them. But still the same Difficulty returns; for after they have prescribed, must the Magistrate judg them to be sound and decent, or must he impose them, though he judg them not sound or decent? If he must judg them so himself, we are but where we were: if he must impose them when prescribed, though he judg them not sound nor decent, 'tis a pretty sort of Drudgery is put on the Magistrate: And how far is this short of implicite Faith? But if he must not judg what is sound and decent, he must judg at least who are those to whom God has left the ordering of such Matters; and then the King of France is ready again with his Dragoons for the sound Doctrine, and decent Ceremonies of his Prescribers in the Council of Trent, and that upon this ground, with as good right as any other has for the Prescriptions of any others. Do not mistake me again, Sir; I do not say, he judges as right; but I do say, that whilst he judges the Council of Trent, or the Clergy of Rome to be those to whom God has left the ordering of those Matters, he has as much right to follow their Decrees, as any other to sollow the Judgment of any other Set of mortal Men whom he believes to be so.

But whoever is to be Judg of what is sound or decent in the case, I ask,

Of what Vse and Necessity is it to impose Creeds and Ceremonies? for that Vse and Nec [...]ssuy i [...] all the Commission you can sind the Magistrate hath to use his coactive Power to impose them.

[11]

1. Of what Use and Necessity is it among Christians that own the Scripture to be the Word of God and Rule os Faith, to make and impose a Creed? What Commission for this hath the Magistrate from the Law of Nature? God hath given a Revelation that contains in it all things necessary to Salvation, and of this his People are all perswad [...]d. What Necessity now is there? How does their Good require it, that the Magistrate should single out, as he thinks sit, any number of those Truths as more necessary to Salvation than the rest, if God himself has not done it?

2. But next, are these Creeds in the Words of the Scripture or not? If they are, they are certainly sound, as containing nothing but Truth in them: and so they were before as they lay in the Scripture. But thus though they contain nothing but sound Truths, yet they may be imperfect, and so unsound Rules of Faith, since they may require more or less than God requires to be believed as necessary to Salvation. For what greater necessity I pray is there that a Man should believe that Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate, than that he was born at Bethlehem of Judah? Both are certainly true, and no Christian doubts of either: But how comes one to be made an Article of Faith, and imposed by the Magistrate as necessary to Salvation, (for otherwise there can be no necessity of Imposition) and the other not?

Do not mistake me here, as if I would lay by that Summary of the Christian Religion, which is contained in that which is called the Apostles Creed; which though no body who examines the Matter, will have reason to conclude of the Apostles compiling, yet is certainly of reverend Antiquity, and ought still to be preserved in the Church. I mention it not to argue against it, but against your Imposition, and to shew that even that Creed, though of that Antiquity, though it contain in it all the Credenda necessary to Salvation, cannot yet upon your Principles be imposed by the [...] Power of the Magistrate, who even by the Commission you have found out for him, can use his Force for nothing but what is absolutely necessary to Salvation.

But if the Creed to be imposed be not in the Words of Divine Revelation; then it is in plainer, more clear and intelligible Expressions, or not: if no plainer, what necessity of changing those, which Men inspired by the Holy Ghost made use of? If you say, they are plainer; then they explain and determine [12] the Sense of some obscure and dubious Places of Scripture, which Explication not being of divine Revelation, though sound to one Man, may be unsound to another, and cannot be imposed as Truths necessary to Salvation. Besides that, this destroys what you tell us of the Obviousness of all Truths necessary to [...]. 29. Salvation.

And as to Rites and Ceremonies, are there any necessary to Salvation, which Christ has not instituted? if not, how can the Magistrate impose them? What Commission has he from the Care he ought to have for the Salvation of Mens Souls, to use his coactive Force for the Establishment of any new ones which our Lord and Saviour (with due Reverence be it spoken) had forgotten? He instituted two Rites in his Church; Can any one add any new one to them? Christ commanded simply to baptize in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; but the signing of the Cross, how came that necessary? Humane Authority which is necessary to assist the Truth against the Corruption of humane Nature, has made it so. But 'tis a decent Ceremony. I ask, Is it so decent that the Administration of Baptism, simply, as our Saviour instituted, would be indecent without it? If not, then there is no Reason to impose it for Decency's sake; for there can be no Reason to alter or add any thing to the Institution of Christ, or introduce any Ceremony or Circumstance into Religion for Decency, where the Action would be decent without it. The Command to do all things decently and in Order, gave no Authority to add to Christ's Institution any new Ceremony, it only prescribed the manner how, what was necessary to be done in the Congregation, should be there done, (viz.) after such a manner, that if it were omitted, there would appear some Indecency, whereof the Congregation or collective Body was to be Judg, for to them that Rule was given: and if that Rule go beyond what I have said, and gives Power to Men to introduce into Religious Worship whatever they shall think decent, and impose the Use of it; I do not see how the greatest part of the infinite Ceremonies of the Church of Rome could be complained of, or refused, if introduced into another Church, and there imposed by the Magistrate. But if such a Power were given to the Magistrate, that whatever he thought a decent Ceremony, he might de novo impose, he would need some express Commission from God in Scripture, since the [13] Commission you say he has from the Law of Nature, will never give him a Power to institute new Ceremonies in the Christian Religion, which, be they decent, or what they will, can never be necessary to Salvation.

The Gospel was to be preached in their Assemblies, the Rule then was that the Habit, Gesture, Voice, Language, &c. of the Preacher (for these were necessary Circumstances of the Action) should have nothing ridiculous or indecent in it. The Praises of God were to be sung; it must be then in such Postures and Tunes as became the Solemnity of that Action. And so a Convert was to be baptized, Christ instituted the essential part of that Action, which was washing with Water in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; in which Care was also to be had, that in the doing this nothing should be omitted that preserved a Decency in all the Circumstances of the Action. But no Body will say that if the Cross were omitted, that upon that Account there would be any thing indecent in Baptism.

What is to be done in the Assemblies of Christians for the Salvation of Souls, is sufficiently prescribed in Scripture: But since the Circumstances of the Actions were so various, and might in several Countries and Ages have different Appearances (as that appears decent in one Country which is quite contrary in another) concerning them there could be no other Rule given than what is, viz. decently, in Order, and to Edification; and in avoiding Indecenci [...]s, and not adding any new Ceremonies (how decent soever) this Rule consists.

I judg no Man in the Use of the Cro [...] in Baptism; the Imposition of that, or any other Ceremony not instituted by Christ himself, is what I argue against, and say, is more than you upon your Principles can make good.

Because you think your Argument for the Magistrate's Right to use Force has not had its d [...]e Consideration; I shall here set it down in your own Words, as it stands, and indeavour to give you Satisfaction A. p. 16. to it. You say there, If such a Degree of outward Force as has been mentioned, be of great and even necessary Vse for the advancing those Ends, (as taking the World as we find it, I think it appears to be) then it must be acknowledged that there is a Right somewhere to use it for the advancing those Ends, unless we will say (what without Impiety cannot be said) that the wise and benign Disposer and Governor of all things has not furnished Mankind with compe [...]nt means for [14] the pro [...]oring his own Honour in the World, and the Good of Souls.

And if there be such a Right somewhere, where should it be, but where the Power of compelling resides? That is principally, and in reference to the Publick in the Civil Soveraign. Which Words, if they have any Argument in them, it in short stands thus. Force is useful and necessary: the good and wise God (who without Impiety cannot be supposed not to have furnished Men with competent means for their Salvation) has therefore given a Right to some Men to use it, and those Men are the Civil Soveraigns.

To make this Argument of any Use to your Purpose, you must speak a little more distinctly, (for here you, according to your laudable and safe way of Writing, are wrapp'd up in the Uncertainty of general terms) and must tell us, besides the End for which it is useful and necessary, to whom it is useful and necessary. Is it useful and necessary to all Men? That you will not say, for many are brought to imbrace the true Religion by bare Preaching, without any Force. Is it then necessary to all those, and those only, who as you tell us, reject the true Religion tendered with sufficient Evidence, or at least so far manifested to them, as to oblige them to receive it, and to leave them without Excuse if they do not? To all therefore, who rejecting the true Religion so tendered, are without Excuse, your moderate Force is useful and necessary. But is it to all those competent, i. e. sufficient means? That 'tis evident in matter of Fact, it is not; for after all, many stand out. 'Tis like you will say, which is all you have to say, that those are such, who having resisted this last means, moderate Force, God always refuseth his Grace to, without which no means is [...]fficacious. So that your Competent at last, are only such means as are the utmost that God has appointed, and will have used, and which when Men resist, they are without Excuse, and shall never after have the Assistance of his Grace to bring them to that Truth they have resisted, and so be as the Apostle, 2 Tim. III. 8. calls such, Men of corrupt Minds, reprobate concerning the Faith. If then it shall be, that the Day of Grace shall be over to all those who reject the Truth manifested to them, with such Evidence, as leaves them without Excuse, and that bare Preaching and Exhortation shall be according to the good Pleasure of the benign Disposer of all things, enough (when neglected) to make their Hearts fat, their Ears heavy, and shut their Eyes that they should not perceive nor understand, nor be converted, [15] that God should heal them. I say, if this should be the Case, then your Force, whatever you imagine of it, will neither be co [...]petent, useful, nor necessary. So that it will rest upon you to prove that your moderate Degrees of Force are those means of Grace which God will have, as necessary to Salvation, tried upon every one before he will pass that Sentence in Isaiah, Make his Heart fat, &c. and that your Degree of moderate Force is that beyond which God will have no other or more powerful means used, but that those whom that works not upon, shall be left reprobate concerning Faith. And till you have proved this, you will in vain pretend your moderate Force (whatever you might think of it, if you had the ordering of that Matter in the Place of God) to be useful, necessary, and competent means. For if Preaching, Exhortation, Instruction, &c. as seems by the whole Current of the Scripture, (and it appears not that Isaiah in the Place above-cited, made their Hearts far with any thing but his Words) be that means, which when rejected to such a Degree, as he sees fit, God will punish with a Reprobate Mind, and that there be no other means of Grace to come after; you must confess that whatever good Opinion you have of your moderate Force after this Sentence is passed, it can do no good, have no Efficacy neither directly nor indirectly, and [...] a Distance, towards the bringing Men to the Truth.

If your moderate Force be not that precise utmost means of Grace, which when ineffectual, God will not afford his Grace to any other, then your moderate Force is not the comp [...]tent means you talk of. This therefore you must prove that Preaching alone is not, but that your moderate Force join'd to it is that means of Grace, which when neglected or r [...]ted, God will assist no other means with his Grace to bring Men into the Obedience of the Truth; and this let me tell you, you must prove by Revelation. For it is impossible to know, but by Revelation, the just Measures of God's Long-suffering, and what those means are, which when Mens Corruptions have rendred ineffectual, his Spirit shall no longer strive with them, nor his Grace assist any other means for their Conversion or Salvation. When you have done this, there will be some Ground for you to talk of your moderate Force, as the means which God's Wisdom and Goodness is ingaged to furnish Men with; but to speak of it, as you do now, as if it were that both necessary and competent [16] means, that it would be an Imputation to the Wisdom and Goodness of God, if Men were not furnished with it, when 'tis evident, that the greatest part of Mankind have always been destitute of it, will I fear be not easily cleared from that Impiety you mention; for though the Magistrate had the Right to use it, yet where-ever that moderate Force was not made use of, there Men were not furnished with your competent means of Salvation.

'Tis necessary for the Vindication of God's Justice and Goodness, that those who miscarry should do so by their own Fault, that their Destruction should be from themselves, and they be left inexcusable: But pray how will you shew us, that it is necessary, that any who have resisted the Truth tendered to them only by Preaching, should be saved, any more than it is necessary that those who have resisted the Truth when moderate Force has been joined to the same Preaching, should be saved? They are inexcusable one as well as the other, and thereby have incurred the Wrath of God, under which he may justly leave the one as well as the other; and therefore he cannot be said not to have been furnished with competent means of Salvation, who having rejected the Truth preached to him, has never any Penalties laid on him by the Magistrate to make him consider the Truths he before rejected.

All the Stress of your Hypothesis for the Necessity of Force lies on this, That the Majority of Mankind are not prevailed on by Preaching, and therefore the Goodness and Wisdom of God is obliged to furnish them with some more effectual means, as you think. But who told you that the Majority of Mankind should ever be brought into the strait way, and narrow Gate? Or that Force in your moderate Degree was the necessary and competent, i. e. the just sit means to do it, neither over nor under, but that that only, and nothing but that could do it? If to vindicate his Wisdom and Goodness, God must furnish Mankind with other means, as long as the Majority, yet unwrought upon, shall give any forward Demander occasion to ask, What other means is there left? He must also after your moderate Penalties have left the greater part of Mankind unprevailed on, be bound to furnish Mankind with higher Degrees of Force upon this Man's Demand: And those Degrees of Force proving ineffectual to the Majority to make them truly and sincerely Christians, God must be bound to furnish the World again with [17] a new Supply of Miracles upon the Demand of another wise Controuler, who having set his Heart upon Miracles, as you have yours on Force, will demand, what other means is there left but Miracles? for 'tis like this last Gent. would take it very much amiss of you, if you should not allow this to be a good and unquestionable way of arguing; or if you should deny that after the utmost Force had been used, Miracles might not do some Service at least, indirectly and at a Distance, towards the bringing Men to imbrace the Truth. And if you cannot prove that Mi-racles may not thus do some Service, he will conclude just as you do, that the Cause is his.

Let us try your Method a little farther. Suppose that when neither the gentlest Admonitions, nor the most earnest Intreaties will prevail, something else is to be done as the only means left, What is it must be done? What is this necessary competent means that you tell us of? It is to lay Briars and Thorns in their way. This P. 10 therefore being supposed necessary, you say, there must somewhere be a Right to use it. Let it be so. Suppose I tell you that Right is in God, who certainly has a Power to lay Briars and Thorns in the way of those who are got into a wrong one, whenever he is graciously pleased that other Means besides Instructions and Admonitions should be used to reduce them. And we may as well expect that those Thorns and Briars laid in their way by God's Providence, without telling them for what End, should work upon them as effectually, though indirectly, and at a Distance, as those laid in their way by the Magistrate, without telling them for what End. God alone knows where it is necessary, and on whom it will be useful, which no Man being capable of knowing, no Man, though he has coercive Power in his Hand, can be supposed to be authorized to use it by the Commission he has to do Good, on whomsoever you shall judg it to be, of great and even necessary use: No more than your judging it to be of great and even necessary use, would authorize any one who had got one of the Incision-Knives of the Hospital in his Hand, to cut those for the Stone with it, whom he could not know needed cutting, or that cutting would do them any good, when the Master of the Hospital had given him no express Order to use his Incision-Knife in that Operation; nor was it known to any but the Master, who needed, and on whom it would be useful; nor would he fail to use it himself wherever he found it necessary.

[18]

Be Force of as great and necessary use as you please; let it be so the competent Means for the promoting the Honour of God in the World, and the Good of Souls, that the right to use it must necessarily be somewhere. This Right cannot possibly be, where you would have it, in the Civil Soveraigns, and that for the very reason you give, viz. because it must be where the Power of compelling resides. For since Civil Soveraigns cannot compel themselves, nor can the compelling Power of one Civil Soveraign reach another Civil Soveraign, it will not in the hands of the Civil Soveraigns reach the most considerable part of Mankind, and those both for their own and their Subjects Good, have most need of it. Besides, if it go along with the Power of compelling, it must be in the hands of all Civil Soveraigns alike: which by this, as well as several other Reasons I have given, being unavoidable to be so, this Right will be so far from useful, that whatever efficacy Force has, it will be imployed to the doing more Harm than Good; since the greatest part of Civil Soveraigns being of false Religions, Force will be imployed for the promoting of those.

But let us grant what you can never prove, that though all Civil Soveraigns have compelling Power, yet only those of the true Religion have a right to use Force in Matters of Religion: your own Argument of Mankind being unfurnished (which is Impiety to say) with competent Means for the promoting the Honour of God, and the Good of Souls, still presses you. For the compelling Power of each Civil Soveraign not reaching beyond his own Dominions, the right of using Force in the hands only of the Orthodox Civil Soveraigns, leaves the rest, which is the far greater part of the World, destitute of this your necessary and competent Means for promoting the Honour of God in the World, and the Good of Souls.

Sir, I return you my Thanks for having given me this occasion to take a review of your Argument, which you told me I had mistaken; which I hope I now have not, and have answered to your Satisfaction.

I confess I mistook when I said that cutting being judg'd useful, could not authorize even a skilful Surgeon to cut a Man without any farther Commission: for it should have been thus; That though a Man has the Instruments in his Hand, and Force enough to cut with; and cutting be judg'd by you of great and even necessary Use in the Stone; yet this, without any farther [19] Commission, will not authorize any one to use his Strength and Knise in Cutting, who knows not who has the Stone, nor has any Light or Measures to judg to whom Cutting may be necessary or useful.

But let us see what you say in answer to my Instance: 1. That P. 53. the Stone does not always kill, though it be not cured; but Men do often live to a great Age with it, and die at last of other Distempers. But Aversion to the true Religion is certainly and inevitably mortal to the Soul, if not cured, and so of absolute necessity to be cured. Is it of absolute necessity to be cured in all? Is so, will you not here again think it requisite that the wise and benign Disposer and Governor of all things, should furnish competent Means for what is of absolute necessity? For will it not be Impiety to say, that God hath left Mankind unfurnished of competent, i. e. sufficient Means for what is absolutely necessary? For it is plain in your Account Men have not been furnished with sufficient Means for what is of absolute necessity to be cured in all, if in any of them it be left uncured. For as you allow none to be sufficient Evidence, but what P. 51. certainly gains Assent; so by the same Rule you cannot call that sufficient Means which does not work the Cure. It is in vain to say, the Means were sufficient, had it not been for their own Fault, when that Fault of theirs is the very thing to be cured. You go on; And yet if we should suppose the Stone as certainly P. 53. destructive of this temporal Life, as that Aversion is of Mens Eternal Salvation: even so the necessity of curing it would be as much less than the necessity of curing that Aversion, as this temporal Life falls short in value of that which is Eternal. This is built upon a supposition, that the necessity of the Means is increased by the value of the End, which being in this case the Salvation of Mens Souls, that is of insinite concernment to them, you conclude Salvation absolutely necessary: which makes you say that Aversion, &c. being inevitably mortai to the Soul, is of absolute necessity to be cured. Nothing is of absolute necessity but God: whatsoever else can be said to be of necessity, is so only relatively in respect to something else; and therefore nothing can indefinitely thus be said to be of absolute necessity, where the thing it relates to is not absolutely necessary. We may say, Wisdom and Power in God are absolutely necessary, because God himself is absolutely necessary: but we cannot crudely say, the curing in Men their Aversion to the true Religion, is absolutely necessary, because it is [20] not absolutely necessary that Men should be saved. But this is very proper and true to be said, that curing this Aversion is absolutely necessary in all that shall be saved. But I fear that would not serve your turn, tho it be certain that your absolute Necessity in this case reaches no farther than this, that to be cured of this Aversion is absolutely necessary to Salvation, and Salvation is absolutely necessary to Happiness; but neither of them, nor the Happiness it self of any Man can be said to be absolutely necessary.

This Mistake makes you say, that supposing the Stone certainly destructive of this temporal Life, yet the necessity of curing it would be as much less than the necessity of curing that Aversion, as this temporal Life falls short in value of that which is eternal. Which is quite otherwise: for if the Stone will certainly kill a Man without Cutting, it is as absolutely necessary to cut a Man of the Stone for the saving of his Life, as it is to cure the Aversion for the saving of his Soul. Nay, if you have but Eggs to fry, Fire is as absolutely necessary as either of the other, though the value of the End be in these Cases infinitely different; for in one of them you lose only your Dinner, in the other your Life, and in the other your Soul. But yet in these Cases, Fire, Cutting, and Curing that Aversion, are each of them absolutely and equally necessary to their respective Ends, because those Ends cannot be attained without them.

You say farther, Cutting for the Stone is not always necessary in order to the Cure: But the Penalties you speak of are altogether necessary P. 53. (without extraordinary Grace) to cure that pernicious and otherwise untractable Aversion. Let it be so; but do the Surgeons know who has this Stone, this Aversion so, that it will certainly destroy him unless he be cut? Will you undertake to tell when the Aversion is such in any Man, that it is incurable by Preaching, Exhortation and Intreaty, if his spiritual Physician will be instant with him in season, and out of season; but certainly curable, if moderate Force be made use of? Till you are sure of the former of these, you can never say, your moderate Force is necessary: Till you are sure of the latter, you can never say, it is competent Means. What you will determine concerning extraordinary Grace, and when God bestows that, I leave you to consider, and speak clearly of it at your leisure.

[21]

You add, That even where Cutting for the Stone is necessary, it is withal hazardous by my Confession. But your Penalties can no way endanger or hurt the Soul, but by the Fault of him that undergoes P. 53. them. If the Magistrate use Force to bring Men to the true Religion, he must judg which is the true Religion; and he can judg no other to be it but that which he believes to be the true Religion, which is his own Religion. But for the Magistrate to use Force to bring Men to his own Religion, has so much Danger in it to Mens Souls, that by your own confession, none but an Atheist will say that Magistrates may use Force to bring Men to their own Religion.

This I suppose is enough to make good all that I aimed at in my Instance of Cutting for the Stone, which was, that though it were judg'd useful, and I add now necessary to cut Men for the Stone, yet that was not enough to authorize Chirurgions to cut a Man, but he must have besides that general one of doing good, some more special Commission; and that which I there mentioned, was the Patient's Consent. But you tell me, That though, P. 54. as things now stand, no Surgeon has any right to cut his calculous Patient without his Consent; yet if the Magistrate should by a publick Law appoint and authorize a competent number of the most skilful in that Art, to visit such as labour under that Disease, and to cut those (whether they consent or not) whose Lives they unanimously judg it impossible to save otherwise: you are apt to think I would find it hard to prove that in so doing he exceeded the Bounds of his Power: And you are sure it would be as hard to prove that those Artists would have no right in that case to cut such Persons. Shew such a Law from the great Governor of the Universe, and I shall yield that your Surgeons shall go to work as fast as you please. But where is the publick Law? Where is the competent Number of Magistrates skilful in the Art, who must unanimously judg of the Disease and its Danger? You can shew nothing of all this, yet you are so liberal of this sort of Cure, that one cannot take you for less than cutting Morecraft himself. But, Sir, if there were a competent number of skilful and impartial Men, who were to use the Incision-Knife on all in whom they found this Stone of Aversion to the true Religion; what do you think, would they sind no Work in your Hospital?

Aversion to the true Religion you say is of absolute Necessity to be [...]ured: What I beseech you is that true Religion? that of the [22] Church of England? For that you own to be the only true Religion, and whatever you say, you cannot upon your Principles name any other National Religion in the World, that you will own to P. 11. be the true. It being then of absolute Necessity that Mens Aversion to the National Religion of England should be cured: Has all Mankind in whom it has been absolutely necessary to be cured, been furnished with competent and necessary means for the Cure of this Aversion?

In the next Place, what is your necessary and sufficient means for this Cure that is of absolute Necessity? and that is moderate Penalties made use of by the Magistrate, where the National is the true Religion, and sufficient means are provided for all Mens Instruction in the true Religion. And here again I ask, Have all Men to whom this Cure is of absolute Necessity, been furnished with this necessary means?

Thirdly, How is your necessary Remedy to be applied? And that is in a way wherein it cannot work the Cure, though we should suppose the true Religion the National every where, and all the Magistrates in the World zealous for it. To this true Religion say you Men have a natural and great Aversion of absolute Necessity to be cured, and the only Cure for it is Force your way applied, i. e. Penalties must be laid upon all that dissent from the National Religion, till they conform. Why are Men averse to the true? Because it crosses the Profits and Pleasures of this Life; and for the same Reason they have an Aversion to Penalties: These therefore, if they be opposed one to another, and Penalties be so laid that Men must quit their Lusts, and heartily imbrace the true Religion or else indure the Penalties, there may be some Efficacy in Force towards bringing Men to the true Religion: But if there be no Opposition between an outward Profession of the true Religion, and Mens Lusts; Penalties laid on Men till they outwardly conform, are not a Remedy laid to the Disease. Punishments so applied have no Opposition to Mens Lusts, nor from thence can be expected any Cure. Men must be driven from their Aversion to the true Religion by Penalties they have a greater Aversion to. This is all the Operation of Force. But if by getting into the Communion of the National Church they can avoid the Penalties, and yet retain their natural Corruption and Aversion to the true Religion, what Remedy is there to the Disease by Penalties so applied? [23] You would, you say, have Men made uneasy. This no doubt will work on Men, and make them indeavour to get out of this uneasy State as soon as they can. But it will always be by that way wherein they can be most easy; for 'tis the Uneasiness alone they fly from, and therefore they will not exchange one Uneasiness for another; not for a greater, nor an equal, nor any at all, if they can help it. If therefore it be so uneasy for Men to mortify their Lusts, as you tell us, which the true Religion P. 7. requires of them, if they imbrace it in earnest: But which outward Conformity to the true Religion, or any National Church, does not require, what need or use is there of Force applied so, that it meets not at all with Mens Lusts, or Aversion to the true Religion, but leaves them the liberty of a quiet Injoyment of them, free from Force and Penalties in a legal and approved Consormity? Is a Man negligent of his Soul, and will not be brought to consider? obstinate, and will not imbrace the Truth? Is he careless, and will not be at the Pains to examine Matters of Religion? corrupt, and will not part with his Lusts, which are dearer to him than his First-born? 'Tis but owning the National Profession, and he may be so still: If he conform, the Magistrate has done punishing, he is a Son of the Church, and need not consider any thing farther for fear of Penalties, they are removed, and all is well. So that at last there neither being an absolute Necessity that Aversion to the true Religion should in all Men be cured: nor the Magistrate being a competent Judg who have this Stone of Aversion, or who have it to that degree as to need Force to cure it, or in whom it is curable, were Force a proper Remedy as it is not: nor having any Commission to use it, notwithstanding what you have answered: It is still not only as, but more reasonable for the Magistrate, upon pretence of its Usefulness or Necessity, to cut any one for the Stone without his own Consent, than to use Force your way to cure him of Aversion to the true Religion.

To my Question, In whose Hands this Right (we were a little above speaking of) was in Turkey, Persia or China? you tell me, You answer roundly and plainly, in the Hands of the Soveraign, to use P. [...]. convenient Penalties for the promoting the true Religion. I will not trouble you here with a Question you will meet with elsewhere; Who in these Countries must be Judg of the true Religion? But I will ask, Whether you or any wise Man would have put a [24] Right of using Force into a Mahumetan or Pagan Prince's Hand, for the promoting of Christianity? which of my Pagans or Mahumetans would have done otherwise?

But God, you say, has done it, and you make it good by telling me in the following Words, If this startle me, then you must tell me farther, that you look upon the supream Power to be the same all the World over, in what Hands soever it is placed; and this Right to be contained in it: And if those that have it do not use it as they ought, but instead of promoting true Religion by proper Penalties, set themselves to enforce Mahumetanism or Paganism, or any other false Religion: All that can or that needs be said to the matter, is, that God will one Day call them to an Account for the Neglect of their Duty, for the Dishonour they do to him, and for the Souls that perish by their Fault. Your taking this Right to be a part of the supream Power of all Civil Sovereigns, (which is the thing in Question) is not, as I take it, proving it to be so. But let us take it so for once, what then is your Answer? God will one Day call those Sovereigns to an Account for the Neglect of their Duty. The Question is not, What God will do with the Soveraigns who have neglected their Duty; but how Mankind is furnished with your competent Means for the promoting of God's Honour in the World, and the good of Souls in Countries where the Soveraign is of a wrong Religion? For there, how clearly soever the Right of using it be in the Soveraign, yet as long as he uses not Force to bring his Subjects to the true Religion, they are destitute of your competent means. For I imagine you do not make the Right to use that Force, but the actual Application of it by Penal Laws to be your useful and necessary Means. For if you think the bare having that Right be enough, if that be your sufficient Means without the actual Use of Force, we readily allow it you. And (as I tell you elsewhere) I see not then what need you had of Miracles to supply the Want of the Magistrates Assistance, till Christianity was supported and incouraged by the Laws of the Empire: For, by your own Rule, the Magistrates of the World, during the three first Centuries after the publishing the Christian Religion, had the same Right, if that had been enough, that they have now in Turkey, Persia, or China. That this is all that can be said in this matter, I easily grant you; but that it is all that needs be said to make good your Doctrine, I must beg your Pardon.

[25]

In the same Sentence wherein you tell me, I should have added Necessity to Vsefulness, I call it necessary Usefulness, which I imagine is not much different. But that with the following Words wherein my Argument lay, had the ill luck to be overseen; but if you please to take my Argument, as I have now again laid it before you, it will serve my turn.

In your next Paragraph you tell me, that what is said by me L. 2. p. 48. is with the same Ingenuity I have used in other places; my Words in that Place are these: ‘The Author having indeavoured to shew that no Body at all of any Rank or Condition had any Power to punish, torment, or use any Man ill for Matter of Religion: You tell us, you do not yet understand why Clergymen are not as capable of such Power as other Men:’ Which Words of mine containing in them nothing but true matter of Fact, give you no Reason to tax my Ingenuity: Nor will what you alledg make it otherwise than such Power; for if the Power you there speak of, were externally coactive Power, is not that the same Power the Author was speaking of, made use of to those Ends he mentions of tormenting and punishing? And do not you own that those who have that Power, ought to punish those who offend in rejecting the true Religion? As to the remaining Part of that Paragraph, I shall leave the Reader to judg whether I sought any occasion so much as to name the Clergy; or whether the itching of your Fingers to be handling the Rod, guided not your Pen to what was nothing to the Purpose: For the Author had not said any thing so much as tending to exclude the Clergy from secular Imployments, but only (if you will take your own Report of it) that no Ecclesiastical Officer, as such, has any externally coactive Power; whereupon you cry out, that you do not yet understand why Ecclesiasticks or Clergymen are not as capable of such Power as other Men. Had you stood to be Constable of your Parish, or of the Hundred, you might have had Cause to vindicate thus your Capacity, if Orders had been objected to you; or if your Aim be at a Justice of the Peace, or Lord Chief Justice of England, much more. However you must be allowed to be a Man of forecast, in clear-ing the way to secular Power, if you know your self, or any of your Friends desirous of it: Otherwise I confess you have Reason to be on this occasion a little out of Humour, as you are, [26] for bringing this matter in Question so wholly out of Season. Nor will (I fear) the ill-sitted Excuse you bring, give your self, or one who consults the Places in both yours and the Author's A. p. 17. Letter, a much better Opinion of it. However I cannot but thank you for your wonted Ingenuity, in saying, that it seems I wanted an Occasion to shew my good Will to the Clergy, and so I made my self one. And to find more Work for the excellent Gift you have this way, I desire you to read over that Paragraph of mine again, and tell me, whether you can find any thing said in it not true? Any Advice in it that you your s [...]lf would disown? any thing that any worthy Clergyman that adorns his Function is concerned in? And when you have set it down in my Words, the World shall be Judg, whether I have shewed any ill Will to the Clergy. Till then I may take the Liberty to own, that I am more a Friend to them and their Calling, than those amongst them, who shew their Forwardness to leave the Word of God to serve other Employments. The Office of a Minister of the Gospel requires so the whole Man, that the very looking after their Poor was by the joint Voice of the the twelve Apostles, called, leaving the Word of God, and serving Acts IV. 2. of Tables. But if you think no Mens Faults can be spoken of without ill Will, you will make a very ill Prcacher: Or if you think this to be so only in speaking of Mistakes in any of the Clergy, there must be in your Opinion something peculiar in their Case, that makes it so much a Fault to mention any of theirs; which I must be pardoned for, since I was not aware of it: And there will want but a little cool Reflection to convince you, that had not the present Church of England a greater Number in Proportion, than possibly any other Age of the Church ever had, of those who by their pious Lives and Labours in their Ministry adorn their Profession, such busy Men as cannot be content to be Divines without being Lay-men too, would so little keep up the Reputation which ought to distinguish the Clergy, or preserve the Esteem due to a Holy, i. e. a separate Order, that no Body can shew greater good Will to them than by taking all Occasions to put a Stop to any Forwardness, to be medling out of their Calling. This I suppose made a learned Prelate of our Church, out of Kindness to the Clergy, mind them of their Stipulation and Duty in a late Treatise, and tell them that the Pastoral Care is to be a [27] Man's entire Business, and to possess both his Thoughts and his Time. Disc. of Past. Care, p. 121.

To your saying, That the Magistrate may lay Penalties upon A. p. 2. those who refuse to imbrace your Doctrine of the proper Ministers of P. 121. Religion, or are alienated from the Truth: I answered, ‘God never gave the Magistrate an Authority to be Judg of Truth L. 2. p. 59. for another Man.’ This you g [...]ant; but withal say, That if P. 64. the Magistrate knows the Truth, though he has no Authority to judg of Truth for another Man; yet he may be Judg whether other Men be alienated from the Truth or no; and so may have Authority to lay some Penalties upon those whom he sees to be so, to bring them to judg more sincerely for themselves. For Example, The Doctrine of the proper Ministers of Religion is, that the three Creeds, Nice, Athanasius's, and that commonly call'd the Apostles Creed, ought to be thorowly received and believed: As also that the Old and New Testament contain all things necessary to Salvation. The one of these Doctrines a Papist Subject imbraces not; and a Socinian the other. What now is the Magistrate by your Commission to do? He is to lay Penalties upon them, and continue them: How long? Only till they conform, i. e. till they profess they imbrace these Doctrines for true. In which Case he does not judg of the Truth for other Men: he only judges that other Men are alienated from the Truth. Do you not now admire your own Subtilty and Acuteness? I that cannot comprehend this, tell you my dull Sense in the Case. He that thinks another Man in an Error, judges him, as you phrase it, alienated from the Truth, and then judges of Truth and Falshood only for himself. But if he lays any Penalty upon others, which they are to lie under till they embrace for a Truth what he judges to be so, he is then so far a Judg of Truth for those others. This is what I think to judg of Truth for another, means: If you will tell me what else it signifies, I am ready to learn.

You grant, you say, God never gave the Magistrate any Authority to be Judg of Truth for another Man: and then add, But how does it follow from thence that he cannot be Judg, whether any Man be alienated from the Truth or no? And I ask you, Who ever said any such thing did follow from thence? That which I say, and which you ought to disprove, is, That whoever punishes others for not being of the Religion he judges to be true, judges of Truth for others. But you prove that a Man may be Judg of [28] Truth, without having Authority to judg of it for other Men, or to prescribe to them what they shall believe; which you might have spared, till you meet with some body that denies it. But yet your proof of it is worth remembring: Rectum (say you) est Index sui & obliqui. And certainly whoever does but know the Truth, may easily judg whether other Men be alienated from it or no. But tho Rectum be Index sui & obliqui; yet a Man may be ignorant of that which is the right, and may take Error for Truth. The Truth of Religion when known, shews what contradicts it, is false: but yet that Truth may be unknown to the Magistrate, as well as to any other Man. But you conclude (I know not upon what ground) as if the Magistrate could not miss it, or were surer to find it than other Men. I suppose you are thus favourable only to the Magistrate of your own Profession, as no doubt in Civility a Papist or a Presbyterian would be to those of his. And then infer; And therefore if the Magistrate knows the Truth, though he has no Authority to judg of Truth for other Men, yet he may be Judg whether other Men be alienated from the Truth or no. Without doubt! who denies it him? 'Tis a Privilege that he and all Men have, that when they know the Truth, or believe the Truth, or have embraced an Error for Truth, they may judg whether other Men are alienated from it or no, if those other Men own their Opinions in that matter.

You go on with your Inference, And so may have Authority to lay some Penalties upon those whom he sees to be so. Now, Sir, you go a little too fast. This he cannot do without making himself Judg of Truth for them: The Magistrate, or any one may judg, as much as he pleases, of Mens Opinions and Errors; he in that judges only for himself: but as soon as he uses Force to bring them from their own to his Opinion, he makes himself Judg of Truth for them; let it be to bring them to judg more sincerely for themselves, as you here call it, or under what pretence or colour soever; for that, what you say, is but a Pretence, the very Expression discovers. For does any one ever judg insincerely for himself, that he needs Penalties to make him judg more sincerely for himself? A Man may judg wrong for himself, and may be known or thought to do so: But who can either know or suppose another is not sincere in the Judgment he makes for himself, or (which is the same thing) that any one knowingly puts a mixture of Falshood into the Judgment he makes? For as [29] speaking insincerely is to speak otherwise than one thinks, let what he says be true or false; so judging insincerely must be to judg otherwise than one thinks, which I imagine is not very feasible. But how improper soever it be to talk of judging insincerely for one's self, it was better for you in that Place to say, Penalties were to bring Men to judg more sincerely, rather than to say, more rightly, or more truly: for had you said, the Magistrate might use Penalties to bring Men to judg more truly, that very Word had plainly discovered, that he made himself a Judg of Truth for them. You therefore wisely chose to say what might best cover this Contradiction to your self, whether it were Sense or no, which perhaps whilst it sounded well, every one would not stand to examine.

One thing give me leave here to observe to you, which is, That when you speak of the Entertainment Subjects are to give to Truth, i. e. the true Religion, you call it believing; but this in the Magistrate you call knowing. Now let me ask you, Whether any Magistrate, who laid Penalties on any who dissented from what he judged the true Religion, or as you call it here, were alienated from the Truth, was or could be determined in his judging of that Truth by any Assurance greater than believing? When you have resolved that, you will then see to what purpose is all you have said here concerning the Magistrate's knowing the Truth; which at last amounting to no more than the Assurance wherewith a Man certainly believes and receives a thing for true, will put every Magistrate under the same, if there be any Obligation to use Force, whilst he believes his own Religion. Besides, if a Magistrate knows his R [...]ligion to be true, he is to use means not to make his People believe, but know it also; Knowledg of them, if that be the way of entertaining the Truths of Religion, being as necessary to the Subjects as the Magistrate. I never heard yet of a Master of Mathematicks, who had the care of informing others in those Truths, who ever went about to make any one believe one of Euclid's Propositions.

The Pleasantness of your Answer, notwithstanding what you say, doth remain still the same: for you making, (as is P. 65.66. to be seen) the Power of the Magistrate ORDAINED for A. p. 22 the bringing Men to take such care as they ought of their Salvation; the reason why it is every Man's Interest to vest this Power in [30] the Magistrate, must suppose this Power so ordained, before the People vested it; or else it could not be an Argument for their vesting it in the Magistrate. For if you had not here built upon your fundamental Supposition, that this Power of the Ma [...]istrate is ordained by God to that end, the proper and intelligible way of expressing your meaning had not been to say as you do; As A. p. 22. the Power of the Magistrate is ordained for bringing, &c. so if we suppose this POWER vested in the Magistrate by the People: in which way of speaking this Power of the Magistrate is evidently supposed already ordained. But a clear way of making your meaning understood, had been to say, That for the People to ordain such a Power of the Magistrate, or to vest such a Power in the Magistrate, (which is the same thing) was their true Interest: but whether it were your Meaning or your Expression that was guilty of the Absurdity, I shall leave it with the Reader.

As to the other pleasant thing of your Answer, it will still appear by barely reciting it: the pleasant thing I charge on you is, that you say, That the Power of the Magistrate is to bring Men L. 2. p. 60. to such a care of their Salvation, that they may not blindly leave it to A. p. 22. the choice of any Person, or their own Lusts or Passions, to prescribe to them what Faith or Worship they shall imbrace; and yet that 'tis their best course to vest a Power in the Magistrate, liable to the same Lusts and Passions as themselves, to chuse for them. To this you answer, by asking where it is that you say that it is the Peoples best course to vest a Power in the Magistrate to choose for them, that you tell me I do not pretend to shew? If you had given your self the pains to have gone on to the end of the Paragraph, or will be pleased to read it as I have here again set it down for your perusal, you will find that I at least pretended to shew it: my Words are these; ‘If they vest a Power in the Magistrate, to punish them when they dissent from his Religion, to bring them to act even against their own Inclination, according to Reason and sound Judgment, which is (as you explain your self in another place) to bring them to consider Reasons and Arguments proper and sufficient to convince them; how far is this from leaving it to the choice of another Man to prescribe to them what Faith or Worship they shall embrace?’ Thus far you cite my Words, to which let me join the remaining part of the Paragraph, to let you see that I pretended to shew that the Course you proposed to the People as best for them, was to vest a Power in the Magistrate [31] to choose for them. My Words which follow those where you left off, are these;‘Especially if we consider that you think it a strange thing, that the Author would have the care of L. 2. p. 60. every Man's Soul left to himself. So that this Care being vested in the Magistrate, with a Power to punish Men to make them consider Reasons and Arguments proper and sufficient to convince them of the Truth of his Religion; the Choice is evidently in the Magistrate, as much as it can be in the power of one Man to chuse for another what Religion he shall be of; which consists only in a power of compelling him by Punishments to embrace it.’ But all this you tell me, is just nothing to my purpose: Why P. 66. I beseech you? Because you speak not of the Magistrate's Religion, but of the true Religion, and that proposed with sufficient Evidence.

The Case in short is this; Men are apt to be misled by their Passions, Lusts, and other Men in the choice of their Religion. For this great Evil you propose a Remedy, which is, That Men (for you must remember you are here speaking of the People putting this Power into the Magistrate's hand) should chuse some of their Fellow-Men, and give them a Power by Force to guard them, that they might not be alienated from the Truth by their own Passions, Lusts, or by other Men. So it was in the first Scheme; or, as you have it now, to punish them, whenever they rejected the true Religion, and that proposed with sufficient Evidence of the Truth of it. A pretty Remedy, and manifestly effectual at first sight: That because Men were all promiscuously apt to be misled in their Judgment, or choice of their Reli [...]ion, by Passion, Lust, and other Men, therefore they should chuse some amongst themselves, who might, they and their Successors, Men made just like themselves, punish them when they rejected the true Religion.

If the Blind lead the Blind, both shall fall into the Ditch, says our Saviour. If Men apt to be misled by their Passions and Lusts, will guard themselves from falling into Error, by Punishments laid on them, by Men as apt to be misled by Passions and Lusts as themselves, how are they the safer from falling into Error? Now hear the insallible Remedy for this Inconvenience, and admire: the Men to whom they have given this Power, must not use it, till they find those who gave it them in an Error. A Friend, to whom I shewed this Expedient, answered, This is none: For why is not a Man as fit to judg for himself when he [32] is in an Error, as another to judg for him, who is as liable to Error himself? I answered, This Power however in the other can do him no harm, but may indirectly, and at a distance, do him good; because the Magistrate who has this Power to punish him, must never use it but when he is in the right, and he that is punish'd is in the wrong. But, said my Friend, who shall be Judg whether he be in the right or no? for Men in an Error think themselves in the right, and that as confidently as those who are most so. To which I replied, No body must be Judg; but the Magistrate may know when he is in the right. And so may the Subject too (said my Friend) as well as the Magistrate, and therefore it was as good still be free from a Punishment, that gives a Man no more Security from Error than he had without it. Besides, said he, who must be Judg whether the Magistrate knows or no? for he may mistake, and think it to be Knowledg and Certainty, when it is but Opinion and Belief. It is no matter, for that in this Scheme, replied I, the Magistrate we are told may know which is the true Religion, and he must not use Force but to bring Men to the true Religion; and if he does, God will one day call him to an Account for it, and so all is safe. As safe as beating the Air can make a thing, replied my Friend: for if believing, being assured, confidently being perswaded that they know that the Religion they prosess is true, or any thing else short of true Knowledg will serve the turn, all Magistrates will have this Power alike, and so Men will be well guarded, or recovered from false Religions; by putting it into the Magistrate's Hand to punish them when they have alienated themselves from it.

If the Magistrate be not to punish Men but when he knows, i. e. is infallibly certain (for so is a Man in what he knows) that his National Religion is all true, and knows also, that it has been proposed to those he punishes with sufficient Evidence of the Truth of it: 'Twould have been as good this Power had never been given him, since he will never be in a Condition to exercise it; and at best it was given him to no Purpose, since those who gave it him were one with another as little indisposed to consider impartially, examine diligently, study, find, and infallibly know the Truth as he. But, said he at parting, to talk thus of the Magistrates punishing Men that reject the true Religion, without telling us, who those Magistrates are, who have a Power to judg which is the true Religion, is to put this Power in all [33] Magistrates Hands alike, or none. For to say he only is to be Judg which is the true Religion, who is of it, is but to begin the round of Enquiries again, which can at last end no where but in every one's supposing his own to be it. But, said he, if you will continue to talk on thus, there is nothing more to be done with you, but to pity or laugh at you, and so he left me.

I assure you, Sir, I urged this part of your Hypothesis, with all the Advantage I thought your Answer afforded me: and if I have erred in it, or there be any way to get out of the Strait (if Force must in your way be used) either of the Magistrates punishing Men for rejecting the true Religion, without judging which is the true Religion; or else that the Magistrate should judg which is the true Religion; which way ever of the two you shall determine it; I see not of what Advantage it can be to the People (to keep them from chusing amiss) that this Power of punishing them should be put into the Magistrate's Hands.

And then, if the Magistrate must judg which is the true Religion, (as how he should without judging, punish any one who rejects it, is hard to find) and punish Men who reject it till they do imbrace it, (let it be to make them consider, or what you please) he does, I think, chuse their Religion for them. And if you have not the Dexterity to chuse the National Religion, where-ever you are, I doubt not but you would think so too if you were in France, though there were none but moderate Penalties laid on you to bring you even against your own Inclination to act according to what they there call Reason and sound Judgment.

That Paragraph and mine to which it is an Answer, runs thus.

L. 2. pag. 60. I do neither you nor the Magistrate Injury, when I say that the Power you give the Magistrate of punishing Men, to make them consider Reasons and Arguments proper and sufficient to convince them, is to convince [34] them of the Truth of his Religion, and to bring them to it. For Men will never, in his opinion, act according to Reason and sound Judgment, (which is the thing you here say Men should be brought to by the Magistrate, even against their own Inclination) till they imbrace his Religion. And if you have the brow of an honest Man, you will not say the Magistrate will ever punish you, to bring you to consider any other Reasons and Arguments, but such as are proper to convince you of the Truth of his Religion, and to bring you to that. Thus you shift forwards and backwards. You say, The Magistrate has no Power to punish Men, to compel them to his Religion; but only to compel them to consider Reasons and Arguments proper to convince them of the Truth of his Religion; which is all one as to say, no Body has Power to chuse your way for you to Jerusalem; [35] but yet the Lord of the Mannor has Power to punish you, to bring you to consider Reasons and Arguments proper and sufficient to convince you (of what?) that the way he goes in, is the right, and so to make you join in Company, and go along with him. So that, in Effect, what is all your going about, but to come at last to the same Place again; and put a Power into the Magistrate's Hands, (under another Pretence) to compel Men to his Religion; which Use of Force the Author has sufficiently overthrown, and you your self have quitted. But I am tired to follow you so often round the same Circle.

L. 3. pag. 67. But it seems you have not done with this yet: For you say, you do neither me nor the Magistrate Injury, when you say that the Power I give the Magistrate, of punishing Men to make them consider Reasons and Arguments proper and sufficient to convince them, is to convince them of the Truth of his Religion, (whatever that be) and to bring them to it. Which seems a little strange and pleasant too.[34] But thus you prove it: For Men will never, in his Opinion, act according to Reason and sound Judgment, till they imbrace his Religion. And if you have the Brow of an honest Man, you will not say the Magistrate will ever punish you, to bring you to consider any other Reasons and Arguments but such as are proper to convince you of the Truth of his Religion, and to bring you to that. Which (besides the pleasant Talk of such Reasons and Arguments as are proper and sufficient to convince Men of the Truth of the Magistrate's Religion, though it be a false one) is just as much as to say, It is so, because in the Magistrate's Opinion it is so; and because it is not to be expected that he will act against his Opinion. As if the Magistrate's Opinion could change the Nature of things, and turn a Power to promote the true Religion, into a Power to promote a false one. No, Sir, the Magistrate's Opinion has no such Virtue. It may indeed keep him from exercising the Power he has to promote the true Religion; and it may lead him to abuse the Pretence of it, to the promo [...]ing a false one: But it can neither destroy that Power, nor make it any thing but what it is. And therefore whatever the Magistrate's Opinion be, his Power was given him (as the Apostles Power was to them) for Edification only, not for Destruction: And it may always be said of him, (what St. Paul said of himself) that he can do nothing against the Truth, but for the Truth. And therefore if the Magistrate punishes me, to bring me to a false Religion; it is not his Opinion that will excuse[35]him, when he comes to answer for it to his Judg. For certainly Men are as accountable for their Opinions (those of them, I mean, which influence their Practice) as they are for their Actions. Here is therefore no shifting forwards and backwards, as you pretend; nor any Circle, but in your own Imagination. For though it be true that I say, The Magistrate has no Power to punish Men, to compel them to his Religion; yet I no where say, nor will it follow from any thing I do say, That he has Power to compel them to consider Reasons and Arguments proper to convince them of the Truth of his Religion. But I do not much wonder that you indeavour to put this upon me. For I think by this time it is pretty plain, that otherwise you would have but little to say: And it is an Art very much in Use among some sort of learned Men, when they cannot confute what an Adversary does say, to make him say what he does not; that they may have something which they can confute.

The Beginning of this Answer is part of the old Song of Triumph; What! Reasons and Arguments proper and sufficient to convince Men of the Truth of Falshood? Yes, Sir, the Magistrate may use Force to make Men consider those Reasons and Arguments, which he thinks proper and sufficient to convince Men of the Truth of his Religion, though his Religion be a false one. And this is as possible for him to do, as for a Man, as learned as your self, to write a Book, and use Arguments, as he thinks proper and sufficient to convince Men of the Truth of his Opinion, though it be a Falshood.

[36]

As to the remaining part of your Answer, the Question is not, Whether the Magistrate's Opinion can change the Nature of things, or the Power he has, or excuse him to his Judg for misusing of it? But this, that since all Magistrates in your Opinion have Commission, and are obliged to promote the true Religion by Force, and they can be guided in the Discharge of this Duty by nothing but their own Opinion of the true Religion, What Advantage can this be to the true Religion, what Benefit to their Subjects, or whether it amounts to any more than a Commission to every Magistrate to use Force for the promoting his own Religion? To this Question therefore you will do well to apply your Answer, which a Man of less Skill than you will be scarce able to do.

You tell us indeed, that whatever the Magistrate's Opinion be, his Power was given him (as the Apostles Power was to them) for Edification only, and not for Destruction. But if the Apostles Power had been given them for one End, and St. Paul, St. Peter, and nine others of the twelve had had nothing to guide them but their own Opinion, which led them to another End; I ask you whether the Edification of the Church could have been carried on as it was?

You tell us farther, that it may always be said of the Magistrate, (what St. Paul said of himself) that he can do nothing against the Truth, but for the Truth. Witness the K. of France. If you say this in the same Sense that St. Paul said it of himself, who in all things requisite for Edification, had the immediate Direction and Guidance of the unerring Spirit of God, and so was infallible, we need not go to Rome for an infallible Guide, every Country has one in their Magistrate. If you apply these Words to the Magistrate in another Sense, than what St. Paul spoke them in of himself, sober Men will be apt to think, you have a great Care to insinuate into others a high Veneration for the Magistrate; but that you your self have no over-great Reverence for the Scripture, which you thus use; nor for Truth, which you thus defend.

To deny the Magistrate to have a Power to compel Men to his Religion: But yet to say the Magistrate has a Power, and is bound to punish Men to make them consider till they cease to reject the true Religion, of which true Religion he must be Judg, or else nothing can be done in Discharge of this his Duty, is so like [37] going round about to come to the same place, that it will always be a Circle in mine and other Peoples Imagination, and not only there, but in your Hypothesis.

All that you say turns upon the Truth or Falshood of this P. 76. Proposition; That whoever punishes any one in Ma [...]ters of Religion to make him consider, takes upon him to be Judg for another what is right in Matters of Religion. This you think plainly involves a Contradiction; and so it would, if these general Terms had in your use of them their ordinary and usual meaning. But, Sir, be but pleased to take along with you, That whoever punishes any Man your way in Matters of Religion, to make him consider, as you use the word consider, takes upon him to be Judg for another what is right in Matters of Religion: and you will find it so far from a Contradiction, that it is a plain Truth. For your way of punishing is a peculiar way, and is this; That the Magistrate, where the National Religion is the true Religion, should punish those who dissent from it, to make them consider as they ought, i. e. till they cease to reject, or, in other words, till they conform to it. If therefore he punishes none but those who dissent from, and punishes them till they conform to that which he judges the true Religion, does he not take on him to judg for them what is the true Religion?

'Tis true indeed what you say, there is no other reason to punish another to make him consider, but that he should judg for himself: and this will always hold true amongst those, who when they speak of considering, mean considering, and nothing else. But then these things will follow from thence: 1. That in inflicting of Penalties to make Men consider, the Magistrate of a Country, where the National Religion is false, no more misapplies his Power, than he whose Religion is true; for one has as much right to punish the Negligent to make them consider, study and examine Matters of Religion, as the other. 2. If the Magistrate punishes Men in Matters of Religion, truly to make them consider, he will punish all that do not consider, whether Conformists or Nonconformists. 3. If the Magistrate punishes in Matters of Religion to make Men consider, it is, as you say, to make Men judg for themselves: for there is no use of considering, but in order to judging. But then when a Man has judg'd for himself, the Penalties for not considering are to be taken off: for else your saying that a Man is punished to make him consider, that he may [38] judg for himself, is plain Mockery. So that either you must reform your Scheme, or allow this Proposition to be true, viz. Whoever punishes any Man in Matters of Religion, to make him in your sense consider, takes upon him to judg for another what is right in Matters of Religion: and with it the Conclusion, viz. Therefore whoever punishes any one in Matters of Religion, to make him consider, takes upon him to do what no Man can do, and consequently misapplies his Power of punishing, if he has that Power. Which Conclusion you say you should readily admit as sufficiently demonstrated, if the Proposition before mentioned were true.

But further, if it could enter into the Head of any Law-maker but you, to punish Men for the omission of, or to make them perform any internal Act of the Mind, such as is Consideration. Whoever in matter of Religion would lay an Injunction on Men to make them consider, could not do it without judging for them in Matters of Religion, unless they had no Religion at all, and then they come not within our Author's Toleration, which is a Toleration only of Men of different Religions, or of different Opinions in Religion. For supposing you the Magistrate with full Power and (as you imagin'd) Right of punishing any one in Matters of Religion, how could you possibly punish any one to make him consider, without judging for him what is right in Matters of Religion? I will suppose my self brought before your Worship, under what Character you please, and then I desire to know what one or more Questions you would ask me, upon my Answer to which you could judg me fit to be punished to make me consider, without taking upon you to judg for me what is right in Matters of Religion? for I conclude from the Fashion of my Coat, or the Colour of my Eyes, you would not judg that I ought to be punished in Matters of Religion to make me consider. If you could, I should allow you not only as capable, but much more capable of coactive Power than other Men.

But since you could not judg me to need Punishment in Matters of Religion, to make me consider, without knowing my Thoughts concerning Religion, we will suppose you (being of the Church of England) would examine me in the Catechism and Liturgy of that Church, which possibly I could neither say nor answer right to 'Tis like, upon this you would judg me fit to be pu [...]ished to make me consider. Wherein, 'tis evident, you judg'd for me, that the Religion of the Church of England [39] was right; for without that Judgment of yours you would not have punished me. We will suppose you to go yet farther, and examine me concerning the Gospel, and the Truth of the Principles of the Christian Religion, and you find me answer therein not to your liking: here again no doubt you will p [...]nish me to make me consider; but is it not because you judg for me, that the Christian Religion is the right? Go on thus as far as you will, and till you find I had no Religion at all, you could not punish me to make me to consider, without taking upon you to judg for me what is right in Matters of Religion.

To punish without a Fault, is Injustice; and to punish a Man without judging him guilty of that Fault, is also Injustice; and to punish a Man who has any Religion to make him consider, or, which is the same thing, for not having sufficiently considered, is no more nor less, but punishing him for not being of the Religion you think best for him; that is the Fault, and that is the Fault you judg him guilty of, call it considering as you please: for let him fall into the Hands of a Magistrate of whose Religion he is, he judgeth him to have considered sufficiently. From whence 'tis plain, 'tis Religion is judg'd of, and not Consideration, or want of Consideration. And 'tis in vain to pretend that he is punish'd to make him judg for himself: for he that is of any Religion, has already judg'd for himself; and if you punish him after that, under pretence to make him consider that he may judg for himself, 'tis plain you punish him to make him judg otherwise than he has already judg'd, and to judg as you have judg'd for him.

Your next Paragraph complains of my not having contradicted the following Words of yours, which I had cited out of your A. p. 26. which that the Reader may judg of, I shall here set down again. And all the Hurt that comes to them by it, is only the suffering some tolerable Inconveniences, for their following the Light of their own Reason, and the Dictates of their own Consciences: which certainly is no such Mischief to Mankind, as to make it more eligible, that there should be no such Power vested in the Magistrate; but the Care of every Man's Soul should be left to him alone, (as this Author demands it should be:) that is, that every Man should be suffered quietly, and without the least molestation, either to take no care at all of his Soul, if he be so pleased; or in doing it, to follow his own groundless Prejudices, or unaccountable Humour, or any crafty Seducer, [40] whom he may think fit to take for his Guide. To which I shall here subjoin my Answer and your Reply.

L. 2. p. 67. Why should not the care of every Man's Soul be left to himself, rather than the Magistrate? Is the Magistrate like to be more concern'd for it? Is the Magistrate like to take more care of it? Is the Magistrat commonly more careful of his own, than other Men are of theirs? Will you say the Magistrate is less expos'd in Matters of Religion, to Prejudices, Humours, and crafty Seducers, than other Men? If you cannot lay your Hand on your Heart, and say all this, What then will be got by the change? And why may not the Care of [41] every Man's Soul be left to himself? Especially, if a Man be in so much danger to miss the Truth, who is suffered quietly, and without the least [...], either to take no care of his Soul, if he be so pleased, or to follow his own Prejudices, &c. For if want of Molestation be the dangerous State wherein Men are likeliest to miss the right way, it must be confessed, that of all Men, the Magistrate is most in danger to be in the wrong, and so the unfittest (if you take the Care of Mens Souls from themselves) of all Men, to be intrusted with it. For he never me [...] with that great and only [...] of yours against [42] Error, which you here call Molestation. He never has the benefit of your soverain Remedy, Punishment, to make him consider; which you think so necessary, that you look on it as a most dangerous State for Men to be without it; and therefore tell us, 'Tis every Man's true [...], not to be left wholly to himself in Matters of Religion.

L. 3. p. 76. [...] Words you set down at large; but instead of contradicting them, or offering [...] show that the Mischi [...]t spoken of, is such [...] [...]akes it more eligible, &c. you only deman [...] Why s [...]uld not the Care of every Man's [...]l be le [...] [...] himself, rather than the [...]? Is the Magistrate like to be more concern'd for it? Is the Magistrate like to take more care of it? &c. As if not to leave the Care of every Man's Soul to himself alone, were, as you express it afterwards, to take the Care of Mens Souls from themselves: Or as if to vest a Power in the Magistrate, to procure as much as in him lies (i. e. as far as it can be procured by convenient Penalties) that Men take such Care of their Souls as they ought to do, were to leave the Care of their Souls to the Magistrate rather than to themselves: Which no Man but your self will imagine. I acknowledg as freely as you can do, that as every Man is more concern'd than any Man else can be, so he is likewise more obliged to take care of his Soul; and that no Man can by any means be discharged of the Care of his Soul; which, when all is done, will never be saved but by his own Care of it. But do I contradict any thing of this, when I say, that the Care of every Man's Soul ought not to be left to himself alone? or, that it is the Interest of Mankind, that the Magistrate be entrusted and obliged to take care, as far as lies in him, that no Man neglect his own Soul? I thought, I confess, that every Man was i [...] some sort charged with the Care of his Neighbour's Soul. But in your way of reasoning, he that affirms this, takes away the Care of every Man's Soul [...] himself, and leaves it to his Neighbour rather than to himself. But if this be plainly absurd, as every one[41]sees it is, then so it must be likewise to say, that he that vests such a Power as we here speak of in the Magistrate, takes away the Care of Mens Souls from themselves, and places it in the Magistrate, rather than in themselves. What trisling then is it to say here, If you cannot lay your Hand upon your Heart, and say all this, (viz. that the Magistrate is like to be more concerned for other Mens Souls than themselves, &c.) What then will be got by the Change? For 'tis plain, here is no such Change as you would insinuate: but the Care of Souls which I assert to the Magistrate, is so far from discharging any Man of the Care of his own Soul, or lessening his Obligation to it, that it serves to no other Purpose in the World, but to bring Men, who otherwise would not, to consider and do what the Interest of their Souls obliges them to. 'Tis therefore manifest, that the thing here to be consider'd, is not, Whether the Magistrate be like to be more concern'd for other Mens Souls, or to take more care of them than themselves: nor, Whether he be commonly more careful of his own Soul, than other Men are of theirs: nor, Whether he be less exposed, in Matters of Religion, to Prejudices, Humours, and crafty Seducers, than other Men: nor yet, Whether he be not more in danger to be in the wrong than other Men, in regard that he never meets with that great and only Antidote of mine (as you call it) against Error, which I here call Molestation. But the Point upon which this matter turns, is only this, Whether the Salvation of Souls be not better provided for, if the Magistrate be obliged to procure, as much as in him lies, that every Man take such care as he ought of his Soul, than if he be not so obliged, but the Care of every Man's[42]Soul be left to himself alone: Which certainly any Man of common Sense may easily determine. For as you will not, I suppose, deny but God has more amply provided for the Salvation of your own Soul, by obliging your Neighbour, as well as your self, to take care of it; tho 'tis possible your Neighbour may not be more concern'd for it, than your self; or may not be more careful of his own Soul, than you are of yours; or may be no less exposed, in Matters of Religion, to Prejudices, &c. than you are; because if you are your self wanting to your own Soul, it is more likely that you will be brought to take care of it, if your Neighbour be obliged to admonish and exhort you to it, than if he be not; tho [...]h it may fall out that he will not do what he is obliged to do in that case: So I think it cannot be denied, but the Salvation of all Mens Souls is better provided for, if besides the Obligation which every Man has to take care of his own Soul, (and that which every Man's Neighbour has likewise to do it) the Magistrate also be [...]trusted and obliged to see that no Man [...]trusted his Soul, than it would be, if every Man were left to himself in this matter: Because though we should admit that the Magistrate is not like to be, or is not ordinarily more concern'd for other Mens Souls, than they themselves are, &c. it is nevertheless undeni [...]bly true still, that whoever neglects his Soul, is more likely to be brought to take care of it, if the Magistrate be obliged to do what lies in him to bring him to do it, than if he be not. Which is enough to shew, that it is every Man's true Interest, that the Care of his Soul should not be left to himself alone, but that the Magistrate should be so far entrusted with it as I contend that he is.

Your Complaint of my not having formally contradicted the Words above cited [...] of A. p. 26. looking as if there were some weighty Argument in them: I must inform my Reader, that they are subjoin'd to thos, wherein you recommend the use of Force in [...] of [...], by the Gain those that are punish'd shall make by it, though it be misapplied by the Magistrate [43] to bring them to a wrong Religion. So that these Words of yours, all the Hurt that comes to them by it, is all the [...] that comes to Men by a [...] of the Magistrate's Power, when being of a [...] Religion he uses Force to bring Men to it. And then your Proposition stands thus, That the suffering what you call tolerable Inconveniences for their following the Light of their own Reasons, and the Dictates of their own Consciences, is no such Mischief to Mankind as to make it more eligible, that there should be no Power vested in the Magistrate to use Force to bring Men to the true Religion, though the Magistrates misapply this Power, i. e. use it to bring Men to their own Religion when false.

This is the Sum of what you say, if it has any coherent Meaning in it: For it being to shew the Usefulness of such a Power, vested in the Magistrate, under the Miscarriages and Misapplications it is in common Practice observed to be liable to, can have no other Sense. But I having proved, that if such a Power be by the Law of Nature vested in the Magistrate, every Magistrate is obliged to use it for the promoting of his Religion as far as he believes it to be true, shall not much trouble my self, if like a Man of Art you should use your Skill to give it another Sense: for such is your natural Talent or great Caution, that you love to speak indesinitely, and as seldom as may be leave your self accountable for any Propositions of a clear determined Sense; but under Words of doubtful, but [...] plausible Signification, conceal a meaning, which plainly expressed would at first Sight appear to contradict your own Positions, or common Sense: Instances whereof more than one we have here in this Sentence of yours. For, 1. the Words tolerable Inconveniences carry a very fair Shew of some very [...] Matter; and yet when we come to examine them, may comprehend any of those Severities lately used in France. For these tolerable Inconveniences are the same you in this very Page and elsewhere call convenient Penalties. Convenient for what? In this very Place they must [...] [...], as may keep Men from following their own groundless [...], unaccountable Humours, and [...] [...]. And you tell us, the Magistrate may require P. 48. Men under convenient Penalties to forsake their false Religions, and [44] imbrace the true. Who now must be Judg, in these Cases, what are convenient Penalties? Common Sense will tell us, the Magistrate that uses them: but besides we have your Word for it, that the P. 50. Magistrate's Prudence and Experience inables him to judg best what Penalties do agree with your Rule of Moderation, which as I have shewe is no Rule at all. So that at last your tolerable Inconveni [...] [...]ces are such as the Magistrate shall judg convenient to oppose to Mens Prejudices, Humours, and to Seducers; such as he shall think convenient to bring Men from their false Religions, or to punish their rejecting the true; which whether they will not reach Mens Estates and Liberties, or go as far as any the King of France has used, is more than you can be Security for. 2. Another Set of good Words we have here, which at first hearing are apt to ingage Mens Concern, as if too much could not be done to recover Men from so perilous a State as they seem to describe; and those are Men following their own groundless Prejudices, unaccountable Humours, or crafty Seducers. Are not these Expressions to set forth a deplorable Condition, and to move Pity in all that hear them? Enough to make the unattentive Reader ready to cry out, Help for the Lord's sake; do any thing rather than suffer such poor prejudiced seduced People to be eternally lost. Whereas he that examines what Persons these Words can in your Scheme describe, will find they are only such as any where dissent from those Articles of Faith and Ceremonies of outward Worship, which the Magistrate, or at least you his Director approve of. For whilst you talk thus of the true Religion in general, (and that so general, that you cannot allow your self to descend so near to Particulars, as to recommend the Searching and Study of the Scriptures to find it) and that the Power in the Magistrates Hands to use Force, is to bring Men to the true Religion; I ask, whether you do not think, either he or you must be Judg, which is the true Religion, before he can exercise that Power? and then he must use his Force upon all those who dissent from it, who are then the prejudiced, humoursom, and seduced you here speak of. Unless this be so, and the Magistrate be Judg, I ask, Who shall resolve which is the prejudiced Person, the Prince with his Politicks, or he that suffers for his Religion? Which the more dangerous Seducer, Lewis the XLVth with his Dragoons, or Mr. Claud with [45] his Sermons? It will be no small Difficulty to sind out the Persons who are guilty of following groundless Prejudices, unaccountable Humours, or crafty Seducers, unless in those Places where you shall be graciously pleased to decide the Question; and out of the Plenitude of your Power and Infallibility to declare which of the Civil Sovereigns now in being do, and which do not espouse the one only true Religion, and then we shall certainly know that those who dissent from the Religion of those Magistrates, are these prejudiced, humourso [...], seduced Persons.

But truly as you put it here, you leave the Matter very perplex'd, when you defend the Eligibleness of vesting a Power in the Magistrates Hands, to remedy by Penalty Mens following their own groundless Prejudices, unaccountable Humours, and cra [...]y Seducers, when in the same Sentence you suppose the Magistrate who is vested with this Power, may inslict those Penalties on Men, for their following the Light of their own Reason, and the Dictates of their own Consciences; which when you have considered, perhaps you will not think my Answer so wholly besides the matter, though it shewed you but that one Absurdity, without a formal Contradiction to so loose and undetermin'd a Proposition, that it required more Pains to unravel the Sense of what was covered under deceitful Expressions, than the Weight of the Matter contained in them was worth.

For besides what is already said to it: How is it possible for any one (who had the greatest Mind in the World to Contradiction) to deny it to be more eligible that such a Power should be vested in the Magistrate, till he knows, to whom you affirm it to be more eligible? Is it more eligible to those who suffer by it, for following the Light of their own Reason, and the Dictates of their own Consciences? for these you know are Gainers by it, for they know better than they did before where the Truth does lie. Is it more eligible to those who have no other Thoughts of Religion, but to be of that of their Country without any farther Examination? Or is it more eligible to those who think it their Duty to examine Matters of Religion, and to follow that which upon Examination appears to them the Truth? The former of these two make, I think, the greater part of Mankind, though the latter be the better advised: but upon what Grounds it should be more eligible to either of them, that the Magistrate should, than that he should not have a Power vested in him to use Force [46] to bring Men to the true Religion, when it cannot be imployed but to bring Men to that which he thinks the true, i. e. to his own Religion, is not easy to guess. Or is it more eligible to the Priests and Ministers of National Religions every-where, that the Magistrate should be vested with this Power? who being sure to be Orthodox, will have Right to claim the Assistance of the Magistrate's Power to bring those whom their Arguments, or no Arguments can prevail on, to imbrace their true Religion, and to worship God in decent ways prese [...]d by those to whom God has left the ordering of such Matters. Or last of all, Is it more eligible to all Mankind? And are the Magistrates of the World so careful or so lucky in the choice of their Reli [...]ion, that it would be an Advantage to Mankind, that they should have a Right to do what in them lies, i. e. to use all the Force they have, if they think convenient, to bring Men to the Religion they think true? When you have told us to which of these or what other, it is more eligible; I suppose the Reader will without my contradicting it, see how little Truth there is in it, or how little to your Purpose.

If you will pardon me for not having contradicted that Passage of yours we have been considering, I will indeavour to make you amends in what you say in Reply to my Answer to it, and tell you that, notwithstanding all you say to the contrary, such a Power as you would have to be vested in the Magistrate, takes away the Care of Mens Souls from themselves, and places it in the Magistrate, rather than in themselves. For if when Men have examined, and upon Examination imbrace what appears to them the true Religion, the Magistrate has a Right to treat them as misled by Prejudice, Humour, or Seducers; if he may use what Force, and inslict what Punishments he shall think convenient till they conform to the Religion the Magistrate judges the true; I think you will scarce deny, but that the Care of their Souls is by such a Power placed rather in the Magistrate than in themselves, and taken as much from them as by Force and Authority it can be. This, whatever you pretend, is the Power which your System places in the Magistrate. Nor can he upon your Principles exercise it otherwise, as I imagine I have shewed.

You speak here, as if this Power, which you would have to be vested in the Magistrate, did not at all discharge, but assist the [47] Care every one has or ought to have of his own Soul. I grant, were the Power you would place in the Magistrate such as every Man has to take Care of his Neighbour's Soul, which is to express it self only by Counsel, Arguments and Perswasion; it left him still the free Liberty of judging for himself; and so the Care of his Soul remained still in his own Hands. But if Men be perswaded, that the wise and good God has vested a Power in the Magistrate, to be so far Judg for them, what is the true Religion, as to punish them for rejecting the Religion which the Magistrate thinks the true, when offer'd with such Evidence as he judges sufficient to convince them; and to punish them on till they consider so as to imbrace it; what remains, but that they render themselves to the Care and Conduct of a Guide that God in his Goodness has appointed them, who having Authority and Commission from God to be Judg for them, which is the true Religion, and what are Arguments proper and sufficient to convince any one of it; and he himself being convinc'd of it, why should they be so foolish, as to suffer Punishments in Opposition to a Power which is in the right, and they ought to submit to? To what Purpose should they, under the Weight of Penalties waste Time and Pains in examining, since whatever they should judg upon Examination, the Magistrate judging the Arguments and Reasons he offers for the Truth of his Religion, proper and sufficient to convince them, they must still lie under the Punishment the Magistrate shall think convenient till they do comply?

Besides, when they are thus punished by their Magistrate for not conforming, what need they examine? Since you tell them, It is not strictly necessary to Salvation, that all that are of the true Religion should understand the Grounds of it. The Magistrate being of the one only true Religion, knows it to be so [...] and he knows that that Religion was tender'd to them with sufficient Evidence, and therefore is obliged to punish them for rejecting it. This is that which Men must upon your Scheme suppose; for it is, what you your self must suppose, before the Magistrate can exercise that Power you contend to be vested in him, as is evident to any one, who will put your System together, P. 48. and particularly weigh what you say.

When therefore Men are put into such a State as this, that the Magistrate may judg which is the true Religion; the Magistrate [48] may judg what is sufficient Evidence of its Truth; the Magistrate may be Judg to whom it is tender'd with sufficient Evidence, and punish them that reject it so proposed with such Penalties as he also shall judg convenient, and all this by God's Appointment, and an Authority received from the wise and benign Governor of all things, I ask, whether the Care of Mens Souls are not taken out of their own Hands, and put into the Magistrates? Whether in such a State they can or will think there is any need, or that it is to any purpose for them to examine? And whether this be a Cure for the natural Aversion that is in Men to consider and weigh Matters of Religion; and the way to force, or so much as incourage them to examine?

But, say you, the Salvation of all Mens Souls is better provided P. 78. for, if besides the Obligation that every Man has to take Care of his own Soul, the Magistrate also be intrusted and obliged to see that no Man neglect his own Soul, than it would be if every Man were left to himself in that matter. Whatever Ground another may have to say this, you can have none: You who give so good Reason P. 64. why Conformists, though never so ignorant and negligent in examining Matters of Religion, cannot yet be punished to make them consider, must acknowledg that ALL Mens Salvation is not the better provided for by a Power vested in the Magistrate, which cannot reach the far greatest part of Men, which are every-where the Conformist to the National Religion. You that plead so well for the Magistrates not examining whether P. 22. those that conform, do it upon Reason and Conviction, but say it is ordinary presumable they do so; Wherein I beseech you do you put this Care of Mens Salvation that is placed in the Magistrate? even in bringing them to outward Conformity to the National Religion, and there leaving them. And are the Souls of all Mankind the better provided for, if the Magistrates of the World are vested with a Power to use Force to bring Men to an outward Profession of what they think the true Religion, without any other Care of their Salvation? For [...]hither, and no farther, reaches their Use of Force in your way of applying it.

Give me leave therefore to trifle with you once again, and to desire you to lay your Hand upon your Heart, and tell me what Mankind shall gain by the Change? For I hope by this time it is not so much a Paradox to you, that if the Magistrate be commissioned [49] by God to take Care of Mens Souls, in your way it takes away the Care of Mens Souls from themselves in all those who have need of this Assistance of the Magistrate, i. e. all those who neglect to consider, and are averse to Examination.

One thing more give me leave to observe to you, and that is, that taking Care of Mens Souls or taking Care that they neglect not their Souls, and laying Penalties on them to bring them in outward Profession to the National Religion are two very different things, though in this Place and elsewhere you confound them, and would have Penal Laws, requiring Church-Conformity, pass under the Name of Care of Mens Souls, for that is the utmost your way of applying Force does or can reach to; and what Care is therein taken of Mens Souls, may be seen by the Lives and Knowledg observable in not a few Conformists. This is not said to lay any Blame on Conformity, but to shew how improperly you speak, when you call Penal Laws made to promote Conformity, and Force used to bring Men to it, a Care of Mens Souls; when even the exactest Observers, and most zealous Advancers of Conformity may be as irreligious, ignorant, and vicious as any other Men.

In the first Treatise we heard not a Syllable of any other Use or End of Force in Matters of Religion, but only to make Men consider. But in your second, being forced to own bare-faced the punishing of Men for their Religion, you call it, a Vice to P. 13. reject the true Faith, and to refuse to worship God in decent ways prescribed by those to whom God has left the ordering of it; and tell us, that it is a Fault which may justly be punished by the Magistrate, P. 20. not to be of the National Religion, where the true is the National Religion. To make this Doctrine of Persecution seem limited, and go down the better, to your telling us it must be only where the National Religion is the true, and that the Penalties must be moderate and convenient; both which Limitations having no other Judg but the Magistrate, (as I have shewed elsewhere) are no Li [...] at all, you in Words add a third, that in effect si [...]nifies just as much as the other two: and that is, If there be s [...]fficient means of Instruction provided for all P. 20. for instructing them in the Truth of it; of which Provision the Magistrate also being to be Judg, your Limitation [...] leave him as free to punish all Dissenters from his own Religion, as any Persecutor can wish: For what he will think sufficient Means of Instruction, it will be hard for you to say.

[50]

In the mean time, as far as may be gathered from what you say in another Place, we will examine what you think sufficient Provision for instructing Men, which you have expressed in these Words; For if the Magistrate provides sufficiently for the Instruction P. 63. of all his Subjects in the true Religion, and then requires them all under convenient Penalties to hearken to the Teachers and Ministers of it, and to profess and exercise it with one Accord under their Direction in publick Assemblies. That which stumbles one at the first View of this your Method of Instruction is, that you leave it uncertain, whether Dissenters must first be instructed, and then profess; or else first profess, and then be instructed in the National Religion. This you will do well to be a little more clear in the next time; for you mentioning no Instruction but in publick Assemblies, and perhaps meaning it for a Country where there is little other Pains taken with Dissenters but the Confutation and Condemnation of them in Assemblies, where they are not, they must cease to be Dissenters before they can partake of this sufficient means of Instruction.

And now for those who do with one Accord put themselves under the Direction of the Ministers of the National, and hearken to these Teachers of the true Religion. I ask whether one half of those whereof most of the Assemblies are made up, do or can (so ignorant as they are) understand what they hear from the Pulpit? And then whether if a Man did understand, what in many Assemblies ordinarily is delivered once a Week there for his Instruction, he might not yet at threescore Years End be ignorant of the Grounds and Principles of the Christian Religion? Your having so often in your Letter mentioned sufficient Provision of Instruction, has forced these two short Questions from me. But I forbear to tell you what I have heard very sober People, even of the Church of England, say upon this Occasion: For you have warned me already, that it shall be interpreted to be a Quarrel to the Clergy in general, if any thing shall be taken notice of in any of them worthy to be mended. I leave it to those whose Profession it is to judg, whether Divinity be a Science wherein Men may be instructed by an Harangue or two on [...]e a Week, upon any Subject at a Venture, which has no Coherence with that which preceded, or that which is to follow, and this made to People that are ignorant of the first Principles of it, and are not capable of understanding such ways of Discourses. [51] I am sure he that should think this a sufficient Means of instructing People in any other Science, would at the End of seven or twenty Years find them very little advanced in it. And bating perhaps some Terms and Phrases belonging to it, would be as far from all true and useful Knowledg of it as when they first began. Whether it be so in Matter [...] of Religion, those who have the Oportunity to observe must judg. And if it appear that amongst those of the National Church there be very many so ignorant, that there is nothing more frequent than for the Ministers themselves to complain of it, it is manifest from those of the National Church (whatever may be concluded from Dissenters) that the Means of Instruction provided by the Law, are not sufficient, unless that be sufficient Means of Instruction, which Men of sufficient Capacity for other things, may live under many Years, and yet know very little by. If you say it is for want of Consideration, must not your Remedy of Force be used to bring them to it? Or how will the Magistrate answer for it, if he use Force to make Dissenters consider, and let those of his own Church perish for want of it?

This being all one can well understand by your sufficient Means of Instruction, as you there explain it, I do not see but Men who have no Aversion to be instructed, may yet fail of it, notwithstanding such a Provision. Perhaps by exercising the true Religion with one Accord under the Direction of the Ministers of it in publick Assemblies, you mean something farther; but that not being an ordinary Phrase, will need your Explication to make it understood. [...]

[52]

CHAP. II. Of the Magistrate's Commission to use Force in Matters of Religion.↩

THough in the foregoing Chapter our examining your Doctrine concerning the Magistrates who may or may not use Force in Matters of Religion, we have in several places happened to take notice of the Commission whereby you authorize Magistrates to act; yet we shall in this Chapter more particularly consider that Commission. You tell us, To use Force in Matters of Religion, is a Duty of the Magistrate as old as P. 35. the Law of Nature, in which the Magistrate's Commission lies: for the Scripture does not properly give it him, but supposes it. And more P. 31. at large you give us an account of the Magistrate's Commission in these Words: [...]is true indeed, the Author and Finisher of our Faith has given the Magistrate no new Power or Commission: nor was there any need that he should, (if himself had any Temporal Power to give:) For he found him already, even by the Law of Nature, the Minister of God to the People for Good, and bearing the Sword not in vain, i. e. invested with coactive Power, and obliged to use it for all the good Purposes which it might serve, and for which it should be found needful; even for the restraining of false and corrupt Religion: as Job long before (perhaps before any part of the Scriptures were written) acknowledged, when he said, that the worshipping the Sun or Job XXI. 26, 27, 28. the Moon, was an Iniquity to be punished by the Judg. But though our Saviour has given the Magistrates no new Power, yet being King of Kings, he expects and requires that they should submit themselves to his Sc [...]pter, and use the Power which always belonged to them, for his Service, and for the advancing his spiritual Kingdom in the World. And even that Charity which our great Master so earnestly recommends, and so strictly requires of all his Disciples, as it obliges all Men to seck and promote the Good of others, as well as their own, especially their spiritual and eternal Good, by such Means as their several Places and Relations enable them to use; so does it especially oblige the Magistrate to do it as a Magistrate, i. e. by that Power which enables him to do it above the rate of other Men.

[53]

So far therefore is the Christian Magistrate, when he gives his helping-Hand to the furtherance of the Gospel, by laying convenient Penalties upon such as reject it, or any part of it, from using any other means for the Salvation of Mens Souls, than what the Author and Finisher of our Faith has directed, that he does no more than his Duty to God, to his Redeemer, and to his Subjects, requires of him.

Christ, you say, has given. no new Power or Commission to the Magistrate: and for this you give several Reasons. 1. There was no need that he should; yet it seems strange that the Christian Magistrates alone should have an exercise of coa [...]ve Power in Matters of Religion, and yet our Saviour should say nothing of it, but leave them to that Commission which was common to them with all other Magistrates. The Christian Religion in cases of less moment is not wanting in its Rules; and I know not whether you will not charge the New Testament with a great Defect, if that Law alone which teaches the only true Religion, that Law which all Magistrates who are of the true Religion, receive and embrace, should say nothing at all of so necessary and important a Duty to those who alone are in a Capacity to discharge it, but leave them only to that general Law of Nature, which others who are not qualified to use this Force, have in common with them.

This at least seems needful, if a new Commission does not, that the Christian Magistrates should have been instructed what Degree of Force they should use, and been limited to your moderate Penalties; since for above these 1200 Years, though they have readily enough found out your Commission to use Force, they never found out your moderate use of it, which is that alone which you assure us is useful and necessary.

2. You say, If our Saviour had any Temporal Power to give; whereby you seem to give this as a reason why he gave not the Civil Magistrate Power to use Force in Matters of Religion, that he had it not to give. You tell us in the same Paragraph, that he is King of Kings; and he tells us himself, That all Power is given Matth. XXVIII. 18. unto him in Heaven and in Earth: So that he could have given what Power, to whom, and to what Purpose he had pleased: and concerning this there needs no if.

3. For he found him already by the Law of Nature invested with coactive Power, and obliged to use it for all the good Purposes which it might serve, and for which it should be found needful. He found [54] also Fathers, Husbands, Masters, invested with their distinct Powers by the same Law, and under the same Obligation; and yet he thought it needsul to prescribe to them in the use of those Powers: But there was no need he should do so to the Civil Magistrates in the use of their Power in Matters of Religion; because tho Fathers, Husbands, Masters, were liable to Excess in the use of theirs, ye [...] Christian Magistrates were not, as appears by their having always kept to those moderate Measures, which you assure us to be the only necessary and useful.

And what at last is their Commission? Even that of Charity, which obliges all Men to seek and promote the Good of others, especially their spiritual and eternal Good, by such means as their several Places and Relations enable them to use, especially Magistrates as Magistrates. This Duty of Charity is well discharged by the Magistrate as Magistrate, is it not? in bringing Men to an outward Profession of any, even of the true Religion, and leaving them there? But, Sir, I ask you who must be Judg, what is for the spiritual and eternal Good of his Subjects, the Magistrate himself or no? If not he himself, who for him? Or can it be done without any one's judging at all? If he, the Magistrate, must judg every-where himself what is for the spiritual and eternal Good of his Subjects, as I see no help for it [...] if the Magistrate be every-where by the Law of Nature obliged to promote their spiritual and eternal Good, is not the true Religion like to find great Advantage in the World by the use of Force in the Magistrates Hands? And is not this a plain demonstration that God has by the Law of Nature given Commission to the Magistrate to use Force for the promoting the true Religion, since (as it is evident) the execution of such a Commission will do so much more Harm than Good?

To shew that your indirect and at a distance Vsefulness, with a general necessity of Force, authorizes the Civil Power in the use of it, you use the following Words; That Force does some service P. 17. towards the making of Scholars and Artists, I suppose you will easily grant. Give me leave therefore to ask, how it does it? I suppose you will say, not by its direct and proper Efficacy, (for Force is no more capable to work Learning or Arts, than the belief of the true Religion in Men by its direct and proper Efficacy;) but by prevailing upon those who are designed for Scholars or Artists, to receive Instruction, and to apply themselves to the use of those Means and Helps which are [55] proper to make them what they are designed to be: that is, it does it indirectly, and at a distance. Well then, if all the Vsefulness of the Force towards the bringing Scholars or Apprentices to the Learning or Skill they are designed to attain, be only an indirect and at a distance Usefulness; I pray what is it that warrants and authorizes Schoolmasters, Tutors or Masters, to use Force upon their Scholars or Apprentices, to bring them to Learning, or the Skill of their Arts and Trades, if such an indirect and at a distance Usefulness of Force, together with that Necessity of it which Experience discovers, will not do it? I believe you will acknowledg that even such an Vsefulness, together with that Necessity, will serve the turn in these cases. But then I would fain know, why the same kind of Vsefulness, joined with the like Necessity, will not as well do it in the case before us? I confess I see no reason why it should not; nor do I believe you can assign any. You ask here, what authorizes Schoolmasters or Masters to use Force on their Scholars and Apprentices, if such an indirect and at a distance Usefulness, together with Necessity, does not do it? I answer, neither your indirect and at a distance Vsefulness, nor the Necessity you suppose of it. For I do not think you will say, that any Schoolmaster has a power to teach, much less to use Force on any one's Child, without the Consent and Authority of the Father: but a Father, you will say, has a power to use Force to correct his Child to bring him to Learning or Skill in that Trade he is designed to; and to this the Father is authorized by the Usefulness and Necessity of Force. This I deny, that the meer-supposed Usefulness and Necessity of Force authorizes the Father to use it; for then whenever he judg'd it useful and necessary for his Son, to prevail with him to apply himself to any Trade, he might use Force upon him to that purpose; which I think neither you nor any body else will say, a Father has a right to do on his idle and perhaps married Son at 30 or 40 Years old.

There is then something else in the case; and whatever it be that authorizes the Father to use Force upon his Child, to make him a Prosicient in it, authorizes him also to chuse that Trade, A [...]t or Science he would have him a Proficient in: for the Father can no longer use Force upon his Son, to make him attain any Art or Trade, than he can pres [...]ribe to him the Art or Trade he is to attain. Put your Parallel now if you please: The Father by the Usefulness and N [...]sity of Force is authorized to [56] use it upon his Child, to make him attain any Art or Science; therefore the Magistrate is authorized to use Force to bring Men to the true Religion, because it is useful and necessary. Thus far you have used it, and you think it does well. But let us go on with the Parallel: This Usefulness and Necessity of Force authorizes the Father to use it, to make his Son apply himself to the use of the Means and Helps which are proper to make him what he is designed to be, no longer than it authorizes the Father to design what his Son shall be, and to chuse for him the Art or Trade he shall be of: and so the Usefulness and Necessity you suppose in Force to bring Men to any Church, cannot authorize the Magistrate to use Force any farther, than he has a right to chuse for any one what Church or Religion he shall be of. So that if you will stick to this Argument, and allow the Parallel between a Magistrate and a Father, and the right they have to use Force for the instructing of their Subjects in Religion, and Children in Arts, you must either allow the Magistrate to have power to chuse what Religion his Subjects shall be of, which you have denied, or else that he has no power to use Force to make them use Means to be of it.

A Father being entrusted with the Care and Provision for his Child, is as well bound in Duty, as fitted by natural Love and Tenderness, to supply the Defects of his tender Age. When it is born, the Child cannot move it self for the ease and help of natural Necessities, the Parents Hands must supply that Inability, and feed, cleanse and swaddle it. Age having given more Strength, and the exercise of the Limbs, the Parents are discharged from the trouble of putting Meat into the Mouth of the Child, clothing or unclothing, or carrying him in their Arms. The same Duty and Affection which required such kind of Helps to the Infant, makes them extend their Thoughts to other Cares for him when he is grown a little bigger; 'tis not only a present Support, but a future comfortable Subsistence begins to be thought on: to this some Art or Science is necessary, but the Child's Ignorance and want of Prospect makes him unable to chuse. And hence the Father has a power to chuse for him, that the flexible and docile part of Life may not be squandred away, and the time of Instruction and Improvement be lost for want of Direction. The Trade or Art being chosen by the Father, 'tis the Exercise and Industry of the Child must [57] acquire it to himself: but Industry usually wanting in Children, the Spur which Reason and Fore [...]ght gives to the Endeavours of grown Men, the Father's Rod and Correction is fain to supply that Want, to make him apply himself to the use of those Means and Helps which are proper to make him what he is designed to be. But when the Child is once come to the State of Manhood, and to be the Possessor and free Disposer of his Goods and Estate, he is then discharged from this Discipline of his Parents, and they have no longer any right to chuse any Art, Science, or Course of Life for him, or by Force to make him apply himself to the use of those Means which are proper to make him be what he designs to be. Thus the want of knowledg to chuse a sit Calling, and want of knowledg of the necessity of Pains and Industry to attain Skill in it, puts a Power into the Parents hands to use Force where it is necessary to procure the Application and Diligence of their Children in that, which their Parents have thought fit to set them to; but it gives this Power to the Parents only, and to no other whilst they live; and if they die whilst their Children need it, to their Substitutes; and there it is safely placed: for since their want of Knowledg during their Non-age, makes them want Direction; and want of Reason often makes them need Punishment and Force to excite their Endeavours, and keep them intent to the use of those Means that lead to the End they are directed to, the Tenderness and Love of Parents will engage them to use it only for their Good, and generally to quit it too, when by the Title of Manhood they come to be above the Direction and Discipline of Children. But how does this prove that the Magistrate has any right to force Men to apply themselves to the use of those Means and Helps which are proper to make them of any Religion, more than it proves that the Magistrate has a right to chuse for them what Religion they shall be of?

To your Question therefore, What is it that warrants and authorizes Schoolmasters, Tutors and Masters to use Force upon their Scholars or Apprentices? I answer, A Commission from the Father or Mother, or those who supply their Places; for without that no indirect or at a distance Vsefulness, or supposed Necessity, could authorize them.

But then you will ask, Is it not this Vsefulness and Necessity that gives this Power to the Father and Mother? I grant it. I [58] would fain know then, say you, why the same Vsefulness joined wit [...] the like Necessity, will as well do in the Case before us? And I, Sir, will as readily tell you: Because the Understanding of the Parents is to supply the want of it in the Minority of their Children; and therefore they have a right not only to use Force to make their Children apply themselves to the means of acquiring any Art or Trade, but to chuse also the Trade or Calling they shall be of. But when being come out of the State of Minority, they are supposed of Years of Discretion to chuse what they will design themselves to be, they are also at liberty to judg what Application and Industry they will use for the attaining of it; and then how negligent soever they are in the use of the Means, how averse soever to Instruction or Application, they are past the Correction of a Schoolmaster, and their Parents can no longer chuse or design for them what they shall be, nor use Force to prevail with them to apply themselves to the use of those Means and Helps which are proper to make them what they are designed to be. He that imagines a Father or Tutor may send his Son to School at thirty or forty Years old, and order him to be whipp'd there, or that any indirect and at a distance Usefulness will authorize him to be so used, will be thought fitter to be sent thither himself, and there to receive due Correction.

When you have consider'd 'tis otherwise in the case of the Magistrate using Force your way in Matters of Religion; that there his Understanding is not to supply the defect of Understanding in his Subjects, and that only for a time; that he cannot chuse for any of his Subjects what Religion he shall be of, as you your self confess; and that this Power of the Magistrate, if it be (as is claimed by you) over Men of all Ages, Parts and Endowments, you will perhaps see some reason why it should not do in the Case before us, as well as in that of Schoolmasters and Tutors, though you believe I cannot assign any. But, Sir, will your indirect and at a distance Vsefulness, together with your supposed Necessity, authorize the Master of the Shoe-makers Company to take any one who comes in his Hands, and punish him for not being of the Shoe-makers Company, and not coming to their Guild, when he, who has a right to chuse of what Trade and Company he will be, thinks it not his Interest to be a Shoe-maker? Nor can he or any body else imagine that this Force, this Punishment is used to make him a good Shoe-maker, when it is [59] seen and avowed that the Punishments cease, and they are free from it who enter themselves of the Company, whether they are really Shoe-makers, or in earnest apply themselves to be so or no. How much it differs from this, that the Magistrate should punish Men for not being of his Church, who chuse not to be of it, and when they are once entred into the Communion of it, are punished no more, though they are as ignorant, unskilful, and unpractised in the Religion of it as before: how much, I say, this differs from the Case I proposed, I leave you to consider. For after all your Pretences of using Force for the Salvation of Souls, and consequently to make Men really Christians, you are fain to allow, and you give Reasons for it, that Force is used only to those who are out of your Church: but whoever are once in it, are free from Force, whether they be really Christians, and apply themselves to those things which are for the Salvation of their Souls, or no.

As to what you say, That whether they chuse it or no, they ought to chuse it; for your Magistrate's Religion is the true Religion, that is the Question between you and them: but be that as it will, if Force be to be used in the case, I have proved that be the Magistrate's Religion true or false, he, whilst he believes it to be true, is under an obligation to use Force, as if it were true.

But since you think your Instance of Children so weighty and pressing, give me leave to return you your Question: I ask you then, Are not Parents as much authorized to teach their Children their Religion, as they are to teach them their Trade, when they have designed them to it? May they not as lawfully correct them to make them learn their Catechise, or the Principles of their Religion, as they may to make them learn Clenard's Grammar? Or may they not use Force to make them go to Mass, or whatever they believe to be the Worship of the true Religion, as to go to School, or to learn any Art or Trade? If they may, as I think you will not deny, unless you will say, that none but Orthodox Parents may teach their Children any Religion: If they may, I say then, pray tell me a Reason (if your Argumen [...] from the Discipline of Children be good) why the Magistrate may not use Force to bring Men to his Religion, as well as Parents may use Force to instruct Children, and bring them up in theirs? When you have considered this, you will perhaps find [60] some difference between the State of Children and grown Men, betwixt those under Tutelage, and those who are free and at their own disposal; and be inclined to think that those Reasons which subject Children in their Non-age to the use of Force, may not, nor do concern Men at Years of Discretion.

You tell us farther, That Commonwealths are instituted for the A. p. 18. attaining of all the Benefits which Political Government can yield: and therefore if the spiritual and eternal Interests of Men may any way be procured or advanced by Political Government, the procuring and advancing those Interests must in all reason be received amongst the Ends of Civil Society, and so consequently fall within the compass of the Magistrate's Jurisdiction. Concerning the extent of the Magistrate's Jurisdiction, and the Ends of Civil Society, whether the Author or you have begg'd the Question, which is the chief business of your 56th, and two or three following Pages, I shall leave it to the Readers to judg, and bring the matter, if you please, to a shorter I [...]ue. The Question is, Whether the Magistrate has any Power to interpose Force in Matters of Religion, or for the Salvation of Souls? The Argument against it is, That Civil Societies are not constituted for that End, and the Magistrate cannot use Force for Ends for which the Commonwealth was not constituted.

The End of a Commonwealth constituted can be supposed no other, than what Men in the Constitution of, and entring into it propos'd; and that could be nothing but Protection from such Injuries from other Men, which they desiring to avoid, nothing but Force could prevent or remedy: all things but this being as well attainable by Men living in Neighbourhood without the Bonds of a Commonwealth, they could propose to themselves no other thing but this in quitting their Natural Liberty, and putting themselves under the Umpirage of a Civil Soveraign, who therefore had the Force of all the Members of the Commonwealth put into his Hands, to make his Decrees to this end be obeyed. Now since no Man, or Society of Men can by their Opinions in Religion, or Ways of Worship, do any Man who differed from them any Injury, which he could not avoid or redress, if he desired it, without the help of Force; the punishing any Opinion in Religion, or Ways of Worship by the Force given the Magistrate, could not be intended by those who constituted, or entred into the Commonwealth, and so could be [61] no End of it, but quite the contrary. For Force from a stronger Hand to bring a Man to a Religion, which another thinks the true, being an Injury which in the State of Nature every one would avoid, Protection from such Injury is one of the Ends of a Commonwealth, and so every Man has a right to Toleration.

If you will say, that Commonwealths are not voluntary Societies constituted by Men, and by Men freely entred into, I shall desire you to prove it.

In the mean time allowing it you for good, that Commonwealths are constituted by God for Ends which he has appointed, without the consent and contrivance of Men. If you say, that one of those Ends is the Propagation of the true Religion, and the Salvation of Mens Souls; I shall desire you to shew me any such End expresly appointed by God in Revelation; which since, as you confess, you cannot do, you have recourse to the general Law of Nature, and what is that? The Law of Reason, whereby every one is commissioned to do Good. And the propagating the true Religion for the Salvation of Mens Souls, being doing Good, you say, the Civil Soveraigns are commissioned and required by that Law to use their Force for those Ends. But since by this Law all Civil Soveraigns are commissioned and obliged alike to use their co [...]ive Power for the propagating the true Religion, and the Salvation of Souls; and it is not possible for them to execute such a Commission, or obey that Law, but by using Force to bring Men to that Religion which they judg the true; by which use of Force much more Harm than Good would be done towards the propagating the true Religion in the World, as I have shewed elsewhere: therefore no such Commission, whose Execution would do more Harm than Good, more hinder than promote the End for which it is supposed given, can be a Commission from God by the Law of Nature. And this I suppose may satisfy you about the End of Civil Societies or Commonwealths, and answer what you say concerning the Ends attainable by them.

But that you may not think the great Position of yours, which is so often usher'd in with doubtless, (for which you imagine you have sufficient Warrant in a misapplied School-Maxim) is past over too slightly, and is not sufficiently answered; I shall give you that farther Satisfaction.

[62]

You say, Civil Societies are instituted for the attaining all the Benefits which Civil Society or Political Government can yield; and p. 58. the Reason you give for it, because it has hitherto been universally acknowledged that no Power is given in vain: and therefore if I except any of those Benefits, I shall be obliged to admit that the Power of attaining them was given in vain. And if I do admit it, no harm will follow in humane Affairs: or if I may borrow an elegant Expression of yours out of the foregoing Leaf, The Fortune of Europe does not turn upon it. In the voluntary Institution and bestowing of Power, there is no Absurdity or Inconvenience at all, that Power, sufficient for several Ends, should be limited by those that give the Power only to one or some part of them. The Power which a General, commanding a potent Army, has, may be enough to take more Towns than one from the Enemy; or to suppress a domestick Sedition, and yet the Power of attaining those Benefits, which is in his Hand, will not authorize him to imploy the Force of the Army therein, if he be commission'd only to besiege and take one certain Place. So it is in a Commonwealth. The Power that is in the Civil Soveraign is the Force of all the Subjects of the Commonwealth, which supposing it sufficient for other Ends, then the preserving the Members of the Commonwealth in Peace from Injury and Violence: yet if those who gave him that Power, limited the Application of it to that sole End, no Opinion of any other Benefits attainable by it can authorize him to use it otherwise.

Our Saviour tells us expresly, that all Power was given him in Matth. XXVIII. 18. Heaven and Earth. By which Power I imagine you will not say, that the spiritual and eternal Interest of those Men whom you think need the Help of Political Force, and of all other Men too, could not any way be procured or advanced; and yet if you will hear him in another Place, you will find this Power (which being all Power, could certainly have wrought on all Men) limited to a certain number: He says, Thou hast given him [i. e. Joh. XVII. 2. thy Son] Power over all Flesh, that he should give eternal Life to as many as thou hast given him. Whether your universally acknowledged Maxim of Logick be true enough to authorize you to say, that any part of this Power was given him in vain, and to inable you to draw Consequences from it, you were best see.

[63]

But were your Maxim so true that it proved, that si [...]ce it might indirectly and at a Distance do some Service towards the procuring or advancing the spiritual Interest of some few Subjects of a Commonwealth, therefore Force was to be imployed to that End; yet that will searce make good this Doctrine of yours; P. 56. Doubtless Commonwealths are instituted for the attaining all those Benefits which Political Government can yield; therefore if the spiritual and eternal Interests of Men may any way be procured or advanced by Political Government, the procuring and advancing those Interests must in all Reason be reckoned among the Ends of Civil Societies, and so consequently fall within the Compass of the Magistrate's Jurisdiction. For granting it true that Commonwealths are instituted for the attaining all those Benefits which Political Government can yield, it does not follow that the procuring and advancing the spiritual and eternal Interest of some few Members of the Commonwealth by an Application of Power, which indirectly and at a Distance, or by Accident may do some Service that way, whilst at the same time it prejudices a far greater Number in their Civil Interests, can with Reason be reckon'd amongst the Ends of Civil Society.

That Commonwealths are instituted for these Ends, viz. for the procuring, preserving and advancing Mens Civil Interests, you say, No Man will deny. To sacrifice therefore these Civil Interests of P. 55. a great Number of People, which are the allowed Ends of the Commonwealths, to the uncertain Expectation of some Service to be done indirectly and at Distance to a far less Number, as Experience has always shewed those really converted to the true Religion by Force to be, if any at all cannot be one of the Ends of the Commonwealth. Though the advancing of the spiritual and eternal Interest be of insinite Advantage to the Persons who receive that Benefit, yet if it can be thought a Benefit to the Commonwealth when it is procured them with the diminishing or destroying the Civil Interests of great Numbers of their Fellow-Citizens, then the ravaging of an Enemy, the Plague, or a Famine may be said to bring a Benefit to the Commonwealth: for either of these may indirectly and at a Distance do some Service towards the advancing or procuring the spiritual and eternal Interest of some of those who suffer in it.

In the two latter Paragraphs, you except against my want of P. 57. Exactness in setting down your Opinion I am arguing against. [64] Had it been any way to take off the Force of what you say, or that the Reader could have been misled by my Words in any part of the Question I was arguing against, you had h [...]d Reason to complain: if not, you had done better to ha [...]e entertained the Reader with a clearer Answer to my Argument, than spent your Ink and his Time needlesly, to shew such Niceness.

My Argument is as good against your Tenet in your own Words, as in mine, which you except against: your Words are, Doubtless Commonwealths are instituted for the attaining all the A. p. 18. Benefits which Political Government can yield; and therefore if the spiritual and eternal Interest of Men may any way be procured [...] advanced by Political Government, the procuring and advancing those Interests, must in all Reason be reckon'd amongst the Ends of Civil Societies.

To which I answer'd, That if this be so, ‘Then this Position L. 2. p. 51. must be true, viz. That all Societies whatsoever are instituted for the attaining all the Benefits that they may any way yield; there being nothing peculiar to Civil Society in the case, why that Society should be instituted for the attaining all the Benefits it can any way yield, and other Societies not. By which Argument it will follow, that all Societies are instituted for one and the same End, i. e. for the attaining all the Benefits that they can any way yield. By which Account there will be no Difference between Church and State, a Commonwealth and an Army, or between a [...]amily and the East-India Company; all which have hitherto been thought distinct sorts of Societies, instituted [...]or different Ends. If your Hypothesis hold good, o [...]e of the Ends of the Family must be to preach the Gospel, and administer the Sacraments; and one Business of an Army to teach Languages, and propagate Religion; because these are Benefits some way or other attainable by those Societies; unless you take want of Commission and Authority to be a sufficient imp [...]diment: And that will be so in other Cases.’ To which you reply, Nor will it follow from hence P. 58. that all Societies are instituted for one and the same End, (as you imagine it will) unless you suppose all Soci [...]s inab [...]d by the Power they are indued with to attain the same [...]nd, which I believe no Man hitherto did ever affirm. And therefore notwithstanding this Position, the [...]e may be still as great a Difference as you please between Church an [...] State, a Commonwealth and an Army, or between a Family and [65] the East-India-Company. Which [...]veral Societies, as they are instituted for different Ends, so are th [...]y likewise furnished with d [...]fferent Powers proportionate to their respective Ends. In which the R [...]ason you give to destroy my Inference, I am to thank you for, if you understood the Force of it, it being the very same I bring to shew that my Inference from your way of arguing is good. I say, that from your way of reasonings about the Ends of Government, `It would follow that all Societies were instituted for one and the same End; unless you take want of Commission ` and Authority to be a sufficient Imp [...]diment. And you tell me here it will not follow, unless I suppose all Societies enabled by the Powers they are indued with, to attain the same End; which in other Words is, unless I suppose all who have in their Hands the Force of any Society, to have all of them the same Commission.

The natural Force of all the Members of any Society, or of those who by the Society can be procured to assist it, is in one Sense called the Power of that Society. This Power or Force is generally put into some one or few Persons Hands with Direction and Authority how to use it, and this in another Sense is called also the Power of the Society: And this is the Power you here speak of, and in these following Words, viz. Several Societies as they are instituted for different Ends; so likewise are they furnished with different Powers proportionate to their respective Ends. The Power therefore of any Society in this Sense, is nothing but the Authority and Direction given to those that have the Management of the Force or natural Power of the Society, how and to what Ends to use it, by which Commission the Ends of Societies are known and distinguished: so that all Societies wherein those who are intrusted with the Management of the Force or natural Power of the Society, have Commission and Authority to use the Force or natural Power of the Society to attain the same Benefits, are instituted for the same End. And therefore if in all Societies those who have the Management of the Force or natural Power of the Society, are commission'd or authorized to use that Force to attain all the Benefits attainable by it, all Societies are instituted to the same End: And so what I said will still be true, viz. `That a Family and P. 51. an Army, a Commonwealth and a Church, have all the same End. And if your Hypothesis hold good, one of the Ends of [66] a Family must be to preach the Gospel, and administer the Sacraments; and one Business of an Army to teach Languages, and propagate Religion because these are Benefits some way or other attainable by those Societies; unless you take want of Commission and Authority to be a sufficient Impediment: And ` that will be so too in other Cases. To which you have said nothing but what does confirm it, which you will a little better see, when you have considered that any Benefit attainable by Force or natural Power of a Society, does not pro [...]e the Society to be instituted for that End, till you also shew, that those to whom the Management of the Force of the Society is intrusted, are comm [...]ion to use it to that End.

And therefore to your next Paragraph, I shall think it Answer P. 58. enough to print here Side by Side with it, that Paragraph of mine to which you intended it as an Answer.

L. 2. p. 51. Tis a Benefit to have true Knowledg and Philosophy imbraced and assented to, in any Ci [...]il Society or Government. But will you say therefore, that it is a Benefit to the Society, or one of the Ends of Government, that all who are not [...] should be punished, to make Men find out the Truth, and pro [...]s it? This indeed might be thought a sit way to make some Men imbrace the Peripatetick Philosophy, but not a proper way to find the Truth. For, perhaps the Peripatetick Philosophy may not be true; perh [...]ps a great many have not time, nor Parts to study it; perhaps a great many who have studied it, cannot be con [...]inced of the Truth of it: And therefore [67] it cannot be a Benefit to the Commonwealth, nor one of the Ends of it, that these Members of the Society should be disturb'd, and diseas'd to no purpose, when they are guilty of no Fault. For just the same Reason, it cannot be a Benefit to Civil Society, that Men should be punished in Denmark for not being Lutherans; in Geneva for not being Calvinists; and in Vienna for not being Papists; as a means to make them find out the true Religion. For so, upon your Grounds, Men must be treated in those Places, as well as in England for not being of the Church of England. And then, I beseech you, consider the great Benefit will accrue to Men in Society by this Method; and I suppose it will be a hard thing for you to prove, That ever Civil Governments were instituted to punish Men for not being of this or that Sect in Religion; however by Accident, indirectly, and at a distance, it may be an occasion to one perhaps of a thousand, or an hundred, to [...]udy that Controversy, which is all you expect from it. If it be a [...], pray tell me what Benefit it is. A Civil Benefit it cannot be. For Mens Civil Interests are disturb'd, injur'd, and impair'd by it. And what Spiritual [68] Benefit that can be to any Multitude of Men, to be punished for Dissenting from a false or erroneous Profession, I would have you find out: unless it be a Spiritual Benefit to be in danger to be driven into a wrong way. For if in all differing Sects, one is in the wrong, 'tis a hundred to one but that from which any one Dissents, and is punished for Dissenting from, is the wrong.

L. 3. p. 58. To your next Paragraph, after what has already been said, I think it may [...]ffice to say as follows. Though perhaps the Perip [...]tetick [...]hilosophy may not be true, (and perhaps it is no great matter, if it be not) yet the true Religion is undoub [...]dly true. And though perhaps a great many have not time, nor Parts to study that Philosophy, (and perhaps it may be no great matter neither, if they have not) yet all that have the true Religion duly tender'd them, have time, and all, but Idiots and Mad-men, have Parts likewise to study it, as much as it is necessary for them to study it. And though perhaps a great many who have studied that Philosophy, cannot be convinced of the Truth of it, [67] (which perhaps is no great Wonder) yet no Man [...]ver studied the true Religion with such Care and Diligence as he might and ought to use, and with an honest Mind, but he was convinced of the Truth of it. And that those who cannot otherwise be brought to do this, should be a little disturb'd and diseas'd to bring them to it, I take to be the Interest, not only of those particular Persons who by this means may be brought into the way of Salvation, but of the Commonwealth likewise, upon these two Accounts. 1. Because the true Religion, which this Method propagates, makes good Men; and good Men are always the best Subjects, or Members of a Commonwealth; not only as they do more sincerely and zealously promote the Publick Good, than other Men; but likewise in regard of the Favour of God, which they often procure to the Societies of which they are Members. And, 2. Because this Care in any comm [...]ealth, of God's Honour and Mens Salvation, entitles [...] [...] his special Protection and Blessing. So that where this Method is used, it proves both a Spiritual [68] and a Civil Benefit to the Commonwealth.

You tell us, the true Religion is undoubtedly true. If you had told us too, who is undoubtedly Judg of it, you had put all past doubt: but till you will be pleased to determine that, it will be undoubtedly true, that the King of Denmark is as undoubtedly Judg of it at Copenhagen, and the Emperor at Vienna, as the King of England in this Island: I do not say they judg as right, but they are by as much Right Judges, and therefore have as much Right to punish those who dissent from Lutheranism and Popery in those Countries, as any other Civil Magistrate has to punish any Dissenters from the National Religion any where else. And who can deny but these Briars and Thorns laid in their way by the Penal Laws of those Countries, may do some Service indirectly and at a Distance, to bring Men there severely and impartially to examine Matters of Religion, and so to imbrace the Truth that must save them, which the bare outward Profession of any Religion in the World will not do?

This true Religion which is undoubtedly true, you tell us too, never any body studied with such Care and Diligence as he might and ought to use, and with an honest Mind, but he was convinced of the Truth of it.

If you will resolve it in your short circular way, and tell me such Diligence as one ought to use, is such Diligence as brings one to be convinced, it is a Question too easy to be asked. If I should desire to know plainly what is to be understood by it, it would be a Question too hard for you to answer, and therefore I shall not trouble you with demanding what this Diligence which a Man may and ought to use, is; nor what you mean by an honest Mind. I only ask you, whether Force, your way applied, be able to produce them? that so the Commonwealth may have the Benefits you propose from Mens being convinced of, and consequently imbracing the true Religion, which you say no Body [69] can miss, who is brought to that Diligence, and that honest Mind.

The Benefits to the Commonwealth are, 1. That the true Religion that this Method propagates, makes good Men, and good Men are always the best Subjects, and often procure the Favour of God to the Society they are Members of. Being forward enough to grant that nothing contributes so much to the Benefit of a Society, as that it be made up of good Men, I began presently to give into your Method, which promises so sure a way to make Men so study the true Religion, that they cannot miss the being convinced of the Truth of it, and so hardly avoid being really of the true Religion, and consequently good Men. But that I might not mistake in a thing of that consequence, I began to look about in those Countries where Force had been made use of to propagate what you allowed to be the true Religion, and found Complaints of as great a Scarcity of good Men there, as in other places. A Friend whom I discoursed on this Point, said, It might possibly be that the World had not yet had the benefit of your Method: because Law-makers had not yet been able to find that just Temper of Penalties on which your Propagation of the true Religion was built; and that therefore it was great pity you had not yet discovered this great Secret, but 'twas to be hoped you would. Another, who stood by, said, he did not see how your Method could make Men it wrought on, and brought to Conformity, better than others, unless corrupt Nature with Impunity were like to produce better Men in one outward Profession than in another. To which I replied, That we did not look on Conformists through a due Medium; for if we did with you allow it presumable that all who consormed did it upon Conviction, there could be no just Complaint of the Scarcity of good Men: And so we got over that Difficulty.

The second Benefit you say your use of Force brings to the Commonwealth, is, That this Care in any Commonwealth of God's Honour and Mens Salvation, entitles it to his special Protection and Blessing. Then certainly all Commonwealths that have any regard to the Protection and Blessing of God, will not neglect to intitle themselves to it, by using of Force to promote that Religion they believe to be true. But I beseech you what Care is this of the Honour of God, and Mens Salvation, you speak of? Is it, as you have owned it, a Care by Penalties to make Men outwardly [70] conform, and without any farther Care or Inquiry to presume that they do it upon Conviction, and with a sincere imbracing of, and Obedience to the Truth? But if the Honour of God and Mens Salvation, consists not in an outward Conformity to any Religion, but in something farther, what Blessing they may expect whose Care goes so far, and then presume the rest, which is the hardest part, and the [...]efore least to be presumed, the Prophe [...] Jeremy will tell you, who says, Cursed be he that does the Work of Chap. XLVIII. 10. the Lord negligently: which those who think it is the Magistrate's business to use Force to bring Men heartily to imbrace the Truth that must save them, were best seriously to consider.

Your next Paragraph containing nothing but Positions of P. 59. yours, which you suppose elsewhere proved, and I elsewhere examined, 'tis not fit the Reader should be troubled any farther about them.

I once knew a Gentleman, who having crak'd himself with an ungovernable Ambition, could never afterwards hear the Place he aimed at mentioned, without shewing marks of his Distemper. I know not what the matter is, that when there comes in your way but the mention of Secular Power in your or Ecclesiasticks Hands, you cannot contain your self: We have Instances of it in other parts of your Letter; and here again you fall into a Fit, which since it produces rather marks of your P. 60. Breeding, than Arguments for your Canse, I shall leave them as they are to the Reader, if you can make them go down with him for Reasons from a grave Man, or for a sober Answer to what I say in that and the following Paragraph.

Much-what of the same size is your ingenious Reply to what P. 61. I say in the next Paragraph, viz. ‘That Commonwealths, or Civil Societies and Governments, if you will believe the Judiciou [...] Mr. Hooker, are, as St. Peter calls them, [...] 1 Pet. II. 13 the Contrivance and Institution of Man.’ To which you smartly reply, for your Choler was up, ` [...]is well for St. Peter that he had the Judicious Mr. Hooker on his side. And it would have been well for you too to have seen that Mr. Hooker's Authority was made use of not to confirm the Authority of St. Peter, but to confirm that Sense I gave of St. Peter's Words, which is not so clear in our Translation, but that there are those who, as I doubt not but you know, do not allow of it. But this being said when Passion it seems rather imployed your [...]it than your [71] Judgment, though nothing to the purpose, may yet perhaps indirectly and at a distance do some service.

And now, Sir, if you can but imagine that Men in the corrupt State of Nature might be authorized and required by Reason, the Law of Nature, to avoid the Inconveniences of that State, and to that purpose to put the Power of governing them into some one or more Mens Hands, in such Forms, and under such Agreements as they should think sit: which Governours so set over them for a good End by their own choice, though they received all their Power from those, who by the Law of Nature had a Power to confer it on them, may very [...]tly be called Powers ordained of God, being chosen and [...] by those who had Authority from God so to do. For he that recei [...]es Commission (limited according to the [...] of him that gives it) from another who had Authority from his Prince so to do, may truly be said, so far as his Commission reaches, to be appointed or ordained by the Prince himself. Which may serve as an Answer to your two next Paragrap [...], [...]nd to shew that there is no Opposition or Difficulty in all [...] St. Peter, St. Paul, or the Judicious Mr. Hooker says; nor any thing, in what either of them says, to your purpose. And tho it be true, those Powers that are, are ordained of God; yet it may nevertheless be true, that the Power any one has, and the Ends for which he has it, may be by the Contrivance and Appointment of Men.

To my saying, ‘The Ends of Commonwealths appointed by the Institutors of them, could not be their spiritual and eternal Interest, because they could not stipulate about those one with another, nor submit this Interest to the Power of the Society, or any Soveraign they should set over them.’ You reply, Very true, Sir; but they can submit to be punished in their Temporal P. 62. Interest, if they de [...]ise or neglect those greater Interests. How they can submit to be punished by any Men in their Temporal Interest, for that which they cannot submit to be judg'd by any Man, when you can shew, I shall admire your Politicks. Besides, if the Compact about Matters of Religion be, that those should be punished in their Temporal, who neglect or despise their Eternal Interest, who I beseech you is by this Agreement rather to be punished, a sober Dissenter, who appears concerned for Religion and his Salvation, or an irreligious prophane or debauched Conformist? By such as despise or neglect those gr [...]ate [72] Interests, you here mean only Dissenters from the National Religion: for those only you punish, though you represent them under such a Description as belongs not peculiarly to them; but that matter [...] not, so long as it best sutes your Occasion.

In your next Paragraph you wonder at my News from the West-Indies, I suppose because you sound it not in your Books of Europe or Asia. But whatever you may think, I assure you all the World is not [...]ile End. But that you may be no more surprized with News, let me ask you, Whether it be not possible that Men, to whom the Rivers and Woods a [...]orded the spontaneous Provisions of Life, and so with no private possessions of Land, had no inlarged Desires after R [...]hes or Power, should live together in Society, make on [...] Peo [...]e of one Language under one Chieftain, who shall have no oth [...] Power but to command them in time of War agai [...]t [...] [...] Enemies, without any municipal Laws, Judges, [...] [...]ny [...]rson with Superiority establish [...]d amongst them, but [...] all their private Differences, if any a [...]ose, by the extempory Determination of their Neighbours, or of Arbitrators [...] by the Partie [...]. I ask you whether in such a Commonwealth, the Chiestain who was the only Man of Authority amongst them, had any Power to use the Force of the Commonwealth to any other End but the Defence of it against an Enemy, though other Benefits were attainable by it?

The Paragraph of mine to which you mean your next for an Answer, shall answer for it self.

L. 2. p. 56. You quote the Author's Argument, which he brings to prove that the Care of Souls is not committed to the Magistrate, in these Words: It is not committed to him by God because it appears not God has ever given any such Authority to one Man over another, as to compel any one to his Religion. This, when first I read it, I confess I thought a good Argument. But you say, this is quite besides the business; and the Reason you give, is; For the Authority of the Magistrate is not an Authority to compel any one to his Religion, but only an Authority to procure [73] all his Subjects the means of discovering the way of Salvation, and to pr [...]cure withal, as much as in him lies, that [...] [...]emain ignorant of it, &c. I f [...]r, Sir, you forget your self. The Author was not writing against your new Hypothesis, before it was known in the World. He may be excused, if he had not the Gift of Prophecy, to argue against a Notion which was not yet started. He had in view only the Laws hitherto made, and the Punishments (in Matters of Religion) in use in the World. The Penalties, as I take it, are laid on Men for being of different Ways of Religion: which, what is it other but to compel them to relinquish their own, and to conform themselves to that from which they differ? If this be not to compel them to the Magistrate's Religion, pray tell us what is? This must be necessarily so understood; unless it can be supposed that the Law intends not to have that done, which with Penalties it commands to be done; or that Punishments are not Compulsion, not that Compulsion the Author complains of. The Law says, Do this, and live; embrace this Doctrine, conform to this way of Worship, and be at ease, and free; or else be fined, imprisoned, banished, burnt. If you can shew among the Laws that have been made in England concerning Religion, (and I think I may say any where else) any one that punishes Men for not having impartially examined the Religion they have embraced or refused, I think I may yield you the Cause. Law-makers have been generally wiser than to make Laws that could not be executed: and therefore their Laws were against Nonconformists, which could be known; and not for impartial Examination, which could not. 'Twas not then besides the Author's Business, to bring an Argument against the Persecutions here in fashion. He did not know that any one, who was so free as to acknowledg that the Magistrate has not an Authority to compel any one to his Religion, and thereby at once (as you have done) give up all the Laws now in force against Dissenters, had yet Rods in store [74] for them, and by a new Trick would bring them under the lash of the Law, when the old Pretences were too much exploded to serve any longer. Have you never heard of such a thing as the Religion establish'd by Law? which is it seems the Lawful Religion of a Country, and to be complied with as such. There being such Things, such Notions yet in the World, it was not quite besides the Author's business to alledg, that God never gave such Authority to one Man over another, as to compel any one to his Religion. I will grant, if you please, Religion establish'd by Law is a pretty odd way of speaking in the Mouth of a Christian, (and yet it is much in fashion) as if the Magistrate's Authority could add any Force or Sanction to any Religion, whether true or false. I am glad to find you have so far considered the Magistrate's Authority, that you agree with the Author, that he hath none to compel Men to his Religion: Much less can he, by any Establishment of Law, add any thing to the Truth or Validity of his own, or any Religion whatsoever.

L. 3. p. 63. As to your next Paragraph, I think I might now wholly pass it over. I shall only tell you, that as I have often heard, so I hope I shall always hear of Religion establish'd by Law. For though the [...] Authority can add no Force or Sanction to any Religion, whether true or f [...]lse, nor any thing to the Truth or Validity of his own, or any Religion whatsoever; yet I think it may do much toward the upholding and preserving the true Religion within his [...]; and in that respect may properly enough be said to establish it.

That above-annexed is all the Answer you think this Paragraph of mine deserves. But yet in that little you say, you must give me leave to take notice, that if, as you say, the Magistrate's Authority may do much towards the upholding and preserving the true Religion within his Jurisdiction; so also may it do much towards the upholding and preserving of a false Religion, and in that respect, if you say true, may be said to establish it. For I think I need not mind you here again, that it must unavoidably depend upon his Opinion, what shall be established for true, or rejected as false.

And thus you have my Thoughts concerning the most material of what you say touching the Magistrate's Commission to use Force in Matters of Religion, together with some incident Places in your Answer, which I have taken notice of as they have come in my way.

[75]

CHAP. III. Who are to be punished by your Scheme.↩

TO justify the largeness of the Author's Toleration, who would not have Jews, Mahometans and Pagans excluded from the Civil Rights of the Commonwealth, because of their Religion; I said, ‘I feared it will hardly be believed, L. 2. p. 2. that we pray in earnest for their Conversion, if we exclude them from the ordinary and probable Means of it, either by driving them from us, or persecuting them when they are among us.’ You reply; Now I confess I thought Men might live P. 2. quietly enough among us, and enjoy the Protection of the Government against all Violence and Injuries, without being endenizon'd, or made Members of the Commonwealth; which alone can entitle them to the Civil Rights and Privileges of it. But as to Jews, Mahometans and Pagans, if any of them do not care to live among us, unless they may be admitted to the Rights and Privileges of the Commonwealth; the refusing them that Favour is not, I suppose, to be looked upon as driving them from us, or excluding them from the ordinary and probable Means of Conversion; but as a just and necessary Caution in a Christian Commonwealth, in respect to the Members of it: Who, if such as profess Judaism, or Mahometanism, or Paganism, were permitted to enjoy the same Rights with them, would be much the more in danger to be seduced by them; seeing they would lose no worldly Advantage by such a Change of their Religion: Whereas if they could not turn to any of those Religions, without forfeiting the Civil Rights of the Commonwealth by doing it, 'tis likely they would consider well before they did it, what ground there was to expect that they should get any thing by the Exchange, which would countervail the Loss they should sustain by it. I thought Protection and Impunity of Men, not offending in Civil Things, might have been accounted the Civil Rights of the Commonwealth, which the Author meant: but you, to make it seem more, add the word Privileges. Let it be so. Live amongst you then Jews, Mahometans, and Pagans may; but endenizon'd they must not be. [76] But why? Are there not those who are Members of your Commonwealth, who do not imbrace the Truth that must save them, any more than they? What think you of So [...]inians, Papists, Anabaptists, Quakers, Presbyterians? If they do not reject the Truth necessary to Salvation, why do you punish them? Or if some that are in the way to Perdition, may be Members of the Commonwealth, why must these be excluded upon the account of Religion? For I think there is no great odds, as to saving of Souls (which is the only End for which they are punished) amongst those Religions, each whereof will make those who are of it miss Salvation. Only if there be any fear of seducing those who are of the National Church, the Danger is most from that Religion which comes nearest to it, and most resembles it. However, this you think but a just and necessary Caution in a Christian Commonwealth in respect of the Members of it. I suppose (for you love to speak doubtfully) these Members of a Christian Commonwealth you take such care of, are Members also of the National Church, whose Religion is the true; and therefore you call them in the next Paragraph, Subjects of Christ's Kingdom, to whom he has a special regard. For Dissenters, who are punished to be made good Christians, to whom Force is used to bring them to the true Religion, and to the Communion of the Church of God, 'tis plain are not in your Opinion good Christians, or of the true Religion; unles, you punish them to make them what they are already. The Dissenters therefore who are already perverted, and reject the Truth that must save them, you are not, I suppose, so careful of, lest they should be seduced. Those who have already the Plague, need not be guarded from Infection: nor can you fear that Men so desperately perverse, that Penalties and Punishments, joined to the Light and Strength of the Truth, have not been able to bring from the Opinions they have espoused, into the Communion of the Church, should be seduced to Judaism, [...], or Paganism, neither of which has the advantage of Truth [...]r Interest to prevail by. 'Tis therefore those of the National Church, as I conclude also from the close of this Paragraph, (where you speak of God's own peculiar People) wh [...]re you think would be much the more in danger to be seduced by them, if they were [...], since they would lose no worldly Advantage by such a change of their Religion, i. e. by quitting the National Church, to turn Jews, Mahometans or Pagans.

[77]

This shews, whatever you say of the sufficient means of Instruction provided by the Law, how well you think the Members of the National Church are instructed in the true Religion. It shews also, whatever you say of its being presumable that they imbrace it upon Conviction, how much you are satisfied that the Members of the National Church are convinc'd of the Truth of the Religion they profess, or rather herd with, since you think them in great Danger to change it for Judaism, Mahometism, or Paganism it self upon equal terms, and because they shall lose no worldly Advantage by such a Change. But if the forseiting the Civil Rights of the Commonwealth, be the proper Remedy to keep Men in the Communion of the Church, why is it used to keep Men from Judaism or Paganism, and not from Phanaticism? Upon this Account why might not Jews, Pagans and Mahometans be admitted to the Rights of the Commonwealth, as far as Papists, Independents, and Quakers? But you distribute to every one according to your good Pleasure; and doubtless are fully justified by these following Words: And whether this be not a P. 3. reasonable and necessary Caution, any Man may judg, who does but consider within how few Ages after the Flood Superstition and Idolatry prevailed over the World, and how apt even God's own peculiar People were to receive that mortal Infection notwithstanding all that he did to keep them from it.

What the State of Religion was in the first Ages after the Flood, is so imperfectly known now, that as I have shewed you in another Place, you can make little Advantage to your Cause from thence. And since it was the same Corruption then, which as you own, withdraws Men now from the true Religion, and hinders it from prevailing by its own [...]ight, without the Assistance of Force; and it is the same Corruption that keeps Dissenters, as well as Jews, Mahometuns and Pagans, from imbracing of the Truth: why differ [...]nt Degrees of Punishments should be used to them, till there be sound in them disserent Degrees of [...], would need some better Reason. Why this common Pravity of [...] Nature should make [...], [...] or Paganism more catching than any sort of Nonconformity, which [...]inders [...] from imbracing the true Religion; [...]o that Jews, [...] and Pagans must, for [...]ear of infe [...]ting others, be shut out from [...]he Commonwealth, when others are not, I would [...] know [...] [78] Whatever it was that so disposed the Jews to Idolatry before the Captivity, sure it is, they firmly resisted it, and refused to change, not only where they might have done it on equal terms, but have had great Advantage to boot; and therefore 'tis possible that there is something in this matter, which neither you nor I do fully comprehend, and may with a becoming Humility sit down and confess, that in this, as well as other Parts of his Providence, God's Ways are past finding out. But this we may be certain from this Instance of the Jews, that it is not reasonable to conclude, that because they were once inclin'd to Idolatry, that therefore they, or any other People are in Danger to turn Pagans, whenever they shall lose no worldly Advantage by such a Change. But if we may oppose nearer and known Instances to more remote and uncertain, look into the World, and tell me, since Jesus Christ brought Life and Immortality to light through the Gospel, where the Christian Religion meeting Judaism, Mahometism or Paganism upon equal terms, lost so plainly by it, that you have Reason to suspect the Members of a Christian Commonwealth would be in Danger to be seduced to either of them, if they should lose no worldly Advantage by such a Change of their Religion, rather than likely to increase among them? Till you can find then some better Reason for excluding Jews, &c. from the Rights of the Commonwealth, you must give us leave to look on this as a bare Pretence. Besides, I think you are under a Mistake, which shews your Pretence against admitting Jews, Mahometans and Pagans, to the Civil Rights of the Commonwealth, is ill grounded; for what Law I pray is there in England, that they who turn to any of those Religions, forfeit the Civil Rights of the Commonwealth by doing it? Such a Law I desire you to shew me; and if you cannot, all this Pretence is out of doors, and Men of your Church, since on that Account they would lose no worldly Advantage by the Change, are in as much Danger to be seduced, whether Jews, Mahometans and Pagans, are indenizon'd or no.

But that you may not be thought too gracious, you tell us, That as to Pagans particularly you are so far from thinking that they P. 3. ought not to be excluded from the Civil Rights of the Commonwealth, because of their Religion, that you cannot see how their Religion can be suffered by any Commonwealth that knows and worships the only true God, if they would be thought to retain any Jealousy for his Honour, [79] or even for that of humane Nature. Thus then you order the matter; Jews and Mahometans may be permitted to live in a Christian Commonwealth with the Exercise of their Religion, but not be endenizon'd: Pagans may also be permitted to live there, but not to have the Exercise of their Religion, nor be endenizon'd.

This according to the best of my Apprehension is the Sense of your Words; for the Clearness of your Thoughts, or your Cause does not always suffer you to speak plainly and directly; as here, having been speaking a whole Page before what Usage the Persons of Jews, Mahometans and Pagans were to have, you on a sudden tell us their Religion is not to be suffered, but say not what must be done with their Persons. For do you think it reasonable that Men who have any Religion, should live amongst you without the Exercise of that Religion, in order to their Conversion? which is no other but to make them down-right irreligious, and render the very Notion of a Deity insignificant, and of no Influence to them in order to their Conversion: It being less dangerous to Religion in general, to have Men ignorant of a Deity, and so without any Religion; than to have them acknowledg a superiour Being, but yet to teach or allow them to neglect or refuse worshipping him in that way, that they believe he requires, to render them acceptable to him: It being a great deal less Fault (and that which we were every one of us once guilty of) to be ignorant of him, than acknowledging a God, and not to pay him the Honour which we think due to him. I do not see therefore how those who retain any Jealousy for the Honour of God, can permit Men to live amongst them in order to their Conversion, and require of them not to honour God according to the best of their Knowledg: unless you think it a Preparation to your true Religion, to require Men sensibly P. 62. and knowingly to affront the Deity; and to perswade them that the Religion you would bring them to, can allow Men to make bold with the Sense they have of him, and to refuse him the Honour which in their Consciences they are perswaded is due to him, which must to them and every Body else appear inconsistent with all Religion. Since therefore to admit their Persons without the Exercise of their Religion, cannot be reasonable, nor conducing to their Conversion; if the Exercise of their Religion, as you say, be not to be suffered among us till they are converted, I do not see how their Persons can be suffered [80] among us, if that Exception must be added, till they are converted; and whether then they are not excluded from the ordinary means of Conversion, I leave you to consider.

I wonder this Necessity had not made you think on another way of their having the ordinary means of Conversion, without their living amongst us, that way by which in the beginning of Christianity it was brought to the Heathen World by the Travels and Preaching of the Apostles. But the Successors of the Apostles are not, it seems, Successors to this part of the Commission, Go and teach all Nations. And indeed it is one thing to be an Ambassador from God to People that are already converted, and have provided good Benefices, another to be an Ambassador from Heaven in a Country where you have neither the Countenance of the Magistrate, nor the devout Obedience of the People. And who sees not how one is bound to be zealous for the propagating of the true Religion, and the convincing, converting and saving of Souls, in a Country where it is establish'd by Law? who can doubt but that there those who talk so much of it, are in earnest? Though yet some Men will hardly forbear doubting, that those Men, however they pray for it, are not much concerned for the Conversion of Pagans, who will neither go to them to instruct them, nor suffer them to come to us for the means of Conversion.

'Tis true what you say, what Pagans call Religion is Abomination to the Almighty. But if that requires any thing from those who retain any Jealousy for the Honour of God, it is something more than barely about the Place where those Abominations shall be committed. The true Concern for the Honour of God is not, that Idolatry should be shut out of England, but that it should be lessen'd every where, and by the Light and Preaching of the Gospel be banished out of the World. If Pagans and Idolaters are, as you say, the greatest Dishonour conceivable to God Almighty, they are as much so on t'other side of Tweed, or the Sea, as on this; for he from his Throne equally beholds all the Dwellers [...]on Earth. Those therefore who are truly jealous for the Honour of God will not, upon the Account of his Honour, be concerned for their being in this or in that Place, while there are Idolaters in the World; but that the Number of those who are such a Dishonour to him, should every Day be as much as possible diminished, and they be brought to give him his due Tribute of [81] Honour and Praise in a right way of Worship. 'Tis in this that a Jealousy, which is in earnest for God's Honour, truly shews it self, in wishing and indeavouring to abate the Abomination, and drive Idolatry out of the World, not in driving Idolaters out of any one Country, or sending them away to Places and Company, where they shall find more Incouragement to it. 'Tis a strange Jealousy for the Honour of God, that looks not beyond such a Mountain or River as divides a Christian and Pagan Country. Where-ever Idolatry is committed, there God's Honour is concerned; and thither Mens Jealousy for his Honour, if it be sincere indeed, will extend, and be in Pain to lessen and take away the Provocation. But the Place God is provoked and dishonoured in, which is a narrow Consideration in respect of the Lord of all the Earth, will no otherwise imploy their Zeal, who are in earnest, than as it may more or less conduce to the Conversion of the Offenders.

But if your Jealousy for the Honour of God, ingages you so far against Mens committing Idolatry in certain Places, that you think those ought to be excluded from the Rights of the Commonwealth, and not to be suffered to be Denizons, who according to that Place in the Romans brought by you, are without Excuse, because when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, but became vain in their Imaginations, and changed the Glory of the incorruptible God into an Image made like to corruptible Man. I shall only change some of the Words in the Text you cite out of Isaiah; I have baked part thereof on the Coals, and eaten it, and shall I make the residue thereof a God? shall I fall down to that which comes of a Plant? And so leave them with you to consider whether your Jealousy in earnest carries you so far as you talk of; and whether when you have looked about you, you are still of the Mind, that those who do such things should be disfranchised and sent away, and the Exercise of no such Religion be any where permitted amongst us? for those things are no less an Ahomination to God under a Christian than Pagan Name. One Word more I have to say to your Jealousy for the Honour of God, that if it be any thing more than in Talk, it will set it self no less earnestly against other Abominations, and the Practisers of them than against that of Idolatry.

As to that in Job XXXI. 26, 27, 28. where he says Idolatry is to be punished by the Judg; this Place alone, were there no [82] other, is sufficient to confirm their Opinion, who conclude that Book to be writ by a Jew. And how little the punishing of Idolatry in that Commonwealth concerns our present Case, I refer you for Information to the Author's Letter. But how does your Jealousy for the Honour of God, carry you to an Exclusion of the Pagan Religion from amongst you, but yet admit of the Jewish and Mahometan? Or is not the Honour of God concern'd in their denying our Saviour?

You go on, But as to the converting Jews, Mahometans and [...]. 4. Pagans to Christianity, I fear there will be no great Progress made in it, till Christians come to a better Agreement and Vnion among themselves. I am sure our Saviour prayed that all th [...]t should believe in him, might be one in the Father and him, (i. e. I suppose in that holy Religion which he taught them from the Father) that the World might believe that the Father had sent him: And therefore when he comes to make Inquisition, why no more [...]ews, M [...]hometans and Pagans have been converted to his Religion; I very much fear that a great part of the Blame will be found to l [...]e upon the Authors and Promoters of Sects and Divisions among the Professors of it: which therefore, I think, all that are guilty, and all that would not be guilty, ought well to consider.

I easily grant that our Saviour pray'd that all might be one in that holy Religion which he taught them, and in that very Prayer teaches what that Religion is, This is Life eternal, that they might [...]. XVII. [...] know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast [...]. But must it be expected, that therefore they should all be of one Mind in things not necessary to Salvation? For whatever Unity it was our Saviour pray'd for here, 'tis certain the Apostles themselves did not all of them agree in every thing: but even the chief of them have had Differences amongst them in Matters of Religion, as appears, Gal. II. 11.

An Agreement in Truths necessary to Salvation, and the maintaining of Charity and brotherly Kindness with the Diversity of Opinions in other things, is that which will very well consist with Christian Unity, and is all possibly to be had in this World, in such an incurable Weakness and Difference of Mens Understandings. This probably would contribute more to the Conversion of Jews, Mahometans and Pagans, if there were proposed to them and others, for their Admittance into the Church, only the plain and simple Truths of the Gospel [83] necessary to Salvation, than all the fruitless Pudder and Talk about uniting Christians in Matters of less Moment, according to the Draught and Prescription of a certain set of Men any where.

What Blame will lie on the Authors and Promoters of Sects and Divisions, and (let me add) Animosities amongst Christians, when Christ comes to make Inquisition why no more Jews, Mahometans and Pagans were converted, they who are concerned ought certainly well to consider. And to abate in great measure this Mischief for the future, they who talk so much of Sects and Divisions, would do well to consider too, whether those are not most Authors and Promoters of Sects and Divisions, who impose Creeds, Ceremonies and Articles of Mens making; and make things not necessary to Salvation, the necessary terms of Communion. Excluding and driving from them such as out of Conscience and Perswasion cannot assent and submit to them; and treating them as if they were utter Aliens from the Church of God, and such as were deservedly shut out as unfit to be Members of it: who narrow Christianity within Bounds of their own making, and which the Gospel knows nothing of; and often for things by themselves confessed indifferent, thrust Men out of their Communion, and then punish them for not being of it.

Who sees not, but the Bond of Unity might be preserved, in the different Perswasions of Men concerning things not necessary to Salvation, if they were not made necessary to Church-Communion? What two thinking Men of the Church of England are there, who differ not one from the other in several material Points of Religion? who nevertheless are Members of the same Church, and in Unity one with another. Make but one of those Points the Shibboleth of a Party, and erect it into an Article of the National Church, and they are presently divided; and he of the two, whose Judgment happens not to agree with National Orthodoxy, is immediately cut off from Communion. Who I beseech you is it in this Case that makes the Sect? Is it not those who contract the Church of Christ within Limits of their own Contrivance? who by Articles and Ceremonies of their own forming, separate from their Communion all that have not Perswasions which just jump with their Model?

[84]

'Tis frivolous here to pretend Authority. No Man has or can have Authority to shut any one out of the Church of Christ, for that for which Christ himself will not shut him out of Heaven. Whosoever does so, is truly the Author and Promoter of S [...]hism and Division, sets up a Sect, and tears in Pieces the Church of Christ, of which every one who believes, and practises what is necessary to Salvation, is a Part and Member; and cannot, without the Guilt of Schism, be separated from, or kept out of its external Communion. In this lording it over the Heritage of God, and thus overseeing by Imposition on the unwilling, and not consenting, which seems to be the meaning of 1 Pet. V. [...], 3. St. Peter, most of the lasting Sects which so mangle Christianity, had their Original, and continue to have their Support: and were it not for these establish'd Sects under the specious Names of National Churches, which by their contracted and arbitrary Limits of Communion, justify against themselves the Separation and like Narrowness of others, the Difference of Opinions which do not so much begin to be, as to appear and be owned under Toleration, would either make no Sect nor Division; or else if they were so extravagant as to be opposite to what is necessary to Salvation, and so necessitate a Separation, the clear Light of the Gospel, joined with a strict Discipline of Manners, would quickly chase them out of the World. But whilst needless Impositions, and moot Points in Divinity are established by the Penal Laws of Kingdoms, and the specious Pretences of Authority, what Hopes is there that there should be such an Union amongst Christians any where, as might invite a rational Turk or Infidel to imbrace a Religion, whereof he is told they have a Revelation from God, which yet in some Places he is not suffered to read, and in no Place shall he be permitted to understand for himself, or to follow according to the best of his Understanding, when it shall at all thwart (though in things confessed not necessary to Salvation) any of those select Points of Doctrine, Discipline, or outward Worship, whereof the National Church has been pleased to make up its Articles, Polity, and Ceremonies? And I ask, what a sober sensible Heathen must think of the Divisions amongst Christians not owing to Toleration, if he should find in an Island, where Christianity seems to be in its greatest Purity, the South and North Parts establishing Churches upon the Differences of only whether fewer [85] or more, thus and thus chosen, should govern; tho the Revelation they both pretend be their Rule, say nothing directly one way or [...]other: each contending with so much Eagerness, that they deny each other to be Churches of Christ, that is, in effect, to be true Christians? To which if one should add Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, Real Presence, Articles and Distinctions set up by Men without Authority from Scripture, and other less Differences, (which good Christians may dissent about without endangering their Salvations) established by Law in the several Parts of Christendom: I ask, Whether the Magistrates interposing in Matters of Religion, and establishing National Churches by the Force and Penalties of Civil Laws, with their distinct (and at home reputed necessary) Confessions and Ceremonies, do not by Law and Power authorize and perpetuate Sects among Christians, to the great Prejudice of Christianity, and Scandal to Insidels, more than any thing that can arise from a mutual Toleration, with Charity and a good Life?

Those who have so much in their Mouths, the Authors of Sects and Divisions, with so little advantage to their Cause, I shall desire to consider, whether National Churches established as now they are, are not as much Sects and Divisions in Christianity, as smaller Collections, under the name of distinct Churches, are in respect of the National? only with this difference, that these Subdivisions and discountenanced Sects, wanting Power to enforce their peculiar Doctrines and Discipline, usually live more friendly like Christians, and seem only to demand Christian Liberty; whereby there is less appearance of Unchristian Division among them: Whereas those National Sects, being back'd by the Civil Power, which they never fail to make use of, at least as a pretence of Authority over their Brethren, usually breath out nothing but Force and Persecution, to the great Reproach, Shame, and Dishonour of the Christian Religion.

I said, ‘That if the Magistrates would severely and impartially L. 2. p. 2. set themselves against Vice in whomsoever it is found, and leave Men to their own Consciences in their Articles of Faith, and Ways of Worship, true Religion would spread wider, and be more fruitful in the Lives of its Professors, than ever hitherto it has done by the imposing of Creeds and Ceremonies.’ Here I call only Immorality of Manners, Vice; you on the contrary, in your Answer, give the Name of Vice to Errors in Opinion, and P. 13. [86] Difference in Ways of Worship from the National Church: for this is the Matter in question between us, express it as you please. This being a Contest only about the signification of a short Syllable in the English Tongue, we must leave to the Masters of that Language to judg which of these two is the proper use of it. But yet from my using the word Vice, you conclude presently, (taking it in your Sense, not mine) that the Magistrate has a Power in England (for England we are speaking of) to punish Dissenters from the National Religion, because it is a Vice. I will, if you please, in what I said, change the word Vice into that I meant by it, and say thus, [If the Magistrates will severely and impartially set themselves against the Dishonesty and Debauchery of Mens Lives, and such Immoralities as I contra-distinguish from Errors in speculative Opinions of Religion, and Ways of Worship:] and then pray see how your Answer will look, for thus it runs; It seems then with you the rejecting the true Religion, and refusing to worship God in decent Ways prescribed by those to whom God has left the ordering of those Matters, are not comprehended in the name Vice. But you tell me, If I except these things, and will not allow them to be called by the name of Vice, perhaps other Men may think it as reasonable to except some other things, [i. e. from being called Vices] which they have a kindness for: For instance, some may perhaps except arbitrary Divorce, Polygamy, Concubinage, simple Fornication, or Marrying within Degrees thought forbidden. Let them except these, and if you will, Drunkenness, Theft, and Murder too, from the name of Vice; nay, call them Vertues: Will they by their calling them so, be exempt from the Magistrate's Power of punishing them? Or can they claim an Impunity by what I have said? Will these Immoralities by the Names any one shall give, or forbear to give to them, become Articles of Faith, or Ways of Worship? Which is all, as I expresly say in the Words you here cite of mine, that I would have the Magistrates leave Men to their own Consciences in. But, Sir, you have, for me, Liberty of Conscience to use Words in what sense you please; only I think, where another is concerned, it favours more of Ingenuity and love of Truth, rather to mind the Sense of him that speaks, than to make a dust and noise with a mistaken Word, if any such Advantage were given you.

[87]

You say, That some Men would through Carelesness never acquaint themselves with the Truth which must save them, without being forced to do it, which (you suppose) may be very true, notwithstanding P. 23. that (as I say) some are called at the third Hour, some at the ninth, and some at the eleventh Hour; and whenever they are called, they embrace all the Truths necessary to Salvation. At least I do not shew why it may not: And therefore this may be no Slip for any thing I have said to prove it to be one. This I take not to be an Answer to my Argument, which was, That since some are not called till the eleventh Hour, no body can know who those are, who would never acquaint themselves with those Truths that must save them, without Force, which is therefore necessary, and may indirectly and at a distance do them some service. Whether that was my Argument or no, I leave the Read [...]r to judg: but that you may not mistake it now again, I tell you here it is so, and needs another Answer.

Your way of using Punishments in short is this, That all that conform not to the National Church, where it is true, as in England, should be punished; What for? To make them consider. This I told you had something of Impracticable. To which you reply, That you used the word only in another Sense, P. 24. which I mistook: Whether I mistook your meaning in the use of that Word or no, or whether it was natural so to take it, or whether that Opinion which I charged on you by that Mistake, when you tell us, That not examining, is indeed the next end for P. 45 which they are punished, be not your Opinion, let us leave to the Reader: for when you have that Word in what s [...]nse you please, what I said will be nevertheless true, (viz.) `That to punish Dissenters, as Dissenters, to make them consider, has something impracticable in it, unless not to be of the National ` Religion, and not to consider, be the same thing. These Words you answer nothing to, having as you thought a great advantage of talking about my mistake of your word only. Bu [...] unless you will suppose, not to be of the National Church, and not to consider, be the same thing, it will follow, th [...]t to punish Dissenters, as Dissenters, to make them consider, has something of Impracticable in it.

The Law punishes all Dissenters: For what? To make them all conform, that's evident; To what end? To make them all consider, say you: That cannot be, for it says nothing of it; nor [88] is it certain that all Dissenters have not considered; nor is there any care taken by the Law to enquire whether they have considered, when they do conform; yet this was the End intended by the Magistrate. So then with you it is practicable and allowable in making Laws, for the Legislator to lay Punishments by Law on Men, for an End which they may be ignorant of, for he says nothing of it; on Men, whom he never takes care to enquire, whether they have done it or no, before he relax the Punishment, which had no other next End, but to make them do it. But though he says nothing of considering in laying on the Penalties, nor asks any thing about it, when he takes them off; yet every body must understand that he so meant it. Sir, Sancho Pancha in the Government of his Island, did not expect that Men should understand his meaning by his gaping: but in another Island it seems, if you had the Management, you would not think it to have any thing of Impracticable or Impolitick in it. For how far the provision of Means of Instruction takes this off, we shall see in another place. And lastly, to lay Punishments on Men for an End which is already attained, (for some among the Dissenters may have considered) is what other Law-makers look on as impracticable, or at least unjust. But to this you answer in your usual way of Circle, That if I suppose P. 24: you are for punishing Dissenters whether they consider or no, I am in a great mistake; for the Dissenters (which is my Word, not yours) whom you are for punishing, are only such as reject the true Religion proposed to them with Reasons and Arguments sufficient to convince them of the Truth of it, who therefore can never be supposed to consider those Reasons and Arguments as they ought, whilst they persist in rejecting that Religion, or (in my Language) continue Dissenters; for if they did so consider them, they would not continue Dissenters. Of the Fault for which Men were to be punished, distinguished from the End for which they were to be punished, we heard nothing, as I remember, in the first Draught of your Scheme, which we had in The Argument considered, &c. But I doubt not but in some of your general Terms you will be able to find it, or what else you please: for now having spoken out, that Men, who are of a different Religion from the true, which has been tendred them with sufficient Evidence, (and who are they whom the wise and benign Disposer and Governour of all things has not furnished with competent Means of Salvation) are Criminals, [89] and are by the Magistrate to be punished as such, 'tis necessary your Scheme should be compleated; and whither that will carry you, 'tis easy to see.

But pray, Sir, are there no Conformists that so reject the [...]ue Religion? and would you have them punished too, as you here profess? Make that practicable by your Scheme, and you have done something to perswade us that your End in earnest in the Use of Force, is to make Men consider, understand, and be of the True Religion; and that the rejecting the true Religion tender'd with sufficient Evidence, is the Crime which bonâ fide you would have punished; and till you do this, all that you may say concerning punishing Men to make them consider as they ought, to make them receive the true Religion, to make them imbrace the Truth that must save them, &c. will with all sober, judicious and unbiassed Readers, pass only for the Mark of great Zeal, if it scape amongst Men as warm and as sagacious as you are, a harsher Name: whilst those Conformists who neglect Matters of Religion, who reject the saving Truths of the Gospel, as visibly and as certainly as any Dissenters, have yet no Penalties laid upon them.

You talk much of considering and not considering as one ought; of imbracing and rejecting the true Religion, and abundance more to this purpose, which all, however very good and savoury Words, that look very well, when you come to the Application of Force, to procure that End expressed in them, amount to no more but Conformity and Non-conformity. If you see not this, I pity you; for I would fain think you a fair Man, who means well, though you have not light upon the right way to the End you propose: But if you see it, and persist in your Use of these good Expressions to lead Men into a Mistake in this Matter; consider what my Pagans and Mahometans could do worse to serve a bad Cause.

Whatever you may imagine, I write so in this Argument, as I have before my Eyes the Account, I shall one Day render for my Intention, and Regard to Truth in the Management of it. I look on my self as liable to Error as others: but this I am sure of, I would neither impose on you, my self, nor any body; and should be very glad to have the Truth in this Point clearly establish'd: and therefore it is, I desire you again to examine, whether all the Ends you name to be intended by your Use of Force, [90] do in effect, when Force is to be your way put in Practice, reach any farther than bare outward Conformity? Pray consider whether it be not that whi [...]h makes you so shy of the term Dissenters, which you tell me is mine not your Word. Since none are by your Scheme to be punished, but those who do not conform to the National Religion, Diffenters, I think, is the proper Name to call them by: and I can see no reason you have to boggle at it, unless your Opinion has something in it you are unwilling should be spoke out, and call'd by its right Name: But whether you like it or no, Persecution, and Persecution of Dissenters, are Names that belong to it as it stands now.

And now I think I may leave you your Question, wherein you ask, But cannot Dissenters be punished for not being of the National P. 24. Religion, as the Fault, and yet only to make them consider, as the End for which they are punished? To be answered by your self, or to be used again, where you think there is any need of so nice a Distinction, as between the Fault for which Men are punished by Laws, and the End for which they are punished: For to me I confess it is hard to find any other immediate End of Punishment in the Intention of humane Laws, but the Amendment of the Fault punished; though it may be subordinate to other and remoter Ends. If the Law be only to punish Nonconformity, one may truly say, to cure that Fault, or to produce Conformity, is the End of that Law; and there i [...] nothing else immediately aimed at by that Law, but Conformity; and whatever else it tends to as an End, must be only as a Consequence of Conformity, wh [...]ther it be Edisication, Increase of Charity, or saving of Souls, or whatever else may be thought a Consequence of Conformity. So that in a Law, which with Penalties requires Conformity, and nothing else; o [...]e cannot say (properly I think) that Consideration is the End of that Law, unless Consideration be a Cons [...]quence of Conformity, to which Conformity is subordinate, and does naturally conduce, or else is necessary to it.

To my arguing that it is u [...]just as well as impracticable, you reply, Where the National Church is the true Church of God, [...]o P. 24. which all Men ought to join themselves, and sufficient Evidence is offered to convince Men that it [...] so: There it is a Fault to be out of the National Church, because it is a Fault not to be convinced that the National Church is that true Church of God. And therefore [91] since there Mens not being so convinced, can only be imputed to their not considering as they ought, the Evidence which is [...]ffered to convince them; it cannot be unjust to punish them to make them so to consider it. Pray tell me, which is a Man's Duty, to be of the National Church [...]; or to be [...]onvinced first, that its Religion is [...]ue, and then to be of it? If it be his Duty to be convinced [...], why then do you punish him for not being of it, when it is his Duty to be [...]onvinced of the Truth of its Religion, before it is his Duty to be of it? If you say it is his Duty to be of it first; why then is not [...]orce used to him afterwards, though he be still ignorant and unconvinced? But you answer, It is his Fault not to be convinced. What, every one's Fault every where? No, you [...]imit it to Places where sufficient Evidence is offered to convince Men that the National Church is the true Church of God. To which pray let me add, the National Church is so the true Church of God, that no body out of its Communion can imbrace the Truth that must save him, or be in the way to Salvation. For if a Man may be in the way to Salvation out of the National Church, he is enough in the true Church, and needs no Force to bring him into any other: For when a Man is in the way to Salvation, there is no Necessity of Force to bring him into any Church of any Denomination, in order to his Salvation. So that not to be of the National Church, though true, will not be a Fault which the Magistrate has a right to punish, until sufficient Evidence is offered to prove that a Man cannot be saved out of it. Now since you tell us, that by sufficient Evidence you mean such P. 51. as will certainly win Assent; when you have offer'd such Evidence to convince Men, that the National Church, any where, is so the true Church, that Men cannot be saved out of its Communion, I think I may allow them to be so faulty as to deserve what Punishment you shall think sit. If you hope to mend the matter by the following Words, where you say, that where P. 25. such Evidence is offered there Mens not being convinced, can only be imputed to Mens not considering as they ought, they will not help you. For to consider as they ought, being by your own Interpretation, to consider so as not to reject; then your Answer amounts to P. 40. just thus much, That it is a Fault not to be convinced that the National Church is the true Church of God, where sufficient Evidence is offered to convince Men that it is so. Sufficient Evidence is such as will certainly gain Assent with th [...]se who consider as they ought, i. e. [92] who consider so as not to reject or to be moved heartily to imbrace, which I think is to be convinced. Who can have the Heart now to deny any of this? Can there be any thing surer, than that Mens not being convinc'd, is to be imputed to them if they are not convinc'd, where such Evidence is offered to them as does convince them? And to punish all such you have my free Consent.

Whether all you say have any thing more in it than this, I appeal to my Readers; and should willingly do it to you, did not I fear, that the jumbling of those good and plausible Words in your Head, of sufficient Evidence, consider as one ought, &c. might a little jargogle your Thoughts, and lead you hoodwink'd the round of your own beaten Circle. This is a Danger those are much exposed to, who accustom themselves to relative and doubtful terms, and so put together, that though asunder they signify something, yet when their meaning comes to be cast up as they are placed, it amounts to just nothing.

You go on, What Justice it would be for the Magistrate to punish P. 25. one for not being a Cartesian, it will be time enough to consider when I have proved it to be as necessary for Men to be Cartesians, as it is to be Christians, or Members of God's Church. This will be a much better Answer to what I said, when you have proved that to be a Christian or a Member of God's Church, it is necessary for a Dissenter to be of the Church of England. If it be not Justice to punish a Man for not being a Cartesian, because it is not as necessary to be a Cartesian, as to be a Christian; I fear the same Argument will hold against punishing a Man for not using the Cross in Baptism, or not kneeling at the Lord's Supper; and it will lie on you to prove, that it is as necessary to use the Cross in Baptism, or kneeling at the Lord's Supper, as it is to be a Christian: For if they are not as necessary as it is to be a Christian, you cannot by your own Rule, without Injustice, punish Men for not conforming to a Church wherein they are made an indispensible Part of Conformity; and by this Rule it will be Injustice to punish any Man for not being of that Church wherein any thing is required not necessary to Salvation; for that, I think, is the Necessity of being a Christian.

To shew the Unreasonableness of punishing Dissenters to make them examine, I said, that so they were punished for not having [...]. 2. p. 24. offended against a Law; for there is no Law of the Land that [93] requires them to examine. Your Reply is, That you think the contrary is plain enough: For where the Laws provide sufficient means of Instruction in the true Religion, and then require all Men to imbrace P. 45. that Religion; you think the most natural Construction of those Laws is, that they require Men to imbrace it upon Instruction and Conviction, as it cannot be expected they should do without examining the Grounds upon which it stands. Your Answer were very true, if they could not imbrace without examining and Conviction. But since there is a shorter way to imbracing, which cost no more Pains than walking as far as the Church, your Answer no more proves, that the Law requires examining, than if a Man at Harwich being subpena'd to appear in Westminster-Hall next Term, you should say the Subpena required him to come by Sea, because there was sufficient means provided for his Passage in the ordinary Boat that by Appointment goes constantly from Harwich to London: But he taking it to be more for his Ease and Dispatch, goes the shorter way by Land, and finds that having made his Appearance in Court as was required, the Law is satisfied, and there is no Inquiry made, what way he came thither.

If therefore Men can imbrace so as to satisfy the Law without examining, and it be true that they so fly from the means of right Information, are so negligent in, and averse to examining, that there is need of Penalties to make them do it, as you tell us at large; A. p 6, &c How is it a natural Construction of those Laws, that they require Men to examine, which having provided sufficient means of Instruction, require Men only to conform, without saying any thing of examining? especially when the Cause assigned by you of Mens neglecting to examine, is not want of means of Instruction, but want of Penalties to over-ballance their Aversion to the P. [...]. using those means; which you your self con [...]s, where you say, When the best Provision is made that can be, for the Instruction of the People, you fear a great part of them will still need Penalties to bring them to hear and receive Instruction: A [...]d therefore perhaps the Remainder of tha [...] Paragraph, when you have considered it L. 2. p. 46. again, will not appear so impertinent a Declamation as you are pleased to think it: For it charged your Method (as it then stood) of punishing Men for not considering and exami [...]ing with these Absurdities. That it punished Men for not doing that which the Law did not require of them, nor declare the [94] Neglect of to be a Fault, contrary to the Ends of all Laws, contrary to the common Sense of Mankind, and the Practice of all Law-makers, who always [...]irst declared the Fault, and then denounced Penalties against those who after a time set, should be found guilty of it. It charged your Method, that it allows not Impunity to the Innocent, but punishes whole Tribes together, the Innocent with the Guilty; and that the thing deligned in the Law was not mentioned in it, but left to the People (whose Fault was want of Consideration) to be by Consideration found out.

To avoid these Absurdities, you have reformed your Scheme, and now in your Reply own with the frankest Persecutors, that you punish Men downright for their Religion, and that to be a Dissenter from the true Religion, is a Fault to be punished by the Magistrate. This indeed i [...] plain dealing, and clears your Method from these Absurdities as long as you keep to it: but where ever you tell us, that your Laws are to make Men hear, to make Men consider, to make Men examine; whilst the Laws themselves say nothing of hearing, considering and examining, there you are still chargeable with all these Absurdities: Nor will the Distinction, which without any Difference you would set up, between the Fault for which Men are to be punished, and the End for which they are to be punished, do you any Service herein, as I have shewed you in another Place.

To what I said L. 2. from p. 25, to p. 32. concerning those who by your Scheme are to be punished, you having thought sit not to answer any thing, I shall here again offer it to your Consideration.

Let us inquire, First, Who it is you would have be punished. In the Place above cited, they are those who are got into a wrong way, and are deaf to all Perswasions. If these are the Men to be punished, let a Law be made against them: you have my Consent; and that is the proper Course to have Offenders punished. For you do not, I hope, intend to punish any Fault by a Law, which you do not name in the Law; nor make a Law against any Fault you would not have punished. And now, if you are sincere, and in earnest, and are (as a fair Man should be) for what your Words plainly signify, and nothing else; what will such a Law serve for? Men in the wrong Way are to be punished: but who are in the wrong Way, is the Question. You [95] have no more reason to determine it against one, who differs from you, than he has to conclude against you, who differ from him: No, not tho you have the Magistrate and the National Church on your side. For if to differ from them be to be in the wrong Way; you who are in the right Way in England, will be in the wrong Way in France. Every one here must be Judg for himself: And your Law will reach no body, till you have convinced him he is in the wrong Way: and then there will be no need of Punishment to make him consider; unless you will affirm again what you have denied, and have Men punished for imbracing the Religion they believe to be true, when it differs from yours or the Publick.

Besides being in the wrong Way, those who you would have punished, must be such as are deaf to all Perswasions. But any such, I suppose, you will hardly sind, who hearken to no body, not to those of their own Way. If you mean by deaf to all Perswasions, all Perswasions of a contrary Party, or of a different Church; such, I suppose, you may abundantly find in your own Church, as well as else-where; and I presume to them you are so charitable, that you would not have them punished for not lending an Ear to Seducers. For Constancy in the Truth, and Perseverance in the Faith, is (I hope) rather to be incouraged, than by any Penalties check'd in the Orthodox. And your Church doubtless, as well as all others, is Orthodox to it self in all its Tenets. If you mean by all Perswasion, all your Perswasion, or all Perswasion of those of your Communion; you do but beg the Question, and suppose you have a right to punish those who differ from, and will not comply with you.

Your next Words are, When Men fly from the means of a right Information, and will not so much as consider how reasonable it is throughly and impartially to examine a Religion, which they embraced upon such Inducements as ought to have no sway at all in the matter, and therefore with little or no Examination of the proper Grounds of it; What humane Method can be used to bring them to act like Men, in an Affair of such consequence, and to make a wiser and more rational Choice, but that of laying such Penalties upon them, as may ballance the weight of those Prejudices which inclined them to prefer a false Way before the true, and recover them to so much Sobriety and Ref [...]ction, as seriously to put the question to themselves, [96] Whether it be really worth the while to undergo such Inconveniences for adhering to a Religion, which, for any thing they know, may be false, or for rejecting another (if that be the case) which, for any thing they know, may be true, till they have brought it to the Bar of Reason, and given it a fair trial there? Here you again bring in such as prefer a false Way before a true: to which having answered already, I shall here say no more, but, That since our Church will not allow those to be in a false Way who are out of the Church of Rome, because the Church of Rome (which pretends Infallibility) declares hers to be the only true Way; certainly no one of our Church (nor any other, which claims not Infallibility) can require any one to take the Testimony of any Church, as a sufficient Proof of the Truth of her own Doctrine. So that true and false (as it commonly happens, when we suppose them for our selves, or our Party) in effect, signify just nothing, or nothing to the purpose; unless we can think that true or false in England, which will not be so at Rome or Geneva; and Vice versâ. As for the rest of the description of those, on whom you are here laying Penalties; I beseech you consider whether it will not belong to any of your Church, let it be what it will. Consider, I say, if there be none in your Church who have imbraced her Religion upon such Inducements as ought to have no sway at all in the matter, and therefore with little or no Examination of the proper Grounds of it; who have not been inclined by Prejudices; who do not adhere to a Religion, which for any thing they know may be false; and who have rejected another, which for any thing they know may be true. If you have any such in your Communion, (and 'twill be an admirable, though I fear but a little Flock that has none such in it) consider well what you have done. You have prepared Rods for them, for which I imagine they will con you no thanks. For to make any tolerable Sense of what you here propose, it must be understood that you would have Men of all Religions punished, to make them consider whether it be really worth the while to undergo such Inconveniences for adhering to a Religion, which for any thing they know may be false. If you hope to avoid that, by what you have said of true and false; and pretend that the supposed Preference of the true Way in your Church, ought to preserve its Members from your Punishment; you manifestly trifle. For every Church's Testimony, that it has chosen the [97] true Way, must be taken for it self; and then none will be liable; and your new Invention of Punishment is come to nothing: Or else the differing Churches Testimonies must be taken one for another; and then they will be all out of the true Way, and your Church need Penalties as well as the rest. So that, upon your Principles, they must all or none be punished. Chuse which you please; one of them, I think, you cannot escape.

What you say in the next Words; Where Instruction is stifly refused, and all Admonitions and Perswasions prove vain and ineffectual; differs nothing but in the way of expressing, from Deaf to all Perswasions: And so that is answered already.

In another place, you give us another description of those you think ought to be punished, in these Words; Those who refuse to embrace the Doctrine, and submit to the Spiritual Government of the proper Ministers of Religion, who by special Designation, are appointed to Exhort, Admonish, Reprove, &c. Here then, those to be punished, are such who refuse to imbrace the Doctrine, and submit to the Government of the proper Ministers of Religion. Whereby we are as much still at uncertainty as we were before, who those are who (by your Scheme, and Laws sutable to it) are to be punished; since every Church has, as it thinks, its proper Ministers of Religion: And if you mean those that refuse to imbrace the Doctrine, and submit to the Government of the Ministers of another Church; then all Men will be guilty, and must be punished, even those of your own Church as well as others. If you mean those who refuse, &c. the Ministers of their own Church, very few will incur your Penalties: But if by these proper Ministers of Religion, the Ministers of some particular Church are intended, why do you not name it? Why are you so reserved in a Matter, wherein, if you speak not out, all the rest that you say will be to no purpose? Are Men to be punished for refusing to imbrace the Doctrine, and submit to the Government of the proper Ministers of the Church of Geneva? For this time (since you have declared nothing to the contrary) let me suppose you of that Church; and then I am sure, that is it that you would name: for of whatever Church you are, if you think the Ministers of any one Church ought to be hear kned to, and obeyed, it must be those of your own. There are Persons to be punished, you say: This you contend for all through your Book, and lay so much stress on it, that you make the [98] Preservation and Propagation of Religion, and the Salvation of Souls, to depend on it: and yet you describe them by so general and equivocal Marks, that, unless it be upon Suppositions which no body will grant you, I dare say, neither you nor any body else will be able to find one guilty. Pray find me, if you can, a Man whom you can judicially prove (for he that is to be punished by Law, must be fairly tried) is in a wrong way, in respect of his Faith; I mean, who is deaf to all Perswasions, who flies from all means of a right Information, who refuses to imbrace the Doctrine, and submit to the Government of the Spiritual Pastors. And when you have done that, I think I may allow you what Power you please to punish him, without any prejudice to the Toleration the Author of the Letter proposes.

But why, I pray, all this boggling, all this loose talking, as if you knew not what you meant, or durst not speak it out? Would you be for punishing some body, you know not whom? I do not think so ill of you. Let me then speak out for you. The Evidence of the Argument has convinced you that Men ought not to be persecuted for their Religion; That the Severities in use amongst Christians cannot be defended; That the Magistrate has not Authority to compel any one to his Religion. This you are forced to yield. But you would fain retain some Power in the Magistrate's Hands to punish Dissenters, upon a new Pretence, viz. not for having imbraced the Doctrine and Worship they believe to be True and Right, but for not having well considered their own and the Magistrate's Religion. To shew you that I do not speak wholly without book, give me leave to mind you of one Passage of yours: the Words are, [...] to put them upon a serious and impartial examination of the Controversy between the Magistrate and them. Though these Words be not intended to tell us who you would have punished, yet it may be plainly inferr'd from them. And they more clearly point out whom you aim at, than all the foregoing Places, where you seem to (and should) describe them. For they are such as between whom and the Magistrate there is a Controversy; that is, in short, who differ from the Magistrate in Religion. And now indeed you have given us a Note by which these you would have punished may be known. We have, with much ado, found at last whom it is we may [99] presume you would have punished. Which in other Cases is usually not very difficult: because there the Faults to be amended, easily design the Persons to be corrected. But yours is a new Method, and unlike all that ever went before it.

In the next place, let us see for what you would have them punished. You tell us, and it will easily be granted you, that not to examine and weigh impartially, and without Prejudice or Passion, (all which, for shortness sake, we will express by this one word Consider) the Religion one embraces or refuses, is a Fault very common, and very prejudicial to true Religion, and the Salvation of Mens Souls. But Penalties and Punishments are very necessary, say you, to remedy this Evil.

Let us now see how you apply this Remedy. Therefore, say you, let all Dissenters be punished. Why? Have no Dissenters considered of Religion? Or have all Conformists considered? That you your self will not say. Your Project therefore is just as reasonable, as if a Lethargy growing Epidemical in England, you should propose to have a Law made to blister and scarify and shave the Heads of all who wear Gowns; tho it be certain that neither all who wear Gowns are Lethargick, nor all who are Lethargick wear Gowns.

—Dii te, Damasippe, Deaeq;
Verrum ob consilium donent tonsore.

For there could not be certainly a more Learned Advice, than that one Man should be pull'd by the Ears, because another is asleep. This, when you have consider'd of it again, (for I find, according to your Principle, all Men have now and then need to be jogg'd) you will, I guess, be convinced is not like a fair Physician, to apply a Remedy to a Disease; but, like an engaged Enemy, to 'vent one's Spleen upon a Party. Common Sense, as well as Common Justice, requires, that the Remedies of Laws and Penalties should be directed against the Evil that is to be removed, where-ever it be found. And if the Punishment you think so necessary, be (as you pretend) to cure the Mischief you complain of, you must let it pursue, and fall on the Guilty, and those only, in what Company soever they are; and not, as you here propose, and is the highest Injustice, punish the innocent considering Dissenter, with the [100] Guilty; and, on the other side, let the inconsiderate guilty Conformist scape, with the Innocent. For one may rationally presume that the National Church has some, nay more, in proportion of those who little consider or concern themselves about Religion, than any Congregation of Dissenters. For Conscience, or the Care of their Souls, being once laid aside; Interest, of course, leads Men into that Society, where the Protection and Countenance of the Government, and hopes of Preferment, bid fairest to all their remaining Desires. So that if careless, negligent, inconsiderate Men in Matters of Religion, who, without being forced, would not consider, are to be rouzed into a Care of their Souls, and a Search after Truth, by Punishments; the National Religion, in all Countries, will certainly have a right to the greatest share of those Punishments, at least, not to be wholly exempt from them.

This is that which the Author of the Letter, as I remember, complains of, and that justly, viz. That the pretended Care of Mens Souls always expresses it self, in those who would have Force any way made use of to that End, in very unequal Methods; some Persons being to be treated with Severity, whilst others, guilty of the same Faults, are not to be so much as touched. Though you are got pretty well out of the deep Mud, and renounce Punishments directly for Religion; yet you stick still in this part of the Mire; whilst you would have Dissenters punished to make them consider, but would not have any thing done to Conformists, though never so negligent in this point of considering. The Author's Letter pleased me, because it is equal to all Mankind, is direct, and will, I think, hold every-where; which I take to be a good Mark of Truth. For I shall always suspect that neither to comport with the Truth of Religion, or the Design of the Gospel, which is suted to only some one Country or Party. What is True and Good in England, will be True and Good at Rome too, in China or Geneva. But whether your great and only Method for the propagating of Truth, by bringing the Inconsiderate by Punishments to consider, would (according to your way of applying your Punishments only to Dissenters from the National Religion) be of use in those Countries, or any where but [101] where you suppose the Magistrate to be in the right, judg you. Pray, Sir, consider a little, whether Prejudice has not some share in your way of arguing. For this is your Position; Men are generally negligent in examining the Grounds of their Religion. This I grant. But could there be a more wild and incoherent Consequence drawn from it, than this; Therefore Dissenters must be punished?

All this you are pleased to pass over without the least Notice: but perhaps you think you have made me full Satisfaction in your Answer to my Demand, who are to be punish'd? We will here therefore consider that as it stands, where you tell us, Those P. 48. who are to be punished according to the whole Tenour of your Answer, are no other but such, as having sufficient Evidence tender'd them of the true Religion, do yet reject it: whether utterly refusing to consider that Evidence, or not considering as they ought, viz. with such Care and Diligence as the matter deserves and requires, and with honest and unbiassed Minds; and what Difficulty there is in this, you say you cannot imagine. You promised you would tell the World, who P. 46. they were plainly and directly. And though you tell us, you cannot imagine what Difficulty there is in this your Account of who are to be punished, yet there are some things in it, that make it to my Apprehension not very plain and direct. For first they must be only those who have the true Religion tender'd them with sufficient Evidence: Wherein there appears some Difficulty to me, who shall be Judg what is the true Religion: and for that, in every Country 'tis most probable the Magistrate will be. If you think of any other, pray tell us. Next there seems some Difficulty to know, who shall be Judg what is sufficient Evidence. For where a Man is to be punished by Law, he must be convicted of being guilty; which since in this Case he cannot be, unless it be proved he has had the true Religion tender'd to him with sufficient Evidence, it is necessary that some body there must be Judg what is the true Religion, and what is sufficient Evidence; and others to prove it has been so tender'd. If you were to be of the Jury, we know what would be your Verdict concerning sufficient Evidence, by these Words of yours, To say that a Man who has the true Religion P. [...] proposed to him with sufficient Evidence of its Truth, may consider it as he ought, or do his utmost in considering, and yet not [...] the Truth of it, is neither more nor less, than to say that sufficient Evidence is not sufficient: For what does any Man mean by sufficient [102] Evidence, but such as will certainly win Assent where-ever it is duly considered? Upon which his conforming, or not conforming, would without any farther Questions determine the Point. But whether the rest of the Jury could upon this be able ever to bring in any Man guilty, and so liable to Punishment, is a Question. For if sufficient Evidence be only that which certainly wins Assent, where-ever a Man does his utmost in considering, 'twill be very hard to prove that a Man who rejects the true Religion, has had it tender'd with sufficient Evidence, because it will be very hard to prove he has not done his utmost in considering it. So that notwithstanding all you have here said, to punish any Man by your Method is not yet so very practicable.

But you clear all in your following Words, which say, There is nothing more evident than that those who reject the true Religion, are culpable, and deserve to be punished. By whom? By Men: That's so far from being evident, as you talk, that it will require better Proofs than I have yet seen for it. Next you say, 'Tis easy enough to know when Men reject the true Religion. Yes, when the true Religion is known, and agreed on what shall be taken to be so in Judicial Proceedings, which can scarce be till 'tis agreed who shall determine what is true Religion, and what not. Suppose a Penalty should in the University be laid on those who rejected the true Peripatetick Doctrine, could that Law be executed on any one, unless it were agreed who should be Judg what was the true Peripatetick Doctrine? If you say it may be known out of Aristotle's Writings: then I answer, that it would be a more reasonable Law to lay the Penalty on any one, who rejected the Doctrine contained in the Books allowed to be Aristotle's, and printed under his Name. You may apply this to the true Religion, and the Books of the Scripture, if you please: though after all there must be a Judg agreed on, to determine what Doctrines are contained in either of those Writings, before the Law can be practicable.

But you go on to prove, that it is easy to know when Men reject P. 48. the true Religion: for, say you, that requires no more than that we know that that Religion was [...] to them with sufficient Evidence of the Truth of it. And that it may be tender'd to Men with such Evidence, and that it may be known when it is so tender'd, these things, you say, you take leave here to suppose. You suppose then more than can be allow'd you. For that it can be judicially known that [103] the true Religion has been tender'd to any one with sufficient Evidence, is what I deny, and that for Reasons above mentioned, which were there no other Difficulty in it, were sufficient to shew the Unpracticableness of your Method.

You conclude this Paragraph thus, Which is all that needs be said upon this Head to shew the Consistency and Practicableness of this Method: And what do you any where say against this? Whether I say any thing or no against it, I will bring a Friend of yours that will say that Dissenters ought to be punished for being out of the Communion of the Church of England. I will ask you now, how it can be proved that such an one is guilty of rejecting the one only true Religion? Perhaps it is because he [...] the Cross in Baptism, or Godfathers and Godmothers as th [...]y are used, or kneeling at the Lord's Supper; perhaps it is because he cannot pronounce all damn'd that believe not all [...]'s Creed, or cannot join with some of those Repetitions in our Common Prayer, thinking them to come within the Prohibition of our Saviour, each of which shuts a Man out from the Communion of the Church of England, as much as if he denied Jesus Christ to be the Son of God. Now, Sir, I be [...]eech you, how can it be known, that ever sufficient Evidence was tender'd to such a Dissenter to prove, that what he rejects is a part of that one only true Religion, which unless he be of, he cannot be saved? Or indeed how can it be known, that any Dissenter rejects that one only true Religion, when being punished barely for not conforming, he is never asked, what part it is he dissents from or rejects? and so it may be some of those things which I imagine will always want sufficient Evidence to prove them to be Parts of that only one true Religion, without the hearty imbracing whereof no Man can be saved.

[104]

CHAP. IV. What Degrees of Punishment.↩

HOW much soever you have endeavoured to reform the Doctrine of Persecution to make it serve your turn, and give it the Colour of Care and Zeal for the true Religion in the Country where alone you are concern'd it should be made use of; yet you have laboured in vain, and done no more, but given the old Engine a new Varnish to set it off the better, and make it look less frightful: For by what has been said in the foregoing Chapters, I think it will appear, that if any Magistrate have Power to punish. Men in Matters of Religion, all have; and that Dissenters from the National Religion must be punished every where or no where. The horrid Cruelties that in all Ages, and of late in our View, have been committed under the Name, and upon the Account of Religion, give so just an Offence and Abhorrence to all who have any remains, not only of Religion, but Humanity left, that the World is ashamed to own it. This Objection therefore, as much as Words or Professions can do, you have laboured to fence against; and to exempt your Design from the Suspition of any Severities, you take Care in every Page almost to let us hear of moderate Force, moderate Penalties; but all in vain: and I doubt not but when this part too is examined, it will appear, that as you neither have, nor can limit the Power of punishing to any distinct sort of Magistrates, nor exempt from Punishment the Dissenters from any National Religion: So neither have, nor can you limit the Punishment to any Degree short of the highest, if you will use Punishments at all in matters of Religion. What you have done in this Point besides giving us good Words, I will now examine.

You tell me, I have taken a Liberty which will need Pardon, because P. 1. I say, `You have plainly yielded the Question by owning `those greater Severities to be improper and unsit. But if I shall make it out, that those are as proper and sit as your moderate [105] Penalties; and that if you will use one, you must come to the other, as will appear from what you your self say: whatever you may think, I shall not imagine other Readers will conclude I have taken too great a Liberty, or shall much need Pardon. For if as you say in the next Page, Authority may P. 2. reasonably and justly use some Degrees of Force where it is needful; I say they may also use any Degree of Force where it is needful. Now upon your Grounds, Fire and Sword, tormenting and undoing, and those other Punishments which you condemn, will be needful, even to Torments of the highest Severity, and be as necessary as those moderate Penalties which you will not name. For I ask you, to what Purpose do you use any Degree of Force? Is it to prevail with Men to do something that is in their Power, or that is not? The latter I suppose you will not say, till your Love of Force is so increased, that you shall think it necessary to be made use of to produce Impossibilities: If Force then be to be used only to bring Men to do what is in their Power, what is the Necessity you assign of it? only this, as I remember, viz. that when gentle Admonitions and earnest Intreaties will not prevail, what other means is there left but Force? And I upon the same Ground reply; If lesser Degrees of Force will not prevail, what other means is there left but greater? If the lowest Degree of Force be necessary where gentler means will not prevail, because there is no other means left; higher Degrees of Force are necessary where lower will not prevail, for the same Reason. Unless you will say all Degrees of Force work alike; and that lower Penalties prevail as much on Men as greater, and will equally bring them to do what is in their Power. If so a Phlip on the Forehead, or a Farthing Mulct, may be Penalty enough to bring Men to what you propose. But if you shall laugh at these, as being for their Smalness insufficient, and therefore will think it necessary to increase them, I say, whereever Experience shews any Degree of Force to be insufficient to prevail, there will be still the same necessity to increase it. For where-ever the End is necessary, and Force is the means, the only means left to procure it, both which you suppose in our Case, there it will be found always necessary to increase the Degrees of Force, where the lower prove ineffectual, as well till you come to the highest, as when you begin with the lowest. So that in your present Case I do not wonder you use so many [106] Shifts, as I shall shew by and by you do, to decline naming the highest Degree of what you call moderate. If any Degree be necessary, you cannot assign any one (condemn it in Words as much as you please) which may not be so, and which you must not come to the Use of. If there be no such Necessity of Force as will justify those higher Degrees of it, which are Severities you condemn, neither will it justify the Use of your lower Degrees.

If, as you tell us, false Religions prevail against the true, merely [...]. 7. by the Advantage they have in the Corruption and Pravity of humane Nature left to it self unbridled by Authority. If the not receiving the true Religion be a Mark and Effect merely of the Prevalency of the Corruption of humane Nature; may not, nay, must not the Magistrate, if less will not do, use his [...]most Force to bring Men to the true Religion? his Force being given him to suppress that Corruption; especially since you give it for a Measure of the Force to be used, that it must be so much, as without which ordinarily they will not imbrace the Truth that must save them. What ordinarily signifies here to make any determinate Measure is hard to guess; but signify it what it will, so much Force must be used, as without which Men will not imbrace the Truth; which, if it signify any thing intelligible, requires, that where lower Degrees will not do, greater must be used, till you come to what will ordinarily do; but what that ordinarily is, no Man can tell. If one Man will not be wrought on by as little Force as another, must not greater Degrees of Force be used to him? Shall the Magistrate who is obliged to do what lies in him, be exeused, for letting him be damn'd, without the Use of all the means was in his Power? And will it be sufficient for him to plead, that though he did not all what lay in him, yet he did what ordinarily prevailed, or what prevailed on several others. Force, if that be the Remedy, must be proportion'd to the Opposition. If the Dose that has frequently wrought on others, will not purge a Man whose Life lies on it, must it not therefore be made sufficient and effectual, because it will be more than what is called ordinary? Or can any one say the Physician has done his Duty, who lets his Patient in an extraordinary Case perish in the Use of only moderate Remedies, and pronounces him incurable, before he has tried the utmost he can with the powerfullest Remedies which are in his reach?

[107]

Having renounced loss of Estate, corporal Punishments, Imprisonment, and such sort of Severities, as unfit to be used in Matters of Religion; you ask, Will it follow from [...]ence that the Magistrate P. 19. has no right to use any Force at all? Yes, it will follow, till you give some Answer to what I say in that place, viz. that if you give up Punishments of a Man in his Person, Liberty and Estate, I think we need not stand with you for any Punishments may be made use of. But this you pass by without any notice. I doubt not but you will here think you have a ready Answer, by telling me, you mean only depriving Men of their Estates, mai [...]ing them with corporal Punishments, starving and tormenting them in no [...]som Prisons, and other such Severities which you have by name P. [...]. excepted; but lower Penalties may yet be used, for Penalties is the word you carefully use, and disclaim that of Punishment, as if you disowned the thing. I wish you would tell us too by name, what those lower Penalties are you would have used, as well as by name you tell us those Severities you disallow. They may not maim a Man with corporal Punishments; May they use any corporal Punishments at all? They may not starve and [...] them in noisom Prisons for Religion, that you condemn as much as I: May they put them in any Prison at all? They may not deprive Men of their Estates; I suppose you mean their whole Estates: May they take away half, or a quarter, or an hundred [...] part? 'Tis strange you should be able to name the Degrees of Severity that will hinder more than promote the Progress of Religion, and cannot name those Degrees that will promote rather than hinder it; that those who would take their Measures by you, and follow your Scheme, might know how to proceed so, as not to do more Harm than Good: for since you are so certain, that there are Degrees of Punishments or Penalties that will do Good, and other Degrees of them that will do Harm; ought you not to have told us, what that true Degree is, or how it may be known, without which all your goodly Scheme is of no use? For allowing all you have said to be as true as you would have it, no Good can be done without shewing the just Measure of Punishment to be used.

If the Degree be too great, it will, you confess, do Harm: Can one then not err on the other hand, by using too little? If you say so, we are agreed, and I desire no better Tolera [...]on. If therefore too great will do Harm, and too little, in your Opinion [108] will do no Good, you ought to tell us the just mean. This I pressed upon you; whereof that the Reader may be Judg, I shall here trouble him with the Repetition.

There is a third Thing, that you are as tender and reserv'd L. 2. p. 40. in, as either naming the Criminals to be punished, or positively telling us the End for which they should be punished; and that is, with what sort of Penalties, what degree of Punishment they should be forced. You are indeed so gracious to them, that you renounce the Severities and Penalties hitherto made use of. You tell us, they should be but moderate Penalties. A. p. 24. But if we ask you what are moderate Penalties, you confess you cannot tell us: so that by Moderate here, you yet mean nothing. You tell us, The outward Force to be applied, A. p. 15. should be duly tempered. But what that due Temper is, you do not, or cannot say; and so in effect, it signifies just nothing. Yet if in this you are not plain and direct, all the rest of your Design will signify nothing. For it being to have some Men, and to some End, punished; yet if it cannot be found what Punishment is to be used, it is (notwithstanding all you have said) utterly useless. You tell us modestly, That to determine precisely the just measure of the Punishment, will require some Consideration. A. p. 12. If the Faults were precisely determined, and could be proved, it would require no more Consideration to determine the Measure of the Punishment in this, than it would in any other Case, where those were known. But where the Fault is undesined, and the Guilt not to be proved, (as I suppose it will be found in this present business of examining) it will without doubt require Consideration to proportion the Force to the Design: just so much Consideration as it will require to fit a Coat to the Moon, or proportion a Shoe to the Feet of those who inhabit her. For to proportion a Punishment to a Fault that you do not name, (and so we in Charity ought to think you do not yet know) and a Fault that when you have named it, will be impossible to be proved who are or are not guilty, of it; will I suppose require as much Consideration as to fit a Shoe to Feet whose Size and Shape are not known.

However, you offer some Measures whereby to regulate your Punishments; which when they are looked into, will be found to be just as good as none, they being impossible to be any Rule in the case. The first is, So much Force, or such Penalties A. p. 14. [109] as are ordinarily sufficient to prevail with Men of common Difere [...]on, and not de [...]erately perverse and obstinate, to weigh Matters of Religion carefully and impartially, and without which ordinarily they will not do this. Where it is to be observed:

First, That who are these Men of common Discretion, is as hard to know, as to know what is a fit degree of Punishment in the case; and so you do but regulate one Uncertainty by another. Some Men will be apt to think, that he who will not weigh Matters of Religion, which are of infinite concernment to him, without Punishment, cannot in reason be thought a Man of common Discretion. Many Women of common Discretion enough to manage the ordinary Affairs of their Families, are not able to read a Page in an ordinary Author, or to understand and give an account what it m [...]ans, when read to them. Many Men of common Discretion in their Callings, are not able to judg when an Argument is conclusive or no; much less to trace it through a long Train of Consequences. What Penalties shall be sufficient to prevail with such (who upon examination, I fear, will not be found to make the least part of Mankind) to examine and weigh Matters of Religion carefully and impartially? The Law allows all to have common Discretion, for whom it has not provided Guardians or Bedlam. So that, in effect, your Men of common Discretion, are all Men, not judg'd Idiots or Mad-men: And Penalties sufficient to prevail with Men of common Discretion, are Penalties sufficient to prevail with all Men but Idiots and Mad-men. Which what a Measure it is to regulate Penalties by, let all Men of common Discretion judg.

Secondly, You may be pleased to consider, that all Men of the same degree of Discretion, are not apt to be moved by the same degree of Penalties. Some are of a more yielding, some of a more stiff Temper; and what is sufficient to prevail on one, is not half enough to move the other; though both Men of common Discretion. So that common Discretion will be here of no use to determine the Measure of Punishment: especially, when in the same Clause you except Men desperately perverse and obstinate; who are as hard to be known, as what you seek, viz. the just Proportions of Punishments necessary to prevail with Men to consider, examine, and weigh Matters of Religion; wherein, if a Man tells you he has considered, he has weighed, he [110] has examined, and so goes on in his former Course, 'tis impossible for you ever to know whether he has done his Duty, or whether he be desperately perverse and obstinate. So that this Exception signifies just nothing.

There are many things in your use of Force and Penalties, different from any I ever met with elsewhere. One of them, this Clause of yours concerning the Measure of Punishments, now under consideration, offers me; wherein you proportion your Punishments only to the Yielding and Corrigible, not to the Perverse and Obstinate; contrary to the common Discretion which has hitherto made Laws in other cases, which levels the Punishments against refractory Offenders, and never spares them because they are obstinate. This however I will not blame as an Over-sight in you. Your new Method, which aims at such impracticable and inconsistent things as Laws cannot bear, nor Penalties be useful to, forced you to it. The Uselesness, Ab [...]dity, and Unreasonableness of great Severi [...]s, you had acknowledged in the foregoing Paragraphs: Dissenters you would have brought to consider by moderate [...]eties; they lie under them; but whether they have considered or no, (for that you cannot tell) they still continue Dissenters. What is to be done now? Why, the Incurable are to be left to God, as you tell us. Your Punishments were not meant to prevail A. p. 12. on the desperately Perverse and Obstinate, as you tell us here. And so whatever be the Success, your Punishments are however justified.

The fulness of your Answer to my Question, With what Punishments, made you possibly pass by these two or three Pages without making any particular Reply to any thing I said in them: we will therefore examine that Answer of yours, where you tell us, That having in your Answer declared that you take P. 49. the Severities so often mentioned (which either destroy Men, or make them miserable) to be utterly unapt and improper (for Reasons there given) to bring Men to imbrace the Truth that must save them: but just how far within those Bounds that Force extends it self, which is really serviceable to that end, you do not presume to determine. To determine how far moderate Force reaches, when it is necessary to your business that it should be determined, is not presuming: You might with more reason have called it presuming, to talk of moderate Penalties, and not to be able to determine what you [111] mean by them; or to promise, as you do, That you will tell plainly and directly, with what Punishments; and here to tell us, You do not presume to determine. But you give a reason for this Modesty of yours, in what follows, where you tell me, I have not shown any cause why you should. And yet you may find in what is above repeated to you, these words,‘If in this you are not plain and direct, all the rest of your Design will signify nothing.’ But had I failed in shewing any cause why you should; and your Charity would not enlighten us, unless driven by my Reasons, I dare say yet, If I have not shown any cause why you should determine in this Point, I can shew a cause why you should not. For I will be answerable to you, that you cannot name any Degree of Punishment, which will not be either so great, as to come amongst those you condemn, and shew what your Moderation, what your Aversion to Persecution is; or else too little to attain those Ends for which you propose it. But whatever you tell me, that I have shewn no cause why you should determine, I thought it might have passed for a cause why you should determine more particularly, that (as you will find in those Pages) I had proved that the Measures, you offer whereby to regulate your Punishments, are just as good as none.

Your Measures in your Argument considered, and which you repeat here again, are in these Words; So much Force, or such P. 49. P [...]nalties as are ordinarily sufficient to prevail with Men of common Discretion, and not desperately perverse, to weigh Matters of Religion carefully and impartially, and without which ordinarily they will not do this; so much Force, or such Penalties may fitly and reasonably be used for the pr [...]moting true Religion in the World, and the Salvation of Souls. And what just Exception this is liable to, you do not understand. Some of the Exceptions it is liable to, you might have seen in what I have here again caused to be reprinted, if you had thought them worth your notice. But you go on to tell us here, That when you speak of Men of common Discretion, Ibid. and not desperately perverse and obstinate, you think 'tis plain enough, that by common Discretion you exclude not Idiots only, and such as we usually call Mad-men, but likewise the desperately Perverse and Obstinate, who perhaps may well enough deserve that Name, though they be not wont to be sent to Bedlam.

Whether by this you have at all taken off the Difficulty, and shewn your Measure to be any at all in th [...] use of Force, I leave [112] the Reader to judg. I asked, Since great ones are unfit, what Degrees of Punishment or Force are to be used? You answer, So much Force, and such Penalties as are ordinarily sufficient to prevail with Men of ordinary Discretion. I tell you 'tis as hard to know who those Men of common Discretion are, as what Degree of Punishment you would have used; ‘unless we will take the Determination of the Law, which allows all to have common Discretion, for whom it has not provided Guardians or Bedlam: so that in effect, your Men of common Discretion are all Men not judg'd Idiots or Mad-men.’ To clear this, you tell us, When you speak of Men of common Discretion, and not desperately perverse and obstinate, you think 'tis plain enough, by common Discretion you exclude not Idiots only, and such as are usually called Mad-men, but likewise the desperately perverse and obstinate. It may be you did, for you best know what you meant in writing: but if by Men of common Discretion, you excluded the desperately perverse and obstinate, let us put what you meant by the words, Men of common Discretion, in the place of those Words themselves, and then according to your meaning, your Rule stands thus; Penalties ordinarily sufficient to prevail with Men not desperately perverse and obstinate, and with Men not desperately perverse and obstinate: so that at last, by Men of common Discretion, either you excluded only Idiots and Mad-men; or if we must take your word for it, that by them you excluded likewise the desperately pe [...]verse and obstinate, and so meant something else; 'tis plain, you meant only a very useless and insignificant Tantology.

You go on, and tell us, If the Penalties you steak of, be intended P. 49. for the curing Mens unreasonable Prejudices and Refractoriness against the true Religion, then the reason why the desperately perverse and obstinate are not to be regarded in measuring these Penalties, is very apparent. For as Remedies are not provided for the Incurable, so in the preparing and tempering them, regard is to be had only to those for whom they are designed. Which, true or false, is nothing to the purpose, in a Place where you profess to inform us, what Punishments are to be used. We are inquiring who are the desperately perverse and obstinate, and not whether they are to be punished or no. You pretend to give us a Rule to know what Degrees of Force are to be used, and tell us, it is so much as is ordinarily sufficient to prevail with Men of common Discretion, and not desperately perverse and obstinate. We again ask, who are [113] your Men of common [...]? You tell us, such as are not Madmen or Idiots, or desperately perverse and obstinate. Very well; but who are those desperately perverse and obstinate, how shall we know them? and to this you t [...]ll us, they are not to be regarded in measuring these Penalties. Whereby certainly we have got a plain Measure of your moderate P [...]nalties. No, not yet, you go on in the next Paragraph to p [...]fect it, where you say, To prevent P. 50. a little Cavil, it m [...]y be needf [...]l to note that there are Degrees of [...] and Obstinacy, and that Men may be p [...]verse and obstinate without being d [...]sperately so. So then now we have your Measure compleat; and [...]o deter [...]ine the just Degrees of Punishments; and to clear up the Doubt, who are the desperately perverse and obstinate, we need but be told that there are Degrees of Perverseness and Obstinacy; and that Men may be perverse and obstinate without being desperately so: And that therefore some perverse and obstinate Persons may be thought curable, though such as are desperately so, cannot. But does all this tell us who are the desperately perverse and obstinate? which is the thing we want to be informed in; nor till you have told us that, have you removed the Objection.

But if by desperately perverse and obstinate, you will tell us, you meant those, that are not wrought upon by your moderate Penalties, as you seem to intimate in your Reason why the desperately perverse and obstinate are not to be regarded in measuring these Penalties: For, say you, as Remedies are not provided for the P. 49. incurable; so in preparing and tempering them, regard is to be had only to those for whom they are designed. So that by the desperately perverse and obstinate, you will perhaps say 'twas plain you meant the incurable; for you ordinarily shift off the Doubtfulness of one Place, by appealing to as doubtful an Expression in another. If you say then, that by desperately perverse and obstinate, you mean incurable; I ask you again by what incurable? by your lower Degrees of Force? For I hope where Force is proper to work, those who are not wrought on by lower Degrees, may yet be by higher. If you mean so, then your Answer will amount to thus much, Moderate Penalties are such as are sufficient to prevail on those who are not desperately perverse and obstinate. The desperately perverse and obstinate are those who are incu [...]ble, and the Incurable are those on whom moderate Penalties are not sufficient to prevail: Whereby at last we have got a sure Measure [114] of what are moderate Penalties; just such an one, as if having a Soveraign Universal Medicine put into your Hand, which will never fail, if you can hit the right Dose, which the Inventer tells you must be moderate: You should ask him what was the moderate Quantity it is to be given in? and he should answer, In such a Quantity as was ordinarily sufficient to work on common Constitutions, and not desperately perverse and obstinate. And to you asking again, who were of desperately perverse and obstinate Constitutions? It should be answered, Those that were incurable. And who were incurable? Those whom a moderate Quantity would not work on. And thus to your Satisfaction, you know the moderate Dose by the desperately perverse and obstinate; and the desperately perverse and obstinate by being incurable; and the Incurable by the moderate Dose. For if, as you say, Remedies are not provided for the incurable, and none but moderate Penalties are to be provided, is it not plain, that you mean, that all that will not be wrought on by your moderate Penalties, are in your Sense incurable?

To ease you, Sir, of justifying your self, and shewing that I have mistaken you, do but tell us positively what in Penalties is the highest Degree of moderate; who are desperately perverse and obstinate; or who are incurable, without this relative and circular way of defining one by the other; and I will yield my self to have mistaken you, as much as you please.

If by incurable you mean such as no Penalties, no Punishments, no Force is sufficient to work on; then your Measure of moderate Penalties will be this, that they are such, as are sufficient to prevail with Men not incurable, i. e. who cannot be prevailed on by any Punishments, any Force whatsoever; which will be a Measure of moderate Punishments, which (whatsoever you do) some will be very apt to approve of.

But let us suppose by these Marks (since you will afford us no better) that we can find who are desperately perverse and obstinate, we are yet as far as ever from finding the Measures of your moderate Punishments, till it can be known, what Degree of Force it is, that is ordinarily sufficient to prev [...]il with all that are Men of common Discretion, and not desperately perverse and obstinate; for you are told, that all Men of the same Degree of Discretion are not apt to be moved with the same Degree of Penalties: But to this too you answer nothing, and so we are still without any Rule or Means of knowing how to adjust your Punishments, [115] that being ordinarily sufficient to prevail upon one, the double whereof is not ordinarily sufficient to prevail on another.

I tell you in the same Place,‘That you have given us in another L. 2. p. [...]. Place, something like another Boundary to your m [...]derate P [...]nalties: But when examined, it proves just like the rest, amusing us only with good Words, so put together as to have no direct meaning; an Art very much in use amongst some sort o [...] learned Men: The Words are these; Such Penalties as may not tempt Persons who have any Concern for their Eternal Salvation (and those who have none, ought not to be considered) to renounce a Religion which they believe to be true, or profess one which they do not believe to be so. If by any Concern, you mean such as Men ought to have for their Eternal Salvation; by this Rule you may make your Punishments as great as you please; and all the Severities you have disclaimed may be brought in Play again: For none of those will be able to make a Man, who is truly concerned for his eternal Salvation, renounce a Religion he believes to be true, or profess one he does not believe to be so. If by those who have any Concern, you mean such, who have some faint Wishes for Happiness hereafter, and would be glad to have things go well with them in the other World, but will venture nothing in this World for it; these the moderatest Punishments you can imagine will make to change their Religion. If by any Concern, you mean whatever may be between these two; the Degrees are so infinite, that to Proportion your Punishments by that, is to have no measure of them at all.’ To which all the Reply I can find is only this, That there are Degrees of Carelesness P. 50. in Men of their Salvation, as well as of Concern for it. So that such as have some Concern for their Salvation, may yet be careless of it to a great Degree. And therefore if those who have any Concern for their Salvation, deserve Regard and Pity; then so may some careless Persons: though those who have no Concern for their Salvation, deserve not to be considered, which spoils a little Harangue you give us, P. 43. If you think this to be an Answer to what I said, or that it can satisfy any one concerning the way of knowing what Degrees of Punishment are to be used, pray tell us so. The Enquiry is, what Degrees of Punishment will tempt a Man, who has any Concern for his Eternal Salv [...]ion, to renounce a Religion he believes to be true? And 'tis answered, There are Degrees of Carelesness [116] in Men of their Salvation, as well as Concern for it. A happy Discovery: What's the Use of it? So that such as have some Concern for their Salvation, may yet be careless of it to a great Degree. Very true: By this we may know what Degree of Force is to be used. No, not a Word of that, but the Inference is, And therefore if those who have any Concern for their Salvation, deserve Regard and Pity, then so may some careless Persons; though those who have no Concern for their Salvation, deserve not to be considered. And by this time we know what Degree of Force will make a Man, who has any Concern for his Salvation, renounce a Religion he believes true, and profess one he does not believe to be so. This might do well at cross Questions: but you are satisfied with what you have done, and what that is, you tell me in the next Words, which spoils a little Harangue of yours given us, P. 43. The Harangue I suppose is contained in these Words.

One thing I cannot but take notice of in this Passage before L. 2. p. 43. I leave it: and that is, that you say here, Those who have no Concern for their Salvation, deserve not to be considered. In other Parts of your Letter you pretend to have Compassion on the careless, and provide Remedies for them: But here of a sudden your Charity fails you, and you give them up to eternal Perdition, without the least Regard, the least Pity, and say, They deserve not to be considered. Our Saviour's Rule was, the sick and not the whole need a Physician: Your Rule here is; Those that are careless, are not to be considered, but are to be lest to themselves. This, would seem strange, if one did not observe what drew you to it. You perceiv'd that if the Magistrate was to use no Punishments, but such as would make no body change their Religion, he was to use none at all: For the careless would be brought to the National Church with any slight Punishments; and when they are once there, you are it seems satisfied, and look no farther after them. So that by your own Measu [...]e if the careless, and those who have no Concern for their Eternal Salvation, are to be regarded and taken Care of, if the Salvation of their Souls is to be promoted, there is to be no Punishments to be used at all: And therefore you leave them out as not to be considered.

What you have said is so far from spoiling that Harangue, as you are pleased to call it, that you having nothing else to say to it, allows what is laid to your Charge in it.

[117]

You wind up all concerning the Measures of your Force in these Words; And as those Medicines are thought safe and advisable, which do ordinarily cure, though not always (as none do;) so those P. 50. Penalties or Punishments, which are ordinarily found sufficient (as well as necessary) for the Ends for which they are designed, may fitly and reasonably be used for the compassing these Ends. Here your ordinarily comes to your Help again; and here one would think that you meant such as cure sometimes, not always; some, though not all: And in this Sense will not the utmost Severities come within your Rule? For can you say, if Punishments are to be used to prevail on any, that the greater will (where lower fail) prevail on none? at least can you be sure of it till they have been tried for the compassing these End? which as we shall see in another Place, you have assigned various e [...]ough. I shall only take notice of two or three often repeated by you, and those are to make Men hear, to make Men consider, to make Men consider as they ought, i. e. as you explain it, to make Men consider so, as not to reject. The Greatness of the Force then, according to this Measure, must be sufficient to make Men hear, sufficient to make Men consider, and sufficient to make Men imbrace the true Religion.

And now the Magistrate has all your Rules about the Measures of Punishments to be used, and may considently and safely go to work to establish it by a Law: for he having these Marks to guide him, that they must be great enough ordinarily to prevail with those who are not Idiots or Madmen, nor desperately perverse and obstinate, great enough ordinarily to prevail with Men to hear, consider and imbrace the true Religion, and yet not so great as might tempt Persons, who have any Concern for their eternal Salvation, to renounce a Religion which they believe to be true, or profess one which they do not believe to be so: Do you not think you have sufficiently inst [...]ucted him in your meaning, and inabled him to find the just Temper of his Punishments according to your Scheme, neither too much nor too little? But however you may be satisfied with them, I suppose others, when it comes to be put in Practice, will by these Measures (which are all I can find in your Scheme) be scarce able to find, what are the Punishments you would have used.

In Eutopia there is a Medicine call'd Hiera Pi [...]ra, which 'tis supposed would [...]ure a troublesome Disease of that Country: [118] but it is not to be given, but in the Dose prescribed by the Law, and in adjusting the Dose lies all the Skill: For if you give too much, it heightens the Distemper, and sp [...]eads the mortal Contagion; and if too little, it does no good at all With this Difficulty the Law-makers have been perpl [...]xed these many Ages, and could not light on the right Dose, that would work the Cure, till lately there came an Undertak [...], who would shew them how they could not mistake. He bid them then prescribe so much, as would ordinarily be effectual upon all that were not Idiots or Mad-men, o [...] in whom [...]e Humour was not [...] perverse and [...], to produce the End for which it was designed; but n [...]t so much as would make a [...] Health, who had any Concern for b [...] Life, fall into a mort [...] Disease. These were good Words, and he was rewarded for them: but when by them they came to [...]ix the [...], t [...]y could not tell whether it ought to be a G [...]ain, a [...] or an Ounce, or a whole Pound, any more than before; and so the [...] of their Hiera Picra, notwithstanding this Gentleman's [...]in is a uncertain, and that soveraign Remedy as [...] as e [...]er it was.

In the next Paragraph you tell us, You do not see what more P. 50. can be required to justify the Rule here given So qui [...]k a Sight needs no Spectacles. For if I demand that it should [...] what Penalties particularly are such as it says may fitly and reasonably be used; this I must give you leave to tell me is a very unreasonable Demand. It is an unreasonable D [...]mand, if your Rule be such, that by it I may know without any more ado the par [...]icular Penalties that are sit; otherwise it is not unreasonable to demand them by Name, if your Marks be not sufficient to know them by. But let us hear your Reason, For what Rule is there that expresses the Particulars that agree with it? And it is an admirable Rule with which one can find no Particulars that agree; for I challenge you to instance in one: A Rule, you say, is intended for a common Measure by which Particulars are to be examined, and therefore must necessarily be general. So general, loose, and inconsistent, that no Particulars can be examined by it: for again I challenge you, or any Man living, to measure out any Punishment by this your common Measure, and establish it by a Law. You go on; And those to whom it is given, are supposed to be able to apply it, and to judg of Particulars by it. Nay it is often seen that they are better able to do this than those who give it: and so it [119] is in the present Case, the Rule hereby laid down is that by which you suppose Governors and Law-givers ought to examine the Penalties they use for the promoting the true Religion, and the Salvation of Souls. Such a Rule it ought to be I grant, and such an one is desired: but that yours is such a Rule as Magistrates can take any Measure by, for the Punishments they are to settle by Law, is denied, and you are again desired to shew. You proceed; P. 50. But certainly no Man doubts but their Prudence and Experience inables them to use and apply it better than other Men, and to judg more exactly what Penalties do agree with it, and what do not; and therefore you think I must excuse you if you do not take upon you to teach them what it becomes you rather to learn for them. If we are not to doubt but their Prudence and Experience inables Magistrates to judg best what Penalties are fit. You have indeed given us at last a way to know the Measure of Punishments to be used: but it is such an one as puts an End to your Distinction of moderate Penalties: For no Magistrates that I know, when they once began to use Force to bring Men to their Religion, ever stopp'd till they came to some of those Severities you condemn; and if you pretend to teach them Moderation for the future, with Hopes to succeed, you ought to have shewed them the just Bounds, beyond which they ought not to go, in a Model so wholly new, and besides all Experience. But if it be to be determined by their Prudence and Experience, whatever Degrees of Force they shall use, will always be the right.

Law-makers and Governors however are beholden to you for your good Opinion of their Prudence and Experience; yet have no Reason to thank you for your Complement, by giving such an Exercise to their Prudence and Experience, as to put it upon them to find out the just Measures of Punishments, by Rules you give them, which are such, that neither your self, nor any body else can find out any Measures by. The other part of your Complement will be suspected not to be so much out of your ab [...]ndant Respect to Law-makers and Governors, as out of the great Regard you have to your self; for you in vain pretend you forbear to name any particular Punishments, because you will not take upon you to teach Governors and Law-makers, when you your self own in the same Breath, that you are laying down Rules by which they are to proceed in the Use of Penalties for promoting Religion, which is little different from teaching: [120] and your whole Book is nothing else but about the Magistrate's Power and Duty. I excuse you therefore for your own sake from naming any particular Punishments by your Rules: for you have a right to it, as all Men have a right to be ex [...]used from doing what is imposs [...]ble to be done.

Since therefore you grant that those Severities y [...]u have named, are more apt to hinder than promote true Religion; and you cannot assign any Measures of Punishment (short of those great ones you have condemned) which are [...]it to promote it, I think it Argument enough to prove against you, that no Punishments are fit, till you have shewed some others, either by Name, or such Marks as they may certainly be known by, which are fit to promote the true Religion: and therefore nothing you have said there, or any where else, will serve to shew that 'tis with little reason, as you tell me, that I say, ‘that if your indirect and at a P. 19. distance Serviceableness may authorize the Magistrate to use Force in Religion, all the Cruelties used by the Heathens against Christians, by Papists against Protestants, and all the Persecuting of Christians one amongst another, are all justifiable.’ To which you add, Not to take notice at present how oddly it sounds, that that which authorizes the Magistrates to use moderate Penalties to promote the true Religion, should justify all the Cruelties that ever were used to promote Heathenism or Popery.

As oddly as it sounds to you, it will be evidently true, as long as that which authorizes one, authorizes all Magistrates of any Religion, which they believe to be true, to use Force to premote it; and as long as you cannot assign any Bounds to your moderate Punishments, short of those great ones; which you therefore are not able to do, because your Principles, whatever your Words deny, will carry you to those Degrees of Severity, which in Profession you condemn: and this, whatever you do, I dare say every considering Reader besides you will plainly see. So that this Imputation is not so unreasonable, since it is evident, that you must either renounce all Punishments whatsoever in Religion, or make use of those you condemn: for in the next Page you tell us, That all who have [...]fficient means of Instruc [...]ion P. 20. provided for them, may justly be punished for not being of the National Religion, where the True is the National Religion; because it is a Fault in all such not to be of the National Religi [...] In England then, for example, not to be of the National [...] is a Fault, [121] and a Fault to be punished by the Magistrate. The Magistrate, to cure this Fault, lays, on those who dissent, a lower degree of Penalties, a Fine of 1 d. per Month. This proving insufficient, what is the Magistrate to do? If he be obliged, as you say, to amend this Fault by Penalties, and that low one of 1 d. per Month be not sufficient to procure its Amendment, is he not to increase the Penalty? He therefore doubles the Fine to 2 d. per Month. This too proves ineffectual, and therefore 'tis still for the same reason doubled, till it come to 1 s. 5 s. 10 l. 100 l. 1000 l. None of these Penalties working, but yet by being constantly levied, leaving the Delinquents no longer able to pay, Imprisonment and other corporal Punishments follow to inforce an Obedience, till at last this gradual Increase of Penalties and Force, each Degree whereof wrought on some few, rises to the highest Severities against those who stand out. For the Magistrate, who is obliged to correct this Vice, as you call it, and to do what in him lies to cure this Fault, which opposes their Salvation; and who (if I mistake not, you tell us) is answerable for P. 8. all that may follow from his neglect, had no reason to raise the Fine from 1 d. to 2 d. but because the first was ineffectual: and if that were a sufficient reason for raising from the first to the second Degree, why is it not as sufficient to proceed from the second to the third, and so gradually on? I would fain have any one shew me, where, and upon what ground, such a gradual increase of Force can stop, till it come to the utmost Extremities. If therefore dissenting from the Church of England be a Fault to be punished by the Magistrate, I desire you to tell me, where he shall hold his Hand; to name the Sort or Degree of Punishment, beyond which he ought not to go in the use of Force, to cure them of that Fault, and bring them to Conformity. Till you have done that, you might have spared that Paragraph, where P. 19. you say, With what Ingenuity I draw you in to condemn Force in general, only because you acknowledg the ill Effects of prosecuting Men with Fire and Sword, &c. you may leave every Man to judg. And I leave whom you will to judg, whether from your own Principles it does not unavoidably follow, that if you condemn any Penalties, you must condemn all, as I have shewn; if you will retain any, you must retain all; you must either take or leave all together. For, as I have said, and you deny not, `Where there P. 10. ` is no Fault, there no Punishment is moderate, so I add, Where [122] there is a Fault to be corrected by the Magistrate's Force, there no Degree of Force, which is ineffectual, and not sufficient to amend it, can be immoderate; especially if it be a Fault of great moment in its Consequences, as certainly that must be, which draws after it the loss of Mens Eternal Happiness.

You will, 'tis likely, be ready to say here again, (for a good Subterfuge is never to be forsaken) that you except the desperately perverse and obstinate. I desire to know for what reason you except them? Is it because they cease to be faulty? Next I ask you, Who are in your sense the desperately perverse and obstinate? Those that 1 s. or 5 s. or 5 l. or 100 l. or no Fine will work upon? Those who can bear loss of Estate, but not loss of Liberty? or loss of Liberty and Estate, but not corporal Pains and Torments? or all this, but not loss of Life? For to these Degrees do Men differently stand out. And since there are Men wrought on by the Approaches of Fire and Faggot, which other Degrees of Severity could not prevail with, where will you bound your desperately perverse and obstinate? The King of France, though you will allow him not to have Truth of his side, yet when he came to Dragooning, found sew so desperately perverse and obstinate, as not to be wrought on. And why should Truth, which in your Opinion wants Force, and nothing but Force, to help it, not have the assistance of those Degrees of Force, (when less will not do to make it prevail) which are able to bring Men over to false Religions, whi [...]h have no Light and Strength of their own to help them? You wi [...]l do well therefore to consider whether your Name of Severities, in opposition to the moderate Punishments you speak of, has or can do you any service; whether the distinction between compelling and coactive Power be of any use or difference at all. For you deny the P. 41. P. 27. Magistrate to have Power to compel: And you contend for his use of his coactive Power; which will then be a good Distinction, when you can find a way to use coactive, or, which is the same, compelling Power without Compulsion. I desire you also to consider, if in Matters of Religion, Punishments are to be imployed, because they may be useful, whether you can stop at any Degree that is ineffectual to the End which you propose, let that End be what it will. If it be barely to gain a hearing, as in some places you seem to say, I think for that small Punishments will generally prevail, and you do well to put that and [123] moderate Penalties together. If it be to make Men consider, as in other places you speak, you cannot tell when you have obtained that End. But if your End be, which you seem most to insist on, to make Men consider as they ought, i. e. till they imbrace, there are many on whom all your moderate Penalties, all under those Severities you condemn, are too weak to prevail. So that you must either consess, not considering so as to imbrace the true Religion, i. e. not considering as one ought, is no Fault to be punished by the coactive Force of the Magistrate; or else you must resume those Severities which you have renounced: chuse you whether of the two you please.

Therefore 'twas not so much at random that I said, That L. 2. p. 11. thither at last Persecution must come. Indeed from what you had said of falling under the Stroke of the Sword, which was nothing A. p. 13. to the purpose, I added,‘That is by that you meant any thing to the business in hand, you seem to have a reserve for greater Punishments, when less are not sufficient to bring Men to be convinced.’ Which hath produced this warm Reply of yours; And will you ever pretend to Conscience or Modesty P. 21. after this? For I beseech you, Sir, what Words could I have used more express or effectual to signify, that in my Opinion no Dissenters from the true Religion ought to be punished with the Sword, but such as choose rather to rebel against the Magistrate, than to submit to lesser Penalties? (For how any should refuse to submit to those Penalties, but by rebelling against the Magistrate, I suppose you will not undertake to tell me.) 'Twas for this very purpose that I used those Words to prevent Cavils, (as I was then so simple as to think I might:) And I dare appeal to any Man of common Sense and common Honesty whether they are capable of any other meaning. And yet the very thing which I so plainly disclaim in them, you pretend (without so much as offering to shew how) to collect from them. ‘Thither, you say, at last, (viz. to the taking away Mens Lives for the saving of their Souls) Persecution must come: As you fear, notwithstanding m [...] talk of moderate Punishments, I my self intimate in those Words: And if I mean any thing in them to the business in hand, I seem to have a reserve for greater Punishments, when lesser are not sufficient to bring Men to be convinced.’ Sir, I should expect fairer dealing from one of your Pagans or Mahometans. But I shall only add, that I would never wish that any Man who has undertaken a bad Cause, should more plainly confess it than by [124] serving it, as here (and not here only) you serve yours. Good Sir, be not so angry, lest to observing Men you increase the Suspicion. One may, without forfeiture of Modesty or Conscience, fear what Mens Principles threaten, though their Words disclaim it. Nonconformity to the National, when it is the true Religion, as in England, is a Fault, a Vice, say you, to be corrected by the coactive Power of the Magistrate. If so, and Force be the proper Remedy, he must increase it, till it be strong enough to work the Cure; and must not neglect his Duty (for so you make it) when he has Force enough in his Hand to make this Remedy more powerful. For where-ever Force is proper to work on Men, and bring them to a Compliance, it's not producing that Effect can only be imputed to its being too little: And if so, whither at last must it come, but to the late Methods of procuring Conformity (and as his most Christian Majesty called it, of saving of Souls) in France, or Severities like them, when more moderate ones cannot produce it? For to continue inefficacious Penalties, insufficient upon trial to master the Fault they are applied to, is unjustifiable Cruelty; and that which no body can have a right to use, it serving only to disease and harm People, P. 44. without amending them: for you tell us, they should be such Penalties as should make them uneasy.

He that should vex and pain a Sore you had, with frequent dressing it with some moderate, painful, but inefficacious Plaister, that promoted not the Cure, would justly be thought, not only an ignorant, but a dishonest Surgeon. If you are in the Surgeon's hands, and his Help is requisite, and the Cure that way to be wrought, Corrosives and Fire are the most merciful, as well as only justifiable way of Cure, when the Case needs them. And therefore I hope I may still pretend to Modesty and Conscience, though I should have thought you so rational a Man, as to be led by your own Principles; and so honest, charitable, and zealous for the Salvation of Mens Souls, as not to vex and disease them with inefficacious Remedies to no purpose, and let them miss of Salvation, for want of more vigorous Prosecutions. For if Conformity to the Church of England be necessary to Salvation, (for elfe what Necessity can you pretend of punishing Men at all to bring them to it?) it is Cruelty to their Souls (if you have Authority for any such Means) to use some, and not to use sufficient Force to bring them to conform. And I dare [125] say you are satsf [...]d that the French Discipline of Dragooning would have made many in England Conformists, whom your lower Penalties will not prevail on to be so.

But to inform you that my Apprehensions were not so wholly out of the way, I beseech you to read here what you have writ in these Words; For how confidently soever you tell me here, that it P. 34. is more than I can say for my Political Punishments, that they were ever useful for the promoting true Religion; I appeal to all observing Persons, whether where-ever true Religion or sound Christianity has been Nationally received and established by moderate Penal Laws, it has not always lost ground by the Relaxation of those Laws: Whether Sects and Heresies, (even the wildest and most absurd) and even Epicurism and Atheism, have not continually thereupon spread themselves; and whether the very Spirit and Life of Christianity has not sensibly decayed, as well as the number of sound Professors of it been daily lessened upon it: Not to speak of what at this time our Eyes cannot but see, for fear of giving offence; though I hope it will be none to any that have a just concern for Truth and Piety, to take notice of the Books and Pamphlets which now fly so thick about this Kingdom, manifestly tending to the multiplying of Sects and Divisions, and even to the promoting of Scepticism in Religion among us. Here you bemoan the decaying State of Religion amongst us at present, by reason of taking off the Penalties from Protestant Dissenters: And I beseech you what Penalties were they? Such whereby many have been ruined in their Fortunes; such whereby many have lost their Liberties, and some their Lives in Prisons; such as have sent some into Banishment, stripp'd of all they had. These were the Penal Laws by which the National Religion was establish'd in England; and these you call moderate: for you say, Where-ever true Religion or sound Christianity has been Nationally received and established by moderate Penal Laws; and I hope you do not here exclude England from having its Religion so established by Law, which we so often hear of; or if to serve the present occasion, you should, would you also deny, that in the following Words you speak of the present Relaxation in England? where after your Appeal to all observing People for the dismal Consequences, which you suppose to have every-where followed from such Relaxations, you add these pathetical Words, Not to speak of what at this time our Eyes cannot but see, for fear of giving [126] offence: so heavy does the present Relaxation sit on your Mind; which since it is of Penal Laws you call moderate, I shall shew you what they are.

In the first Year of Q. Elizabeth, there was a Penalty of 1 s. a Sunday and Holiday laid upon every one, who came not to the Common Prayer then established. This Penalty of 1 s. a time not prevailing, as was desired, in the twenty thi [...]d Year of her Reign was increased to 20 l. a Month and Imprisonment for Non-payment within three Months after judgment given. In the twenty ninth Year of Eliz. to draw this yet closer, and make it more sorcible, 'twas enacted, That whoever upon one Conviction did not continue to pay on the 20 l. per Month, without any other [...] or Proceedings against him till he submitted and conformed, should forf [...]t all his Goods, and two Thirds of his Land for his Life. But this bein [...] not yet thought sufficient, it was in the 35th Year of that Queen c [...]mpleated, and the moderate Penal Laws upon which our National Religion was established and whose Relaxation you cannot bear, but from the [...]ce date the Decay of the very Spirit and Life of Christianity, were brought to perfection: [...] then going to Conve [...], or a Month's Absence from Church, was to be punished with Imprisonment, till the Offender [...], and i [...] [...] cn [...]formed not within three Months, then he was to abjure the Realm, and forfeit all his Goods and Chattels for ever, and his Lands and Tenements during his Life: And if [...]e would not abjure, or abjuring, did not depart the Realm within a ti [...]e [...], or returned again, he was to suffer Death as a Felon. And thus your moderate Penal Laws stood for the established Religion, till their Penalties were in respect of Protestant Dissenters, lately taken off. And now let the Reader judg whether your pretence to moderate Punishments, or my Suspicion of what a Man of your Principles might have in store for Dissenters, have more of Modesty or Conscience in it; since you op [...]nly de [...]lare your regret for the taking away such an Establishment, as by the gradual increase of Penalties reached Mens Estates, Liberties and Lives; and which you must be presumed to allow and approve of, till you tell us plainly, where, according to your Measures, those Penalties should; or, according to your Principles, they could have stopp'd.

[127]

You tell us, That where this only true Religion, viz. of the Church of England, is received, other Religions ought to be discouraged in some measure. A pretty Expression for Undoing, Imprisonment, P. 11. Banishment, for those have been some of the Discouragements given to Dissenters here in England. You will again no doubt, cry aloud, that you tell me you condemn these as much as I do: If you heartily condemn them, I wonder you should say so little to discourage them; I wonder you are so silent in representing to the Magistrate the Unlawfulness and Danger of using them in a Discourse where you are treating of the Magistrate's Power and Duty in Matters of Religion: Especially this being the side on which, as far as we may guess by Experience, their Prudence is aptest to err: but your Modesty you know leaves all to the Magistrate's Prudence and Experience on that side, though you over and over again incourage them not to neglect their Duty in the Use of Force, to which you set no Bounds.

You tell us, Certainly no Man doubts but the Prudence and Experience P. 50. of Governors and Law-givers inables them to use and apply it, viz. your Rule for the Measure of Punishments, which I have shewed to be no Rule at all; And to judg more exactly what Penalties do agree with it: and therefore you must be excused if you do not take upon you to teach them what it becomes you rather to learn from them. If your Modesty be such, and you then did what became you, you could not but learn from your Governors and Law-givers, and so be satisfied till within this Year or two, that those Penalties which they measured out for the Establishment of true Religion, though they rea [...]h'd to Mens Estates, Liberties and Lives, were such as were sit. But what you have learned of your Law-makers and Governors since the Relaxation, or what Opinion you have of their Experience and Prudence now, is not so easy to say.

Perhaps you will say again, that you have in express Words declared against Fire and Sword, Loss of Estate, maiming with corporal Punishments, starving and tormenting in noisom Prisons; and one cannot either in Modesty or Conscience disbelieve you: Yet in the same Letter you with Sorrow and Regret speak of the Relaxation of such Penalties laid on Nonconformity, by which Men have lost their Estates, Liberties and Lives too in noisom Prisons, and in this too must we not believe [128] you? I dare say there are very few who read that Passage of yours, so feelingly it is pen'd, who want Modesty or Conscience to believe P. 34. you therein to be in earnest; and the rather, because what drops from Men by chance, when they are not upon their Guard, is always thought the best Interpretation of their Thoughts.

You name Loss of Estate, of Liberty, and tormenting, which is corporal Punishment, as if you were against them: Certainly you know what you meant by these Words, when you said, you condemn'd them; was it any Degree of Loss of Liberty or Estate, any Degree of corporal Punishment that you condemn'd, or only the utmost, or some Degree between these? unless you had then some meaning, and unless you please to tell us, what that meaning was; where 'tis, that in your Opinion the Magistrate ought to stop, who can believe you are in earnest? This I think you may and ought to do for our Information in your System, without any Apprehension that Governors and Law-givers will deem themselves much taught by you, which your Modesty makes you so cautious of. Whilst you refuse to do this, and keep your self under the Mask of moderate, convenient and sufficient Force and Penalties, and other such-like uncertain and undetermin'd Punishments, I think a consciencious and sober Dissenter might expect fairer dealing from one of my Pagans or Mahometans, as you please to call them, than from one, who so professes Moderation, that what Degrees of Force, what kind of Punishments will satisfy him, he either knows not, or will not declare. For your moderate and convenient may, when you come to interpret them, signify what Punishments you please: for the Cure being to be wrought by Force, that will be convenient, which the Stubbornness of the Evil requires; and that moderate, which is but enough to work the Cure. And therefore I shall return your own Complement, That I would never wish that any Man who has undertaken a bad Cause, should more plainly confess it than by serving it, as here (and not here only) you serve yours. I should beg your Pardon for this sort of Language were it not your own. And what Right you have to it, the Skill you shew in the Management of general and doubtful Words and Expressions, of uncertain and undetermined Signification, will, I doubt not, abundantly convince the Reader. An Instance we have in the Argument before us: For I appeal to any sober Man, who shall carefully read what you write, P. 49. [129] where you pretend to tell the World plainly and directly what Punishments are to be used by your Scheme, whether after having weighed all you say concerning that matter, he can tell, what a Nonconformist is to expect from you, or find any thing but such Acuteness and Strength as lies in the Uncertainty and Reserve of your way of talking; which whether it be any way suted to your Modesty and Conscience, where you have undertaken to tell us what the Punishments are, whereby you would have Men brought to imbrace the true Religion, I leave you to consider.

If having said, Where-ever true Religion or sound Christianity P. 34. has been Nationally received and established by moderate Penal Laws; you shall for your Defence of the Establishment of the Religion in England by Law, say, which is all is left you to say, that though such severe Laws were made, yet it was only by the Execution of moderate Penal Laws, that it was established and supported: but that those severe Laws that touch'd Mens Estates, Liberties and Lives, were never put in Execution. Why then do you so s [...]riously bemoan the loss of them? But I advise you not to make use of that Plea, for there are Examples in the Memory of hundreds now living, of every one of those Laws of Queen Elizabeth being put in Execution; and pray remember, if by denying it you require this Truth to be made good, 'tis you that force the publishing of a Catalogue of Men that have lost their Estates, Liberties and Lives in Prison, which it would be more for the Advantage of the Religion established by Law, should be forgotten.

But to conclude this great Accusation of yours: If you were not conscious to your self of some Tendency that way, why such an Out [...]ry? Why was Modesty and Conscience call'd in Question? Why was it less fair dealing than you could have expected from a Pagan or Mahometan, for me to say, ‘if in those Words you meant any thing to the Business in hand, you seemed to have a Reserve for greater Punishments?’ Your Business there being to prove, that there was a Power vested in the Magistrate to use Force in Matters of Religion, what could be more besides the Business in hand, than to tell us, as you interpret your meaning here, that the Magistrate had a Power to use Force against those who rebell'd (for who ever denied that) whether [...] or not Dissenters? Where was it question'd by the Author or me, that whoever rebell'd, were to fall under the Stroak [130] of the Magistrate's Sword? And therefore without Breach of Modesty or Conscience, I might say, what I again here repeat,‘That if in those Words you meant any thing to the Business in hand, you seemed to have a R [...]serve for greater Punishments.’

One thing more give me leave to add in Defence of my Modesty and Conscience, or rather to justify my self from having guessed so wholly b [...]side the matter, if I should have said, (which I did not) that I feared you had a Reserve for greater Punishments. For I having brought the Instances of Ananias L. 2. p. 21. and Sapphira, to shew that the Apostles wanted not Power to P. 38. punish, if they sound it necessary to use it; you inser, that therefore Punishment may be sometimes necessary. What Punishments I beseech you, for theirs cost them their Lives? He that, as you do, concludes from thence, that therefore Punishments may be sometimes necessary, will hardly avoid (whatever he says) to conclude capital Punishments necessary: And when they are necessary, it is you know the Magistrate's Duty to use them. You see how natural it is for Men to go whither their Principles lead them, though at first Sight perhaps they thought it too far.

If to avoid this, you now say you meant it of the Punishment of the incestuous Corinthian, whom I also mentioned in the same Place; I think, supposing your self to lie under the Imputation of a Reserve of greater Punishments; you ought in Prudence to have said so there. Next you know not what Punishment it was the incestuous Corinthian under-went, but it being for the Destruction of the Flesh, it seems to be no very light one: And if you will take your Friend St. Austin's Word for it, as he in the very Epistle you quote tells you, it was a very severe one, making as much Difference between it, and the Severities Men usually suffer in Prison, as there is between the Cruelty of the Devil, and that of the most barbarous Jaylor: so that if your moderate Punishments will reach to that laid on the incestuous Corinthian for the Destruction of the Flesh, we may presume them to be, what other People call Severities.

[131]

CHAP. V. How long your Punishments are to continue.↩

THE Measure of Punishments being to be estimated as well by the Length of their Duration, as the Intenseness of their Degrees, 'tis fit we take a View also of your Scheme in this Part.

‘I told you that moderate Punishments that are continued, that L. 2. p. 43. Men find no End of, know no way out of, sit heavy, and become immoderately uneasy. Dissenters you would have punished, to make them consider. Your Penalties have had the Effect on them you intended; they have made them consider; and they have done their utmost in considering. What now must be done with them? They must be punished on, for they are still Dissenters. If it were just, and you had Reason at first to punish a Dissenter, to make him consider, when you did not know but that he had considered already; it is as just, and you have as much Reason to punish him on, even when he has performed what your Punishment was designed for, and has considered, but yet remains a Dissenter. For I may justly suppose, and you must grant, that a Man may remain a Dissenter after all the Consideration your moderate Penalties can bring him to; when we see great Punishments, even those Severities you disown as too great, are not able to make Men consider so far as to be convinced, and brought over to the National Church. If your Punishments may not be [...] on Men, to make them consider, who have or may have considered already, for ought you know; then Dissenters are never to be once punished, no more than any other sort of Men. If Dissenters are to be punished, to make them consider, whether they have considered or no; then their Punishments, though they do consider, must never cease as long as they are Dissenters, which whether it be to punish them only to bring them to consider, let all Men judg. This I am sure; Punishments in your Method, must either never begin upon Dissenters, or never cease.’ And so pretend Moderation [132] if you please, the Punishments which your Method requires, must be either very immoderate, or none at all. But to this you say nothing, only for the adjusting the Length of your Punishments, and therein vindicating the Consistency and Practicableness of your Scheme, you tell us, That as long as Men P. 51. reject the true Religion duly proposed to them, so long they offend and deserve Punishment, and therefore it is but just that so long they should be left liable to it. You promised to answer to this Question, P. 46. amongst others, plainly and directly. The Question is, How long they are to be punished? And your Answer is, It is but just that so long they should be liable to Punishment. This extraordinary Caution in speaking out, if it were not very natural to you, would be apt to make one suspect, it was accommodated more to some Difficulties of your Scheme, than to your Promise of answering plainly and directly; or possibly you thought, it would not agree to that Character of Moderation you assume, to own, that all the Penal Laws which were lately here in Force, and whose Relaxation you bemoan, should be constantly put in Execution. But your Moderation in this Point comes too late. For as your Charity, as you tell us in the next Paragraph, requires that they be kept subject to Penalties: So the watchful Charity of others in this Age hath found out ways to incourage Informers, and put it out of the Magistrate's Moderation to stop the Execution of the Law against Dissenters, if he should be inclined to it.

We will therefore take it for granted, that if Penal Laws be made concerning Religion, (for more Zeal usually animates them than others) they will be put in Execution: and indeed I have heard it argued to be very absurd, to make or continue Laws, that are not constantly put in Execution. And now to shew you how well your Answer consists with other Parts of your Scheme, I shall need only to mind you, that if Men must be punished as long as they reject the true Religion, those who punish them, must be Judges what is the true Religion. But this Objection, with some other, to which this P [...]rt of your Answer is obnoxious, having been made to you more at large elsewhere, I shall here omit, and proceed to other Parts of your Answer.

You begin with your Reason for the Answer you afterwards P. 50. give us in the Words I last quoted: Your Reason runs thus; For certainly nothing is more reasonable than that Men should be subject [133] to Punishment as long as they continue to off [...]nd. And as long as Men reject the true Religion tender'd them with sufficient Evidence of the Truth of it, so long 'tis certain they offend. It is certainly very reasonable, that Men should be subject to Punishment from those they offend as long as they continue to offend: But it will not from hence follow, that those who offend God, are always subject to Punishment from Men. For if they be, why does not the Magistrate punish Envy, Hatred, and Malice, and all Uncharitableness? If you answer, because they are not capable of Judicial Proofs: I think I may say 'tis as easy to prove a Man guilty of Envy, Hatred or Uncharitableness, as it is to prove him guilty of rejecting the true Religion tender'd him with sufficient Evidence of the Truth of it. But if it be his Duty to punish all Offences against God, why does the Magistrate never punish Lying, which is an Offence against God, and is an Offence capable of being judicially proved? It is plain therefore that it is not the Sense of all Mankind, that it is the Magistrate's Duty to punish all Offences against God; and where it is not his Duty to use Force, you will grant the Magistrate is not to use it in Matters of Religion, because where it is necessary, it is his Duty to use it; but where it is not necessary, you your self say it is not lawful. It would be convenient therefore for you to reform your Proposition from that loose Generality it now is in, and then prove it before it can be allowed you to be to your Purpose; though it be never so true, that you know not a greater Crime a Man can be guilty of, than rejecting the true Religion.

You go on with your Proof, that so long as Men reject the P. 51. true Religion, &c. so long they offend, and consequently may justly be punished; Because, say you, it is impossible for any Man, innocently to reject the true Religion, so tender'd to him. For whoever rejects that Religion so tender'd, does either apprehend and perceive the Truth of it, or he does not. If he does, I know not what greater Crime any Man can be guilty of. If he does not perceive the Truth of it, there is no Account to be given of that, but either that he shuts his Eyes against the Evidence which is offer'd him, and will not at all consider it; or that he does not consider it as he ought, viz. with such Care as is requisite, and with a sincere Desire to learn the Truth; either of which does manifestly involve him in Guilt.

To say here that a Man who has the true Religion proposed to him with sufficient Evidence of its Truth, may consider it as he ought, or [134] do his utmost in considering, and yet not perceive the Truth of it; is neither more nor less, than to say, that sufficient Evidence is not sufficient Evidence. For what does any Man mean by sufficient Evidence, but such as will certainly win Assent where-ever it is duly considered?

I shall not trouble my self here to examine when requisite care, duly considered, and such other Words, which bring one back to the same Place from whence one set out, are cast up, whether all this fine Reasoning will amount to any thing, but begging what is in the Question: But shall only tell you, that what you say here and in other Places about sufficient Evidence, is built upon this, that the Evidence wherewith a Man proposes the true Religion, he may know to be such, as will not fail to gain the Assent of whosoever does what lies in him in considering it. This is the Supposition, without which all your Talk of sufficient Evidence will do you no Service, try it where you will. But it is a Supposition that is far enough from carrying with it sufficient Evidence to make it be admitted without Proof.

Whatever gains any Man's Assent, one may be sure had sufficient Evidence in respect of that Man: But that is far enough from proving it Evidence sufficient to prevail on another, let him consider it as long and as much as he can. The Tempers of Mens Minds; the Principles setled there by Time and Education, beyond the Power of the Man himself to alter them; the different Capacities of Mens Understandings; and the strange Ideas they are often silled with, are so various and uncertain, that it is impossible to find that Evidence (especially in things of a mixed Disquisition, depending on so long a T [...]ain of Consequences, as some Points of the true Religion may) which one can considently say will be sufficient for all Men. ' [...]is Demonstration that 3 1876 is the Product of 9467172 divided by 297, and yet I challenge you to find one Man of a thousand, to whom you can tender this Proposition with demonstrative or sufficient Evidence to convince him of the Truth of it in a dark Room; or ever to make this Evidence appear to a Man, that cannot write and read, so as to make him imbrace it as a Truth, if another whom he hath more Confidence in, tells him it is not so. All the demonstrative Evidence the thing has, all the Tender you can make of it, all the Consideration he can imploy about it, will never be able to discover to him that Evidence which small [135] convince him it is true, unless you will at threescore and ten (for that may be the Case) have him neglect his Calling, go to School, and learn to write and read, and cast Account, which he may never be able to attain to.

You speak more than once of Mens being brought to lay aside their Prejudices to make them consider as they ought, and judg right of Matters in Religion; and I grant without doing so they cannot: But it is impossible for Force to make them do it, unless it could shew them, which are Prejudices in their Minds, and distinguish them from the Truths there. Who is there almost that has not Prejudices, that he does not know to be so; and what can Force do in that Case? It can no more remove them, to make way for Truth, than it can remove one Truth to make way for another; or rather remove an establish'd Truth, or that which is look'd on as an unquestionable Principle (for so are often Mens Prejudices) to make way for a Truth not yet known, nor appearing to be one. 'Tis not every one knows, or can bring himself to Des Carte [...] way of doubting, and strip his Thoughts of all Opinions, till he brings them to self-evident Principles, and then upon them builds all his future Tenents.

Do not think all the World, who are not of your Church, abandon themselves to an utter Carelesness of their future State. You cannot but allow there are many Turks who sincerely seek Truth, to whom yet you could never bring Evidence sufficient to convince them of the Truth of the Christian Religion, whilst they looked on it as a Principle not to be question'd, that the Alcoran was of Divine Revelation. This possibly you will tell me is a Prejudice, and so it is; but yet if this Man shall tell you 'tis no more a Prejudice in him, than it is a Prejudice in any one amongst Christians, who having not examin'd it, lays it down as an unquestionable Principle of his Religion, that the Scripture is the Word of God; what will you answer to him? And yet it would shake a great many Christians in their Religion, if they should lay by that Prejudice, and suspend their Judgment of it, until they had made it out to themselves with Evidence sufficient to convince one who is not prejudiced in Favour of it; and it would require more Time, Books, Languages, Learning and Skill, than falls to most [...] [...] to establish them therein, if you will not allow them, in this so [...] and fundamental a Point, to rely on the Learning, Knowledg and Judgment [136] of some Persons whom they have in Reverence or Admiration. This though you blame it as an ill way, yet you can allow in one of your own Religion, even to that Degree, that he may P. 42. be ignorant of the Grounds of his Religion. And why then may you not allow it to a Turk, not as a good way, or as having led him to the Truth; but as a way, as sit for him, as for one of your Church to acquiesce in; and as sit to exempt him from your Force, as to exempt any one of your Church from it?

To prevent your commenting on this, in which you have shewn so much Dexterity, give me leave to tell you, that for all this I do not think all Religions equally true or equally certain. But this, I say, is impossible for you, or me, or any Man, to know, whether another has done his Duty in examining the Evidence on both sides, when he imbraces that side of the Question, which we (perhaps upon other Views) judg false: and therefore we can have no Right to punish or persecute him for it. In this, whether and how far any one is faulty, must be left to the Searcher of Hearts? the great and righteous Judg of all Men, who knows all their Circumstances, all the Powers and Workings of their Minds; where 'tis they sincerely follow, and by what Default they at any time miss Truth: And he, we are sure, will judg uprightly.

But when one Man shall think himself a competent Judg, that the true Religion is proposed with Evidence sufficient for another; and thence shall take upon him to punish him as an Offender, because he imbraces not (upon Evidence that he the Proposer judges sufficient) the Religion that he judges true, had need be able to look into the Thoughts of Men, and know their several Abilities: unless he will make his own Understanding and Faculties to be the Measure of those of all Mankind, which if they be no higher elevated, no larger in their Comprehension, no more discerning, than those of some Men, he will not only be unsit to be a Judg in that, but in almost any Case what soever.

But since, 1. You make it a Condition to the making a Man an Offender in not being of the true Religion, that it has been tendred him with sufficient Evidence. 2. Since you think it so easy for Men to determine when the true Religion has been tender'd to any one with sufficient Evidence. And, 3. Since you pronounce [137] it Impiety to say, that God hath not furnished Mankind with competent Means for the promoting his own Honour in the World, and A. p. 16. the Good of Souls. Give me leave to ask you a Question or two. 1. Can any one be saved without imbracing the one only true Religion? 2. Were any of the Americans of that one only true Religion, when the Europeans first came amongst them? 3. Whether any of the Americans, before the Christians came amongst them, had offended in rejecting the true Religion tendred with sufficient Evidence? When you have thought upon, and fairly answered these Questions, you will be sitter to determine, how competent a Judg Man is, what is sufficient Evidence; who do offend in not being of the true Religion; and what Punishments they are liable to for it.

But me-thinks here, where you spend almost a whole Page upon the Crime of rejecting the true Religion duly tendred, and the Punishment that is justly due to it from the Magistrate, you forget your self, and the Foundation of your Plea for Force; which is, that it is necessary: which you are so far from proving it to be in this case of punishing the Offence of rejecting the true Religion, that in this very page you distinguished it from what is necessary; where you tell us, Your Design does rather oblige you to consider how long Men may need Punishment, than how long it may be just to punish them. So that though they offend, yet if they do not need Punishment, the Magistrate cannot use it, if you ground, as you say you do, the Lawfulness of Force for promoting the true Religion upon the Necessity of it. Nor can you say, that by his Commission, from the Law of Nature, of doing Good, the Magistrate, besides reducing his wandring Subjects out of the wrong into the right Way, is appointed also to be the Avenger of God's Wrath on Unbelievers, or those that err in Matters of Religion. This at least you thought not fit to own in the first Draught of your Scheme; for I do not remember in all your Argument considered, one word of Crime or Punishment: nay, in writing this second Treatise, you were so shy of owning any thing of Punishment, that to my remembrance, you scrupulously avoided the use of that word, till you came to this place; and always where the repeating my Words did not oblige you to it, carefully used the term of Penalties for it, as any one may observe, who reads the preceding part of this Letter of yours, which I am now examining. And you were so nice in the point, [138] that three or four Leaves backwards, where I say, By your Rule Dissenters must be punished, you mend it, and say, Or if I please, subjected to moderate Penalties. But here when the Inquiry, How long Force was to be continued on Men, shewed the Absurdity of that Pretence, that they were to be punished on without end, to make them consider; rather than part with your beloved Force, you open the matter a little father, and profess directly the punishing Men for their Religion. For tho you do all you can to cover it under the name of rejecting the true Religion duly proposed; yet it is in truth no more but being of a Religion different from yours, that you would have them punished for: for all that the Author pleads for, and you can oppose in writing against him, is Toleration of Religion. Your Scheme therefore being thus mended, your Hypothesis enlarged, being of a different Religion from the National found criminal, and Punishments found justly to belong to it, it is to be hoped, that in good time your Punishments may grow too, and be advanced to all those Degrees you in the beginning condemned; when having considered a little farther, you cannot miss finding, that the Obstinacy of the Criminals does not lessen their Crime, and therefore Justice will require severer Execution to be done upon them.

But you tell us here, Because your Design does rather oblige you P. 51. to consider how long Men may need Punishment, than how long it may be just to punish them; therefore you shall add, That as long as Men refuse to imbrace the true Religion, so long Penalties are necessary for them to dispose them to consider and imbrace it: And that therefore as Justice allows, so Charity requires, that they be kept subject to Penalties, till they imbrace the true Religion. Let us therefore see the Consistency of this with other parts of your Hypothesis, and examine it a little by them.

Your Doctrine is, That where Intreaties and Admonitions upon trial do not prevail, Punishments are to be used; but they must be moderate. Moderate Punishments have been tried, and they prevail not; What now is to be done? Are not greater to be used? No: For what reason? Because those whom moderate Penalties will not prevail on, being desperately perverse and obstinate, Remedies are not to be provided for the Incurable, as you tell us in the Page immediately preceding.

[139]

Moderate Punishments have been tried upon a Man once, and again, and a third time, but prevail not at all, make no Impression; they are repeated as many times more, but are still found ineffectual: Pray tell me a reason why such a Man is concluded so desperately perverse and obstinate, that greater Degrees will not work upon him, but yet not so desperately perverse and obstinate, but that the same Degrees repeated may work upon him? I will not urge here, that this is to pretend to know the just Degree of Punishment that will or will not work on any one, which I should imagine a pretty intricate Business: But this I have to say, that if you can think it reasonable and useful to continue a Man several Years, nay his whole Life, under the same repeated Punishments, without going any higher, though they work not at all; because 'tis possible sometime or other they may work on him; why is it not as reasonable and useful (I am sure it is much more justifiable and charitable) to leave him all his Life under the Means, which all agree God has appointed, without going any higher, because 'tis not impossible that some time or other Preaching, and a Word spoken in due season, may work upon him? For why you should despair of the Success of Preaching and Perswasion upon a fruitless Trial, and thereupon think your self authorized to use Force; and yet not so despair of the Success of moderate Force, as after Years of fruitless Trial, to continue it on, and not to proceed to higher Degrees of Punishment, you are concerned for the vindication of your System to shew a Reason.

I mention the Trial of Preaching and Perswasion, to shew the Unreasonableness of your Hypothesis, supposing such a Trial made: not that in yours, or the common Method, there is or can be a fair Trial made what Preaching and Perswasion can do. For care is taken by Punishments and ill Treatment, to indispose and turn away Mens Minds, and to add Aversion to their Scruples; an excellent way to soften Mens Inclinations, and temper them for the Impression of Arguments and Intreaties; though these too are only talked of: For I cannot but wonder to find you mention, as you do, giving ear to Admonitions, Intreaties and Perswasions, when these are seldom, if ever made use of, but in Places, where those, who are to be wrought on by them, are known to be out of hearing; nor can be expected to come there, till by such Means they have been wrought on.

[140]

'Tis not without reason therefore you cannot part with your Chap. 6. Penalties, and would have no end put to your Punishments, but continue them on; since you leave so much to their Operation, and make so little use of other Means to work upon Dissenters.

CHAP. VI. Of the End for which Force is to be used.↩

HE that should read the beginning of your Argument considered, would think it in earnest to be your Design to have Force employed to make Men seriously consider, and nothing else: but he that shall look a little farther into it, and to that add also your defence of it, will find by the variety of Ends you design your Force for, that either you know not well what you would have it for, or else, whatever 'twas you aimed at, you called it still by that Name which best fitted the Occasision, and would serve best in that place to recommend the Use of it.

You ask me, Whether the Mildness and Gentleness of the Gospel P. 27. destroys the coactive Power of the Magistrate? I answer, as you supposed, No: upon which you infer, Then it seems the Magistrate may use his coactive Power, without offending against the Mildness and Gentleness of the Gospel. Yes, where he has Commission and Authority to use it. And so, say you, it will consist well enough with the Mildness and Gentleness of the Gospel for the Magistrate to use his coactive Power to procure them [I suppose you mean the Ministers and Preachers of the National Religion] a hearing where their Prayers and Intreaties will not do it. No, it will not consist with the gentle and mild Method of the Gospel, unless the Gospel has directed it, or something else to supply its want, till it could be had. As for Miracles, which you pretend to have supplied the want of Force in the first Ages of Christianity, you will find that considered in another place. But, Sir, shew me a Country where the Ministers and Teachers of the National and True Religion go about with Prayers and Intreaties to procure a Hearing, and cannot obtain it, and there I think I need not stand [141] with you for the Magistrate to use Force to procure it them; but that I fear will not serve your turn.

To shew the Inconsistency and Unpracticableness of your Method, I had said,

Let us now see to what end they must be L. 2. p. 30. punished: Sometimes it is, To bring them to consider those Reasons A. p. 5. and Arguments which are proper and sufficient to convince them: Of what? That it is not easy to set Grant [...]ani Steeple upon Paul's Church? Whatever it be you would have them convinced of, you are not willing to tell us; and so it may be any thing. Sometimes it is, To incline them to lend an Ear to those who tell A. p. 10. them they have mistaken their Way, and offer to shew them the right. Which is, to lend an Ear to all who differ from them in Religion, as well crafty Seducers, as others. Whether this be for A. p. 27. the procuring the Salvation of their Souls, the End for which you A. p. 23. say this Force is to be used, judg you. But this I am sure, Whoever will lend an Ear to all who will tell them they are out of the Way, will not have much time for any other Business.

Sometimes it is, To recover Men to so much Sobriety and Reflection, A. p. 11. as seriously to put the Question to themselves, Whether it be really worth their while to undergo such Inconveniences, for adhering to a Religion which, for any thing they know, may be false; or for rejecting another (if that be the case) which, for ought they know, may be true, till they have brought it to the Bar of Reason, and given it a fair Trial there. Which in short amounts to thus much, viz. To make them examine whether their Religion be true, and so worth the holding, under those Penalties that are annexed to it. Dissenters are indebted to you for your great care of their Souls. But what, I beseech you, shall become of those of the National Church, every where (which make far the greater part of Mankind) who have no such Punishments to make them consider; who have not this only Remedy provided for them, but are left in that deplorable Condition, you mention, of being suffered quietly, and without molestation, to take no care at A. p. 27. all of their Souls, or in doing of it to follow their own Prejudices, Humours, or some crafty Seducers? Need not those of the National Church, as well as others, bring their Religion to the Bar of Reason, and give it a fair Trial there? And if they need to do so, (as they must, if all National Religions cannot be supposed true) they will always need that which you say is the only A. p. 12. Means to make them do so. So that if you are sure, as you tell [142] us, that there is need of your Method; I am sure, there is as much need of it in National Churches, as any other. And so, for ought I can see, you must either punish them, or let others alone; unless you think it reasonable that the far greater part of Mankind should constantly be without that Soveraign and only Remedy, which they stand in need of equally with other People.

Sometimes the End for which Men must be punished is, to A. p. 13. dispose them to submit to Instruction, and to give a fair hearing to the Reasons are offer'd for the inlightning their Minds, and discovering the Truth to them. If their own Words may be taken for it, there are as few Dissenters as Conformists, in any Country, who will not profess they have done, and do this. And if their own Words may not be taken; who, I pray must be Judg? you and your Magistrates? If so, then it is plain you punish them not to dispose them to submit to Instruction, but to your Instruction; not to dispose them to give a fair hearing to Reasons offer'd for the inlightning their Minds, but to give an obedient hearing to your Reasons. If you mean this, it had been fairer and shorter to have spoken out plainly, than thus in fair Words, of indefinite Signification, to say that which amounts to nothing. For what Sense is it, to punish a Man to dispose him to submit to Instruction, and give a fair hearing to Reasons offer'd for the inlightning his Mind, and discovering Truth to him, who goes two or three times a Week several Miles on purpose to do it, and that with the Hazard of his Liberty or Purse; unless you mean your Instructions, your Reasons, your Truth? Which brings us but back to what you have disclaimed, plain Persecution for differing in Religion.

Sometimes this is to be done, To prevail with Men to weigh A. p. 14. Matters of Religion carefully and impartially. Discountenance and Punishment put into one Scale, with Impunity and Hopes of Preferment put into the other, is as sure a way to make a Man weigh impartially, as it would be for a Prince to bribe and threaten a Judg to make him judg uprightly.

Sometimes it is, To make Men bethink themselves, and put it A. p. 20. out of the Power of any foolish Humour, or unreasonable Prejudice, to alienate them from Truth and their own Happiness. Add but this, to put it out of the Power of any Humour or Prejudice of their own, or other Mens; and I grant the End is good, if [143] you can find the means to procure it. But why it should not be put out of the Power of other Mens Humour or Prejudice, as well as their own, wants (and will always want) a Reason to prove. Would it not, I beseech you, to an indifferent Bystander, appear Humour or Prejudice, or something as bad; to see Men, who profess a Religion reveal'd from Heaven, and which they own contains all in it necessary to Salvation, exclude Men from their Communion, and persecute them with the Penalties of the Civil Law, for not joining in the Use of Ceremonies which are no where to be found in that reveal'd Religion? Would it not appear Humour or Prejudice, or some such thing, to a sober impartial Heathen; to see Christians exclude and persecute one of the same Faith, for things which they themselves confess to be indifferent, and not worth the contending for? Prejudice, Humour, Passion, Lusts, Impressions A. p. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. of Education, Reverence and Admiration of Persons, worldly Respects, Love of their own Choice, and the like, (to which you justly impute many Mens taking up and persisting in their Religion) are indeed good Words; and so, on the other side, are these following, Truth, the right Way, Inlightning, Reason, sound Judgment; but they signify nothing at all to your purpose, till you can evidently and unquestionably shew the World that the latter (viz. Truth and the right way, &c.) are always, and in all Countries, to be found only in the National Church; and the former (viz. Passion and Prejudice, &c.) only amongst the Dissenters. But to go on:

Sometimes it is, To bring Men to take such Care as they ought A. p. 22. of their Salvation. What Care is such as Men ought to take, whilst they are out of your Church, will be hard for you to tell me. But you indeavour to explain your self, in the following words; that they may not blindly leave it to the choice neither of any other Person, nor yet of their own [...] and Passions, to prescribe to them what Faith or Worship they shall imb [...]ce. You do well to make use of Punishment to shut Passion out of the choice; because you know fear of suffering is no Passion. But let that pass. You would have Men punished, to bring them to take such Care of their Salvation, that they may not blindly leave it to the Choice of any other Person to prescribe to them. Are you sincere? Are you in earnest? Tell me then truly: Did the Magistrate or the National Church, any where, or yours in particular, ever [144] punish any Man, to bring him to have this Care, which you say, he ought to take of his Salvation? Did you ever punish any Man, that he might not blindly leave it to the choice of his Parish-Priest, or Bishop, or the Convocation, what Faith or Worship he should imbrace? 'Twill be suspected Care of a Party, or any thing else rather than Care of the Salvation of Mens Souls; if, having found out so useful, so necessary a Remedy, the only Method there is Room left for, you will apply it but partially, A. p. 12. and make Trial of it only on those who you have truly least Kindness for. This will, unavoidably, give one Reason to imagine, you do not think so well of your Remedy as you pretend, who are so sparing of it to your Friends; but are very free of it to Strangers, who in other things are used very much like Enemies. But your Remedy is like the Helleboraster, that grew in the Woman's Garden, for the Cure of Worms in her Neighbours Children: For truly it wrought too roughly, to give it to any of her own. Methinks your Charity, in your present Persecution, is much-what as prudent, as justifiable, as that good Woman's. I hope I have done you no Injury, that I here suppose you of the Church of England: If I have, I beg your Pardon. It is no Offence of Malice, I assure you: For I suppose no worse of you, than I confess of my self.

Sometimes this Punishment that you contend for, is, to bring A. p. 22. Men to act according to Reason and sound Judgment.

Tertius è Coelo cecidit Cato.

This is Reformation indeed. If you can help us to it, you will deserve Statues to be erected to you, as to the Restorer of decay'd Religion. But if all Men have not Reason and sound Judgment, will Punishment put it into them? Besides, concerning this matter Mankind is so divided, that he acts according to Reason and sound Judgment at Auspurg, who would be judged to do the quite contrary at Edinburgh. Will Punishment make Men know what is Reason and sound Judgment? If it will not, 'tis impossible it should make them act according to it. Reason and sound Judgment are the Elixir it self, the universal Remedy: And you may as reasonably punish Men to bring them to have the Philosopher's Stone, as to bring them, to act according to Reason and sound Judgment.

[145]

Sometimes it is, To put Men upon a serious and impartial Examination of the Controversy between the Magistrate and them, which is the way sor them to come to the Knowledg of the Truth. A. p. 26. But what if the Truth be on neither side (as I am apt to imagine you will think it is not, where neither the Magistrate nor the Dissenter is either of them of your Church) how will the examining the Controversy between the Magistrate and him be the way to come to the Knowledg of the Truth? Suppose the Controversy between a Lutheran and a Papist; or, if you please, between a Presbyterian Magistrate and a Quaker Subject. Will the examining the Controversy between the Magistrate and the Dissenting Subject, in this case, bring him to the Knowledg of the Truth? If you say, Yes, then you grant one of these to have the Truth on his side. For the examining the Controversy between a Presbyterian and a Quaker, leaves the Controversy either of them has with the Church of England, or any other Church, untouched. And so one, at least, of those being already come to the Knowledg of the Truth, ought not to be put under your Discipline of Punishment; which is only to bring him to the Truth. If you say, No, and that the examining the Controversy between the Magistrate and the Dissenter, in this case, will not bring him to the Knowledg of the Truth; you consess your Rule to be false, and your Method to no purpose.

To conclude, your System is, in short, this. You would have all Men (laying aside Prejudice, Humour, Passion, &c.) examine the Grounds of their Religion, and search for the Truth. This, I consess, is heartily to be wish'd. The means that you propose to make Men do this, is, that Dissenters should be punished, to make them do so. It is as if you had said, Men generally are guilty of a Fault; therefore let one Sect, who have the ill luck to be of an Opinion different from the Magistrate, be punished. This at first Sight shocks any one who has the least Spark of Sense, Reason, or Justice. But having spoken of this already, and concluding that upon second Thoughts, you your self will be ashamed of it; let us consider it put so as to be consistent with common Sense, and with all the Advantage it can bear; and then let us see what you can make of it. Men are negligent in examining the Religions they imbrace, refuse, or persist in; therefore it is fit they should be punished to make them [146] do it. This is a Consequence indeed which may, without Defiance to common Sense, be drawn from it. This is the Use, the only Use, which you think Punishment can indirectly and at a distance have in matters of Religion. You would have Men by Punishments driven to examine. What? Religion. To what end? To bring them to the Knowledg of the Truth. But I answer.

First, Every one has not the Ability to do this.

Secondly, Every one has not the Opportunity to do it.

Would you have every poor Protestant, for example, in the Palatinate, examine throughly whether the Pope be infallible, or Head of the Church; whether there be a Purgatory; whether Saints are to be pray'd to, or the Dead pray'd for; whether the Scripture be the only Rule of Faith; whether there be no Salvation out of the Church; and whether there be no Church without Bishops; and an hundred other Questions in Controversy between the Papists and those Protestants: and when he had master'd these, go on to fortify himself against the Opinions and Objections of other Churches he differs from? This, which is no small Task, must be done, before a Man can have brought his Religion to the Bar of Reason, and given it fair Trial there. And if you will punish Men till this be done, the Country-man must leave off plowing and sowing, and betake himself to the Study of Greek and Latin; and the Artisan must sell his Tools, to buy Fathers and School-men, and leave his Family to starve. If something less than this will satisfy you, pray tell me what is enough. Have they considered and examined enough, if they are satisfied themselves where the Truth lies? If this be the Limits of their Examination, you will find few to punish; unless you will punish them to make them do what they have done already. For, however he came by his Religion, there is scarce any one to be found who does not own himself satisfied that he is in the right. Or else, must they be punished to make them consider and examine till they imbrace that which you chuse for Truth? If this be so, what do you but in effect chuse for them, when yet you would have Men punished, To bring them to such a A. p. 22. Care of their Souls that no other Person might chuse for them? If it be Truth in general you would have them by Punishments driven to seek; that is to offer matter of Dispute, and not a Rule of Discipline. For to punish any one to make him [147] seek till he find Truth, without a Judg of Truth, is to punish for you know not what; and is all one as if you should whip a Scholar to make him find out the square Root of a Number you do not know. I wonder not therefore that you could not resolve with your self what degree of Severity you would have used, nor how long continued; when you dare not speak out directly whom you would have punished, and are far from being clear to what end they should be under Penalties.

Consonant to this Uncertainty, of whom, or what, to be punished; you tell us, That there is no Question of the Success of A. p. 12. this Method. Force will certainly do, if duly proportioned to the Design of it.

What, I pray, is the Design of it? I challenge you, or any Man living, out of what you have said in your Book, to tell me directly what it is. In all other Punishments that ever I heard of yet, till now that you have taught the World a new Method, the Design of them has been to cure the Crime they are denounced against; and so I think it ought to be here. What I beseech you is the Crime here? Dissenting? That you say not, any where, is a Fault. Besides you tell us, That the Magistrate hath not an Authority to compel any one A. p. 21. to his Religion: And that you do not require that Men should A. p. 25. have no Rule but the Religion of the Country. And the Power you ascribe to the Magistrate is given him to bring Men, not to A. p. 26. his own, but to the true Religion. If Dissenting be not the Fault; is it that a Man does not examine his own Religion, and the Grounds of it? Is that the Crime your Punishments are designed to cure? Neither that dare you say, lest you displease more than you satisfy with your new Discipline. And then again, (as I said before) you must tell us how far you would have them examine, before you punish them for not doing it. And I imagine, if that were all we required of you, it would be long enough before you would trouble us with a Law, that should prescribe to every one how far he was to examine Matters of Religion; wherein if he fail'd and came short, he was to be punished; if he perform'd and went in his Examination to the Bounds set by the Law, he was acquitted and free. Sir, when you consider it again, you will perhaps think this a Case reserv'd to the Great Day, when the Secrets of all Hearts shall be laid open. For I imagine it is beyond the Power [148] or Judgment of Man, in that Variety of Circumstances, in respect of Parts, Tempers, Opportunities, Helps, &c. Men are in, in this World, to determine what is every one's Duty in this great Business of Search, Inquiry, Examination, or to know when any one has done it. That which makes me believe you will be of this Mind, is, that where you undertake for the success of this Method, if rightly used, it is with a Limitation, upon A. p. 12. such as are not altogether incurable. So that when your Remedy is prepared according to Art, (which Art is yet unknown) and rightly apply'd, and given in a due Dose, (all which are Secrets) it will then infallibly cure. Whom? All that are not incurable by it. And so will a Pippin-Posset, eating Fish in Lent, or a Presbyterian Lecture, certainly cure all that are not incurable by them. For I am sure you do not mean it will cure all, but those who are absolutely incurable; Because you your self allow one Means left of Cure, when yours will not do, viz. The Grace of God. Your Words are, What Means is there A. p. 10. left (except the Grace of God) to reduce them, but to l [...]y Thorns and Briars in their Way. And here also, in the Place we were considering, you tell us, The Incurable are to be lest to God. A. p. 12. Whereby, if you mean they are to be left to those Means he has ordained for Mens Conversion and Salvation, yours must never be made use of: For he indeed has prescribed Preaching and Hearing of his Word; but as for those who will not hear, I do not find any where that he has commanded they should be compell'd or beaten to it.

I must beg my Reader's Pardon sor so long a Repetition, which I was forced to, that he might be Judg whether what I there said, either deserves no Answer, or be fully answered in that Paragraph, where you undertake to vindicate your Method P. 48. from all Impracticableness and Inconsistency chargeable upon it, in reference to the End for which you would have Men punished. Your Words are. For what. By which, you say, you perceive I mean [...]vo things: For sometimes I speak of the Fault, and sometimes of the End for which Men are to be punished, (and sometimes I plainly confound them.) Now if it be inquired, For what Fault Men are to be punished? you answer, For rejecting the true Religion after sufficient Evidence tender'd them of the Truth of it: Which certainly is a Fault, and deserves Punishment. But if I inquire for what End [149] such as do reject the True Religion, are to be punished; you say, To bring them to imbrace the True Religion; and in order to that to bring them to consider, and that carefully and impartially, the Evidence which is offered to convince them of the Truth of it: Which are undeniably just and excellent Ends; and which, through God's Blessing, have often been procured, and may yet be procured by convenient Penalties inflicted for that purpose. Nor do you know of any thing I say against any part of this, which is not already answered. Whether I in this confound two things distinct, or you distinguish where there is no difference, the Reader may judg by what I have said elsewhere. I shall here only consider the Ends of Punishing, you here again in your Reply to me assign; and those, as I find them scattered, are these.

Sometimes you speak of this End, as if it were barely to gain P. 27. a hearing to those who by Prayers and Intreaty cannot: and those may be the Preachers of any Religion. But I suppose you mean the Preachers of the True Religion. And who I beseech you must be Judg of that?

Where the Law provides sufficient Means of Instruction for all, as P. 28. well as Punishment for Dissenters, it is plain to all concerned, that the Punishment is intended to make them consider. What? The Means the Law provides for their Instruction. Who then is Judg of what they are to be instructed in, and the Means of Instruction; but the Law-maker?

It is to bring Men to hearken to Instruction. From whom? From P. 37. any body? And to consider and examine Matters of Religion as they ought to do, and to bring those who are out of the right Way, to hear, consider and imbrace the Truth. When is this End attained, and the Penalties which are the Means to this End taken off? When a Man conforms to the National Church. And who then is Judg of what is the Truth to be imbraced, but the Magistrate?

It is to bring Men to consider those Reasons and Arguments which P. 26: are proper and sufficient to convince them; but which, without being forced, they would not consider. And when have they done this? When they have once conformed: for after that there is no Force used to make them consider farther.

It is to make Men consider as they ought; and that you tell us, P. 40. is so to consider, as to be moved heartily to imbrace, and not to reject P. 28. Truth necessary to Salvation. And when is the Magistrate, [150] that has the care of Mens Souls, and does all this for their Salvation, satisfied that they have so considered? As soon as they outwardly join in Communion with the National Church.

It is to bring Men to consider and examine those Controversies P. 2. which they are bound to consider and examine, i. e. those wherein they cannot err without dishonouring God, and indangering their own and other Mens Salvations. And to study the True Religion with such P. 58. Care and Diligence as they might and ought to use, and with an honest Mind. And when, in your Opinion, is it presumable that any Man has done all this? Even when he is in the Communion of your Church.

It is to cure Mens unreasonable Prejudices and Refractoriness against, P. 53. and Aversion to the True Religion. Whereof none retain the least Tincture or Suspicion who are once got within the Pale of your Church.

It is to bring Men into the right Way, into the Way of Salvation, P. 30, 58. which Force does when it has conducted them within the Church-Porch, and there leaves them.

It is to bring Men to imbrace the Truth that must save them. And P. 26. here, in the Paragraph wherein you pretend to tell us for what Force is to be used, you say, It is to bring Men to imbrace the P. 49. true Religion, and in order to that to bring them to consider, and that carefully and impartially, the Evidence which is offered to convince them of the Truth of it, which, as you say, are undeniable, just and excellent Ends; but yet such as Force in your Method can never practically be made a Means to, without supposing what you say P. 47. you have no need to suppose, viz. that your Religion is the true; unless you had rather every where to leave it to the Magistrate to judg which is the right Way, what is the true Religion; which Supposition I imagine will less accommodate you than the other. But take which of them you will, you must add this other Supposition to it, harder to be granted you than either of the former, viz. That those who conform to your Church here, (if you make your self the Judg) or to the National Church any where, (if you make the Magistrate Judg of the Truth that must save Men) and those only have attained these Ends.

The Magistrate, you say, is obliged to do what in him lies to bring all his Subjects to examine carefully and impartially Matters of Religion, and to consider them as they ought, i. e. so as to imbroce [151] the Truth that must save them. The proper and necessary Means, Chap. 7. you say, to attain these Ends is Force. And your Method of using this Force is to punish all the Dissenters from the National Religion, and none of those who outwardly conform to it. Make this practicable now in any Country in the World, without allowing the Magistrate to be Judg what is the Truth that must save them, and without supposing also, that whoever do imbrace the outward Profession of the National Religion, do in their Hearts imbrace, i. e. believe and obey the Truth that must save them; and then I think nothing in Government can be too hard for your undertaking.

You conclude this Paragraph in telling me, You do not know P. 49. of any thing I say against any part of this, which is not already answered. Pray tell me where 'tis you have answered those Objections I made to those several Ends which you assigned in your Argument considered, and for which you would have Force used, and which I have here reprinted again, because I do not find you so much as take notice of them: and therefore the Reader must judg whether they needed any Answer or no.

But to shew that you have not here, where you promise and pretend to do it, clearly and directly told us for what Force and Penalties are to be used, I shall in the next Chapter examine what you mean by bringing Men to imbrace the True Religion.

CHAP. VII. Of your bringing Men to the True Religion.↩

TRue Religion is on all hands acknowledged to be so much the Concern and Interest of all Mankind, that nothing can be named, which so much effectually bespeak [...] the Approbation and Favour of the Publick. The very intitling one's self to that, sets a Man on the right side. Who dares question such a Cause, or oppose what is offered for the promoting the True Religion? This Advantage you have secured to your self from unattentive Readers, as much as by the often-repeated mention of the True Religion, is possible, there being scarce a [152] Page wherein the True Religion does not appear, as if you had nothing else in your Thoughts, but the bringing Men to it for the Salvation of their Souls. Whether it be so in earnest, we will now see.

You tell us, Whatever Hardships some false Religions may impose, P. 7. it will however always be easier to carnal and worldly minded Men, to give even the first-born for their Transgressions, than to mortify the Lusts from which they spring, which no Religion but the True requires of them. Upon this you ground the Ne [...]essity of Force to bring Men to the True Religion, and charge it on the Magistrate as his Duty to use it to that End. What now in appearance can express greater Care to bring Men to the True Religion? But let us see what you say in p. 64. and we shall sind that in your Scheme nothing less is meant: there you tell us, The Magistrate inflicts the Penalties only upon them that break the Law [...] And that Law requiring nothing but Conformity to the National Religion, no [...] but Nonconformists are punished. So that unless an outward Profession of the National Religion be by the Mortification of Mens Lusts harder than their giving their First-born for their Transgression, all the Penalties you contend sor concern not, [...]nor can be intended to bring Men effectually to the True Religion; since they leave them before they come to the Difficulty, which is to mortify their Lusts, as the True Religion requires. So that your bringing Men to the True Religion, being to bring them to Conformity to the National, for then you have done with Force, how far that outward Consormity is from being heartily of the True Religion, may be known by the distance there is between the easiest and the hardest thing in the World. For there is nothing easier, than to profess in Words; nothing harder, than to subdue the Heart, and bring Thoughts and Deeds into Obedience of the Truth: The latter is what is required to be of the True Religion; the other all that is required by Penalties your way applied. If you say, Conformists to the National Religion are required by the Law Civil and Ecclesiastical, to lead good Lives, which is the difficult part of the True Religion: I answer, These are not the Laws we are here speaking of, nor those which the Defenders of Toleration complain of, but the Laws that put a distinction between outward Conformists and Nonconformists: and those they say, whatever may be talked of the True Religion, can never be meant to bring Men [153] really to the True Religion, as long as the True Religion is, and is confessed to be a thing of so much greater difficulty than outward Conformity.

Miracles, say you, supplied the want of Force in the beginning of Christianity; and therefore so far as they supplied that Want, they must be subservient to the same End. The End then was to bring Men into the Christian Church, into which they were admitted and received as Brethren, when they acknowledged that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. Will that serve the turn? No: Force must be used to make Men imbrace Creeds and Ceremonies, i. e. outwardly conform to the Doctrine and Worship of your Church. Nothing more than that is required by your Penalties; nothing less than that will excuse from Punishment; that, and nothing but that, will serve the turn; that therefore, and only that, is what you mean by the True Religion you would have Force used to bring Men to.

When I tell you,‘You have a very ill Opinion of the Religion L. 2. p 4. on of the Church of England, and must own it can only be propagated and supported by Force, if you do not think it would be a Gainer by a general Toleration all the World over’: You ask, Why you may not have as good an Opinion of the Church of England's, P. 10. as you have of Noah's Religion, notwithstanding you think it cannot now be propagated or supported without using some kinds or degrees of Force. When you have proved that Noah's Religion, that from eight Persons spread and continued in the World till the Apostles Times, as I have proved in another place, was propagated and supported all that while by your kinds or degrees of Force, you may have some reason to think as well of the Religion of the Church of England, as you have of Noah's Religion, though you think it cannot be propagated and supported without some kinds or degrees of Force. But till you can prove that, you cannot upon that ground say you have reason to have so good an Opinion of it.

You tell me, If I will take your Word for it, you assure me you P. 11. think there are many other Countries in the World besides England, where my Toleration would be as little useful to Truth as in England. If you will name those Countries, which will be no great pains, I will take your word for it, that you believe Toleration there would be prejudicial to Truth: but if you will not do that, neither I nor any body else can believe you. I will give you a Reason why I say so, and that is, Because no body can believe that, [154] upon your Principles, you can allow any National Religion, differing from that of the Church of England, to be true; and where the National Reli [...]ion is not true, we have already your Consent, as in Spain and Italy, &c. for Toleration. Now that you cannot, without renouncing your own Principles, allow any National Religion, differing from that establish'd here by Law, to be true, is evident: For why do you punish Nonconformists here? To bring them, say you, to the True Religion. But what if they hold nothing, but what that other differing National Church does, shall they be nevertheless punished if they conform not? You will certainly say, Yes: and if so, then you must either say, they are not of the True Religion, or else you must own you punish those, to bring them to the True Religion, whom you allow to be of the True Religion already.

You tell me, If I own with our Author, that there is but one True P. 11. Religion, and I owning my self to be of the Church of England, you cannot see how I can avoid supposing, that the National Religion now in England, back'd by the publick Authority of the Law, is the only True Religion. If I own, as I do, all that you here expect from me, yet it will not serve to draw that Conclusion from it, which you do, viz. That the National Religion now in England is the only True Religion; taking the True Religion in the Sense that I do, and you ought to take it. I grant that there is but one True Religion in the World, which is that whose Doctrine and Worship are necessary to Salvation. I grant too that the True Religion, necessary to Salvation, is taught and professed in the Church of England: and yet it will not follow from hence, that the Religion of the Church of England, as established by Law, is the only True Religion; if there be any thing established in the Church of England by Law, and made part of its Religion, which is not necessary to Salvation, and which any other Church, teaching and professing all that is necessary to Salvation, does not receive.

If the National Religion now in England, back'd by the Authority of the Law, be, as you would have it, the only true Religion; so the only true Religion, that a Man cannot be saved without being of it. Pray reconcile this, with what you say in the immediately preceding Paragraph, viz. That there are many other Countries in the World where my Toleration would be as little useful as in England. For if there be other National Religions differing [155] from that of England, which you allow to be true, and wherein Men may be saved, the National Religion of England, as now established by Law, is not the only true Religion, and Men may be saved without being of it. And then the Magistrate can upon your Principles have no Authority to use Force to bring Men to be of it. For you tell us, Force is not lawful, unless it be necessary; and therefore the Magistrate can never lawfully use it, but to bring Men to believe and practise what is necessary to Salvation. You must therefore either hold, that there is nothing in the Doctrine, Discipline and Ceremonies of the Church of England, as it is established by Law, but what is necessary to Salvation: Or else you must reform your Terms of Communion, before the Magistrate upon your Principles can use Penalties to make Men consider till they conform; or you can say that the National Religion of England is the only true Religion, though it contain the only true Religion in it; as possibly most, if not all, the differing Christian Churches now in the World do.

You tell us farther in the next Paragraph, That where-ever this P. 11. only true Religion, i. e. the National Religion now in England, is received, all other Religions ought to be discouraged. Why I beseech you discourag'd, if they be true any of them? For if they be true, what Pretence is there for Force to bring Men who are of them to the true Religion? If you say all other Religions, varying at all from that of the Church of England, are false; we know then your measure of the one only true Religion. But that your Care is only of Conformity to the Church of England, and that by the true Religion you mean nothing else, appears too from your way of expressing your self in thi [...] Passage, where you own that you suppose that as this only true Religion (to Ibid. wit, the National Religion now in England, back'd with the publick Authority of Law) ought to be received where-ever it is preached; so where-ever it is received all other Religions ought to be discouraged in some measure by the Civil Powers. If the Religion establish'd by Law in England, be the only true Religion, ought it not be preached and received every where, and all other Religions discouraged throughout the World? and ought not the Magistrates of all Countries to take Care that it should be so? But you only say, where-ever it is preach'd, it ought to be received; and where-ever it is received, other Religions ought to be discouraged, which is well suted to your Scheme for inforcing Conformity [156] in England, but could scarce drop from a Man whose Thoughts were on the true Religion, and the promoting of it in other Parts' of the World.

Force then must be used in England, and Penalties laid on Dissenters there. For what? to bring them to the true Religion, whereby it is plain you mean not only the Doctrine but Discipline and Ceremonies of the Church of England, and make them a part of the only true Religion: Why else do you punish all Dissenters for rejecting the true Religion, and use Force to bring them to it? When yet a great, if not the greatest part of Dissenters in England own and profess the Doctrine of the Church of England, as firmly as those in the Communion of the Church of England. They therefore, though they believe the same Religion with you, are excluded from the true Church of God, that you would have Men brought to, and are amongst those who reject the true Religion.

I ask whether they are not in your Opinion out of the way of Salvation, who are not joined in Communion with the true Church? and whether there can be any true Church without Bishops? If so, all but Conformists in England that are of any Church in Europe besides the Lutherans and Papists, are out of the way of Salvation, and so according to your System have need of Force to be brought into it: and these too, one for their Doctrine of Transubstantiation, the other for that of Consubstantiation, (to omit other things vastly differing from the Church of England) you will not, I suppose, allow to be of the true Religion: And who then are left of the true Religion but the Church of England? For the Abyssines have too wide a Difference in many Points for me to imagine, that is one of those Places you mean where Toleration would do harm as well as in England. And I think the Religion of the Greek Church can [...]carce be supposed by you to be the true. For if it should, it would be a strong Instance against your Assertion, that the true Religion cannot subsist, but would quickly be effectually extirpated without the Assistance of Authority, since this has subsisted without any such Assistance now above 200 Years. I take it then for granted, (and others with me cannot but do the same, till you tell us, what other Religion there is of any Church, but that of England, which you allow to be the true Religion) that all you say of bringing Men to the true Religion, [157] is only bringing them to the Religion of the Church of England. If I do you an Injury in this, it will be capable of a very easy Vindication: for it is but naming that other Church differing from that of England, which you allow to have the true Religion, and I shall yield my self convinc'd, and shall allow these Words, viz. The National Religion now in England, back'd by P. 27. the publick Authority of Law, being the only true Religion, only as a little hasty Sally of your Zeal. In the mean time I shall argue with you about the Use of Force to bring Men to the Religion of the Church of England, as established by Law: since it is more easy to know what that is, than what you mean by the true Religion, if you mean any thing else.

To proceed therefore; in the next place I tell you, by using Force your way to bring Men to the Religion of the Church of England, you mean only to bring them to an outward Profession of that Religion; and that, as I have told you elsewhere, because Force used your way, being applied only to Dissenters, and ceasing as soon as they conform, (whether it be intended by the Law-maker for any thing more or no, which we have examined in another Place) cannot be to bring Men to any thing mo [...]e than outward Conformity. For if Force be used to Dissenters, and them only, to bring Men to the true Religion, and always as soon as it has brought Men to Conformity, it be taken off, and laid aside, as having done all is expected fro [...] it; 'tis plain, that by bringing Men to the true Religion, and bringing them to outward Conformity, you mean the same thing. You use and continue Force upon Dissenters, because you expect some Effect from it: when you take it off, it has wrought that Effect, or else being in your Power, why do you not continue it on? The Effect then that you talk of, being the imbracing the true Religion, and the thing you are satisfied with without any farther Punishment, Expectation, or Inquiry, being outward Conformity, 'tis plain imbracing the true Religion and outward Conformity with you, are the same things.

Neither can you say it is presumable that those who outwardly conform do really understand, and inwardly in their Hearts imbrace with a lively Faith and a sincere Obedience, the Truth that must save them. 1. Because it being, as you tell us, the Magistrate's Duty to do all that in him lies for the Salvation of all his Subjects, and it being in his Power to examine, whether [158] they know and live sutable to the Truth that must save them, as well as conform, he can or ought no more to presume, that they do so, without taking an Account of their Knowledg and Lives, than he can or ought to presume that they conform, without taking any Account of their Coming to Church. Would you think that Physician discharged his Duty, and had (as was pretended) a Care of Mens Lives, who having got them into his Hands, and knowing no more of them, but that they come once or twice a Week to the Apothecary's Shop, to hear what is prescribed them, and sit there a while, should say it was presumable they were recovered, without ever examining whether his Prescriptions had any Effect, or what Estate their Health was in?

2. It cannot be presumable, where there are so many visible Instances to the contrary. He must pass for an admirable Presumer, who will seriously affirm that it is presumable that all those who conform to the National Religion where it is true, do so understand, believe and practise it, as to be in the way of Salvation.

3. It cannot be presumable, that Men have parted with their Corruption and Lusts to avoid Force, when they fly to Conformity, which can shelter them from Force without quitting their Lusts. That which is dearer to Men than their First-born, is, you tell us, their Lusts; that which is harder than the Hardships P. 7. of false Religions, is the mortifying those Lusts: here lies the Difficulty of the true Religion, that it requires the mortifying of those Lusts; and till that be done, Men are not of the true Religion, nor in the way of Salvation: And 'tis upon this Account only that you pretend Force to be needful. Force is used to make them hear; it prevails, Men hear: but that is not enough, because the Difficulty lies not in that; they may hear Arguments for the Truth, and yet retain their Corruption. They must do more, they must consider those Arguments. Who requires it of them? The Law that insticts the Punishment, does not; but this we may be sure their Love of their Lusts, and their Hatred of Punishment requires of them, and will bring them to, viz. to consider how to retain their beloved Lusts, and yet avoid the Uneasiness of the Punishment they lie under; this is presumable they do; therefore they go one easy Step farther, they conform, and then they are safe from Force, and may still [159] retain their Corruption. Is it therefore presumable they have parted with their Corruption, because Force has driven them to take Sanctuary against Punishment in Conformity, where Force is no longer to molest them, or pull them from their darling Inclinations? The Difficulty in Religion is, you say, for Men to part with their Lusts; this makes Force, necessary: Men find out a way by consorming to avoid Force without parting with their Lusts, therefore it is presumable when they con [...]orm, that Force which they can avoid without quitting their Lusts, has made them part with them, which is indeed not to part with their Lusts, because of Force, but to part with them gratis; which if you can say is presumable, the Foundation of your need of Force (which you place in the Prevalency of Corruption, and Mens adhering to their Lusts) will be gone, and so there will be no need of Force at all. If the great Difficulty in Religion be for Men to part with or mortify their Lusts, and the only Counter-ballance in the other Scale, to assist the true Religion, to prevail against their Lusts, be Force; which I beseech you is presumable, if they can avoid Force, and retain their Lusts, that they should quit their Lusts, and heartily imbrace the true Religion, which i [...] incompatible with them; or else that they should avoid the Force, and retain their Lusts? To say the former of these, is to say that it is presumable, that they will quit their Lusts, and heartily imbrace the true Religion for its own sake: for he that heartily imbraces the true Religion, because of a Force which he knows he can avoid at Pleasure, without quitting his Lusts, cannot be said so to imbrace it, because of that Force: Since a Force he can avoid without quitting his Lusts, cannot be said to assist Truth in making him quit them: For in this Truth has no Assistance from it at all. So that this i [...] to say there is no need of Force at all in the Case.

Take a co [...]tous Wretch, whose Heart is so set upon Money, that he would give his First-born to save his Bags; who is pursued by the Force of the Magistrate to an Arrest, and compelled to hear what is alledg'd against him; and the Prosecution of the Law threatning Imprisonment or other Punishment, if he do not pay the just Debt which is demanded of him: If he enters himself in [...]he Ki [...]g's Bench, where he can enjoy his Freedom without paying the Debt, and parting with his Money; will you say that it is presumable he did it to pay the D [...]bt, and not to avoid the Force [160] of the Law? The Lust of the Flesh and Pride of Life are as strong and prevalent as the Lust of the Eye: And if you will deliberately say again, that it is presumable, that Men are driven by Force to consider, so as to part with their Lusts, when no more is known of them, but that they do what discharges them from the Force, without any Necessity of parting with their Lusts; I think I shall have occasion to send you to my Pagans and Mahometans, but shall have no need to say any thing more to you of this matter my self.

I agree with you, that there is but one only true Religion; I agree too that that one only true Religion is professed and held in the Church of England; and yet I deny, if Force may be used to bring Men to that true Religion, that upon your Principles it can lawfully be used to bring Men to the National Religion in England as established by Law; because Force, according to your own Rule, being only lawful because it is necessary, and P. 30. therefore unfit to be used where not necessary, i. e. necessary to bring Men to Salvation, it can never be lawful to be used to bring a Man to any thing, that is not necessary to Salvation, as I have more fully shewn in another Place. If therefore in the National Religion of England, there be any thing put in as necessary to Communion, that is, though true, yet not necessary to Salvation, Force cannot be lawfully used to bring Men to that Communion, though the thing so required in it self may perhaps be true.

There be a great many Truths contained in Scripture, which a Man may be ignorant of, and consequently not believe, without any Danger to his Salvation, or else very few would be capable of Salvation: for I think I may truly say, there was never any one, but he that was the Wisdom of the Father, who was not ignorant of some, and mistaken in others of them. To bring Men therefore to imbrace such Truths, the Use of Force by your own Rule cannot be lawful: because the Belief or Knowledg of those Truths themselves not being necessary to Salvation, there can be no Necessity Men should be brought to imbrace them, and so no Necessity to use Force to bring Men to imbrace them.

The only true Religion which is necessary to Salvation, may in one National Church have that joined with it, which in it self is manifestly false and repugnant to Salvation; in such a Communion [161] no Man can join without quitting the way of Salvation. In another National Church, with this only true Religion may be joined, what is neither repugnant nor necessary to Salvation; and of such there may be several Churches differing one from another in Confessions, Ceremonies and Discipline, which are usually call'd different Religions, with either or each of which a good Man (if satisfied in his own Mind) may communicate without Danger, whilst another not satisfied in Conscience concerning something in the Doctrine, Discipline or Worship, cannot safely, nor without Sin, communicate with this or that of them. Nor can Force be lawfully used on your Principles to bring any Man to either of them, because such things are required to their Communion, which not being requisite to Salvation, Men may seriously and conscientiously differ, and be in doubt about, without indangering their Souls.

That which here raises a Noise, and gives a Credit to it, whereby many are misled into an unwarrantable Zeal, is, that these are called different Religions; and every one thinking his own the true, the only true, condemns all the rest as false Religions. Whereas those who hold all things necessary to Salvation, and add not thereto any thing in Doctrine, Discipline or Worship, inconsistent with Salvation, are of one and the same Religion, though divided into different Societies or Churches, under different Forms: which whether the Passion and Polity of designing; or the sober and pious Intention of well-meaning Men, set up, they are no other, than the Contrivances of Men, and such they ought to be esteemed in whatsoever is required in them, which God has not made necessary to Salvation, however in its own Nature it may be indifferent lawful or true. For none of the Articles or Confessions of any Church, that I know, containing in them all the Truths of Religion, though they contain some that are not necessary to Salvation, to garble thus the Truths of Religion, and by their own Authority take some not necessary to Salvation, and make them the terms of Communion; and leave out others as necessary to be known and believed, is purely the Contrivance of Men: God never having appointed any such distinguishing System; nor, as I have shew'd, can Force, upon your Principles, lawfully be used to bring Men to imbrace it.

Concerning Ceremonies, I shall here only ask you whether you think Kneeling at the Lord's Supper, or the Cross in Baptism, [160] [...] [161] [...] [162] are necessary to Salvation? I mention these as having been matter of great Scr [...]ple: if you will not say they are, how can you say that Force can be lawfully used to bring Men into a Communion, to which these are made necessary? If you say, Kneeling is necessary to a decent Uniformity, (for of the Cross in Baptism I have spoken elsewhere) though that should be true yet 'tis an Argument you cannot use for it, if you are of the Church of England: for, if a decent Uniformity may be well enough preserved without kneeling at Prayer, where Decency requires it at least as much as at receiving the Sacrament, why may it not well enough be preserved without kneeling at the Sacrament? Now that Uniformity is thought sufficiently preserved without kneeling at Prayer, is evident by the various Postures Men are at liberty to use, and may be generally observed, in all our Congregations, during the Minister's Prayer in the Pulpit before and after his Sermon, which it seems can consist well enough with Decency and Uniformity; tho it be at Prayer addressed to the great God of Heaven and Earth, to whose Majesty it is that the Reverence to be expressed in our Gestures is due, when we put up Petitions to him, who is invariably the same, in what or whose Words soever we address our selves to him.

The Preface to the Book of Common-Prayer tells us, That the Ri [...]es and Ceremonies appointed to be used in Divine Worship, are things in their own Nature indifferent and alterable. Here I ask you, whether any humane Power can make any thing, in its own nature indifferent, necessary to Salvation? If it cannot, then neither can any Humane Power be justified in the use of Force, to bring Men to Conformity in the use of such things. If you think Men have Authority to make any thing, in it self indifferent, a necessary part of God's Worship, I shall desire you to consider what our Author says of this Matter, which has not yet deserved your notice.

The misapplying his Power, you say, is a Sin in the Magistrate, [...]. 72 [...] and lays him open to Divine Vengeance. And is it not a misapplying of his Power, and a Sin in him to use Force to bring Men to such a Compliance in an indifferent thing, which in Religious Worship may be a Sin to them? Force, you say, may be used to punish those who dissent from the Communion of the Church of England. Let us suppose now all its Doctrines not only true, but necessary to Salvation; but that there is put into [163] the Terms of its Communion some indifferent Action which God has not enjoin'd, nor made a part of his Worship, which any Man is perswaded in his Conscience not to be lawful; suppose kneeling at the Sacrament, which having been superstitiously used in Adoration of the Bread as the real Body of Christ, may give occasion of scruple to some now, as well as eating of Flesh offered to Idols did to others in the Apostles time; which though lawful in it self, yet the Apostle said, he would eat no 1 Cor. VIII. 13. Flesh while the World standeth, rather than make his weak Brother offend. And if to lead, by Example, the Scrupulous into any Action, in it self indifferent, which they thought unlawful, be a Sin, as appears at large, Rom. XIV. how much more is it to add Force to our Example, and to compel Men by Punishments to that, which, though indifferent in it self, they cannot join in without sinning? I desire you to shew me how Force can be necessary in such a Case, without which you acknowledg it not to be lawful. Not to kneel at the Lord's Supper, God not having ordained it, is not a Sin; and the Apostles receiving it in the Posture of sitting or lying, which was then used at Meat, is an Evidence it may be received not kneeling. But to him that thinks Kneeling is unlawful, it is certainly a Sin. And for this you may take the Authority of a very Judicious and Reverend Prelate of our Church, in these Words; Where a Man is Discourse of Conscience, p. 18. mistaken in his Judgment, even in that Case it is always a Sin to act against it; by so doing, he wilfully acts against the best Light which at present he has for the direction of his Actions. I need not here repeat his Reasons, having already quoted him above more at large; though the whole Passage, writ (as he uses) with great Strength and Clearness, deserves to be read and considered. If therefore the Magistrate enjoins such an unnecessary Ceremony, and uses Force to bring any Man to a sinful Communion with our Church in it, let me ask you, Doth he sin, or misapply his Power or no?

True and false Religions are Names that easily engage Mens Affections on the hearing of them; the one being the Aversion, the other the Desire (at least as they perswade themselves) of all Mankind. This makes Men forwardly give into these Names, where-ever they meet with them; and when mention is made of bringing Men from false to the true Religion (very often without knowing what is meant by those Names) they think nothing can [164] be done too much in such a Business, to which they intitle God's Honour, and the Salvation of Mens Souls.

I shall therefore desire of you, if you are that fair and sincere Lover of Truth you profess, when you write again, to tell us what you mean by true, and what by a false Religion, that we may know which in your sense are so: for as you now have used these Words in your Treatise, one of them seems to stand only for the Religion of the Church of England, and the other for that of all other Churches. I expect here you should make the same Outcries against me, as you have in your former Letter, for imposing a Sense upon your Words contrary to your Meaning; and for this you will appeal to your own Words in some other Places: but of this I shall leave the Reader Judg, and tell him, this is a Way very easy and very usual for Men, who having not clear and consistent Notions, keep themselves as much as they can under the shelter of general and variously applicable Terms, that they may save themselves from the Absurdities or Consequences of one Place, by a help from some general or contrary Expression in another: Whether it be a desire of Victory, or a little too warm Zeal for a Cause you have been hitherto perswaded of, which hath led you into this way of writing; I shall only mind you, that the Cause of God requires nothing, but what may be spoken out plainly in a clear determined Sense, without any reserve or cover. In the mean time this I shall leave with you as evident, That Force upon your ground cannot be lawfully used to bring Men to the Communion of the Church of England, (that being all that I can find you clearly mean by the True Religion) till you have proved that all that is required of one in that Communion, is necessary to Salvation.

However therefore you tell us, That convenient Force used to P. 21. bring Men to the true Religion, is all that you contend for, and all P. 17, 18. that you allow. That it is for promoting the true Religion. That P. 28, 29. it is to bring Men to consider, so as not to reject the Truth necessary to P. 26. Salvation.... To bring Men to imbrace the Truth that must save them. And abundance more to this purpose. Yet all this Talk of the true Religion amounting to no more, but the National Religion established by Law in England; and your bringing Men to it, to no more than bringing them to an outward Profession of it; it would better have suted that Condition, (viz. without Prejudice, and with an honest Mind) which you require in others, to [165] have spoke plainly what you aimed at, rather than prepossess Mens Minds in favour of your Cause, by the Impressions of a Name that in truth did not properly belong to it.

It was not therefore without ground that I said, ‘I suspected L. 2. p. 4. you built all on this lurking Supposition, that the National Religion now in England, back'd by the publick Authority of the Law, is the only true Religion, and therefore no other is to be tolerated: which being a Supposition equally unavoidable, and equally just in other Countries; unless that we can imagine that every-where but in England, Men believe what at the same time they think to be a Lie, &c.’ Here you erect your Plumes, and to this your triumphant Logick gives you not Patience to answer, without an Air of Victory in the entrance: P. 11. How, Sir, is this Supposition equally unavoidable, and equally just in other Countries, where false Religions are the National? (for that you must mean, or nothing to the purpose.) Hold, Sir, you go too fast; take your own System with you, and you will perceive it will be enough to my purpose, if I mean those Religions which you take to be false: for if there be any other National Churches, which agreeing with the Church of England in what is necessary to Salvation, yet have established Ceremonies different from those of the Church of England; should not any one who dissented here from the Church of England upon that account, as preferring that to our Way of Worship, be justly punished? If so, then Punishment in Matters of Religion being only to bring Men to the true Religion, you must suppose him not to be yet of it, and so the National Church he approves of, not to be of the true Religion. And yet is it not equally unavoidable, and equally just, that that Church should suppose its Religion the only true Religion, as it is that yours should do so, it agrecing with yours in things necessary to Salvation, and having made some things, in their own nature indifferent, requisite to Conformity for Decency and Order, as you have done? So that my saying, It is equally unavoidable, and equally just in other Countries, will hold good, without meaning what you charge on me, that that Supposition is equally unavoidable, and equally just, where the National Religion is absolutely false.

But in that large Sense too, what I said will hold good; and you would have spared your useless Subtilties against it, if you had been as willing to take my Meaning, and answered my Argument, [166] as you were to turn what I said to a Sense which the Words themselves shew I never intended. My Argument in short was this, That granting Force to be useful to propagate and support Religion, yet it would be no Advantage to the true Religion, that you a Member of the Church of England, supposing yours to be the true Religion, should thereby claim a Right to use Force, since such a Supposition to those who were Members of other Churches, and believed other Religions, was equally unavoidable, and equally just. And the Reason I annexed, shews both this to be my Meaning, and my Assertion to be true: My Words are,‘Unless we can imagin [...] that every-where but in England, Men believe what at the sam [...] time they think to be a Lie.’ Having therefore never said, nor thought that it is equally unavoidable, or equally just, that Men in every Country should believe the National Religion of the Country; but that it is equally unavoidable, and equally just, that Men believing the National Religion of their Country, be it true or false, should suppose it to be true; and let me here add also, should endeavour to propagate it: you however go on thus to reply; If so, then I fear it will be equally true too, and equally rational: for otherwise I see not how it can be equally unavoidable, or equally just: for if it be not equally true, it cannot be equally just; and if it be not equally rational, it cannot be equally unavoidable. But if it be equally true, and equally rational, then either all Religions are true, or none is true: for if they be all equally true, and one of them be not true, then none of them can be true. I challenge any one to put these four good Words, unavoidable, just, rational and true, more equally together, or to make a better-wrought Deduction: but after all, my Argument will nevertheless be good, that it is no Advantage to your Cause, for you or any one of it, to suppose yours to be the only true Religion; since it is equally unavoidable, and equally just for any one, who believes any other Religion, to suppose the same thing. And this will always be so, till you can shew, that Men cannot receive false Religions upon Arguments that appear to them to be good; or that having received Falshood under the appearance of Truth, they can, whilst it so appears, do otherwise than value it, and be acted by it, as if it were true. For the Equality that is here in question, depends not upon the Truth of the Opinion imbraced, but on this, that the Light and Perswasion a Man has at present, is the Guide [167] which he ought to follow, and which in his Judgment of Truth he cannot avoid to be governed by. And therefore the terrible Consequences you dilate on in the following part of that Page, I leave you for your private Use on some sitter Occasion.

You therefore who are so apt without cause to complain of want of Ingenuity in others, will do well hereafter to consult your own, and another time change your Stile; and not under the undesined Name of the true Religion, because that is of more Advantage to your Argument, mean only the Religion established by Law in England, shutting out all other Religions now professed in the World. Though when you have defined what is the true Religion, which you would have supported and propagated by Force; and have told us 'tis to be found in the Liturgy and thirty nine Articles of the Church of England; and it be agreed to you, that that is the only true Religion, your Argument (for Force as necessary to Mens Salvation) from the want of Light and Strength enough in the true Religion to prevail against Mens Lusts, and the Corruption of their Nature, will not hold; because your bringing Men by Force, your way applied, to the true Religion, be it what you will, is but bringing them to an outward Conformity to the National Church. But the bringing them so far, and no farther, having no opposition to their Lusts, no Inconsistency with their corrupt Nature, is not on that account at all necessary, nor does at all help, where only, on your grounds, you say, there is need of the Assistance of Force towards their Salvation.

CHAP. VIII. Of Salvation to be procured by Force your way.↩

THere cannot be imagined a more laudable Design than the promoting the Salvation of Mens Souls, by any one who shall undertake it. But if it be a Pretence made use of to cover some other By-Interest, nothing can be more odious to Men, nothing more provoking to the great God of Heaven and Earth, nothing more misbecoming the Name and Character of a Christian. With what Intention you took your P [...]n in hand to [168] defend and incourage the use of Force in the business of Mens Salvation, 'tis sit in Charity we take your Word; but what your Scheme, as you have delivered it, is guilty of, 'tis my business to take notice of, and represent to you.

To my saying, that if Persecution, as is pretended, were for L. 2. p. 11. the Salvation of Mens Souls, bare Conformity would not serve the turn, but Men would be examined whether they do it upon Reason and Conviction: You answer, Who they be that pretend P. 22. that Persecution is for the Salvation of Mens Souls, you know not. Whatever you know not, I know one, who in the Letter under consideration pleads for Force, as useful for the promoting the Salvation P. 17. of Mens Souls: and that the use of Force is no other Means P. 31. for the Salvation of Mens Souls, than what the Author and Finisher of our Faith has directed. That so far is the Magistrate, when he P. 32. gives his helping- Hand to the furtherance of the Gospel, by laying convenient Penalties upon such as reject it, or any part of it, from using any other Means for the Salvation of Mens Souls, than what the Author and Finisher of our Faith has directed, that he does no more than his Duty for promoting the Salvation of Souls. And as the Means by which Men may be brought into the Way of Salvation. Ay, but where P. 58. do you say that Persecution is for the Salvation of Souls? I thought you had been arguing against my Meaning, and against the things I say, and not against my Words in your Meaning, which is not against me. That I used the word Persecution for what you call Force and Penalties, you knew: for in pag. 21. that immediately precedes this, you take notice of it, with some little kind of Wonder, in these Words; Persecution, so it seems you call all Punishments for Religion. That I do so then, (whether properly or improperly) you could not be ignorant; and then I beseech you apply your Answer here to what I say: My Words are; `I [...] Persecution (as is pretended) were for the Salvation of Mens Souls, Men that conform would be examined whether `they did so upon Reason and Conviction. Change my word Persecution into Punishment for Religion, and then consider the Truth or Ingenuity of your Answer: for in that sense of the word Persecution, do you know no body that pretends Persecution is for the Salvation of Mens Souls? So much for your Ingenuity, and the Arts you allow your self to serve a good Cause. What do you think of one of my Pagans or Mahometans? Could he have done better? For I shall often have occasion to mind you of [169] them. Now to your Argument I said, ‘That I thought those who make Laws, and use Force, to bring Men to Church-Conformity in Religion; seek only the Compliance, but concern themselves not for the Conviction of those they punish, and so never use Force to convince. For pray tell me, When any Dissenter conforms, and enters into the Church-Communion, is he ever examined to see whether he does it upon Reason and Conviction, and such Grounds as would become a Christian concerned for Religion? If Persecution (as i [...] pr [...]tended) were for the Salvation of Mens Souls, this would be done, and Men not driven to take the Sacrament to keep their Places, or obtain Licences to s [...]ll Ale, (for so low have these holy things been P. 22. prostituted.)’To this you here reply; As to those Magistrates, who having provided sufficiently for the Instruction of all under their Care, in the true Religion, do make Laws, and use moderate Penalties to bring Men to the Communion of the Church of God, and Conformity to the Rules and Orders of it, I think their Behaviour does plainly enough speak them to seek and concern themselves for the Conviction of those wh [...]m they punish, and for their Compliance only as the Fruit of their Conviction. If Means of Instruction were all, that is necessary to convince People, the providing sufficiently for Instruction would be an Evidence, that those that did so, did seek and concern themselves for Mens Conviction: but if there be something as necessary for Conviction as the Means of Instruction, and without which those Means will signify nothing, and that be severe and impartial Examination; and if Force be, as you say, so necessary to make Men thus examine, that they can by no other way but Force be brought to do it: If Magistrates do not lay their Penalties on Non-examination, as well as provide Means of Instruction, whatever you may say you think, few People will sind reason to believe you think those Magistrates seek and concern themselves much for the Conviction of those they punish, when that Punishment is not levell'd at that, which is a hindrance to their Conviction, i. e. against their Aversion to severe and impartial Examination. To that Aversion no Punishment can be pretended to be a Remedy, which does not reach and combat the Aversion; which 'tis plain no Punishment does, which may be avoided without parting with, or abating the Prevalency of that Aversion. This is the Case, where Men undergo Punishments for not conforming, which they may be rid of, without severely and impartially examining Matters of Religion.

[170]

To shew that what I mentioned was no Sign of Unconcernedness in the Magistrate for Mens Conviction; You add, Nor does the contrary appear from the not examining Dissenters when they conform, P. 22. t [...] see whether they do it upon Reason and Conviction: For where sufficient Instruction is provided, it is ordinarily presumable that when Dissenters conform, they do it upon Reason and Conviction. Here if ordinarily signifies any thing, (for it is a Word you make much use of, whether to express or cover your Sense, let the Reader judg) then you suppose there are Cases wherein it is not presumable; and I a [...]k you whether in those, or any Cases it be examin'd whether Dissenters when they conform, do it upon Reason and Conviction? At best that it is ordinarily pr [...]sumable, is but gra [...]is dictum, especially since you suppose, that it is the Corruption of their Nature that hinders them from considering as they ought, so as upon Reason and. Conviction to imbrace the Truth: Which Corruption of Nature, that they may retain with Conformity I think is very presumable. But be that as it will, this I am fure is ordinarily and always presumable, that if those who use Force, were as intent upon Mens Conviction, as they are on their Conformity, they would not wholly content themselves with the one, without ever examining and looking into the other.

Another Excuse you make for this Neglect, is, That as to irreligious Ibid. Persons who only seek their s [...]chlar Advantage, how easy it is for them to pretend Conviction, and to offer such Grounds (if that were required) as would become a Christian concerned for Religion, that is, what no Care of Man can certainly prevent. This is an admirable Justification of your Hypothesis. Men are to be punished: To what end? To make them severely and impartially consider Matters of Religion, that they may be convinced, and thereupon sincerely imbrace the Truth. But what need of Force or Punishment for this? Because their Lusts and Corruptions will otherwise keep them both from considering as they ought, and imbracing the true Religion; and therefore they must lie under Penalties till they have considered as they ought, which is when they have upon Conviction imbraced. But how shall the Magistrate know when they upon Conviction imbrace, that he may then take off their Penalties? That indeed cannot be known, and ought not to be inquired after, because irreligious Persons who only seek their secular Advantage, or in other Words, all those who desire at their ease to retain their beloved Lusts [171] and Corruptions, may easily pretend Conviction, and offer such Grounds (if it were required) as would become a Christian concerned for Religion: This is what no Care of Man can certainly prevent. Which is Reason enough, why no busy Forwardness in Man to disease his Brother should use Force upon Pretence of prevalling against Man's Corruptions, that hinder their considering and imbracing the Truth upon Conviction, when 'tis confessed, it cannot be known, whether they have considered, are convinced, or have really imbraced the true Religion or no? And thus you have shewn us your admirable Remedy, which is not it seems for the irreligious (for 'tis easy, you say, for them to pretend Conviction, and so avoid Punishment) but for those who would be religious without it.

But here in this Case, as to the Intention of the Magistrate, how can it be said, that the Force he uses is designed by subduing Mens Corruptions, to make way for considering and imbracing the Tr [...]th, when it is so applied, that it is confessed here, that a Man may get rid of the Penalties without parting with the Corruptions, they are pretended to be used against? But you have a ready Answer, This is what no Care of Man can certainly prevent; which is but in other Words to proclaim the Ridiculousness of your Use of Force, and to avow that your Method can do nothing. If by not certainly, you mean it may any way, or to any degree prevent, why is it not so done? If not, why is a Word that signifies nothing put in, unless it be for a Shelter on Occasion? A Benefit you know how to draw from this way of writing: But this here taken how you please, will only serve to lay Blame on the Magistrate, or your Hypothesis, chuse you whether. I for my part have a better Opinion of the Ability and Management of the Magistrate: What he aimed at in his Laws, that I believe he mentions in them, and as wise Men do in Bu [...]nes, fpoke out plainly what he had a Mind should be done. But c [...]inly there cannot a more ridiculous Character be put on Law-makers, than to tell the World they intended to make Men consider, examine, &c. but yet neither required nor named any thing in their Laws but Conformity. Though yet when Men are certainly to be punished for not really imbracing the true Religion, there ought to be certain Matters of Fact, whereby those that do, and those that do not so imbrace the Truth, should be distinguished; and for that you have, 'tis true, a clear and established Criterion, i. e. Conformity [172] and Nonconformity: which do very certainly distinguish the Innocent from the Guilty; those that really and sincerely do imbrace the Truth that must save them, from those that do not.

But, Sir, to resolve the Question, whether the Conviction of Mens Understandings, and the Salvation of their Souls, be the Business and Aim of those who use Force to bring Men into the Profession of the National Religion; I ask, whether if that were so, there could be so many as there are, not only in most Country-Parishes, but, I think I may say, may be found in all Parts of England, grosly ignorant in the Doctrines and Principles of the Christian Religion, if a strict Inquiry were made into it? If Force be necessary to be used to bring Men to Salvation, certainly some part of it would [...] out some of the ignorant and unconsidering that are in the National Church, as well as it does so diligently all the Nonconformists out of it, whether they have considered, or are knowing or no. But to this you give a very ready Answer; Would you have the Magistrate P. 64. punish all indifferently, those who obey the Law as well as them that do not? What is the Obedience the Law requires? That you tell us in these Words, If the Magistrate provides [...] P. 63. [...] the Instruction of all his Subjects in the true Religion, and then requires them all under convenient Penalties to [...] to the Teachers and Ministers of it, and to profess and exercise it with one Accord under their Direction in publick Assemblies: Which in other Words is but Conformity, which here you express a little plainer in these Words; But as those Magistrates who having provided P. 22. sufficiently for the Instruction of all under their Care in the true Religion do make Laws, and use moderate Penalties to bring Men to the Communion of the Church of God, and to conform to the Rules and Orders of it. You add, Is there any Pretence to say that in so doing, he [the Magistrate] applies Force only to a part of his [...], when the Law is general, and excepts none? There is no Pretence, I confess, to say that in so doing he applies Force only to a part of his Subjects, to make them Conformists, from that it is plain the Law excepts none. But if Conformists may be ignorant, grosly ignorant of the Principles and Doctrines of Christianity; if there be no [...] used to make them consider as they ought, so as to understand, be convinced of, believe and obey the Truths of the Gospel, are not they exempt from that Force which you say is to make Men consider and examine Matters [...]. 37. of Religion as they ought to do? Force is applied to all indeed to [173] make them Conformists: But if being Conformists once, and frequenting the Places of publick Worship, and there shewing an outward Compliance with the Ceremonies prescribed, (for that is all the Law requires of all, call it how you please) they are exempt from all Force and Penalties, though they are never so ignorant, never so far from understanding, believing, receiving the Truths of the [...]; I think it is evident that then Force is not applied to all to [...] the Conviction of the P. 16. Vnderstanding. To bring Men to consider those Reasons and Arguments P. 26. which are proper to convince the Mind, and which without being forced, they would not consider. To bring Men to that Consideration, P. 29. which nothing else but Force (besides the extraordinary Grace of God) would bring them to. To make Men good Christians. To P. 23. make Men receive Instruction. To cure their Aversion to the true P. 43. Religion. To bring Men to consider and examine the Controversies P. 58. which they are bound to consider and examine, i. e. those wherein they P. 2. cannot err without dishonouring God, and endangering their own and other Mens eternal Salvation. To weigh Matters of Religion carefully P. 16. and impartially. To bring Men to the true Religion and to Salvation. P. 13. That then Force is not applied to all the Subjects for these Ends, I think you will not deny. These are the Ends for which you tell us in the Places quoted, that Force is to be used in Matters of Religion: 'Tis by its Vsefulness and Necessity to those Ends, that you tell us, the Magistrate is authorized and obliged to use Force in Matters of [...]. Now if all these Ends be not attained by a bare [...], and yet if by a bare Conformity Men are wholly exempt from all Force and Penalties in Matters of Religion, will you say that for these Ends Force is applied to all the Magistrate's Subjects? If you will, I must send you to my Pagans and [...] for a little Conscience and Modesty. If you [...] Force [...] not [...] to all for these Ends, notwithstanding any Laws obliging all to Conformity, you must also confess, [...] what you say concerning the Laws being general, is nothing to the Purpose; since all that are under Penalties for not [...] are not under any Penalties for Ignorance, Irreligion, or the want of those Ends for which you say Penalties are useful and necessary.

You go on, And therefore if such Persons profane the Sacrament P. 22. to keep their Places, or to obtain Licences to sell Ale, this is an horrible Wickedness. I [...] them not. But it is their own, and they [174] alone must answer for it. Yes, and those who threatned poor ignorant and irreligious Ale-sellers, whose Livelihood it was, to take away their Licences, if they did not conform and receive the Sacrament, may be thought perhaps to have something to answer for. You add, But it is very unjust to impute it to those P. 23. who make such Laws, and use such Force, or to say that they prostitute holy things, and drive Men to profane them. Nor is it just to insinuate in your Answer, as if that had been said which was not. But if it be true that a poor ignorant loose irreligious Wretch should be threatned to be turn'd out of his Calling and Livelihood, if he would not take the Sacrament: May it not be said these holy things have been so low prostituted? And if this be not profaning them, pray tell me what is?

This I think may be said without Injustice to any body, that it does not appear, that those who make strict Laws for Conformity, and take no Care to have it examined upon what Grounds Men conform, are not very much concern'd, that Mens Understandings should be convinced: And though you go on to say, that they design by their Laws to do what lies in them to make Men good Christians: That will scarce be believed, if what you say be true, that Force is necessary to bring those who cannot be P. 58. otherwise brought to it, to study the true Religion, with such Care and Diligence as they might and ought to use, and with an honest Mind. And yet we see a great part, or any of those who are ignorant in the true Religion, have no such Force applied to them, especially since you tell us, in the same Place, that no Man ever studied the true Religion with such Care and Diligence as he might and ought Ibid. to use, and with an honest Mind, but he was convinced of the Truth of it. If then Force and Penalties can produce that Study, Care, Diligence and honest Mind, which will produce Knowledg and Conviction (and that as you say in the following Words) make good Men; I ask you, if there be found in the Communion of the Church, exempt from Force upon the Account of Religion, ignorant, irreligious, ill Men; and that to speak moderately, not in great Disproportion fewer than amongst the Nonconformists, will you believe your self, when you say the Magistrates do by their Laws all that in them lies to make them good Christians; when they use not that Force to them which you, not I, say is necessary; and that they are, where it is necessary, obliged to use? And therefore I give you leave to repeat again the Words [175] you subjoin here, But if after all they [i. e. the Magistrates] can do, wicked and godless Men will still resolve to be so, they will be so, and I know not who but God Almighty can help it. But this being P. 23. spoken of Conformists, on whom the Magistrates lay no Penalties, use no Force for Religion, give me leave to mind you of the Ingenuity of one of my Pagans or Mahometans.

You tell us, That the Usefulness of Force to make Scholars learn, authorizes Schoolmasters to use it. And would you not think a Schoolmaster discharged his Duty well, and had a great Care of their Learning, who used his Rod only to bring Boys to School; but if they come there once a Week, whether they slept, or only minded their Play, never examined what Proficiency they made, or used the Rod to make them study and learn, tho they would not apply themselves without it?

But to shew you how much you your self are in earnest for the Salvation of Souls in this your Method, I shall set down what I said, p. 61. of my Letter on that Subject, and what you answer, p. 68. of yours.

L. 2. p. 61. You speak of it here as the most deplorable Condition imaginable, that Men should be left to themselves, and not be forced to consider and examine the Grounds of their Religion, and search impartially and diligently after the Truth. This you make the great Miscarriage of Mankind; and for this you seem solicitous, all through your Treatise, to find out a Remedy; and there is scarce a Leaf wherein you do not offer yours. But what if after all, now you should be found to prevaricate? Men have contrived to themselves, say you, a great Variety of Religions: 'Tis granted. They seek not the Truth in this matter with that Application of Mind, and that freedom [176] of Judgment which is requisite: 'Tis confessed. All the false Religions now on foot in the World, have taken their rise from the slight and partial Consideration, which Men have contented themselves with in searching after the true; and Men take them up, and persist in them for want of due Examination: Be it so. There is need of a Remedy for this; and I have found one whose Success cannot be questioned: Very well. What is it? Let us hear it. Why, Dissenters must be punished. Can any body that hears you say so, believe you in earnest; and that want of Examination is the thing you would have amended, when want of Examination is not the thing you would have punished? If want of Examination be the Fault, want of Examination must be punished; if you are, as you pretend, fully satisfied that Punishment is the proper and only Means to remedy it. But if in all your Treatise you can shew me one Place, where you say that the Ignorant, the Careless, the Inconsiderate, the Negligent in examining throughly the Truth of their own and others Religion, &c. are to be punished, I will allow your Remedy for a good one. But you have not said any thing like this; and which is more, I tell you before-hand, you dare not say it. And whilst you do [177] not, the World has reason to judg, that however want of Examination be a general Fault, which you with great Vehemency have exaggerated; yet you use it only for a pretence to punish Dissenters; and either distrust your Remedy, that it will not cure this Evil, or else care not to have it generally cur'd. This evidently appears from your whole Management of the Argument. And he that reads your Treatise with attention, wil be more confirm'd in this Opinion, when he shall find, that you (who are so earnest to have Men punished, to bring them to consider and examine, that so they may discover the Way to Salvation) have not said one word of considering, searching, and hearkning to the Scripture; which had been as good a Rule for a Christian to have sent them to, as to Reasons and Arguments proper to convince them, of you know not what; As to the Instruction and Government of the proper Ministers of Religion, which who they are, Men are yet far from being agreed; Or as to the Information of those, who tell them they have mistaken their Way, and offer to shew them the right; and to the like uncertain and dangerous Guides; which were not those that our Saviour and the Apostles sent Men to, bat to the Scriptures. Search [178] the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal Life, says our Saviour to the unbelieving Joh. V. 39. persecuting Jews. And 'tis the Scriptures which St. Paul says, 2 Tim. III. 15. are able to make wise unto Salvation. Talk no more therefore, if you have any care of your Reputation, how much it is every Man's Interest not to be left to himself, without Molestation, without Punishment in Matters of Religion. Talk not of bringing Men to imbrace the Truth that must save them, by putting them upon Examination. Talk no more of Force and Punishment, as the only way lest to bring Men to examin. 'Tis evident you mean nothing less: For tho want of Examination be the only Fault you complain of, and Punishment be in your Opinion the only way to bring Men to it; and this the whole Design of your Book; yet you have not once proposed in it, that those who do not impartially examine, should be forced to it. And that you may not think I talk at random, when I say you dare not; I will, if you please, give you some Reasons for my saying so. First, Because if you propose that all should be punished, who are ignorant, who have not used such Consideration as is apt and proper to manifest the Truth; but have been determined in the choice [179] of their Religion by Impressions of Education, Admiration of Persons, worldly Respects, Prejudices, and the like incompetent Motives; and have taken up their Religion, without examining it as they ought; you will propose to have several of your own Church (be it what it will) punished; which would be a Proposition too apt to offend too many of it, for you to venture on. For whatever need there be of Reformation, every one will not thank you sor proposing such an one as must begin at (or at least reach to) the House of God.

L. 3. p. 68. Your next Paragraph runs high, and charges me with nothing less than Prevarication. For whereas, as you tell me, I speak of it here as the most deplorable Condition imaginable, that Men should be left to themselves, and not be forced to consider and examine the Grounds of their Religion, and search impartially and diligently after the Truth, &c. It seems all the Remedy I offer, is no more than this, Dissenters must be punished. Vpon which thus you insult; Can any body that hears you say so, believe you in earnest, &c. Now here I acknowledg, that though want or neglect of Examination be a general Fault, yet[176] the Method I propose for curing it, does not reach to all that are guilty of it, but is limited to those who reject the true Religion, preposed to them with sufficient Evidence. But then to let you see how little ground you have to say that I prevaricate in this matter, I shall only desire you to consider, what it is that the Author and my self were enquiring after: For it is not, What Course is to be taken to confirm and establish those in the Truth, who have already embraced it: nor, How they may be enabled to propagate it to others, (for both which Purposes I have already acknowledged it very useful, and a thing much to be desired, that all such Persons should, as far as they are able, search into the Grounds upon which their Religion stands, and challenges their Belief;) but the Subject of our Enquiry is only, What Method is to be used, [...] bring Men to the true Religion. Now if this be the only thing we were inquiring after, (as you cannot deny it to be) then every one sees that in speaking to this Point, I had nothing to do with any who have already imbraced the true Religion; because they are not to be brought to that Religion, but only to be confirmed and edified in it; but was only to consider how those who reject it,[177] may be brought to imbrace it. So that how much soever any of those who own the true Religion, may be guilty of neglect of Examination; 'tis evident, I was only concerned to shew how it may be cured in those, who by reason of it, reject the true Religion, duly proposed or tender'd to them. And certainly to confine my self to this, is not to prevaricate, unless to keep within the Bounds which the Question under debate prescribes me, be to prevaricate. In telling me therefore that I dare not say that the Ignorant, the Careless, the Inconsiderate, the Negligent in examining, &c. (i. e. all that are such) are to be punished, you only tell me that I dare not be impertinent. And therefore I hope you will excuse me, if I take no notice of the three Reasons you offer in your next Page for your saying so. And yet if I had had a mind to talk impertinently, I know not why I might not have dared to do so, as well as other Men. There is one thing more in this Paragraph, which though nothing more pertinent than the rest, I shall not wholly pass over. It lies in these Words; He that reads your Treatise with Attention, will be more confirm'd[178] in this Opinion, (viz. That I use want of Examination only for a Pretence to punish Dissenters, &c.) when he shall find that you (who are so earnest to have Men punish'd, to bring them to consider and examine, that so they may discover the Way of Salvation) have not said one Word of considering, searching, and hearkning to the Scripture; which had been as good a Rule for a Christian to have sent them to, as to Reasons and Arguments proper to convince them, of you know not what, &c. How this confirms that Opinion, I do not see; nor have you thought fit to instruct me. But as to the thing it self, viz. my not saying one Word of considering, searching, and hearkning to the Scripture; whatever Advantage a captious Adversary may imagine he has in it, I hope it will not seem strange to any indifferent and judicious Person, who shall but consider that throughout my Treatise I speak of the true Religion only in general, i. e. not as limited to any particular Dispensation, or to the Times of the Scriptures; but as reaching from the Fall of Adam to the End of the World, and so comprehending the Times which preceded the Scriptures; wherein[179] yet God left not himself without Witness, but furnished Mankind with sufficient Means of knowing Him and his Will, in order to their eternal Salvation. For I appeal to all Men of Art, whether, speaking of the True Religion under this Generality, I could be allowed to descend to any such Rules of it, as belong only to some particular Times, or Dispensations; such as you cannot but acknowledg the Old and New Testaments to be.

Secondly, Because if you should propose that all those who are ignorant, careless, and negligent in examining, should be punished, you would have little to say in this Question of Toleration: For if the Laws of the State were made as they ought to be, equal to all the Subjects, without distinction of Men of different Professions in Religion; and the Faults to be amended by Punishments, were impartially punished in all who are guilty of them; this would immediately produce a perfect Toleration, or shew the Uselesness of Force in Matters of Religion. Is therefore you think it so necessary, as you say, for the promoting of true Religion, and the Salvation of Souls, that Men should be punished to make them examine; do but sind a way to apply Force to all that have not throughly and impartially examined, and you have my Consent. For tho Force be not the proper means of promoting Religion; yet there is no better way to shew the Uselesness of it, than the applying it equally to Miscarriage, in whomsoever found, and not to distinct: Parties or Perswasions of Men, for the Reformation of them alone, when others are equally faulty.

Thirdly, Because without being sor as large a Toleration as the Author proposes, you cannot be truly and sincerely for a free and impartial Examination. For whoever examines, must have the Liberty to judg, and follow his Judgment; or else you [180] put him upon Examination to no purpose. And whether that will not as well lead Men from, as to your Church, is so much a Venture, that by your way of Writing, 'tis evident enough you are loth to hazard it; and if you are of the National Church, 'tis plain your Brethren will not bear with you in the Allowance of such a Liberty. You must therefore either change your Method; and if the want of Examination be that great and dangerous Fault you would have corrected, you must equally punish all that are equally guilty of any Neglect in this Matter, and then take your only means, your beloved Force, and make the best of it; or else you must put off your Mask, and confess that you design not your Punishments to bring Men to Examination, but to Conformity. For the Fallacy you have used, is too gross to pass upon this Age.

In this your Answer you say, the Subject of our Inquiry is only what Method is to be used to bring Men to the true Religion. He that reads what you say, again and again, That the Magistrate P. 76, 77, 78. is impower'd and obliged to procure as much as in him lies, i. e. as far as by Penalties it can be procured that NO MAN neglect his Soul, and shall remember how many Pages you imploy, A. p 6, &c. And here p. 6, &c. to shew that it is the Corruption of humane Nature which hinders Men from doing what they may and ought for the Salvation of their Souls, and that therefore Penalties, no other means being left, and Force were necessary to be used by the Magistrate to remove these great Obstacles of L [...]sts and Corruptions, that none of his Subjects might remain ignorant of the way of Salvation, or refuse to imbrace it. One would think your Inquiry had been after the means of CVRING MENS Aversion to the true Religion, (which you tell us, p. 53. if not cured, is certainly destructive of Mens Eternal Salvation) that so they might heartily imbrace it for their Salvation. But here you tell us, your Inquiry is only what Method is to be used to bring Men to the true Religion: whereby you evidently mean nothing but outward Conformity to that which you think the true Church, as appears by the next following Words; Now if this be the only thing we were inquiring after, then every one sees that in speaking to this Point, I had nothing to do with any who have already imbraced the true Religion. And also every one sees that since amongst those with whom (having already imbraced the true Religion) you and your [181] Penalties have nothing to do; there are those who have not considered and examined Matters of Religion as they ought, whose Lusts and corrupt Natures keep them as far alienated from believing, and as averse to a real obeying the Truth that must save them, as any other Men; it is manifest that imbracing the true Religion in your Sense is only imbracing the outward Profession of it, which is nothing but outward Conformity. And that being the furthest you would have your Penalties pursue Men, and there leave them with as much of their Ignorance of the Truth, and Carelesness of their Souls as they please, who can deny but that it would be impertinent in you to consider how want of impartial Examination, or Aversion to the true Religion should in them be cured? because they are none of those Subjects of the Commonwealth, whose spiritual and eternal Interests are by political Government to be procured or advanced, none of those Subjects whose Salvation the Magistrate is to take Care of.

And therefore I excuse you, as you desire, for not taking notice of my three Reasons; but whether the Reader will do so or no, is more than I can undertake. I hope you too will excuse me for having used so harsh a Word as prevaricate, and impute it to my want of Skill in the English Tongue. But when I find a Man pretend to a great Concern for the Salvation of Mens Souls, and make it one of the great Ends of Civil Government, that the Magistrate should make use of Force to bring all his Subjects to consider, study and examine, believe and imbrace the Truth that must save them: when I shall have to do with a Man, who to this Purpose hath writ two Books to find out and desend the proper Remedies for that general Backwardness and Aversion (which depraved humane Nature keeps Men in) to an impartial Search after, and hearty imbracing the true Religion; and who talks of nothing less than Obligations on Soveraigns, both from their particular Duty, as well as from common Charity, to take Care that none of their Subjects should want the Assistance of this only means left for their Salvation; nay, who has made it so necessary to Mens Salvation, that he talks as if the Wisdom and Goodness of God would be brought in Question, if those who needed it should be destitute of it; and yet notwithstanding all this Shew of Concern for Mens Salvation, contrives the Application of this sole Remedy so, that a great many who lie under the Disease, should be out of the Reach and Benefit of his [182] Cure, and never have this only Remedy applied to them: When this I say is so manifestly in his Thoughts all the while, that he is forced to confess that though Want or Neglect of Examination be a general Fault, yet the Method he proposes for curing it does not reach to all that are guilty of it; but frankly owns, that he was not concerned to shew how the Neglect of Examination might be cured in those who conform, but only in those who by reason of it reject the true Religion duly proposed to them: which rejecting the true Religion will require a Man of Art to shew to be here any thing but Nonconformity to the National Religion. When, I say, I meet with a Man another time that does this, who is so much a Man of Art, as to talk of all, and mean but some; talk of hearty imbracing the true Religion, and mean nothing but Conformity to the National; pretend one thing, and mean another; if you please to tell me what Name I shall give it, I shall not fail: for who knows how soon again I may have an occasion sor it.

If I would punish Men for Nonconformity without owning of it, I could not use a better Pretence than to say it was to make them hearken to Reasons and Arguments proper to convince them, or to make them submit to the Instruction and Government of the proper Ministers of Religion, without any thing else, supposing still at the bottom the Arguments for, and the Ministers of my Religion to be these, that till they outwardly complied with, they were to be punished. But if (instead of outward Conformity to my Religion covered under these indesinite terms) I should tell them, they were to examine the Scripture, which was the sixed Rule for them and me, not examining could not give me a Pretence to punish them, unless I would also punish Conformists as ignorant and unversed in the Scripture as they, which would not do my Business.

But what need I use Arguments to shew, that your punishing to make Men examine is designed only against Dissenters, when in your Answer to this very Paragraph of mine, you in plain Words acknowledg, that though want of Examination be a general P. 68. Fault, yet the Method you propose for curing does not reach to all that are guilty of it? To which if you please to add what you tell us, That when Dissenters conform, the Magistrate cannot know, P. 22. and therefore never examins whether they do it upon Reason and Conviction or no, though it be certain that upon conforming, [183] Penalties, the necessary Means, cease, it will be obvious, that whatever be talked, Conformity is all that is aimed at, and that want of Examination is but the Pretence to punish Dissenters.

And this I told you, any one must be convinced of, who L. 2. p. 62. observes that you (who are so earnest to have Men punished to bring them to consider and examine that so they may discover the way of Salvation) have not said one Word of considering, searching, and hearkning to the Scripture, which, you were told, was as good a Rule for a Christian to have sent Men to, as to the Instruction and Government of the proper Ministers of Religion, or to the Information of those who tell them they have mistaken 'their way, and offer to shew them the right. For this p [...]ssing by the Scripture you give us this Reason, that throughout your Trea [...]se you speak of the true Religion only in general, i. e. not as limited P. 69. to any particular Dispensation, or to the times of the Scriptures, but as reaching from the Fall of Adam to the End of the World, &c. And then you appeal to all Men of Art, whether speaking of the true Religion under this Generality, you could be allowed to descend to any such Rules of it as belong only to some particular Times or Dispensations, such as I cannot but acknowledg the Old and New Testaments to be.

The Author that you write against, making it his Business (as no body can doubt who reads but the first Page of his Letter) to shew that it is the Duty of Christians to tolerate both Christians and others who differ from them in Religion, 'tis pretty strange (in asserting against him that the Magistrate might and ought to use Force to bring Men to the true Religion) you should mean any other Magistrate than the Christian Magistrate; or any other Religion than the Christian Religion. But it seems you took so little notice of the Design of your Adversary, which was to prove, that Christians were not to use Force to bring any one to the true Christian Religion; that you would prove, that Christians now were to use Force, not only to bring Men to the Christian, but also to the Jewish Religion; or that of the true Church before the Law, or to some true Religion so general that it is none of these. For, say you, throughout your Treatise you speak of the true Religion only in general, i. e. not as limited to any particular Dispensation: Though one that were not a Man of Art would suspect you to be of another Mind your self, when you told P. 3. [184] us, the shuting out of the Jews from the Rights of the Commonwealth, is a just and necessary Caution in a Christian Commonwealth; which you say to justify your Exception in the beginning of your A— against the Largeness of the Author's Toleration, who would not have Jews excluded. But speak of the true Religion only in general as much as you please, if your true Religion be that by which Men must be saved, can you send a Man to any better Guide to that true Religion now than the Scripture?

If when you were in your Altitudes, writing the first Book, your Men of Art could not allow you to descend to any such Rule as the Scripture, (though even there you acknowledg the Severities A. p. 13. spoken against, are such as are used to make Men Christians) because there (by an Art proper to your self) you were to speak of true Religion under a Generality, which had nothing to do with the Duty of Christians, in reference to Toleration. Yet when here in your second Book, where you condescend all along to speak of the CHRISTIAN RELIGION, and tell us, that the Magistrates have Authority to make Laws for promoting the Christian RELIGION, and do by their Laws design to contribute what in them lies to make Men good CHRISTIANS; and complain of Toleration as the very Bane of the Life and Spirit of CHRISTIANITY, &c. and have vouchsafed particularly to mention the Gospel; why here, having been call'd upon for it, you could not send Men to the Scriptures, and tell them directly, that those they were to study diligently, those they were impartially and carefully to examine, to bring them to the true Religion, and into the way of Salvation; rather than talk to them as you do, of receiving Instruction, and considering Reasons and Arguments proper and sufficient to convince them; rather than propose, as you do all along, such Objects of Examination and Enquiry in general terms, as are as hard to be found, as the thing it self, for which they are to be examined: Why I say you have here again avoided sending Men to examine the Scriptures, is just matter of Inquiry. And for this you must apply your self again to your Men of Art, to furnish you with some other Reason.

If you will but cast your Eyes back to your next Page, you will there find that you build upon this, that the Subject of your and the Author's I [...]quiry is only what Method is to be used to bring Men to the true Religion. If this be so, your Men of Art, who cannot allow you to descend to any such Rule as the Scriptures, [185] because you speak of the true Religion in general, i. e. not as limited to any particular Dispensation, or to the times of the Scriptures, must allow, that you deserve to be Head of their Colledg; since you are so strict an Observer of their Rules, that though your Inquiry be, What Method is to be used to bring Men to the true Religion (now under the particular Dispensation of the Gospel, and under Scripture-times) you think it an unpardonable Fault to recede so far from your Generality, as to admit the Study and Examination of the Scripture into your Method; for fear, 'tis like, your Method would be too particular, if it would not now serve to bring Men to the true Religion, who lived before the Flood. But had you had as good a Memory, as is generally thought needful to a Man of Art, it is believed you would have spared this Reason, for your being so backward in putting Men upon Examination of the Scripture. And any one, but a Man of Art, who shall read what you tell us the Magistrate's Duty is; and P. 31. will but consider how convenient it would be, that Men should receive no Instruction but from the Ministry, that you there tell us the Magistrate assists; examine no Arguments, hear nothing of the Gospel, receive no other Sense of the Scripture, but what that Ministry proposes; who if they had but the coactive Power, (you think them as capable of as other Men) might assist themselves; He, I say, who reflects but on these things, may perhaps find a Reason that may better satisfy the Ignorant and Unlearned, who have not had the good luck to arrive at being of the Number of these Men of Art, why you cannot descend to propose to Men the studying of the Scripture.

Let me for once suppose you in holy Orders, (for we that are not of the Adepti, may be allow'd to be ignorant of the Punctilio's in Writing observed by the Men of Art:) And let me then ask what Art is this, whose Rules are of that Authority; that One, who has received Commission from Heaven to preach the Gospel in Season and out of Season, for the Salvation of Souls, may not allow himself to propose the reading, studying, examining of the Scripture, which has for at least these sixteen hundred Years contained the only true Religion in the World; for fear [...] [...] Proposal should offend against the Rules of this Art by being too particular and consined to the Gospel-Dispensation; And therefore could not pass muster, nor find Admittance, in a Treatise wherein the Author professes it his only Business to inquire [186] what Method is to be used to bring Men to the true Religion? Do you expect any other Dispensation; that you are so afraid of being too particular, if you should recommend the Use and Study of the Scripture, to bring Men to the true Religion now in the times of the Gospel? Why might you not as well send them to the Scriptures, as to the Ministers and Teachers of the true Religion? Have those Ministers any other Religion to teach, than what is contained in the Scriptures? But perhaps you do this out of Kindness and Care, because possibly the Scriptures could not be found; but who were the Ministers of the true Religion, Men could not possibly miss. Indeed you have allowed your self to descend to what belongs only to some particular Times and Dispensations, for their sakes, when you speak of the Ministers of the Gospel. But whether it be as fully agreed on amongst Christians, who are the Ministers of the Gospel that Men must hearken to, and be guided by; as which are the Writings of the Apostles and Evangelists, that (if studied) will instruct them in the way to Heaven; is more than you or your Men of Art can be positive in. Where are the Canons of this over-ruling Art to be found, to which you pay such Reverence? May a Man of no distinguishing Character be admitted to the Privilege of them? For I see it may be of notable Use at a dead-lift, and bring a Man off with flying Colours, when Truth and Reason can do him but little Service. The strong Guard you have in the Powers you write for; And when you have engaged a little too far, the safe Retreat you have always at hand in an Appeal to these Men of Art, made me almost at a stand, whether I were not best make a Truce with one who had such Auxiliaries. A Friend of mine finding me talk thus, replied briskly; 'tis a Matter of Religion, which requires not Men of Art; and the Assistance of such Art as savours so little of the Simplicity of the Gospel, both shews and makes the Cause the weaker. And so I went on to your two next Paragraphs.

In them, to vindicate a pretty strange Argument for the Magistrate's Use of Force, you think it convenient to repeat it out of your A. p. 26. And so, in Compliance with you, shall I do here again. There you tell us, The Power you ascribe to the Magistrate is given him to bring Men, not to his own, but to the true Religion: And though (as our Author puts us in mind) the Religion of every Prince is Orthodox to himself; yet if this Power keep within its bounds, [187] it can serve the Interest of no other Religion but the true, among such as have any Concern for their Eternal Salvation; (and those that have none, deserve not to be considered) because the Penalties it inables him that has it to instict, are not such as may tempt such Persons either to renounce a Religion which they believe to be true, or to profess one which they do not believe to be so; but only such as are apt to put them upon a serious and impartial Examination of the Controversy between the Magistrate and them, which is the way for them to come to the Knowledg of the Truth. And if, upon such Examination of the Matter, they chance to sind that the Truth does not lie on the Magistrate's side, they have gained thus much however, even by the Magistrate's misapplying his Power, that they know better than they did before, where the Truth doth lie: And all the hurt that comes to them by it, is only the suffering some tolerable Inconveniences for their following the Light of their own Reason, and the Dictates of their own Consciences; which, certainly, is no such Mischief to Mankind as to make it more eligible that there should be no such Power vested in the Magistrate, but the Care of every Man's Soul should be left to himself alone, (as this Author demands it should be.)

To this I tell you,‘That here, out of abundant Kindness, L. 2. p. 64. when Dissenters have their Heads (without any cause) broken, you provide them a Plaister. For, say you, if upon such Examination of the Matter (i. e. brought to it by the Magistrate's Punishment) they chance to find that the Truth doth not lie on the Magistrate's side; they have gain'd thus much however, even by the Magistrate's misapplying his Power, that they know better than they did before, where the Truth does lie. Which is as true as if you should say; Upon Examination I find such an one is out of the way to York, therefore I know better than I did before that I am in the right. For neither of you may be in the right. This were true indeed, if there were but two ways in all, a Right and a Wrong.’ To this you reply here; That whoever shall consider the Penalties, will, you perswade your self, find no Heads broken, and so but little need of a Plaister. The Penalties, as you say, are to be such as will not tempt such as have any concern for their Eternal Salvation, either to renounce a Religion which they believe to be true, or profess one which they believe not to be so, but only such as (being weigh'd in Gold-Scales) are just enough, or as you express it, are apt to put them upon a [188] serious and impartial Examination of the Controversy between the Magistrate and them. If you had been pleased to have told us what Penalties those were, we might have been able to guess whether there would have been broken Heads or no. But since you have not vouchsafed to do it, and if I mistake not, will again appeal to your Men of Art for another Dispensation rather than ever do it; I fear no body can be sure these Penalties will not reach to something worse than a broken Head: Especially if the Magistrate shall observe that you impute the Rise P. 7. and Growth of salse Religions (which it is the Magistrate's Duty to hinder) to the Pravity of humane Nature, unbridled by Authority; which, by what follows, he may have reason to think P. 8. is to use Force sufficient to counterballance the Folly, Perverseness and Wickedness of Men: And whether then he may not lay on Penalties sufficient, if not to break Mens Heads, yet to ruin them in their Estates and Liberties, will be more than you can undertake. And since you acknowledg here, that the Magistrate may err so far in the Use of this his Power, as to mistake the Persons that he lays his Penalties on; will you be Security that he shall not also mistake in the Proportion of them, and lay on such as Men would willingly exchange for a broken Head? All the Assurance you give us of this, is; If this Power keep within its bounds; i. e. as you here explain it, If the Penalties the Magistrate makes use of to promote a false Religion, do not exceed the Measure of those which he may warrantably use for the promoting the True. The Magistrate may notwithstanding any thing you have said, or can say, use any sort of Penalties, any degree of Punishment; you having neither shew'd the Measure of them, nor will be ever able to shew the utmost Measure which may not be exceeded, if any may be used.

But what is this I find here? If the Penalties the Magistrate makes use of to promote a FALSE RELIGION. Is it possible that the Magistrate can make use of Penalties to promote a false Religion; Of whom you told us but three Pages back, That it may always be said of him, (what St. Paul said of himself) that he can do nothing against the Truth, but for the Truth? By that one would have thought you had undertaken to us, that the Magistrate could no more use Force to promote a false Religion, than St. Paul could preach to promote a false Religion. If you say, the Magistrate has no Commission to promote a false Religion, [189] and therefore it may always be said of him, what St. Paul said of himself &c. I say, no Minister was ever commissioned to preach Falshood; and therefore it may always be said of every Minister, (what St. Paul said of himself) that he can do nothing against the Truth, but for the Truth: Whereby we shall very commodiously have an infallible Guide in every Parish, as well as one in every Commonwealth. But if you thus use Scripture, I imagine you will have reason to appeal again to your Men of Art; whether, though you may not be allowed to recommend to others the Examination and Use of Scripture, to find the true Religion, yet you your self may not use the Scripture to what Purpose, and in what Sense you please, for the defence of your Cause.

To the remainder of what I said in that Paragraph, your Answer is nothing but an Exception to an Inference I made. The Argument you were upon, was to justify the Magistrate's inflicting Penalties to bring Men to a false Religion, by the Gain those that suffered them would receive.

Their Gain was this; That they would know better than they did L. 2. p. 64. before, where the Truth does lie. To which I replied,‘Which is as true, as if you should say, upon Examination I find such an one is out of the Way to York; therefore I know better than I did before, that I am in the right.’ This Consequence you find fault with, and say it should be thus; Therefore I know better than I did before, where the right Way lies. This, you tell me, would have been true; which was not for my Purpose. These Consequences, one or t'other, are much-what alike true. For he that of an hundred Ways, amongst which there is but one right, shuts out one that he discovers certainly to be wrong, knows as much better than he did before, that he is in the right, as he knows better than before, where the right Way lies. For before 'twas 99 to one he was not in the right; and now he knows 'tis but 98 to one that he is not in the right; and therefore knows so much better than before, that he is in the right, just as much as he knows better than he did before, where the right Way lies. For let him, upon your Supposition, proceed on; and every Day, upon examination of a Controversy with some one in one of the remaining Ways, discover him to be in the wrong; he will every Day know better than he did before, equally, where the right Way lies, and that he is in it; till at last he will come to discover the right Way it self, and himself in it. And therefore [190] your Inference, whatever you think, is as much as the other for my Purpose; which was to shew what a notable Gain a Man made in the variety of false Opinions and Religions in the World, by discovering that the Magistrate had not the Truth on his side; and what Thanks he owed the Magistrate, for inslicting Penalties upon him so much for his Improvement, and for affording him so much Knowledg at so cheap a rate. And should not a Man have reason to boast of his Purchase, if he should by Penalties be driven to hear and examine all the Arguments can be proposed by those in Power for all their foolish and false Religions? And yet this Gain is what you propose, as a Justification of Magistrates inslicting Penalties for the promoting their false Religions. And an impartial Examination of the Controversy between them and the Magistrate, you tell us here, is the P. 70. way for such as have any concern for their eternal Salvation, to come to the knowledg of the Truth.

To my saying, `He that is punished may have examined before, ` and then I am sure he gains nothing: You reply, But neither does he lose much, if it be true, which you there add, that all P. 71. the Hurt that befalls him, is only the suffering some tolerable Inconvenience for his following the Light of his own Reason, and the Dictates of his Conscience. So it is therefore you would have a Man rewarded for being an honest Man; (for so is he who follows the Light of his own Reason, and the Dictates of his Conscience;) only with the suffering some tolerable Inconveniences. And yet those tolerable Inconveniences are such as are to counterballance Mens Lusts, and the Corruption of depraved Nature; which you know any slight Penalty is sufficient to master. But that the Magistrate's Discipline shall stop at those your tolerable Inconveniences, is what you are loth to be Guarantee for: For all the Security you dare give of it, is, If it be true which you there add. But if it should be otherwise, the Hurt may be more I see than you are willing to answer for.

L. 2. p. 64. However, you think you do well to incourage the Magistrate in punishing, and comfort the Man who has suffer'd un [...]stly, by shewing what he [191] shall gain by it. Whereas, on the contrary, in a Discourse of this Nature, where the Bounds of Right and Wrong are enquired into, and should be establish'd, the Magistrate was to be shew'd the Bounds of his Authority, and warn'd of the Injury he did when he misapplies his Power, and punish'd any Man who deserv'd it not; and not be sooth'd into Injustice, by consideration of Gain that might thence accrue to the Sufferer. Shall we do Evil, that Good may come of it? There are a sort of People who are very wary of touching upon the Magistrate's Duty, and tender of shewing the bounds of his Power, and the Injustice and ill Consequences of his misapplying [...]; at least, so long as it is misapply'd in favour of them, and their Party. I know not whether you are of their number; But this I am sure, you have the misfortune here to fall into their Mistake. The Magistrate, you confess, may in this case misapply his Power: And instead of representing to him the Injustice of it, and the Account he must give to his Sovereign one day of this [192] great Trust put into his Hands, for the equal Protection of all his Subjects, you pretend Advantages which the Sufferer may receive from it: And so instead of disheartning from, you give encouragement to the Mischief. Which, upon your Principle, join'd to the natural thirst in Man after Arbitrary Power, may be carried to all manner of Exorbitancy, with some pretence of Right.

L. 3. p. 71. As to what you say here of the nature of my Discourse, I shall only put you in mind that the Question there debated is; Whether the Magistrate has any Right or Authority to use Force for[191] the promoting the true Religion. Which plainly supposes the Vnlawfulness and Injustice of using Force to promote a false Religion, as granted on both sides. So that I could no way be obliged to take notice of it in my Discourse, but only as occasion should be offer'd. And whether I have not shew'd the bounds of the Magistrate's Authority, as far as I was any way obliged to do it, let any indifferent Person judg. But to talk here of a sort of People who are very wary of touching upon the Magistrate's Duty, and tender of shewing the bounds of his Power, where I tell the Magistrate that the Power I ascribe to him in reference to Religion, is given him to bring Men, not to his own, but to the true Religion; and that he misapplies it, when he endeavours to promote a false Religion by it, is, methinks, at least a little unseasonable. Nor am I any more concern'd in what you say of the Magistrate's misapplying his Power in favour of a Party. For as you have not yet proved that his applying his Power to the promoting the true Religion, (which is all that I contend for) is misapplying it; so much less can you prove it to be misapplying it in favour of a Party. But that I encourage the Magistrate in punishing Men to bring them to a false Religion, (for that is the punishing we here speak of)[192] and sooth him into Injustice, by shewing what those who suffer unjustly shall gain by it, when in the very same breath I tell him that by so punishing, he misapplies his Power, is a Discovery which I believe none but your self could have made. When I say that the Magistrate misapplies his Power by so punishing; I suppose all other Men understand me to say, that he sins in doing it, and lays himself open to divine Vengeance by it. And can he be encouraged to this, by hearing what others may gain by what (without Repentance) must cost him so dear?

Here your Men of Art will do well to be at hand again. For it may be seasonable for you to appeal to them, whether the nature of your Discourse will allow you to descend to shew ` the Magistrate the bounds of his Authority, and warn him of ` the Injury he does, if he misapplies his Power.

You say, the Question there debated, is, Whether the Magistrate has any Right or Authority to use Force for promoting the True Religion; which plainly supposes the Vnlawfulness and Injustice of using Force to promote a [...] Religion, as granted on both sides. Neither is that the Question in debate; nor if it were, does it suppose what you pretend. But the Question in debate is, as you put it, Whether any body has a Right to use Force in Matters of Religion? P. 78. You say indeed, The Magistrate has, to bring Men to the True Religion. If thereupon, you think the Magistrate has none to bring Men to a false Religion, whatever your Men of Art may think, 'tis probable other Men would not have thought it to have been besides the nature of your Discourse, to have warn'd the Magistrate, that he should consider well, and impartially examine the Grounds of his Religion before he use any Force to bring Men to it. This is of such moment to Mens temporal and eternal Interests, that it might well deserve some particular [...] addressed to the Magistrate; who might as much need to be [193] put in mind of impartial Examination as other People. And it might, whatever your Men of Art may allow, be justly expected from you; who think it no Derivation from the Rules of Art, to tell the Subjects that they must submit to the Penalties laid on them, or else fall under the Sword of the Magistrate; which how true soever, will hardly by any body be sound to be much more to your purpose in this Discourse, than it would have been to have told the Magistrate of what ill consequence it would be to him and his People, if he misused his Power, and warn'd him to be cautious in the Use of it. But not a word that way. Nay even where you mention the account he shall give for so doing, it is still to satisfy the Subjects that they are well provided for, and not left unfurnish'd of the Means of Salvation, by the right God has put into the Magistrate's hands to use his Power to bring them to the True Religion; and therefore, they ought to be well content, because if the Magistrate misapply it, the Great Judg will punish him for it. Look, Sir, and see whether what you say, any where, of the Magistrate's misuse of his Power, have any other Tendency: And then I appeal to the sober Reader, whether if you had been as much concern'd for the Bounding, as for the Exercise of Force in the Magistrates hands, you would not have spoke of it [...] another manner.

The next thing you say, is, that the Question (being, Whether the Magistrate has any Right to use Force to bring Men to the True Religion,) supposes the Vnlawfulness of using Force to promote a False Religion as granted on both sides; which is so far from true, that I suppose quite the contrary, viz. That if the Magistrate has a Right to use Force to promote the True, he must have a Right to use Force to promote his own Religion; and that for Reasons I have given you elsewhere. But the Supposition of a Supposition serves to excuse you from speaking any thing directly of setting Bounds to the Magistrate's Power, or telling him his Duty in that point; though you are very frequent in mentioning the Obligation he is under, that Men should not want the Assistance of his Force; and how answerable he is, if any body miscarry for want of it; though there be not the least Whisper of any care to be taken, that no body be [...] by it. And now I recollect my self; I think your Method would not allow it: For if you should have put the Magistrate upon Examining, it would have suppos'd him as liable to Error as other Men; [194] whereas, to secure the Magistrate's acting right, upon your Foundation of never using Force but for the True Religion, I see no help for it, but either he or you (who are to licence him) must be got past the State of Examination, into that of certain Knowledg and Infallibility.

Indeed, as you say, you tell the Magistrate that the Power you ascribe to him in reference to Religion, is given him to bring Men not to his own, but to the True Religion. But do you put him upon a severe and impartial Examination; Which, amongst the many False, is the one only True Religion he must use Force to bring his Subjects to; that he may not mistake and misapply his Power in a Business of that Consequence? Not a Syllable of this. Do you then tell him which it is he must take, without Examination, and promote with Force; whether that of England, France or Denmark? This, methinks, is as much as the Pope, with all his Infallibility, could require of Princes. And yet, what is it less than this you do; when you suppose the Religion of the Church of England to be the only True; and upon this your Supposition, tell the Magistrate it is his Duty, by Force, to bring Men to it; without ever putting him upon Examining, or suffering him or any body else to question, whether it be the only True Religion or no? For if you will stick to what you in another place say, That it is enough to suppose that there is one True Religion, and but one, and that that Religion may be known by those who profess it; What Authority will this Knowableness of the True Religion, give to the King of England more than to the King of France, to use Force, if he does not actually know the Religion he professes to be the True; or to the Magistrate more than the Subject, if he has not examin'd the Grounds of his Religion? But if He believes you when you tell him, your Religion is the True, all is well; he has Authority enough to use Force, and he need not examine any farther. If this were not the case; why you should not be careful to prepare a little Advice to make the Magistrate examine, as well as you are sollicitous to provide Force to make the Subject examine, will require the Skill of a Man of Art to discover.

Whether you are not of the Number of those Men I there mention'd, (for that there have been such Men in the World, Instances might be given) one may doubt srom your Principles. For if upon a Supposition that yours is the True Religion, you [195] can give Authority to the Magistrate to [...] Penalties on all his Subjects that dissent from the Communion of the National Church, without examining whether theirs too may not be that only True Religion which is necessary to Salvation; Is not this to demand, that the Magistrate's Power should be applied only in favour of a Party? And can any one avoid being confirm'd in this Suspicion, when he reads that broad Insinuation of yours, P. 34. as if Our Magistrates were not concern'd for Truth [...] Piety, because they granted a Relaxation of those Penalties, which you would have imploid in favour of your Party: For so it must be call'd, and not the Church of God, exclusive of others; unless you will say Men cannot be saved out of the Communion of your particular Church, let it be National where you please.

You do not, you say, encourage the Magistrate to misapply his Power; because in the very same Breath you tell him he misapplies his Power. I answer, Let all Men understand you, as much as you please, to say that he sins in doing it; That will not excuse you from encouraging him there; unless it be impossible that a Man may be encourag'd to Sin. If your telling the Magistrate that his Subjects gain by his misapplying of Force, be not an Encouragement to him to misapply it, the doing good to others must cease to be an Encouragement to any Action. And whether it be not a great Encouragement in this case to the Magistrate, to go on in the use of [...], without impartially examining whether his or his Subjects be the True Religion; when he is told that (be his Religion true or false,) his Subjects, who suffer, will be sure to be Gainers by it, let any one judg. For the Encouragement is not (as you put it) to the Magistrate to use Force to bring Men to what he thinks a false Religion; but it is an Encouragement to the Magistrate, who presumes his to be the True Religion, to punish his Dissenting Subjects; without due and impartial Examination on which side the Truth lies. For having never told the Magistrate, that neglect of Examination is a Sin in him; if you should tell him a thousand times, that he who uses his Power to bring Men to a False Religion misapplies it; he would not understand by it that he sinn'd, whilst he thought his the True; and so it would be no restraint to the misapplying his Power.

And thus we have some Prospect of this admirable Machin you have [...] up for the Salvation of Souls.

[196]

The Magistrate is to use Force to bring Men to the True Religion. But what if he misapplies it to bring Men to a False Religion? 'Tis well still for his Subjects: They are Gainers by it. But this may encourage him to a Misapplication of it. No; You tell him that he that uses it to bring Men to a False Religion, misapplies it; And therefore he cannot but understand that you say he sins, and lays himself open to Divine Vengeance. No; He believes himself in the right; and thinks as St. Paul, whilst a Persecutor, that he does God good Service. And you assure him here, he makes his suffering. Subjects Gainers; and so he goes on as comfortably as St. Paul did. Is there no Remedy for this? Yes, a very ready one, and that is, that the one only True Religion may be known by those who profess it to be the only True Religion.

To which, if we add how you moderate as well as direct the Magistrate's Hand in punishing; by making the last Regulation of your convenient Penalties to lie in the Prudence and Experience of Magistrates themselves; we shall find the Advantages of your Method. For are not your necessary Means of Salvation, which lie in moderate Penalties used to bring Men to the True Religion, brought to an happy State; when that which is to guide the Magistrate in the Knowledg of the True Religion, is, that the True Religion may be known by those who profess it to be the only True Religion; and the convenient Penalties to be used for the promoting of it, are such as the Magistrate shall in his Prudence think fit; and that whether the Magistrate applies it right or wrong, the Subject will be a Gainer by it? If in either of your Discourses, you have given the Magistrate any better Direction than this to know the True Religion by, which he is by Force to promote; or any other intelligible Measure to moderate his Penalties by; or any other Caution to restrain the misuse of his Power; I desire you to shew it me: And then I shall think I have reason to believe, that in this Debate you have had more Care of the True Religion, and the Salvation of Souls, than to encourage the Magistrate to use the Power he has, by your Direction, and without Examination, and to what degree he shall think sit, in favour of a Party. For the Matter thus stated, if I mistake not, will serve any Magistrate, to use any degree of Force, against any that dissent from his National Religion.

Having recommended to the Subjects the Magistrate's [...] by a shew of Gain, which will accrue to them by it, you do [197] well to bring in the Example of Julian; who whatever he did to the Christians, would (no more than you) own that it was Persecution, but for their Advantage in the other World. But whether his pretending Gain to them, upon Grounds which he did not believe; or your pretending Gain to them, which no body can believe to be one; be a greater Mockery; you were best look. This seems reasonable; That his talk of Philanthropy, and yours of Moderation, should be bound up together. For till you speak and tell them plainly what they may trust to; the Advantage the Persecuted are to receive from your Clemency, may, I imagine, make a second Part to what the Christians of that Age [...] from his. But you are solicitous for the Salvation of Souls, and Dissenters shall find the Benefit of it.

CHAP. IX. Of the Vsefulness of Force in Matters of Religion.↩

YOU having granted that in all Pleas for any thing, because P. 10. of its Usefulness, it is not enough to say that it may be serviceable; but it must be considered, not only what it may, but what it is likely to produce; and the greater Good or Harm likely to come from it ought to determine the use of it; I think there need nothing more to be said to shew the Uselesness of Force in the Magistrate's Hands for promoting the true Religion, after it has been proved that, if any, then all Magistrates, who believe their Religion to be true, are under an Obligation to use it. But since the usefulness and necessity of Force is the main Foundation on which you build your Hypothesis, we will in the two remaining Chapters examine particularly what you say for them.

To the Author's saying, ‘That Truth seldom hath received, and he fears never will receive much assistance from the Power of Great Men, to whom she is but rarely known, and more rarely welcome,’ You answer, And yet God himself foretold and P. 10. promised that Kings should be Nursing Fathers, and Queens Nursing Mothers to his Church. If we may judg of this Prophecy by what [198] is past or present, we shall have reason to think it concerns not our Days; or if it does, that God intended not that the Church should have many such Nursing Fathers and Nursing Mothers, that were to nurse them up with moderate Penalties, if those were to be the Swadling-Clouts of this Nursery. Perhaps, if you read that Chapter, you will think you have little reason to build much on this Promise, till the restoring of Israel: And when you see the Gentiles bring Thy (i. e. [...] the stile of the Chapter seems to import the Sons of the Israelites) Sons in their Arms, and thy Daughters be carried upon their Shoulders, as is promised in the immediately preceding Words; you may conclude that then Kings shall be thy, (i. e. Israels) Nursing Fathers, and Queens thy Nursing Mothers. This seems to me to be the [...] [...] by that Prophecy, and I guess to a great many others, upon an attentive reading that Chapter in Isaiah. And to all such this Text will do you little Service, till you make out the meaning of it better than by barely quoting of it; which will scarce ever prove, that God hath promised that so many Princes shall be Friends to the true Religion, that it will be better for the true Religion that Princes should use Force for the imposing or propagating of their Religions, than not. For unless it prove that, it answers not the Author's Argument, as an indifferent Reader must needs see. For he says not Truth never, but she seldom [...] received, and he fears never will receive (not any, but) much assistance from the Power of Great Men to whom she is BVT RARELY KNOWN, and more RARELY WELCOME. And therefore to this of Isaiah pray join that of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 1. 26. Not many wise, not many mighty, not many noble.

But supposing many Kings were to be Nursing Fathers to the Church, and that this Prophecy were to be fulfilled in this Age, and the Church were now to be their Nursery; 'Tis I think more proper to understand this figurative Promise, that their Pains and Discipline was to be imploy'd on these in the Church, and that they should feed and cherish them, rather than that these Words meant that they should whip those that were out of it. And therefore this Text will, I suppose, upon a just consideration of it, signify very little against the known matter of Fact which the Author urges; Unless you can find a Country where the Cudgel and the Scourge are more the Badges and Instruments of a good Nurse than the Breast and the [...]; and that she is counted [199] a good Nurse of her own Child, who [...] her self in whiping Children not hers, [...] belonging to her Nursery.

The [...] which give you [...] [...] [...] to hope for any advantage from the Authors Toleration, which almost all but the Church of England injoy'd in the Times of the Blessed Reformation, as it was called, you tell us, were Sects and Heresies. Here your Zeal hangs P. 13. a little in your Light. It is not the Author's Toleration which here you accuse. That, you know, is universal: And the universality of it is that which a little before you wondred at, and complained of. Had it been the Author's Toleration, it could not have been almost all but the Church of England; but it had been the Church of England and all others. But let us take it, that Sects and [...] were, or will be the Fruits of a free Toleration. i. e. [...] are divided in their opinions and ways of Worship. Differences in ways of Worship, wherein there is nothing mixed inconsistent with the true Religion, will not hinder Men from Salvation, who sincerely follow the best Light they have; which they are as likely to do under Toleration as Force. And as for [...] of Opinions, speculative Opinions in Religion, I think I may safely say, that there are [...] any where three considering Men (for 'tis want of Consideration you would punish) who are in their Opinions throughout of the same Mind. Thus far then, if Charity be preserved, (which it is likelier to be where there is Toleration, than where there is Persecution) though without Uniformity, I see no great reason to complain of those ill Fruits of Toleration.

But Men will run, as they did in the late Times, into dangerous and destructive Errors, and extravagant ways of Worship. As to Errors in Opinion; If Men upon Toleration be so apt to vary in Opinions, and run so wide one from another, 'tis evident they are not so averse to thinking as you complain. For 'tis hard for Men, not under Force, to quit one Opinion and imbrace another, without thinking of them. But if there be danger of that; It is most likely the National Religion should sweep and draw to its self the loose and unthinking part of Men; who without Thought, as well as without any contest with their corrupt Nature, may imbrace the Profession of the countenanced Religion, and join in outward Communion with the great and ruling Men of the Nation. For he that troubles not his Head at all about Religion, what other can so well suit [...] as the National, with which the [200] Cry and Preferments go; And where (it being, as you say, presumable that he makes that his Profession upon Conviction, and that he is in earnest,) he is sure to be Orthodox without the pains of examining, and has the Law and Government on his side to make it good that he is in the right?

But Seducers, if they be tolerated, will be ready at hand, and diligent; and Men will hearken to them. Seducers surely have no Force on their side, to make People hearken. And if this be so, there is a Remedy at hand, [...] than Force, if you and your Friends will use it, which cannot but prevail; And that is, let the Ministers of Truth be as diligent; And they bringing Truth with them, Truth obvious and easy to be understand (as you say, what is necessary to Salvation is) cannot but prevail. P. 29.

But Seducers are hearken'd to, because they teach Opinions favourable to Mens Lusts. Let the Magistrate, as is his Duty, hinder the Practises which their Lusts would carry them to, and the Advantage will be still on the side of Truth.

After all, Sir, If, as the Apostle tells the Corinthians, (1 Cor. 12. 19.) There must be Heresies amongst you, that they which are approved may be made manifest; which, I beseech you, is best for the Salvation of Mens Souls; that they should enquire, hear, examine, consider, and then have the Liberty to profess what they are perswaded of; or, that having consider'd, they should be forced not to own nor follow their Perswasions; or else, that being of the National Religion, they should go ignorantly on without any Consideration at all? In one case, if your Penalties prevail, Men are forced to act contrary to their Consciences, which is not the way to Salvation; and if the Penalties prevail not, you have the same Fruits, Sects and Heresies, as under Toleration: In the other, 'tis true, those ignorant, loose, unthinking Conformists, do not break company with those who imbrace the Truth that will save them; but I fear can no more be said to have any share in it, than those who openly dissent from it. For 'tis not being in the Company, but having on the Wedding-Garment, that keeps Men from being bound Hand and Foot, and cast into the dreadful and eternal Prison.

You tell us, Force has a proper Efficacy to procure the Enlightning P. 16. of the Vnderstanding, and the Production of Belief, viz. by making Men consider. But you ascribing Mens Aversion to examine Matters of Religion, to the Corruption of their Nature; Force [201] your way apply'd, (i. e. so that Men avoid the Penalties by an outward Conformity) cannot have any proper Efficacy to procure Consideration; since Men may outwardly conform, and retain their Corruption, and Aversion to Consideration; and upon this account, Force, your way apply'd, is absolutely impertinent.

But further; If Force has such a proper Efficacy to procure the Production of Belief, it will do more harm than good, imploid by any but Orthodox Magistrates. But how to put it only into Orthodox Hands, is the Difficulty. For I think I have proved, that if Orthodox Magistrates may, and ought to use Force, for the promoting their Religion, all that think themselves Orthodox are obliged to use it too. And this may serve for an Answer to all you have said, P. 16.

I having said, Whatever indirect Efficacy there be in Force L. 2. p. 30 apply'd by the Magistrate your way, it makes against you; Force used by the Magistrate, to bring Men to consider those Reasons and Arguments, which are proper and sufficient to convince them, but which without being forced, they would not consider; may, say you, be serviceable indirectly and at a distance, to make Men imbrace the Truth which must save them. ` And thus, say I, it may be serviceable to bring Men to receive and imbrace Falshood, which ` will destroy them. To this you with great Triumph reply. How, P. 25. Sir, may Force used by the Magistrate, to bring Men to consider those Reasons and Arguments which are proper and sufficient to convince them, be serviceable to bring Men to imbrace Falshood, such Falshood as will destroy them? It seems then, there are Reasons and Arguments which are proper and sufficient to convince Men of the truth of Falshood, which will destroy them. Which is certainly a very extraordinary Discovery, though such as no Man can have any reason to thank you for.

In the first place, let me ask you; Where did you find, or from what Words of mine do you infer that notable Proposition, That there are Reasons and Arguments proper and sufficient to convince Men of the Truth of Falshood? If a Magistrate of the True Religion may use Force to make Men consider Reasons and Arguments proper to convince Men of the Truth of his Religion; may not a Prince of a False Religion use Force to make Men consider Reasons and Arguments proper and sufficient to convince them of what he believes to be true? And may not Force [202] thus be serviceable to bring Men to receive and imbrace Falshood?

In the next place; Did you, who argue with so much School-Subtilty as if you drank it in at the very Fountain, never hear of such an ill way of Arguing as a conjunctis ad divisa? There are no Arguments proper and sufficient to bring a Man into the [...]elief of what is in it-self fals [...], whilst he knows or believes it to be false; therefore there are no Arguments proper and sufficient to bring a Man into the Belief of what is in it-self false, which he neither knows nor believes to be so. A Senior Sophister would be laugh'd at for such Logick. And yet this is all you say in that Sentence you erect for a Trophy, to convince M [...]n of the Truth of Falshood; which though not my Words, but such as you in your way supply from what I said, you are exceedingly pleased with, and think their very repeating a Triumph. But though there are no Arguments proper and sufficient to convince Men of the Truth of Falshood, as Falshood; yet I hope you will allow that there are Arguments proper and sufficient to make Men receive Falshoods for Truths; why else do you complain of [...]? And those who imbrace Falshoods for Truths, do it under the Appearance of Truth, misled by those Arguments which make it appear so, and so convince them. And that Magistrates who take their Religion to be true, though it be not so, may with Force urge such Arguments, you will, I think, grant.

But you talk as if no body could have Arguments proper and sufficient to convince another, but he that was of your way, or your Church. This indeed is a new and very extraordinary discav [...]y, and such as your Brethren, if you can convince them of it, will have reason to thank you for. For if any one was ever by Arguments and Reasons brought off, or seduced from your Church, to be a Dissenter, there were then I think Reasons and Arguments proper and sufficient to convince him. I will not name to you again Mr. Reynolds, because you have charity enough to question his Sincerity. Though his leaving his Country, Friends, and Acquaintance, may be presum'd as great a Mark of his being convinced and in earnest, as it is for one to write for a National Religion in a Country where it is uppermost. I will not yet deny but that, in you, it may be pure Zeal for the True Re [...]gion, which you would have assisted with the Magi [...]ratos Force. [203] And since you seem so much concern'd for your Sincerity in the Argument, it must be granted you deserve the Character of a well-meaning Man, who own your Sincerity in a way so little advantageous to your Judgment.

But if Mr. Reynolds, in your Opinion, was misled by corrupt Ends, or secular Interest; what do you think of a Prince now living? Will you doubt his Sincerity, or that he was convinced of the Truth of the Religion he professed, who ventured Three Crowns for it? What do you think of Mr. Chillingworth when he left the Church of England for the Romish Profession? Did he do it without being convinc'd that that was the right? Or was he convinc'd with Reasons and Arguments, not proper or sufficient to convince him?

But certainly this could not be true, because, as you say, p. 25. the Scripture does not teach any thing of it. Or perhaps those that leave your Communion do it always without being convinc'd, and only think they are convinc'd when they are not; or are convinc'd with Arguments not proper and sufficient to convince them. If no body can convince another, but he that has Truth on his side, you do more honour to the first and second Letter concerning Toleration, than is for the Advantage of your Cause, when you impute to them the Increase of Sects and Heresies amongst us. And there are some, even of the Church of England, have professed themselves so fully satisfied by the Reasons and Arguments in the first of them, that though I dare not be positive to you, whose Privilege it is to convince Men, that they are convinced; yet I may say, 'tis as presumable they are convinced, having owned it, as it is presumable that all that are Conformists are made so upon Reason and Conviction.

This, I suppose, may serve for an Answer to your next words, P. 25. That God in his just Judgment will send such as receive not the Love of Truth, that they may be saved, but reject it for the Pleasure they have in Vnrighteousness, [...], strong Delusion, i. e. such Reasons and Arguments as will prevail with Men, so disposed, to believe a Lie, that they may be damn'd; This you confess the Scripture plainly teaches us. But that there are any such Reasons or Arguments as are proper and sufficient to convince or satisfy any, but such resolute and obdurate Sinners, of the Truth of such Falshood as will destroy them, is a Position which you are sure the Scripture doth not [...] us; and which, you tell me, when I have better considered it, [204] you hope I will not undertake to maintain. And yet if it be not maintainable, what I say here is to no purpose: For if there be no such Reasons and Arguments as here we speak of, 'tis in vain to talk of the Magistrate's using Force to make Men consider them.

But if you are still of the mind, that no Magistrate but those who are of the True Religion, can have Arguments back'd with Force, proper and sufficient to convince; and that in England none but resolute obdurate Sinners ever forsook or forbore the Communion of the Church of England, upon Reasons and Arguments that satisfy or convince them; I shall leave you to enjoy so charitable an Opinion.

But as to the Usefulness of Force, your way applied, I shall lay you down again the same Argument I used before; though in Words less sitted for your Way of Reasoning on them, now I know your Talent. If there be any Efficacy in Force to bring Men to any Perswasion, it will, your Way apply'd, bring more Men to Error than to Truth. Your Way of using it is only to punish Men for not being of the National Religion; which is the only Way you do or can apply Force, without a Toleration. Nonconformity is the Fault that is punish'd; which Fault, when it ceases, the Punishment ceases. But yet to make them consider, is the end for which they are punish'd; but whether it be or be not intended to make Men consider, it alters nothing in the case. Now I say, that since all Magistrates who believe their Religion to be true, are as much obliged to use Force to bring their Subjects to it, as if it were true; and since most of the National Religions of the World are erroneous; if Force made use of to bring Men to the National Religion, by punishing Dissenters, have any Efficacy, (let it be what it will, indirect and at a distance, if you please) it is like to do twenty times more harm than good; because of the National Religions of the World, to speak much within compass, there are above 20 wrong for one that is right.

Indeed, could Force be directed to drive all Men indifferently, who are negligent and backward in it, to study, examine, and consider seriously Matters of Religion, and search out the Truth; And if Men were, upon their Study and Examination, permitted to follow what appears to them to be right; you might have some pretence for Force, as serviceable to Truth in making Men consider. But this is impossible, but under a Toleration. [205] And I doubt whether, even there, Force can be so apply'd, as to make Men consider and impartially examine what is true in the professed Religions of the World, and to imbrace it. This at least is certain, that where Punishments pursue Men like outlying Deer, only to the Pale of the National Church; and when once they are within that, leaves them free there, and at ease; it can do no Service to the True Religion, even in a Country where the National is the true. For the Penalties ceasing as soon as Men are got within the Pale and Communion of the Church, they help not Men at all against that which you assign as the great Hindrance to the True Religion, and which therefore, in your Opinion, makes Force necessary to assist it.

For there being no necessity that Men should leave either their Vices or Corruption, or so much as their Ignorance, to get within the Pale of the Church; Force, your way apply'd, serves only to bring them (even in the few Christian and Orthodox Countries) to the Profession, not to the Knowledg, Belief or Practice, of the True Religion.

You say corrupt Nature inclines Men from the True Religion to false ones; and moderate Force is requisite to make such Men consider. But such Men as, out of corrupt Nature, and for their Ease and carnal Pleasures, chuse an erroneous Religion without considering, will again, as soon as they can find their Choice incommoded by those Penalties, consult the same corrupt Nature and carnal Appetites, and without considering any thing further, conform to that Religion where they can best enjoy themselves. 'Tis only the conscientious part of Dissenters, such as dissent not out of Indulgence to corrupt Nature, but out of Perswasion, who will not conform without considering as they ought. And therefore your Argument from corrupt Nature, is out of doors. If moderate Penalties serve only to work on those who are led by corrupt Nature, they are of no use but to fill the Church with Hypocrites; that is, to make those Men worse Hypocrites than they were before, by a new Act of Hypocrisy, and to corrupt the Manners of the rest of the Church, by their converse with these. And whether this be for the Salvation of Souls, as is pretended, or for some other End, that the Priests of all Religions have generally so earnestly contended for it, I leave to be consider'd. For as for those who dissent out of Perswasion, I suspect your moderate Penalties will [206] have little effect upon them. For such Men being awed by the Fear of Hell-fire, if that Fear will not make them consider better than they have done, moderate Penalties will be too weak to work upon them. 'Tis well if Dragooning and Martyring can do it.

But you add, May it not be true nevertheless, that Force your way P. 26. applied may be serviceable indirectly, and at a distance, to bring Men to imbrace the Truth which may save them? which is all you are concerned here to make good. So that if it may possibly happen that it should ever bring two Men to imbrace the Truth, you have gain'd your Point, and overthrown Toleration, by the usefulness and necessity there is of Force. For without being forced these two Men would never have considered: Which is more yet than you know, unless you are of his private Council, who only can tell when the Season of Grace is past, and the time come that Preaching, Intreaty, Instruction and Perswasion shall never after prevail upon a Man. But whatever you are here concerned to make P. 18. good, are you not also concerned to remember what you say; where declaring against the Magistrates having a power to use what may any way, at any time, upon any Person, by any Accident, be useful towards the promoting the true Religion, you say, Who sees not that however such means might chance to hit right in some few Cases, yet, upon the whole matter, they would certainly do a great deal more harm than good; And in all Pleas, (making use of my Words) for any thing because of its usefulness, it is not enough to say that it may be serviceable, but it must be considered, not only what it may, but what it is likely to produce; and the greater good or harm like to come from it, ought to determine the use of it?

You proceed and tell me, That I, not content to say that Force P. 26. your way applied (i. e. ‘to bring Men to imbrace the Truth which must save them) may be serviceable to bring Men to imbrace Falshood which will destroy them;’ and so is proper to do as much harm as good, (which seems strange enough;) I add (to increase the Wonder) ‘that in your indirect way it is much more proper, and likely to make Men receive and embrace Error, than the Truth: And that, 1. Because Men out of the right Way are as apt, and I think I may say apter, to use Force than others;’ Which is, doubtless, an irrefragable demonstration, that Force used by the Magistrate to bring Men to receive and imbrace the Truth which must save them, ‘is much more proper and likely [207] to make Men receive Error than the Truth.’ And then you ask me, How we come to talk here of what Men out of the right way are apt to do, to bring others into their, (i. e. a wrong) way; where we are only inquiring, what may be done to bring Men to the right way. For you must put me in Mind, you say, that that is our question, viz. Whether the Magistrate has any right to use Force, to bring Men to the true Religion. Whether the Magistrate has aright to use Force in matters of Religion, as you more truly state it, (P. 78.) is the main Question between us, I confess. But the Question here between us is about the usefulness of Force your way apply'd; which being to punish Dissenters as Dissenters, to make them consider, I shew'd would do more harm than good. And to this, you were here answering. Whereby, I suppose, it is plain that the Question here is about the Usefulness of Force, so apply'd. And I doubt not but my Readers, who are not concerned, when the Question in debate will not serve your turn, to have another substituted, will take this for a regular and natural way of Arguing, viz. `That Force, your way apply'd, is more proper and likely to make Men imbrace Error than the Truth; because Men out of the right Way are as apt, I think I may say ` apter, to use Force than others. You need not then ask as you do, How we come to talk here of Men out of the right Way. You see how. If you do not, I know not what help there is for your Eyes. And I must content my self that any other Reader that has Eyes, will not miss it. And I wonder that you should: since you know I have on several Occasions argued against the Use of Force in Matters of Religion; upon a Supposition, that if any one, then all Magistrates have a just Pretence and Right to use it; which has served you in some Places for Matter of great Reproof, and in others of Sport and Diversion. But because so plain a thing as that was so strange to you, that you thought it a ridiculous Paradox to say,‘That for all Magistrates to suppose the Religion they believed to be true, was equally just and reasonable;’ And because you took no notice of the Words adjoin'd that proved it, viz. ‘Unless we can imagine every where but in England, [or where the National Religion is the true] Men believe what at the same time they think to be a Lie’; I have taken the pains to prove it to you more at large in another place, and therefore shall make bold to use it here as an Argument against Force, viz. That if it have any Efficacy [208] it will do more harm than good; ‘Because Men out of the right Way are as apt, or apter to use it’: And I shall think it a good one, till you have answered it.

It is a good and a sure way, and shews a Zeal to the Cause, still to hold fast the Conclusion, and whatever be in debate, return still to one' old Position. I arguing against what you say for the Use of Force, viz. That Force used not to convince by its A. p. 5. own proper Efficacy, but only to make Men consider, might indirectly and at a distance do some Service towards the bringing Men to imbrace the Truth; After other Arguments against it, I say, that whatever Efficacy there is in Force, your way apply'd, (i. e. ‘To L. 2. p. 12. punish all, and none but, Dissenters from the National Church) makes against you’: And the first Reason I give for it, is in these Words; ‘Because Men out of the right Way are as apt or apter L. 2. p. 14. to use Force than others.’ Which is what you are here answering. And what can be done better to answer it, than to the Words I have above cited, to subjoin these following? Now P. 26. whereas our Author says, that Penalties or Force is absolutely impertinent in this case, because it is not proper to convince the Mind; To which, you answer, that though Force be not proper to convince the Mind, yet it is not absolutely impertinent in this case, because it may however, do some Service towards the bringing Men to embrace the Truth which must save them, by bringing them to consider those Reasons and Arguments which are proper to convince the Mind; and which, with [...]ut being fo [...]ed, they would not consider. Here I tell you,‘No, but it is much more proper and likely to make Men receive and imbrace Error than Truth; because Men out of the right Way are as apt, and perhaps apter, to use Force than others.’ Which you tell me, is as good a Proof you believe as the thing would admit: For otherwise, you suppose I would have given you a better. And thus you have certainly gain'd the Cause. For I having prov'd that Force, your way apply'd, whatever Efficacy it had, would do more harm than good, have not sufficiently proved that it cannot do some s [...]rvice towards the bringing Men to imbrace the Truth; And therefore 'tis not absolutely impertinent. But since you think this not enough to prove the Use of Force in Matters of Religion impertin [...]nt, I shall fa [...]ther shew you that Force, apply'd your way to make People consider, and so to make them imbrace the Truth, is impertinent.

[209]

Your Way is to lay Penalties on Men for Nonconformity, as you say, to make Men consider: Now here let me ask any one but you, Whether it be not utterly impertinent so to lay Penalties on Men, to make them consider, when they can avoid those Penalties without considering? But because it is not enough to prove Force, your way apply'd, utterly impertinent, I shall shew you in the next place, that were a Law made to punish not barely Non-conformity, but Non-consideration, those Penalties laid on not considering, would be utterly impertinent; because it could never be proved that a Man had not consider'd the Arguments offer'd him. And therefore all Law-makers till you, in all their Penal Laws about Religion, laid all their Penalties upon not imbracing; and 'twas against that, that our Author was arguing when he said Penalties, in this case are absolutely impernent; because they are not proper to convince the Mind. For in that case, when Penalties are laid on Men for not imbracing, 'tis plain they are used as a means to make Men imbrace: which, since those who are careless in Matters of Religion can do without considering, and those who are conscientious cannot do without Conviction; and since Penalties can in no wise convince; this Use of them is absolutely impertinent, and will always be so till you can shew a way how they can be used in Religion, not as Motives to imbrace, but as Motives barely to make Men consider. For if you punish them on when they tell you they have considered your Arguments, but are not convinced by them, and you judg of their having not considered by nothing but their not imbracing, 'tis plain you use Penalties instead of Arguments to convince them; since without Conviction, those who our Author pleads for, cannot imbrace; and those who do imbrace without Conviction, 'tis all one as if they did not imbrace at all, they being not one jot the more in the Way of Salvation; and so Penalties are absolutely impertinent. But Imbracing in the Sense of the Law, and yours too, when you say Men have not considered as they ought as long as they reject, is nothing but outward Conformity, or an outward Profession of Imbracing, wherewith the Law is satisfied, and upon which the Penalties cease. Now Penalties used to make Men in this Sense imbrace, are absolutely impertinent to bring Men to imbrace in earnest, or, as the Author calls it, believe: because an outward Profession, which in this case is the immediate end to which [210] Penalties are directed, and beyond which they do not reach, is no proper means to produce in Men Consideration, Conviction, or Believing.

What can be more impertinent than to vex and disease People with the Use of Force, to no purpose? and that Force must needs be to no purpose, which is so apply'd as to leave the end for which it is pretended to be used, without the means which is acknowledg'd necessary for its Attainment. That this is so in your way of using Force, will easily appear from your Hypothesis. You tell us at large in your Argument consider'd, that A. p. 6, [...] 12. Mens Lusts hinder them from even impartial Consideration and Examination of Matters in Religion, and therefore Force is necessary to remove this Hindrance. You tell us likewise at large P, 6,—8. in your Letter, that Mens corrupt Nature and beloved Lusts hinder them also from imbracing the True Religion, and that Force is necessary likewise to remove this Obstacle. Now in your way of using Force, wherein Penalties are laid on Men till, and no longer than till, they are made outwardly to conform, Force is so apply'd, that notwithstanding the Intention of the Law-maker (let it be what it will) neither the Obstacle to impartial Examination, rising from Mens Lusts, nor the Aversion to imbracing the True Religion, rising from Mens corrupt Nature, can be removed: unless they can be removed without that, which you suppose necessary to their removal. For since a Man may conform, without being under the necessity of impartial Examining or Imbracing on the one hand, or Suffering the Penalties on the other; it is unavoidable, that he should neither impartially examine nor imbrace, if Penalties are necessary to make him do either; because Penalties, which are the necessary Remedies to remove those Hindrances, were never apply'd to them; and so those Obstacles not being removed for want of their necessary Remedy, must continue on to hinder both Examining and Imbracing. For Penalties cannot be used as a Means to any end, or be apply'd to the procuring any Action to be done, which a Man from his Lusts or any other cause, has an aversion to, but by putting them as it were in one Scale as a Counter-ballance to that Aversion, and the Action in the other Scale, and putting a Man under the necessity of choosing the one or the other: where that is not done, the Penalty may be avoided, the Aversion or Obstacle hath nothing to remove it, and so the Action must remain [211] undone. So that if Penalties be necessary to make Men impartially examine and really imbrace; if Penalties are not so laid on Men as to make the Alternative to be either suffering the Penalties or Conforming, it is impossible that Men, who without Penalties would not impartially examine or really imbrace the True Religion, should ever do either; and then I beseech you consider whether Penalties, your Way apply'd, be impertinent or no.

The necessity of Penalties is only where there is some inclination or byas in a Man, whencesoever arising, that keeps him from doing something in his Power, which he cannot be brought to without the Inconveniences of some Penal Infliction. The Efficacy of Penalties lies in this, that the Inconvenience to be suffer'd by the Penalties over-ballance the Byas or Inclination which leans the Man the other way, and so removes the Obstacle; And the Application of this Remedy lies only in puting a Man under the necessary choice either of doing the Action, or suffering the Penalty: So that in what ever case a Man has not been put under that necessity, there Penalties have never been apply'd to the procuring that Action; for the Obstacle or Aversion to it, has never had its necessary Remedy.

Perhaps you will say it is not absolutely impertinent, because it may possibly do some Service indirectly and at a distance, and be the occasion that some may consider and imbrace. If whatever may by accident contribute to any End, may be used not impertinently as a Means to that End, nothing that I know can be impertinent; and a Penalty of 12 d. a time laid on them for being drunk, may be said, to be a pertinent means, to make Men Cartesians, or Conformists: because it may indirectly and at a distance do some Service, by being an Occasion to make some Men consider their mispending their time; whereby it may happen that one may betake himself to the Study of Philosophy, where he may meet with Arguments proper and fit to convince him of the Truth of that Philosophy; as another betaking himself to the Study of Divinity, may consider Arguments proper and fit to make him (whether it be in England, Holland or Denmark) of the National Profession, which he was not of before.

Just thus, and no otherwise, does 12 d. a Sunday, or any other Penalty laid on Non-conformity, make Men study and imbrace the True Religion; and whatever you will call the Service it [212] does, direct or indirect, near or at a distance, 'tis plain it produces that effect, and conduces to that end meerly by accident; and therefore must be allow'd to be impertinent to be used to that purpose.

That your Way of using Force in Matters of Religion, even in a Country where the Magistrate's is of the True Religion, is absolutely impertinent; I shall further shew you from your own Positions.

Here in the entrance give me leave to observe to you, that you confound two things very different, viz. Your Way of applying Force, and the End for which you pretend you use it. And this perhaps may be it which contributes to cast that Mist about your Eyes, that you always return to the same place, and stick to the same gross Mistake. For here you say, Force, your [...]. 26. Way applied, i. e. to bring Men to imbrace the Truth which must save them: but, Sir, to bring Men to imbrace the Truth, is not your Way of applying Force, but the End for which you pretend it is apply'd. Your Way is to punish Men (as you say) moderately for being Dissenters from the National Religion; this is your Way of using Force. Now if in this Way of using it, Force does Service meerly by accident, you will then, I suppose, allow it to be absolutely impertinent. For you say, If by doing Service [...]. 17. by accident, I mean doing it but seldom, and beside the Intention of the Agent, you assure me, that it is not the thing you mean when you say Force may indirectly, and at a distance, do some Service. For in that use of Force, which you defend, the Effect is both intended by him that uses it, and withal, you doubt not, so often attain'd, as abundantly to manifest the Vsefulness of it. Whereby 'tis plain the two Marks, whereby you distinguish'd your indirect and at a distance Usefulness, from that which is by accident, are that, that by accident does Service but seldom, and besides the Intention of the Agent, but yours the contrary.

First, as to the Intention, you tell us, in the use of Force, which [...]bid. you defend, the Effect is intended by him that uses it; that is, those who made Laws to punish Nonconformists, designed those Penalties to make all Men, under their Power, consider so as to be convinced of, and imbrace the Truths that should save them. If one should ask you how you knew it to be their Intention, can you say they ever told you so? If they did not, then so far you and [...]know their [...]ions alike. Did they, ever say so in those Laws? [213] nor that neither. Those vers'd then in the Interpretations of Laws, will tell you nothing can be known to be the Intention of the Law-makers in any Law, of which the Law is wholly silent: That Way then you can not know it to have been their Intention, if the Law says nothing of it. Whatever was the Intention of former Law-makers, if you had read with Attention the last Act of Uniformity of Car. 2. printed before the Common-Prayer Book, I conclude you would have been better satisfied about the Intention of the then Law-makers in that Law; sor I think nothing can be plainer to any one who will look into that Statute, than that their only End in that Law was, what they have expressed in these Words, And to the end that Vniformity in the Publick Worship of God (which is so much desired) may be speedily effected; which was driven with such speed, that if all concern'd had opportunity to get and peruse the then establish'd Liturgy, 'tis certain they had not over-much time seriously and deliberately to consider of all the Parts of it before the Day set for the Use of it.

But you think, they ought to have intended, and therefore they did: And I think they neither ought, nor could, in making those Laws, intend so unpracticable a thing; and therefore they did not. Which being as certain a way of Knowledg as yours, if you know it by that way; 'tis possible you and I may at the same time know contraries.

But you know it, by their having provided sufficient means of Instruction for all under their Care in the true Religion; (of this sufficient Means, we have something to say in another place.) Penalties laid expresly on one Fault, have no Evidence that they were de-signed to mend another, though there are sufficient Means provided of mending it, if Men would make a sufficient use of them; unless those two Faults are so connected, as one cannot be mended without the other. Now if Men cannot conform, without so considering as to be convinced of, and embrace the Truth that must save them, you may know that Penalties laid on Nonconformity, were intended to make Men so consider: but if Men may conform; without so considering, one cannot know nor conclude those Penalties were intended to make Men so consider, whatever Provision there is made of Means of Instruction.

But you will say, it is evident that Penalties on Nonconformists, were intended to make them use these Means of Instruction. [214] because they are intended for the bringing Men to Church, the place of Instruction, That they are intended to bring Men to Church, the Place of Preaching, that I grant, but that those Penalties that are laid on Men, for not coming to Church, can be known thereby to be intended to make Men so consider, as to be convinced and imbrace the true Religion, that I deny: and it is utterly impossible it should be so, if what you say be true, where you tell us, That the Magistrates concern themselves for P. 22. Compliance or Conformity, only as the fruit of their Conviction. If therefore the Magistrates are concerned for Mens Conformity, only as the fruit of their Conviction, and coming to Church be that Conformity; coming to Church cannot be intended as a Means of their Conviction: unless it be intended they should be convinc'd, before they are convinc'd.

But to shew you, that you cannot pretend the Penalty of Laws for Conformity, to proceed from a Care of the Souls of all under the Magistrates Power, and so to be intended, to make them all consider, in any Sense. Can you, or any one know, or suppose, that Penalties which are laid by the Law on Nonconformity, are intended to make all Men consider; where 'tis known that a great Number, under the Magistrates Power, are dispensed with, and privileged from those Penalties? How many, omitting the Jews, are there; for example, in the King of England's Dominions, under his Care and Power, of the Walloon, and French Church; to whom Force is never apply'd, and they live in Security from it? How many Pagans are there in the Plantations, many whereof born in His Dominions, of whom there was never any care taken, that they should so much as come to Church, or be in the least instructed in the Christian Religion? And yet must we believe, or can you pretend, that the Magistrates use of Force, against Nonconformists; is to make all his Subjects consider, so as to be convinc'd of, and imbrace the Truth that must save them? If you say, in your way you mean no such Indulgence: I answer, the Question is not of yours but the Magistrates Intention; though what your Intention is, who would have the want of Consideration, or Knowledg, in Conformists, exempt from Force, is visible enough.

Again, Those Penalties cannot be supposed, to be intended to make Men consider; which are laid on those, who have, or may have already considered: And such you must grant to be the [215] Penalties laid in England, on Nonconformists; unless you will deny, that any Nonconformist has, or can consider, so as to be convinced, or believe, and imbrace the Truth that must save him. So that you cannot vouch the Intention of the Magistrate, where his Laws say nothing; much less affirm, that Force is intended to produce a certain end in all his Subjects, which is not applied to them all, and is applied to some who have attained that end already: Unless you have a Privilege to affirm, against all appearance whatsoever may serve your Cause. But to learn some Moderation in this, I shall send you to my Pagans and Mahumetans. For whatever charitable wishes Magistrates may sometimes have in their Thoughts (which I meddle not with); no Body can say, that in making the Laws, or in the use of Force, we are speaking of, they intended to m [...]ke Men consider and examine, so as to be convinced of, and heartily to imbrace the Truth, that must save them, but he that gives himself the Liberty to say any thing.

The Service that Force does, indirectly, and at a distance; you P. [...] tell us in the following Page, is to make People apply th [...]mselves to the use of those Means, and Helps, which are proper to make them what they are designed to be. In the Case before us, What are Men designed to be? Holy Believers of the Gospel in this World, without which no Salvation, no seeing of God in the next. Let us see now, whether Force, your way applied, can be suted to such a Design, and so intended for that End.

You hold, That all out of the National Church, where the Religion of the National Church is true, should be punished, and ought to have Force used to them: And again, you grant That those who are in the Communion of the National Church, ought P. 6 [...]. not to be punished, or be under the stroke of Force; nor indeed in your way can they. If now the effect be to prevail with Men, to consider as they ought, so that they may become what they are designed to be: How can any one think, that you, and they who use Force thus, intend, in the use of it, that Men should really be Christians, both in Perswasion and Practice, without which there is no Salvation; if they leave off Force before they have attained that effect? Or how can it be imagined, that they intend any thing but Conformity, by their use of Force; if they leave off the use of it as soon as Men conform? Unless you will say that an outward Conformity to the National Church, whose [216] Religion is the true Religion, is such an imbracing of the Truth as is sufficient to Salvation? Or that an outward Profession of the Christian Religion, is the same with being really a Christian; which possibly you will not be very forward to do, when you recollect, what you meet with in the Sermons, and Printed Discourses, of Divines of the Church of England, concerning the Ignorance and Irreligion of Conformists themselves. For Penalties can never be thought, by any one (but he that can think against common Sense, and what he pleases) to be intended for any End; which by that Constitution, and Law whereby they are imposed, are to cease before that End be attained. And will you say, that all who are conformable, have so well considered, that they believe, and heartily imbrace the Truths of the Gospel, that must save them: When perhaps it will be found that a great many Conformists, do not so much as understand them? But the Ignorance or Irreligiousness to be found amongst Consormists, which your way of talking forces me in some Places to take notice of, let me here tell you once for all I lay not the blame of upon Conformity, but upon your use of Force to make Men conform. For whatever the Religion be, true or false, it is natural for Force, and Penalty, so applied, to bring the irreligious, and those who are careless, and unconcerned for the true, into the National Profession: But whether it be fitter for such to be kept out, rather than, by Force, to be driven into the Communion of any Church, and owned as Members of it, those who have a due Care and Respect for truly religious and pious Conformists, were best consider.

But farther, if, as you say, the opposition to the true Religion, lies only in Mens Lusts; it having Light and Strength enough (were it not for that) to prevail: and it is upon that account only that Force is necessary, there is no necessity at all to use Force on Men, only till they conform, and no farther: Since I think, you will not deny, but that the Corruption of Humane Nature is as great in Consormists, as in Nonconformists; in the Professors of, as in the Dissenters from, the National Religion. And therefore either Force was not necessary before, or else it is necessary still, after Men are Conformists: Unless you will say, that it is harder for a Man to be a Professor, than a Christian indeed: And that the true Religion, by its own Light and Strength, can, without the help of Force, prevail over a Man's Lusts, and the Corruption of his Nature; but it has need of the [217] help of Force, to make him a Conformist, and an outward Professor. And so much for the Effect, which is intended by him that uses it in that use of Force, which you defend.

The other Argument you bring to shew, that your indirect and at a distance Vsefulness of Force your way apply'd, is not by accident, is the frequent Success of it. Which I think is not the true Mark of what is not by accident: for an Effect may not be by accident, though it has never been produced but once; and is certainly as little by accident the first time, as when it has been produced a thousand times. That then, by which any thing is excused from being by accident, is not the Frequency of the Event, but that whereon the Frequency of the Event depends, when frequent Trials are made; and that is the proper, natural, direct Efficacy of the Cause or Means, which produces the Effect. As in the Case before us, Penalties are the Cause or Means used to produce an End; the proper and immediate Effect of Penalties, is to produce some Pain or Inconvenience; and the natural Effect of that, is to make a Man, who naturally flies from all Pain or Inconvenience, to endeavour to avoid it; whereby it naturally and directly works upon the Will of Man, by proposing to him this unavoidable Choice, of doing some Action, or enduring the Pain or Inconvenience of the Penalty annexed to its Omission. When the Pain of doing the Action is outweigh'd in the Sense of him that lies under the Penalty, the Pain, that by the Law is annex'd to the Omission, operates upon his Will, as naturally, as thirteen Ounces in one Scale, laid against twelve Ounces in the other, incline the Ballance, and bring it down on that side. And this is by a direct and natural Efficacy, wherein there is nothing of Chance.

Let us see this how far this will go in your indirect and at a distance Usefulness. In your Method, the Action, you propose to be done, is Considering, or a severe and impartial Examining Matters of Religion, which you tell us, Men by their great Negligence or Aversion are kept from doing. What now is a proper Means to produce this? Penalties, without which, you tell us, it will not be done. How now is it apply'd in your Method? Conformity, and Mens Neglect or Aversion to it, is laid in one Scale, and the Penalty join'd to the Omission of it, laid in the other; and in this Case, if the Inconvenience of the Penalty overweighs the Pains of, or Aversion to Conformity, it does by [218] a direct and natural Efficacy produce Conformity: but if it produces a severe and impartial Examination, that is meerly by accident; because the Inconvenience of the Penalty is not laid against Mens Aversion or Backwardness to examine impartially, as a Counter-ballance to that, but against their Aversion or Backwardness to conform; and so whatever it does, indirectly and at a distance, 'tis certain its making Men sev [...]rely and impartially examine (if ever that happens) is as much by accident, as it would be by accident, if a piece of Lead laid in one Scale as a Counterpoise to Feathers in the opposite Scale, should move or weigh done Gold that was put in the Scale of another Pair of Ballances, which had no Counterpoise laid against it. Unless you will say there is a necessary Connection between Conformity, and a severe and impartial Examination.

But you will say perhaps, that though it be not possible that Penalties should produce Examination but by mere accident, because Examination has no necessary Connection with Conformity, or the Profession of any Religion; yet since there are some who will not take up any Profession without a severe and impartial Examination, Penalties for Nonconformity will, by a direct and natural Efficacy, produce Examination in all such. To which I answer, That those are (if we may believe what A. p. 6, &c. you say) so very few, that this your Remedy, which you put into the Magistrate's hands to bring all his Subjects to consider and examine, will not work upon one in a thousand; nay, it can work on none at all, to make them severely and impa [...]tially examine, but meerly by accident. For if they are Men, whom a slight and partial Examination (which upon your Principles you must say) sufficed to make Non-conformists, a slight and partial Examination will as well serve to make them Conformists; and so Penalties laid on them to make them conform, can only by accident produce a severe and impartial Examination, in such Men, who can take up the Profession of any Religion without a severe and impartial Examination, no more than it can otherwise than by accident, produce any Examination in those who, without any Examination, can take up the Profession of any Religion.

And in those very few, who take not up the Profession of any Religion without a severe and impartial Examination, that Penalties can do any Service, to bring them either to the Truth that [219] must save them, or so much as to outward Conformity, but meerly by accident, that also is evident. Because all such in a Country, where they dissent from the National Religion, must necessarily have severely and impartially examin'd already, or else you destroy the Supposition this Argument is built on, viz. That they are Men who do severely and impartially examine before they choos [...]. And if you lay, or continue your Penalties on Men, that have so examin'd, 'tis plain you use them instead of Reasons and Arguments; in which Use of them, you confess they have no proper Efficacy, and therefore if they do any Service, it is meerly by accident.

But now let us see the Success you boast of, and for that you tell us, that you doubt not but it is so often attain'd, as abundantly P. 17. to manifest the Vsefulness of it. You speak here of it, as a thing tried, and so known, that you doubt not. Pray tell us where your moderate (for great ones you acknowledg to do harm, and to be useless) Penalties have been used, with such Success, that we may be past doubt too. If you can shew no such place, do you not vouch Experience where you have none? and shew a Willingness not to doubt, where you have no Assurance? In all Countries, where any Force is used to bring Men to the Profession of the National Religion, and to outward Conformity, it is not to be doubted, but that Force joining with their natural Corruption, in bringing them into the Way of Preferment, Countenance, Protection, Ease and Impunity, should easily draw in all the Loose and Careless in Matters of Religion, which are every-where the far greater number: But is it those you count upon, and will you produce them as Examples of what Force has done to make Men consider, study and imbrace the True Religion? Did the Penalties laid on Nonconformity make you consider, so as to study, be convinced, and imbrace the True Religion? Or can you give an Instance of any one, in whom it produced this Effect? If you cannot, you will have some reason to doubt of what you have said, and not to be so consident that the Effect you talk of, is so often attain'd. Not that I deny, but that God may sometimes have made these Punishments the Occasions to Men of setting themselves seriously on considering Religion, and thence they may have come into the National Religion upon a real Conviction: but the Instances of it I believe to be so few, that you will have reason to remember [220] your own Words, where you speak of such things as, ‘Any Way, at any Time, upon any Person, by any Accident, may be useful towards the promoting of True Religion’: P. 18. If Men should thence take occasion to apply such things generally, who see [...] not that, however they might chance to hit right in some few Cases, yet upon the whole matter, they would certainly do a great deal more harm than good. You and I know a Country wherein, not long since, greater Severities were used than you pretend to approve of. Were there not for all that, great Numbers of several Professions stood out, who by your Rule, ought now to have your moderate Penalties tried upon them? And can you think less degrees of Force can work, and often, as you say, prevail where greater could not? But perhaps they might prevail on many of those to return, who having been brought into the Communion of the Church by former Penal Laws, have now upon the Relaxation left it again. A manifest Demonstration, [...]s it not? That their Compliance was the fruit of their Conviction; and that the Magistrate was concern'd for their Compliance only as the fruit of their Conviction. When they as soon as any Relaxation of those Laws took off the Penalties, left again the Communion of the National Church? For the lessening the Number of Conformists, is, I suppose, one of those things which you say your Eyes cannot but see at this time; and which you, with concern, impute to the late Relaxation. A plain Evidence how presumable it is, even in your own Opinion, that those who conform do it upon real Conviction.

To conclude, these Proofs, though I do not pretend to bring as good as the Thing will admit, will serve my turn to shew, that Force, is impertinent; since by your own Confession it has no direct Efficacy to convince Men, and by its being indirect and at a distance useful, is not at all distinguish'd from being barely so by accident: since you can neither prove it to be intended for that end, nor frequently to succeed, which are the two Marks whereby you put a Difference between indirect and at a distance, and by accident. This, I say, is enough to shew what the Author said, is true, that the Use of Force is wholly impertinent. Which, whatever other [...] do, you upon another reason, must be forced to allow.

You profess your self of the Church of England, and, if I may guess are so far of it, as to have subscrib'd the 39 Articles, which if you have done, and assented to what you subscribed, you must [221] necessarily allow that all Force, used for the bringing Men to the True Religion, is absolutely impertinent; for that must be absolutely impertinent to be used as a Means, which can contribute nothing at all to the End for which it is used. The End here, is to make a Man a true Christian, that he may be saved; and he is then, and then only, a true Christian, and in the Way of Salvation, when he believes, and with Sincerity obeys the Gospel. By the 13th Article of the Church of England, you hold, that WORKS DONE BEFORE THE GRACE OF CHRIST, AND THE INSPIRATION OF HIS SPIRIT, ARE NOT PLEASING TO GOD; FOR AS MUCH AS THEY SPRING NOT OF FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST, NEITHER DO THEY MAKE MEN MEET TO RECEIVE GRACE, (OR AS THE SCHOOL - AUTHORS SAY) DESERVE GRACE OF CONGRUITY; YEA RATHER, FOR THAT THEY ARE NOT DONE AS GOD HAS WILLED AND COMMANDED THEM TO BE DONE, WE DOUBT NOT BUT THEY HAVE THE NATURE OF SIN. Now if it be impertinent to use Force to make a Man do more than he can, and a Man can do nothing to procure Grace, unless Sin can procure it; and without Grace, a Man cannot b [...]live, or live so as to be a true Christian, it is certainly wholly impertinent to use Force to bring a Man to be truly a Christian. To hear and consider, is in Mens Power, you will say, and to that Force may be pertinent; I grant to make Men hear, but not to make them consider in your sense, which you tell us, is to consider so as to imbrace; if you mean by imbracing any thing but outward Conformity. And that according to your Article, contributes nothing to the attaining of Grace; because without Grace, your Article says it is a Sin; and to conform to, and outwardly profess a Religion which a Man does not understand and heartily believe, every one, I think, judges to be a Sin, and no fit Means to procure the Grace of God.

But you tell us, That God denies his Grace to none who seriously ask P. [...]. it. If that be so, methinks Force should most properly and pertinently be used to make Men seriously pray to God for Grace. But how, I beseech you, will this stand with your 13th Article? For if you mean by seriously, so as will make his Seeking acceptable to God, that cannot be, because he is supposed yet to want Grace which alone can make it acceptable: and if his Asking has the [222] Nature of Sin, as in the Article you do not doubt but it has, can you expect that Sinning should procure the Grace of God? You will I fear here, without some great help in a very nice Distinction from the School-Authors, be forced either to renounce your Article in the plain sense of it, and so become a Dissenter from the Church of England, or else acknowledg Force to be wholly impertinent to the business of True Religion and Salvation.

Another Reason I gave against the Vsefulness of Force in Matters of Religion, was, ‘Because the Magistrates of the World, being few of them in the Right-way, (not one of ten, take which side you will) perhaps not one of an hundred, being of the True Religion’: 'Tis likely your indirect Way of using Force would do an hundred, or at least ten times as much Harm as Good. To which you reply, Which would have been to the P. 27. purpose, if you had asserted, that every Magistrate may use Force, your indirect Way (or any Way) to bring Men to his own Religion, whatever that be. But if you assert no such thing, (as no Man you think but an Atheist will assert it) then this is quite beside the Business. I think I have proved, that if Magistrates of the True Religion may use Force to bring Men to their Religion, every Magistrate may use Force to bring Men to his own Religion, when he thinks it the True: And then do you look where the Atheism will light.

In the next Paragraph, having quoted these following Words of mine; where I say, ‘Under another Pretence, you put into the Magistrate's hands as much Power to force Men to his Religion, as any the openest Persecutors can pretend to. I ask what difference is there between punishing them to bring them to Mass, and punishing them to bring them to consider those Reasons and Arguments which are proper and sufficient to convince them that they ought to go to Mass?’ You reply; A Question which you shall then think your self obliged to answer, when P. 27. I have produced those Reasons and Arguments which are proper and sufficient to convince Men that they ought to go to Mass. But if you had not omitted the 3 or 4 immediately preceding Lines, (an Art to serve a good Cause, which puts me in mind of my Pagans and Mahumetans) the Reader would have seen that your Reply was nothing at all to my Argument: My Words were these.

[223]

‘Especially, if you consider, that as the Magistrate will certainly use it [Force] to force Men to hearken to the proper Ministers of his Religion, let it be what it will; so you having set no time nor bounds to this Consideration of Arguments and Reasons short of being convinced, you under another, &c.’ My Argument is to shew of what advantage Force, your Way apply'd, is like to be to the True Religion, since it puts as much Force into the Magistrate's hands as the openest Persecutors can pretend to, which the Magistrates of wrong Perswasions may and will use as well as those of the true; because your Way sets no other Bounds to Considering short of Complying. And then I ask, ‘What Difference there is between punishing you to bring you to Mass, or punishing you to consider those Reasons and Arguments which are proper and s [...]fficient to convince you that you ought to go to Mass?’ To which you r [...]ply. That it is a Question you shall then think your self oblig'd to answer when I have produced those Reasons and Arguments that are pro [...]er and sufficient to convince Men that they ought to go to Mass. Whereas, the Objection is the same, Wh [...]ther there be or be not, R [...]asons and Arguments proper to convince Men, that they [...]t to go to Mass; for Men m [...]st be pu [...]h on till they have so co [...]dered as to comply: And what differnce is there then b [...]n punishing Men to bring them to Mass, and punishing [...] to make them consider so as to go to Mass? But though I pre [...]d not to produce any Reasons and Arguments proper and convi [...]e to convince you or all Men, that they ought to go to Mass; yet do you think there are none proper and sufficient to convince any Men? And that all the Papists in th [...] World go to Mass without believing it their Duty? And whosoever believes it to be his Duty, does it upon Reasons and Arguments, proper and sufficient to convince him (though perhaps not to convince an other) that it is so, or else I imagine he would never believe it at all. What think you of those great Numbers of Japaneses, that resisted all sorts of Torments, even to Death it self, for the Romish Religion? And had you been in France some years since, who knows but the Arguments the K. of France produced might have been proper and sufficient to have convinced you that you ought to go to Mass? I do not by this, think you less confident of the Truth of your Religion, than you profess to be. But Arguments set on with Force, have a strange Efficacy upon [224] humane Frailty; and he must be well assured of his own Strength, who can peremptorily affirm, he is sure he should have stood, what above a Million of People sunk under: amongst which, 'tis great Confidence to say, there was not one so well perswaded of the Truth of his Religion, as you are of yours; though some of them gave great Proofs of their Perswasion in their Sufferings for it. But what the necessary Method of Force may be able to do, to bring any one, in your sense, to any R [...]ligion, i. e. to an outward Profession of it, he that thinks himself secure against, must have a greater Assurance of himself, than the Weakness of decayed and depraved Nature will well allow. If you have any Spell against the Force of Arguments, driven with Penalties and Punishments, you will do well to teach it the World; for it is the hard Luck of well-meaning People to be often misled by them, and even the Confident themselves have not seldom fallen under them, and betrayed their Weakness.

To my demanding, if you meant Reasons and Arguments proper and sufficient to convince Men of the Truth, why did you not say so? You reply, As if it were possible for any Man that reads P. 27. your Answer, to think otherwise. Whoever reads that Passage in your A. p. 5. cannot possibly think you meant to speak out, and possibly you found some difficulty to add any thing to your Words (which are these, Force used to bring Men to consider A. p. 5. Reasons and Arguments proper and sufficient to convince them) that might determine their Sense. For if you had said, to convince them of Truth; then the Magistrate must have made Laws, and used Force to make Men search after Truth in general, and that would not have served your turn: If you had said to convince them of the Truth of the Magistrate's Religion, that would too manifestly have put the Power in every Magistrate's hands, which you tell us, none but an Atheist will say. If you had said, to convince them of the Truth of your Religion, that had looked too ridiculous to be owned, though it were the thing you meant; and therefore in this strait, where nothing you could say, would well sit your purpose, you wisely choose to leave the Sense imperfect, and name nothing they were to be convinced of, but leave it to be collected by your Reader out of your Discourse, rather than add three Words to make it good Grammar, as well as intelligible Sense.

[225]

To my saying,‘That if you pretend it must be Arguments to convince Men of the Truth, it would in this Case do you little Service; because the Mass in France is as much suppos'd the Truth, as the Liturgy here.’ You reply, So that it seems, P. 28. that in your Opinion, whatsoever is suppos'd the Truth, is the Truth, for otherwise this Reason of mine is none at all. If, in my Opinion, the Supposition of Truth authorizes the Magistrate to use the same Means to bring Men to it, as if it were true, my Argument will hold good, without taking all to be true which some Men suppose true. According to this Answer of yours, to suppose or believe his Religion the true, is not enough to authorize the Mastrate to use Force, he must know, i. e. be infallibly certain, that his is the True Religion. We will for once suppose you our Magistrate, with Force promoting our National Religion. I will not ask you, whether you know that all required of Conformists, is necessary to Salvation: But will suppose one of my Pagans asking you, whether you know Christianity to be the True Religion? If you say, Yes, he will ask you how you know it? and no doubt, but you will give the Answer whereby our Saviour proved his Mission, John V. 36. that the Works which our Saviour did bear witness of him, that the Father sent him. The Miracles that Christ did, are a Proof of his being sent from God, and so his Religion the True Religion. But then you will be asked again, Whether you know that he did those Miracles, as well as those who saw them done? If you answer, Yes; then it is plain that Miracles are not yet withdrawn, but do still accompany the Christian Religion with all the Efficacy and Evidence, that they had upon the Eye-witnesses of them, and then upon your own Grounds, there will be no necessity of the Magistrate's Assistance, Miracles still supplying the want of it. If you answer, that Matter of fact done out of your sight, at such a distance of Time and Place, cannot be known to you as certainly, as it was to the Eye-witnesses of it, but that you upon very good Grounds firmly believe it; you are then come to believing, that yours is the True Religion, and if that be sufficient to authorize you to use Force, it will authorize any other Magistrate of any other Religion to use Force also. For whoever believes any thing, takes it to be true, and as he thinks upon good Grounds; and those often who believe on the weakest Grounds, have the strongest Confidence: and thus all Magistrates who believe their Religion to [226] be true, will be obliged to use Force to promote it, as if it were the true.

To my saying that the Usefulness of Force, your Way apply'd, amounts to no more but this, that it is not impossible but that it may be useful. You reply, I leave it to be judg'd by what has been P. 28. said; and I leave it to you your self to judg: Only, that you may not forget, I shall here remind you in short of some of the R [...]sons I have to say so: 1. You grant that Force has no direct E [...]cacy to bring Men to imbrace the Truth. 2. You distinguish the indirect and at a distance Vsefulness of your Force, from that which is barely by accident; by these two Marks, viz. 1st. That Punishment on Dissenters for Nonconformity, is, by those that use it, intended to make Men consider: and 2d. That your moderate Punishments, by Experience, are found often successful; and yours having neither of these Marks, it must be concluded to be useful only by accident: and such an Usefulness, as I said, ‘One cannot deny, to Auricular Confession, doing of Penance, going L. 2. p. 15. Pilgrimages to Saints, and what not? Yet our Church does not think fit to ufe them; though it cannot be deny'd but they may have some of your indirect and at a distance Vsefulness;’ that is, perhaps may do some Se [...]viceindirectly and by accident. If the Intention of those that use them, and the Success they will tell you they find in the use of them, be a Proof of doing Service more than by accident; that cannot be deny'd to them more than to Penalties, your Way applied. To which, let me add, that Niceness and Difficulty there is, to hit that just Degree of Force; which according to your Hypothesis, must be neither so much as to do harm, nor so little as to be ineffectual; for you your self cannot determine it, makes its Usefulness yet more uncertain and accidential. And after all, let its Efficacy to work upon Mens Minds, be what it will, great or little, it being sure to be imploid ten, or possibly, an hundred times to bring Men to Error, for once that it is imploid to bring Men to the Truth; and where it chances to be imploid, on the side of Truth, it being liable to make an hundred, or perhaps a thousand outward Conformists, for one true and sincere Convert; I leave it also to be judg'd what Usefulness it is like to be of.

To shew the Usefulness of Force, your way apply'd, I said,‘Where the Law punish'd Dissenters without telling them it is to make them consider, they may through Ignorance and Oversight [227] neglect to do it.’ Your Answer is, But where the Law provides sufficient means of Instruction for all, as well as Punishment for Dissentors, it is so plain to all concern'd, that the Punishment is intended P. 28. to make them consider, that you see no danger of Mens neglecting to do it, through Ignorance and Oversight. I hope you mean by consider, so to consider as not only to imbrace in an outward Profession (for then all you say is but a poor Fallacy, for such a Considering amounts to no more but bare outward Conformity;) but so to consider, study and examine Matters of Religion, as really to imbrace, what one is convinced to be the true, with Faith and Obedience. If it be so plain and easy to understand, that a Law, that speaks nothing of it, should yet be intended to make Men consider, search and study, to sind out the Truth that must save them; I wish you had shew'd us this Plainness. For I confess many of all degrees, that I have purposely asked about it, did not ever see, or so much as dream, that the Act of Uniformity, or against Conventicles, or the Penalties in either of them, were ever intended to make Men seriously study Religion, and make it their business to find the Truth which must save them; but barely to make Men conform. But perhaps you have met with Handicrafts-Men, and Country-Farmers, Maid-Servants, and Day-Labourers, who have quicker Understandings, and reason better about the Intention of the Law, for these as well as others are concern'd. If you have not, 'tis to be fear'd, your saying it is so plain, that you see no danger of Mens neglecting to do it, through Ignorance or Oversight, is more for its serving your purpose, than from any Experience you have, that it is so.

When you will enquire into this Matter, you will, I guess, find the People so ignorant amidst that great Plainness you speak of, that not one of twenty of any degree, amongst Conformists or Nonconformists, ever understood the Penalty of 12 d. a Sunday, or any other of our Penal Laws against Nonconformity, to be intended to set Men upon studying the True Religion, and impartially examining what is necessary to Salvation. And if you would come to Hudibras's Decision, I believe he would have a good Wager of it, who should give you a Guinea for each one who had thought so, and receive but a Shilling for every one who had not. Indeed you do not say, it is plain everywhere, but only where the Law provides sufficient means of Instruction [228] for all, as well as Punishments for Dissenters. From whence, I think it will follow, that that contributes nothing to make it plain, or else that the Law has not provided sufficient means of Instruction in England, where so very few find this to be so plain. If by this sufficient Provision of means of Instruction for all; you mean, Persons maintain'd at the Publick Charge to preach, and officiate in the publick Exercise of the National Religion; I suppose you needed not this Restriction, there being sew Places which have an establish'd National Religion, where there is not such means of Instruction provided: if you intend any other means of Instruction, I know none the Law has provided in England but the 39 Articles, the Liturgy, and the Scripture, and how either of them by it self, or these altogether, with a National Clergy, make it plain, that the Penalties laid on Nonconformity, are intended to make Men consider, study, and impartially examine Matters of Religion, you would do well to shew. For Magistrates usually know (and therefore make their Laws accordingly) that the People seldom carry either their Interpretation or Practice beyond what the express Letter of the Law requires of them. You would do well also to shew, that a sufficient provision of means of Instruction, cannot but be understood to require an effectual Use of them, which the Law that makes that provision says nothing of. But on the contrary, contents it self with something very short of it: For Conformity or Coming to Church, is at least as far from considering, studying and impartially examining Matters of Religion, so as to imbrace the Truth upon Conviction and with an obedient Heart, as being present at a Discourse concerning Mathematicks, and studying Mathematicks, so as to become a knowing Mathematician, are different one from the other.

People generally think they have done their Duties abundantly, if they have been at Church, whether they mind any thing done there or no: this they call serving of God, as if it were their whole Duty; so backward are they to understand more, though it be plain the Law of God expresly requires more. But that they have fully satisfied the Law of the Land, no body doubts; nor is it easy to answer what was are ply'd to me on this occasion, viz. If the Magistrate intended any thing more in those Laws but Consormity, would he not have said it? To which [...] me add, if the Magistrate intended Conformity as the fruit of [229] Conviction, would he not have taken some care to have them instructed before they conformed, and examin'd when they did? but 'tis presumable their Ignorance, Corruption and Lusts, all drop off in the Church-porch, and that they become perfectly good Christians as soon as they have taken [...] Seats in the Church.

If there be any whom your Example or Writing hath inspir'd with A [...]uteness enough to sind out this; I suspect the Vulgar who have scarce time and thought enough to make Inferences from the Law, which scarce one or ten of them ever so much as reads, or perhaps under [...]ands when read, are still, and will be ignorant of it: And those who have the Time and Abilities to argue about it, will find reason to think, that those Penalties were not intended to m [...]ke Men examine the Doctrine and Ceremonies of Religion; since those who should examine, are prohibited by those very Laws, to follow their own Judgments, (which is the very End and Use of Examination) if they at all differ from the Religion establish'd by Law. Nor can it appear so plain to all concern'd, that the Punishment is intended to make them consider and examine, when they see the Punishments you say are to make People consider, spare those who consider and examine Matters of Religion, as little as any of the most ignorant and careless Dissenters.

To my saying, ‘Some Dissenters may have consider'd already, and then Force imploid upon them must needs be useless; unless you can think it useful to punish a Man to make him do that which he has done already.’ You reply, No Man who P. 28. rejects Truth necessary to his Salvation, has consider'd already as he ought to consider. The words as he ought, are not, as I take it in the Question: and so your Answer is, No Man who rejects the Truth necessary to his Salvation, hath consider'd, study'd or examin'd Matters of Religion. But we will let that go: and yet with that allowance, your Answer will be nothing to the purpose, unless you will dare to say, that all Dissenters reject Truth necessary to Salvation. For without that Supposition, that all Dissenters reject Truth necessary to Salvation, the Argument and Answer will stand thus. It may be useless to punish all Dissenters to make them consider, because some of them may have consider'd already. To which, the Answer is, Yes, some of them may have consider'd already, but those who reject Truth necessary to their Salvation, have not consider'd as they ought.

[230]

I said, ‘The greatest part of Mankind, being not able to discern betwixt Truth and Falshood, that depends upon long L. 2. p. 16. and many Proofs, and remote Consequences; nor ha [...]ing Ability enough to discover the false Grounds, and resist the captious and fallacious Arguments of Learned Men versed in Controversies, are so much more expos'd, by the Force, which is used to make them hearken to the Information and Instruction of Men appointed to it by the Magistrate, or those of his Religion, to be led into Falshood and Error, than they are likely this way to be brought to imbrace the Truth which must save them; by how much the National Religions of the World are, beyond comparison, more of them false or erroneous, than such as have God for their Author, and Truth for their Standard.’ You reply, If the first part of this be true; then an infallible Guide, and implicit Faith, are more necessary than P. 29. ever you thought them. Whether you conclude from thence or no, that then there will be a necessity of an infallible Guide, and an implicit Faith, 'tis nevertheless true, that the greatest part of Men are unable to discern, as I said, between Truth and Falshood depending, upon long and many Proofs, &c. But whether that will make an infallible Guide necessary or no, Imposition in Matters of Religion certainly will: since there can be nothing more absur'd imaginable, than that a Man should take upon him to impose on others in Matters of their Eternal Concernment, without being, or so much as pretending to be infallible: For colour it with the name of Considering as much as you please, as long as it is to make Men consider as they ought, and considering as they ought, is so to consider, as to imbrace; the using of Force to make Men consider, and the using of Force to make them imbrace any Doctrine or Opinion, is the same thing: and to shew a difference betwixt imposing an Opinion, and using Force to make it be imbrac'd, would require such a piece of Subtilty, as I heard lately from a Learned Man out of the Pulpit, who told us, that though two things, he named, were all one, yet for Distinction's sake, he would divide them. Your Reason for the necessity of an infallible Guide, is, For if the greatest part of Mankind be not able to discern betwixt Truth and Falshood in Matters concerning their Salvation (as I must mean if I speak to the purpose) their Condition must needs be very hazardous, if they have not some Guide or Judg, to whose Determination and Direction they may [231] securely resign themselves. And therefore they must resign themselves to the Determination and Direction of the Civil Magistrate, or be punish'd. Here 'tis like you will have something again to say to my Modesty and Conscience, for imputing to you, what you no where say. I grant it, in direct words; but in effect as plainly as may be. The Magistrate may impose sound Creeds and decent Ceremonies, i. e such as he thinks sit, for what is sound and decent he I hope must be Judg, and if he be Judg of what is sound and decent, it amounts to no more, but what he thinks sit: and if it be not what he thinks sit, why is one Ceremony preferr'd to another? why one Doctrine of the Scripture put into the Creed and Articles, and another as sound left out? They are Truths necessary to Salvation. We shall see that in good time, here only I ask, Does the Magistrate only believe them to be Truths and Ceremonies necessary to Salvation, or does he certainly know them to be so? If you say he only believes them to be so, and that that is enough to authorize him to impose them, you by your own Confession, authorize Magistrates to impose what they think necessary for the Salvation of their Subjects Souls; and so the King of France did what he was obliged to, when he said he would have all his Subjects saved, and so fell to Dragooning.

If you say the Magistrate certainly knows them to be necessary to Salvation, we are luckily come to an Infallible Guide. Well then, the sound Creeds are agreed on; the Confession and Liturgy are framed; the Ceremonies pitch'd on; and the Terms of Communion thus set up, you have Religion establish'd by Law: and what now is the Subject to do? He is to conform. No; he must first consid [...]r. Who bids him consider? no body, he may if he pleases, but the Law says nothing to him of it: consider or not consider, if he conforms 'tis well, and he is approved of, and admitted. He does consider the best he can, but finds some things he does not understand, other things he cannot believe, assent or consent to. What now is to be done with him? He must either be punished on, or resign himself up to the Determination and Direction of the Civil Magistrate, which till you can [...]ind a better name for it, we will call Implicit Faith. And thus you have provided a Remedy for the hazardous Condition of weak Understandings, in that which you suppose necessary in the case, viz. an infallible Guide and implicit Faith, in Matters [...]oncerning Mens Salvation.

[232]

But you say, For your part you know of no such Guide of God's appointing. Let that be your Rule, and the Magistrate with his Co-active Power, will be left out too. You think there is no need of P. 29. any such, because notwithstanding the long and many Proofs and remote Consequences, the false Grounds, and the captious and fallacious Arguments of Learned Men vers'd in Controversies, with which I (as well as those of the Roman Communion) endeavour to amuse you; through the Goodness of God the Truth which is necessary to Salvation, lies so obvious and exposed to all that sin [...]erely and diligently seek it, that no such Person shall ever fail of attaining the Knowledg of it. This then is your Answer, that Truths necessary to Salvation are obvious; so that those who seek them sincerely and diligently, are not in danger to be misled or expos'd in those to Error, by the Weakness of their Understandings. This will be a good Answer to what I objected from the Danger most are in to be led into Error, by the Magistrate's adding Force to the Arguments for their National establish'd Religions; when you have shewn, that nothing is wont to be impos'd in National Religions, but what is necessary to Salvation; or which will a little better accommodate your Hypothesis, when you can shew that nothing is impos'd, or requir'd for Communion with the Church of England, but what is necessary to Salvation; and consequently, is very easy and obvious to be known, and distinguish'd from Falshood. And indeed, besides what you say here, upon your Hypothesis, that Force is lawful only, because it is necessary to bring Men to Salvation, it cannot be lawful to use it, to bring Men to any thing, but what is absolutely necessary to Salvation. For if the Lawfulness of Force be only from the need Men have of it to bring them to Salvation, it cannot lawfully be used, to bring Men to that, which they do not need, or is not necessary, to their Salvation; for in such an Application of it, it is not needful to their Salvation. Can you therefore say, that there is nothing required to be believ'd and profess'd in the Church of England, but what lies so obvious and expos'd to all that sincerely and diligently seek it, that no such Person P. 29. shall ever fail of attaining the Knowledg of it? What think you of St. Athanasius's C [...]eed? is the Sense of that so obvious and expos'd to every one who seeks it, which so many Learned Men have explain'd so different Ways, and which yet a great many profess they cannot understand? Or is it necessary to your or [233] my Salvation, that you or I should believe and pronounce all those damn'd who do not believe that Creed, i. e. every Proposition in it? which I fear would extend to not a few of the Church of England, unless we can think that People believe, i. e. assent to the Truth of Propositions, they do not at all understand. If ever you were acquainted with a Country-Parish, you must needs have a strange Opinion of them, if you think all the Plough-Men and Milk-Maids at Church, understood all the Propositions in Athanasius's Creed; 'tis more truly, than I should be apt to think of any one of them, and yet I cannot hence believe my self authorized to judg or pronounce them all damn'd: 'tis too bold an Intrenching on the Prerogative of the Almighty, to their own Master they stand or fall.

The Doctrine of Original Sin, is that which is profess'd, and must be owned by the Members of the Church of England, as is evident from the 39 Articles, and several Passages in the Liturgy: and yet I ask you, whether this be so obvious and expos'd to all that diligently and sincerely seek the Truth, that one who is in the Communion of the Church of England, sincerely seeking the Truth, may not raise to himself such Difficulties concerning the Doctrine of Original Sin as may puzzle him, though he be a Man of Study; and whether he may not push his Enquiries so far, as to be stagger'd in his Opinion.

If you grant me this, as I am apt to think you will, then I enquire whether it be not true (notwithstanding what you say concerning the Plainness and Obviousness of Truths necessary to Salvation) that a great part of Mankind may not be able to discern between Truth, and Falshood, in several Points, which are thought so far to concern their Salvation, as to be made necessary Parts of the National Religion?

If you say it may be so, then I have nothing farther to enquire; but shall only advise you not to be so severe hereafter in your Censure of Mr. Reynolds, as you are, where you tell me, that the famous Instance I give of the two Reynolds's is not of any moment to prove the contrary; unless I can undertake, that he that erred was as sincere in his Enquiry after that Truth, as I suppose him able to examine and judg.

You will, I suppose, be more charitable another time, when you have consider'd, that neither Sincerity, nor Freedom from Error, even in the establish'd Doctrines of their own Church, [234] is the Privilege of those who join themselves in outward Profession to any National Church whatsoever. And it is not impossible, that one who has subscribed the 39 Articles, may yet make it a Question, Whether it may b [...] truly said that God imputes the first Sin of Adam to his Posterity? &c. But we are apt to be so fond of our own Opinions, and almost Infallibility, that we will not allow them to be sincere, who quit our Communion; whilst at the same time, we tell the World, it is presumable, that all who imbrace it, do it sincerely, and upon Conviction; though we cannot but know many of them to be but loose, inconsiderate, and ignorant People. This is all the reason you have, when you speak of the Reynolds's, to suspect one of the Brothers more than the other: And to think, that Mr. Chillingworth had not as much Sincerity when he quitted, as when he return'd to the Church of England, is a Partiality, which nothing can justify without pretending to Infallibility.

To shew that you do not fancy your Force to be useful, but that you judg so upon just and sufficient Grounds, you tell us, the strong probability of its Success is grounded upon the Consideration of P. 34 humane Nature, and the general Temper of Mankind, apt to be [...]rought upon by the Method you speak of, and upon the indisputable Att [...]station of Experience. The Consideration of humane Nature, and the general Temper of Mankind, will teach one this, that Men are apt, in things within their power, to be wrought upon by Force, and the more wrought upon, the greater the Force or Punishments are: So that where moderate Penalties will not work, great Severities will. Which Consideration of humane Nature, if it be a just Ground to judg any Force useful, will I fear necessarily carry you, in your Judgment, to Severities beyond the moderate Penalties, so often mention'd in your System, upon a strong Probability of the Success of greater punishment, where less would not prevail.

But if to consider so as you require, i. e. so as to imbrace, and believe, be not in their Power, then no Force at all, great or little, is or can be useful. You must therefore (consider it which way you will) either renounce all Force as useful, or pull off your Mask, and own all the Severities of the cruellest Perseentors.

The other Reason of your iudging Force to be useful, you say, is grounded on the indisputable Att [...]station of Experience. Pray [235] tell us where you have this Attestation of Experience for your moderate, which is the only useful Force: Name the Country where True Religion or Sound Christianity has been Nationally receiv'd, and establish'd by moderate Penal Laws, that the observing Persons you appeal to, may know where to imploy their Observation: Tell us how long it was t [...]ied, and what was the Su [...] cess of it? And where there has been the Relaxation of such moderate Penal Laws, the fruits whereof have continually b [...]en Epicurism and Atheism? Till you do this, I fear, that all the World will think, there is a more indisputable Attestation of Experience for the Success of Dragooning, and the Severities you condemn, than of your moderate Method; which we shall compare with the King of France's, and see which is most successful in making Proselytes to Church-Conformity, (for yours as well as his reach no farther than that) when you produce your Examples: the consident Talk whereof, is good to count [...]nce a Cause, though Experience there be none in the case.

But you appeal, you say, to all observing Persons, Whether P. 3 [...]. where-euer True Religion or Sound Christianity have been Nationally receiv'd and [...] by moderate Penal Laws, it has not always visibly lost ground by the Relaxation of those Laws? True or False Religions, Sound or Unsound Christianity, where-ever establish'd into National Religions by Penal Laws, always have lost, and always will lose ground, i. e. lose several of their Confo [...]ming Professors upon the Relaxation of those Laws. But this concerns not the True, more than other Religions; nor is any Prejudice to it: but only shews, that many are, by the Penalties of the Law, kept in the Communion of the National Religion, who are not really convinced, or perswaded of it: and therefore, as soon as Liberty is given, they own the dislike they had many of them before, and out of Perswasion, Curiosity, &c. seek out, and bet [...]ke themselves to some other Profession. This need not startle the Magistrates of any Religion, much less those of the True, since they will be sure to retain those, who more mind their secular Interest than the Truth of Religion, (who are every-where the greater number) by the advantages of Countenance and P [...]ferment: and if it be the True Religion, they will retain those also, who are in earnest of it, by the stronger tie of Co [...]science and Conviction.

[236]

You go on, Whether Sects and Hercsies (even the wildest and most absurd, and even Epicurism and Atheism) have not continually P. 34. thereupon spread themselves, and whether the very Life of Christianity has not sensibly decay'd, as well as the Number of sound Prosessors of it been daily lessen'd upon it? As to Atheism and Epicurism, whether they more spread under Toleration, or National Religions, establish'd by moderate Penal Laws, when you shew us the Countries where fair trial hath been made of both, that we may compare them together, we shall better be able to judg.

Epicurism and Atheism, say you, are found constantly to spread themselves upon the Relaxation of moderate Penal Laws. We will suppose your History to be full of Instances of such Relaxations, which you will in good time communicate to the World, that wants this Assistance from your Observation. But were this to be justified out of History, yet would it not be any Argument against Toleration; unless your History can furnish you with a new sort of Religion founded in Atheism. However, you do well to charge the spreading of Atheism upon Toleration in Matters of Religion, as an Argument against those who deny Atheism (which takes away all Religion) to have any Right to Toleration at all. But perhaps (as is usual for those who think all the World should see with their Eyes, and receive their Systems for unquestionable Verities) Zeal for your own way makes you call all Atheism, that agrees not with it. That which makes me doubt of this, are these following words; Not to speak of what at this time our Eyes cannot but see for fear of P. 35. giving Offence: Though I hope it will be none to any that have a just Concern for Truth and Piety, to take notice of the Books and Pamphlets which now fly so thick about this Kingdom, manifestly tending to the multiplying of Sects and Divisions, and even to the promoting of Scepticism in Religion among us. In which number, you say, you shall not much need my pardon, if you reckon the First and Second Letter concerning Toleration. Wherein, by a broad Insinuation, you impute the spreading of Atheism among us, to the late Relaxation made in favour of Protestant Dissenters: and yet all that you take notice of as a proof of this, is, the Books and Pamphlets which now fly so thick about this Kingdom, manifestly tending to the multiplying of Sects and Divisions, and even to the promoting of Scepticism in Religion amongst us; and for instance, you name the First and Second Letter concerning Toleration. If one may guess at [237] the others by these, The Athcism and Scepticism you accuse them of will have but little more in it, than an Opposition to your Hypothesis; on which, the whole business of Religion must so turn, that whatever agrees not with your System, must presently, by Interpretation, be concluded to tend to the promoting of Atheism or Scepticism in Religion. For I challenge you to shew in either of those two Letters you mention, one word tending to Epicurism, Atheism or Scepticism in Religion.

But, Sir, against the next time you are to give an account of Books and Pamphlets tending to the promoting Scepticism in Religion amongst us. I shall mind you of the third Letter concerning Toleration, to be added to the Catalogue, which asserting and building P. 47. upon this, that True Religion may be known by those who profess it, to be the only True Religion, does not a little towards betraying the Christian Religion to Scepticks. For what greater advantage can be given them, than to teach, that one may know the True Religion? thereby putting into their hands a Right to demand it to be demonstrated to them, that the Christian Religion is true, and bringing on the Professors of it a necessity of doing it. I have heard it complain'd of as one great Artifice of Scepticks, to require Demonstrations where they neither could be had, nor were necessary. But if the True Religion may be known to Men to be so, a Sceptick may require, and you cannot blame him if he does not receive your Religion, upon the strongest probable Arguments, without Demonstration.

And if one should demand of you Demonstration of the Truths of your Religion, which I beseech you, would you do, either renounce your Assertion, that it may be known to be true, or else undertake to demonstrate it to him?

And as for the decay of the very Life and Spirit of Christianity, and the spreading of Epicurism amongst us: I ask, what can more tend to the promoting of them than this Doctrine, which is to be found in the same Letter, viz. That it is presumable that those who conform, do it upon Reason and Conviction? When you can instance in any thing so much tending to the promoting of Scepticism in Religion and Epicurism, in the first or second Letter concerning Toleration, we shall have reason to think you have some ground for what you say.

[238]

As to Epicurism, the spreading whereof you likewise impu [...]e to the Relaxation of your moderate Penal Laws; That so far as it is distinct from Atheism, I think regards Mens Lives more than their Religions, i. e. speculative Opinions in Religion and Ways of Worship, which is that we mean by Religion, as concern'd in Toleration. And for the Toleration of corrupt Manners, and the Debaucheries of Life, neither our Author, nor I do plead for it; but say it is properly the Magistrate's Business, by Punishments, to restrain and suppress them. I do not therefore blame your Zeal against Atheism and Epicurism; but you discover a great Zeal against something else, in charging them on Toleration, when it is in the Magistrate's power to restrain and suppress them by more effectual Laws than those for Church-Conformity. For there are those who will tell you that an outward Profession of the National Religion, even where it is the True Religion, is no more opposite to, or inconsistent with Atheism or Epicurism, than the owning of another Religion, [...]specially any Christian Profession, that differs from it. And therefore you, in vain, impute Atheism or Epicurism to the Relaxation of Penal Laws, that require no more than an outward Conformity to the National Church.

As to the S [...]cts and Un-christian Divisions (for other Divisions there may be without prejudice to Christianity) at whose Door they chiesly ought to be laid, I have shew'd you elsewhere.

One thing I cannot but take notice of here, that having named Sects, Heresi [...]s, Epicurism, Atheism, and a D [...]ay of the Spirit and Life of Christianity, as the fruits of [...], for which you had the Attestation of [...] [...], you add these words, Not to speak of what our [...] at this [...] cannot but P. 34. [...], for fear of giving offence. Whom is it, I beseech you, you are so afraid of offending, if you should speak of the Epicurism, Atheism, and D [...]ay of the Spirit, and Life of Christianity [...]gst [...] [...]? But I see, he that is so mode [...] in one [...] he will not take upon [...], [...] what they cannot know [...] he calls moderate Pe [...]is or Force, may yet, in another pa [...]t of the same Letter, by bro [...]d Insinnations, use [...], wherein 'tis a hard matter to think Law-mak [...]rs and Gov [...]nners are not meant. But whoever be meant, it is at least advisable in Accusations [239] that are easier suggested than made out, to cast abroad the Slander in general, and leave others to apply it, for [...]ear those who are named, and so justly offended with a false Imputation, should be intitled to ask, as in this case, how it appears that Sects and Herosies have multiplied, Epicurism and Atheism spread themselves, and that the Life and Spirit of Christianity is decay'd, more within these two years than it was before, and that all this Mischief is owing to the late Relaxation of the Penal Laws against Protestant Dissenters.

You go on, And if these have always been the Fruits of the Relaxation P. 35. of moderate Penal Laws, made for the preserving and advancing true Religion; You think this Consideration alone is abundantly sufficient to shew the [...]fulness and Benefit of such Laws. For if these Evils have constantly sprung from the Relaxation of those Laws, [...] evident they were prevented before by those Laws. One would think by your saying, always been the Fruits, and constantly sprung, that moderate Penal Laws, for preserving the true Religion, had been the constant Practice of all Christian Common-wealth; and that Relaxations of them, i [...] favour of a free Toleration, had frequently happen'd; and that there were Examples both of the one and the other, as common and known, as of Prince; that have persecuted for Religion, and learned Men who have imploy'd their Skill to make it good. But till you shew us in what Ages or Countries your moderate Establishments were in Fashion, and where they were again removed to make way for our Author's Toleration, you to as little purpose talk of the Fruits of them, as if you should talk of the Fruit of a Tree which no Body planted, or was no where suffered to grow till one might see what Fruit came from it.

Having laid it down as one of the Conditions for a fair debate [...]. of this Controversy, `That it should be without supposing all along your Church in the right, and your Religion the true; I add these words, ‘Which can no more be allow'd to you IN THIS CASE, whatever your Church or Religion be, than it can be to a Papist or a Lutheran, a Presbyterian or an Anabaptist; nay no more to you, than it can be allow'd to a Jew or Mahometan.’ To which you reply, No Sir? Not whatever P. 47. your Church or Religion be? That seems somewhat hard. And you think I might have given you some reason for what I say: For certainly it is not so self-evident as to need no proof. But you think it is [240] no hard matter to guess at my Reason, though I did not think fit expresty to own it. For 'tis obvious enough there can be no other Reason for this Assertion of mine, but either the equal Truth, or at least the equal Certainty (or Vncertainty) of all Religions. For whoever considers my Assertion, must see, that to make it good I shall be obliged to maintain one of these two things. Either, 1. That no Religion is the true Religion, in opposition to other Religions: Which makes all Religions true or false, and so either way indifferent. Or, 2. That though some one Religion be the true Religion, yet no Man can have any more Reason than another Man of another Religion may have, to believe his to be the true Religion. Which makes all Religions equally certain, (or uncertain, whether I please) and so renders it vain and idle to enquire after the true Religion, and only a piece of good luck if any Man be of it, and such good luck as he can never know that he has till he come into the other World. Whether of these two Principles I will own, you know not. But certainly one or other of them lies at the bottom with me, and is the lurking Supposition upon which I build all that I say.

Certainly no, Sir, neither of these Reasons you have so ingenuously and friendly found out for me, lies at the bottom; but this, That whatever Privilege or Power you claim, upon your supposing yours to be the true Religion, is equally due to another (who supposes his to be the true Religion) upon the same claim: and therefore that is no more to be allow'd to you than to him. For whose is really the true Religion, yours or his, being the matter in contest betwixt you, your supposing can no more determine it on your side, than his supposing on his; unless you can think you have a right to judg in your own Cause. You believe yours to be the true Religion, so does he believe his: you say you are certain of it, so says he, he is: you think you have Arguments proper and sufficient to convince him, if he would consider them; the same thinks he of his. If this claim, which is equally on both sides, be allow'd to either, without any Proof, 'tis plain he, i [...] whose favour it is allow'd, is allow'd to be Judg in his own Cause, which no body can have a Right to be, who is not at least infallible. If you come to Arguments and Proofs, which you must do, befo [...]e it can be determin'd whose is the True Religion, 'tis plain your Supposition is not allow'd.

In our present case, in using Punishments in Religion, your supposing yours to be the True Religion, gives you or your [241] Magistrate no more Advantage over a Papist, Presbyterian or Mahometan, or more Reason to punish either of them for his Religion, than the same. Supposition in a Papist, Presbyterian or Mahometan gives any of them, or a Magistrate of their Religion, advantage over you, or reason to punish you for your Religion: and therefore this Supposition, to any purpose or privilege of using of Force, is no more to be allow'd to you, than to any one of any other Religion. This the words, IN THIS CASE, which I there used, would have satisfied any other to have been my meaning: But whether your Charity made you not to take notice of them, or the Joy of such an Advantage as this, not to understand them, this is certain, you were resolved not to lose the Opportunity, such a place as this afforded you, of shewing your Gift, in commenting and guessing shrewdly at a Man's Reasons, when he does not think fit expresly to own them himself.

I must own you have a very lucky hand at it, and as you do it here upon the same ground, so it is just with the same Success, as you in another place have exercis'd your Logick on my saying something to the same purpose, as I do here. But, Sir, if you will add but one more to your plentiful stock of Distinctions, and observe the difference there is between the ground of any one's supposing his Religion is true, and the Privilege he may pretend to by supposing it true, you will never stumble a [...] this again; but you will find, that though upon the former of these Accounts, Men of all Religions cannot be equally allow'd to suppose their Religions true, yet in reference to the Latter, the Supposition may and ought to be allow'd, or deny'd equally to all Men. And the reason of it is plain, viz. because the Assurance wherewith one Man supposes his Religion to be true, being no more an Argument of its Truth to another, than vice versâ; neither of them can claim by the Assurance, wherewith he supposes his Religion the True, any Prerogative or Power over the other, which the other has not by the same Title an equal Claim to, over him. If this will not serve to spare you the pains another time of any more such Reasonings, as we have twice had on this Subject, I think I shall be forced to send you to my Mahometans or Pagans: and I doubt whether I am not less civil to your Parts than I should be, that I do not send you to them now.

[242]

You go on and say, But as u [...]reasonable as this Condition is, you see no need you have to decline it, nor any occasion I had to impose it upon you. For certainly the making what I call your new P. 47. Method, cons [...]ltent and practicable, does no way oblige you to suppose all along your Religion the True, as I imagine. And as I imagine it does: For without that Supposition, I would fain have you shew me how it is in any one Country practicable to punish Men to b [...]ing them to the True Religion. For if you will argue for Force, as necessary to bring Men to the True Religion, without supposing yours to be it, you will find your self under some such difficulty as this, that then it must be first determin'd, (and you will require it should be) which is the True Religion, before any one can have a Right to use Force to bring Men to it; which, if every one did not determine for himself, by supposing his own the True, no body, I think, will desire Toleration any longer than till that be settled.

You go on, No, Sir, it is enough for that purpose, that there is P. 47. one True Religion, and but one. Suppose not the National Religion establish [...]d by Law in England to be that, and then even upon your Principles of its being useful, and that the Magistrate has a Commission to use Force for the promoting the True Religion, prove if you please, that the Magistrato has a Power to use Force to bring Men to the National Religion in England. For then you must prove the National Religion, as establish'd by Law in England, to be that One True Religion, and so the True Religion, that he rejects the True Religion, who dissents from any part of it, and so rejecting the True Religion, cannot be saved. But of this more in another place.

Your other two Suppositions which you join to the foregoing, are, That that Religion may be known by those who [...] [...] to be the Ibid. only True Religion; and may also be manifested to be such by them to others, so far at least, as to oblige them to receive it, and to leave them without Excuse, if they do not.

These, you say, are Suppositions enough for the making your M [...]od consistent and pra [...]ioable. They are, [...], more than enough, for you, upon them, to prove any National Religion in the World, the only True Religion. And till you have proved (for you profess here to have quitted the Supposition of any one's being true, as necessary to your Hypothesis) some National Religion to be that only True Religion, I would gladly know [243] how it is any where practicable to use Force to bring Men to the True Religion.

You suppose there is one True Religion, and but one. In this we are both agreed: And from hence, I think, it will follow, since whoever is of this True Religion shall be saved, and without being of it no Man shall be saved, that upon your second and third Supposition, it will be hard to shew any National Religion to be this only True Religion. For who is it will say, he knows, or that it is knowable, that any National Religion (wherein must be comprehended all that, by the Penal Laws, he is requird to imbrace) is that only True Religion; which if Men reject, they shall; and which, if they imbrace, they shall not miss Salvation? Or can you undertake that any National Religion in the World can be manifested to be such, i. e. in short, to contain all things necessary to Salvation, and nothing but what is so? For that, and that alone, is the One only True Religion, without which no body can be saved; and which is enough for the Salvation of every one who imbraces it. And therefore whatever is less or more than this, is not the One only True Religion, or that which there is a necessity for their Salvation, Men should be forced to imbrace.

I do not hereby deny, that there is any National Religion which contains all that is necessary to Salvation, for so doth the Romish Religion, which is not for all that, so much as a True Religion. Nor do I deny, that there are National Religions that contain all things necessary to Salvation, and nothing inconsistent with it, and so may be call'd True Religions. But since they all of them joyn with what is necessary to Salvation, a great deal that is not so, and make that as necessary to Communion, as what is necessary to Salvation, not suffering any one to be of their Communion, without taking all together; nor to live amongst them free from Punishment, out of their Communion; will you affirm, that any of the National Religions of the World, which are imposed by Penal Laws, and to which Men are driven with Force, can be said to be, that One only True Religion, which if Men imbrace, they shall be saved; and which if they imbrace not, they shall be damn'd? And therefore, your two Suppositions, True or False, are not enough to make it practicable, upon your Principles of necessity, to use Force upon Dissenters from the National Religion, though it contain in it nothing [244] but Truth, unless that which is requir'd to Communion be all necessary to Salvation. For whatever is not necessary to Salvation, there is no necessity any one should imbrace. So that whenever you speak of the True Religion, to make it to your purpose, you must speak only of what is necessary to Salvation; unless you will say, that in order to the Salvation of Mens Souls, it is necessary to use Force to bring them to imbrace something, that is not necessary to their Salvation. I think that neither you nor any body else, will affirm, that it is necessary to use Force to bring Men to receive all the Truths of the Christian Religion, though they are Truths God has thought sit to reveal. For then, by your own Rule, you who profefs the Christian Religion, must know them all, and must be able to manifest them to others; for it is on that here you ground the Necessity and Reasonableness of Penalties used to bring Men to imbrace the Truth. But I suspect 'tis the good word Religion (as in other places other words) has misled you, whilst you content your self with good Sounds, and some confused Notions, that usually accompany them, without annexing to them any precise determin'd Signification. To convince you that 'tis not without ground I say this, I shall desire you but to set down what you mean here by True Religion, that we may know what in your Sense is, and what is not contain'd in it. Would you but do thus fairly, and define your Words, or use them in one constant settled Sense, I think the Controversy between you and me, would be at an end without any farther trouble.

Having shewed of what advantage they are like to be to you for the making your Method practicable, in the next place let us consider your Suppositions themselves. As to the first, There is one true Religion, and but one, we are argeed. But what you say in the next place, That that one true Religion may be known by those who profess it, will need a little Examination. As first, it will be necessary to enquire, what you mean by known, whether you mean by it Knowledg properly so call'd, as contra-distinguish'd to Belief; or only the assurance of a sirm Belief? If the l [...]tter, I leave you your Supposition to make your use of it, only with this Desire, that to avoid Mistakes, when you do make any use of it, you would call it Believing. If you mean that the true Religion may be known with the certainty of Knowledg properly so call'd; I ask you farther, whether that true Religion be to [245] be known by the Light of Nature, or needed a Divine Revelation to discover it? If you say (as I suppose you will) the latter; then I ask whether the making out of that to be a Divine Revelation, depends not upon particular matters of Fact, whereof you were no Eye-witness; but were done many Ages before you were born, and if so, by what Principles of Science they can be known to any Man now living?

The Articles of my Religion, and of a great many other such short-sighted People as I am, are Articles of Faith, which we think there are so good grounds to believe, that we are perswaded to venture our Eternal Happiness on that Belief: And hope to be of that number of whom our Saviour said, Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. But we neither think that God requires, nor has given us Faculties capable of knowing in this World several of those Truths which are to be believed to Salvation. If you have a Religion, all whose general Truths are either self-evident, or capable of demonstration, (for matters of Fact are not capable of being any way known but to the by-standers) you will do well to let it be known, for the ending of Controversies, and banishing of Error concerning any of those Points out of the World. For whatever may be known, besides matter of Fact, is capable of demonstration, and when you have demonstrated to any one any Point in Religion, you shall have my consent to punish him if he do not assent to it. But yet let me tell you there are many Truths even in Mathematicks, the evidence whereof one Man seeing is able to demonstrate to himself, and so may know them; which Evidence yet he not being able to make another see, (which is to demonstrate to him) he cannot make known to him, though his Scholar be willing, and with all his Power applies himself to learn it.

But granting your Supposition, That the one true Religion may be known by those who profess it to be the only true Religion; will it follow from hence, that because it is knowable to be the true Religion, therefore the Magistrate who prosesses it actually knows it to be so? Without which Knowledg, upon your Principles, he cannot use Force to bring Men to it. But if you are but at hand to assure him, which is the true Religion, for which he ought to use Force, he is bound to believe you; and that will do as well as if he examin'd and knew himself, or perhaps better. For [246] you seem not well satisfied with what the Magistrates have lately done, without your leave, concerning Religion in England. And I confess the easiest way to remove all Difficulties in the Case, is for you to be the Magistrates infallible Guide in matters of R [...]ligion. And therefore you do well here also to keep to your safe Stile, lest if your Sense were clear and determin'd, it might be more exposed to Exceptions; and therefore you tell us the true Religion may be known by those who profess it. For not saying by some of those, or by all those, the Error of what you say is not so easily observed, and requires the more trouble to come at: Which I shall spare my self here, being satisfied, that the Magistrate who has so full an imployment of his Thoughts in the Cares of the Government, has not an over-plus of leisure to attain that Knowledg which you require, and so usually contents himself with believing.

Your next Supposition is, That the one true Religion may also be manifested to be such, by the [...], to others; so far, at least, as to oblige them to receive it, and leave them without excuse if they do not. That it can be manifested to some, so as to oblige, i. e. cause them to receive it, is evident, because it is received. But because this seems to be spoken more in reference to those who do not receive it, as appears by these following Words of yours; Then 'tis altogether as plain that it may be very reasonable and P. 84. necessary for some Men to change their Religion; and that it may be made appear to them to be so. And then, if such Men will not consider what is offer'd to c [...]nvince them of the reasonableness and necess [...]y of doing it; it may be very fit and reasonable, you tell me, for any thing I have said to the contrary, in order to the bringing them to the consideration, to require them, under convenient Penalties, to forsake their false Religions, and to embrace the true. You suppose the true Religion may be so manifested by a Man that is of it, to all Men so far as to leave them if they do not imbrace it, without excuse. Without Excuse, to whom I beseech you? to God indeed, but not to the Magistrate, who can never know whether it has been so manifested to any Man, that it has been through his Fault that he has not been convinc [...]d, and not through the fault of him to whom the Magistrate committed the care of convincing him: And 'tis a sufficient ex [...]use to the Magistrate, for any one to say to him, I have not neglected to consider the Arguments, that have been offered me, by those whom you have imploy'd to manifest it to [247] me, but that yours is the only true Religion I am not Religion. Which is so direct and sufficient an Excuse to the Magistrate, that had he an express Commission from Heaven to punish all those who did not consider, he could not yet justly punish any one whom he could not convince had not consider'd. But you endeavour to avoid this, by what you infer from this your Supposition, viz. That then it may be very fit and reasonable, for any P. 48. thing I have said to the contrary, to require Men under convenient Penalties to forsake their false Religions, to imbrace the true, i [...]order to the bringing them to consideration. Whether I have said any [...]hing to the contrary, o [...] no, the Readers must judg, and I need not repeat. But now I say, it is neither just nor reasonable to require Men, under Penalties, to attain one end, in order to bring them to use the means not necessary to that, but to another end. For where is it you can say (unless you will return to your old Supposition, of yours being the true Religion; which you say is P. 47. not necessary to your method) that Men are by the Law required to forsake their false Religions, and imbrace the true? The utmost is this, in all Countries where the National Religion is imposed by Law, Men are required under the Penalties of those Laws outwardly to conform to it; which you say is in order to make them consider. So that your Punishments are for the attaining one end, viz. Conformity in order to make Men use consideration, which is a means not necessary to that, but another end, viz. finding out and imbracing the one true Religion. For however consideration may be a necessary means to find and imbrace the one true Religion, it is not at all a necessary means to outward Conformity in the Communion of any Religion.

To manifest the consistency and practicableness of your Method, to the Question, what advantage would it be to the true Religion, if Magistrates did every where so punish? You answer, P. 51. That by the Magistrates punishing, if I speak to the purpose, I must mean their punishing Men for rejecting the true Religi [...]n (so tender'd to them, as has been said) in order to the bringing them to consider and imbrace it. Now before we can suppose Magistrates every where so to punish, we must suppose the true Religion to be every where the National Religion. And if this were the case; you think it is evident [...]nough, what advantage to the true Religion it would be, if Magistrates every where did so punish. For then we might reasonably hope [...]hat all f [...]lse Religions would soon vanish, and the true become on [...] [248] more the only Religion in the World: Whereas if Magistrates should not so punish, it were much to be fear'd (especially considering what has already happen'd) that on the contrary false Religions, and Atheism, as more agreeable to the Soil, would daily take deeper Root, and propagate themselves, till there were no room left for the true Religion (which is but a foreign Plant) in any Corner of the World.

If you can make it practicable that the Magistrate should punish Men for rejecting the True Religion, without judging which is the True Religion: or if True Religion could appear in Person, take the Magistrate's Seat, and there judg all that rejected her, something might be done. But the mischief of it is, it is a Man that must condemn, Men must punish, and Men cannot do this, but by judging, who is guilty of the Crime, which they punish. An Oracle, or an Interpreter of the Law of Nature who speaks as clearly, tells the Magistrate, he may and ought to punish those, who reject the True Religion, tender'd with sufficient Evidence: The Magistrate is satisfied of his Authority, and believes this Commission to be good. Now I would know how possibly he can execute it, without making himself the Judg, 1. What is the True Religion; unless the Law of Nature at the same time deliver'd into his Hands the 39 Articles of the One only True Religion, and another Book wherein all the Ceremonies and outward Worship of it are contain'd. But it being certain, that the Law of Nature has not done this; and as certain, that the Articles, Ceremonies and Discipline of this One only True Religion, have been often varied in several Ages and Countries, since the Magistrate's Commission by the Law of Nature was first given: there is no Remedy left, but that the Magistrate must judg what is the True Religion, if he must punish them who reject it. Suppose the Magistrate be commission'd to punish those who depart from right Reason, the Magistrate can yet never punish any one, unless he be Judg what is right Reason; and then judging that Murder, Theft, Adultery, Narrow Cart-Wheels, or want of Bows and Arrows in a Man's House, are against right Reason, he may make Laws to punish Men guilty of those, as [...] right Reason.

So if the Magistrate in England or France, having a Commission to punish those who reject the One only True Religion, judges the Religion of his National Church to be it, 'tis possible for him to lay Penalties on those who reject it, pursuant to that [249] Commission; otherwise, without judging that to be the One only True Religion, 'tis wholly impracticable for him to punish those who imbrace it not, as Rejecters of the One only True Religion.

To provide as good a Salvo as the thing will bear, you say, in th [...] fol [...]wing words, Before we can suppose Magistrates every where so to punish, we must suppose the True Religion to be every where the National. That is true of actual Punishment, but not of laying on Penalties by Law; for that would be to suppose the National Religion makes or chuses the Magistrate, and not the Magistrate the National Religion. But we see the contrary; for let the National Religion be what it will before, the Magistrate doth not always fall into it and imbrace that; but if he thinks not that, but some other the True, the first Opportunity he has, he changes the National Religion into that which he judges the True, and then punishes the Dissenters from it; where his Judgment, which is the True Religion, always necessarily precedes, and is that which ultimately does, and must determine who are Rejecters of the True Religion, and so obnoxi [...]us to Punishment. This being so, I would gladly see how your Meth [...]d can be any way practicable to the advantage of the True Religion, whereof the Magistrate every-where must be Judg, or else he can punish no body at all.

You tell me that whereas I say, that to justify Punishment it P. 54. is requisite that it be directly useful for the procu [...]ing some [...] Good than that which it takes away; you wish I had told you why it must needs be directly useful for that purpose. However exact you may be in demanding Reasons of what is said, I thought here you had no cause to complain; but you let slip out of your Memory the foregoing words of this Passage, which together stands thus, ‘Punishment is some Evil, some Inconvenience, L. 2. p. 47. some Suffering, by taking away, or abridging some good thing, which he who is punish'd ha [...] otherwise a Right to. Now to justify the bringing any such Evil upon any Man, two Things are requisite; 1. That he that does it has a Commission so to do. 2. That it be directly useful for the promoting some greater Good.’ 'Tis evident by these Words, that Punishment brings direct Evil upon a Man, and therefore it should not be used but where it is directly useful for the procuring some greater Good. In this case, the signification of the Word directly, [250] carries a manifest Reason in it, to any one who understands what directly means. If the taking away any Good from a Man cannot be justified, but by making it a Means to procure a greater, is it not plain it must be so a Means as to have, in the Operation of Causes and Effects, a natural Tendency to that Effect? and then it is called directly useful to such an end: And this may give you a reason, why Punishment must be directly useful for that purpose. I know you are very tender of your indirect and at a distance Usefulness of Force, which I have in another place shew'd to be, in your way, only useful by accident; nor will the Question you here subjoin, excuse it from being so, viz. Why [...] [...] not as directly useful for the bringing Men to the P. [...]. True Religion, as the R [...]d of Correction is to drive Foolishness from a Child or to work Wisdom in him? Because the Rod works on the Will of the Child to obey the Reason of the Father, whilst under his Tuition, and thereby makes it supple to the Dictates of his own Reason afterwards, and disposes him to obey the Light of that, when being grown to be a Man, that is to be his Guide, and this is Wisdom. If your Penalties are so used, I have nothing to say to them.

Your way is charg'd to be impracticable to those Ends you purpose, which you indeavour to clear, p. 63. That there may be fair play on both sides, the Reader shall have in the same view what we both say.

[...]. 2. p. 57. It remains now to examine, whether the Author's Argument will not hold good, even against Punishments in your way. For if the Magistrate's Authority be, as you here say, only to procure all his Subjects, (mark what you say, ALL HIS SVBJECTS) the means of discovering the way of Salvation, and to procure [...], as much as in him lies, that NONE remain ignorant of it, or refuse to embrace it, [...] for want of using those means, or by reason of any such prejudices as may render them [...]. If this be the Magistrate's business, in reference to ALL HIS SUBJECTS; I desire you, or any Man else, to [251] tell me how this can be done, by the application of Force only to a part of them; Unless you will still vainly suppose ignorance, negligence, or prejudice, only amongst that part which any-where differs from the Magistrate. If those of the Magistrate's Church may be ignorant of the way of Salvation; If it be possible there may be amongst them, those who refuse to imbrace it, e [...]her for want of using those means, or by reason of any such prejudices as may render them ineffectual; What, in this case, becomes of the Magistrate's Authority to procure all his Subjects the means of discovering the way of Salvation? Must these of his Subjects be neglected, and left without the means be has Authority to procure them? Or must he use Force upon them too? And then, pray, shew me how this can be done. Shall the Magistrate punish those of his own Religion, to proc [...]re them the means of discovering the the way of Salvation, and to procure, as much as in him lies, that they remain not ignor ant of it, or refuse not to imbrace it? These are such contradictions in Practice, this is such condemnation of a Man's own Religion, as no one can expect from the Magistrate; and I dare say you desire not of him. And yet this is that he must do, If his Authority be to procure ALL his Subjects the means of discovering the way to Salvation. And if it be so needful, as you say it is, that he should use it; I am sure Force cannot do that till it be apply'd wider, and Punishment be laid upon more than you would have it. For if the Magistrate be by Force to procure, as much as in him lies, that NONE remain ignorant of the way of Salvation; must he not punish [252] all those who are ignorant of the way of Salvation? And pray t [...]ll me how is this any way practicable, but by supposing none in the National Church ignorant, and all out of it ignorant of the way of Salvation? Which, what is it, but to punish Men barely for not being of the Magistrate's Religion; The very thing you deny he has Authority to do? So that the Magistrate having, by your own confession, no Authority thus to use Force; and it being otherways impracticable for the procuring all his Subjects the means of discovering the way of Salvation; there is an end of Force. And so Force being laid aside, either as unlawful, or unpracticable, the Author's Argument holds good against Force, even in your way of applying it.

L. 3. p. 63. But how little to the purpose this Request of yours is, will quickly appear. For if the Magistrate provides sufficiently for the instruction of all his Subjects in the true Religion; and then requires them all, under convenient Penalties, to hearken to the Teachers and Ministers of it, and to profess[251] and [...] it with one accord, under their [...], in Publick Assemb [...]ies: Is there any prctence to say, that in so doing he applies Force only to a part of his Subjects; when the Law is general, and excepts none? ' [...]is true, the Magistrate insticts the Penalties in that ease, only upon them that break the Law. But is that the the thing you mean by his applying Force only to a part of his Subjects? Would you have him punish all, indifferently? them that obey the Law, as well as them that do not? As to Ignorance, Negligence and Prejudice, I desire y [...]u, or any Man [...]lse, to tell me what better course can be taken to c [...]re them, than that which I have mentioned. For if after all that God's Ministers, and the Magistrate can do, some will still remain ignorant, negligent, or prejudiced; I do not take that to be[252] any disparagement to it: For certainly that is a very extraordinary Remedy, which infassibly cures all discas'd Persons to whom it is applied.

The Backwardness and Lusts that hinder an impartial Examination, A. p. 6,—12. P. 6,—8. as you describe it, is general. The Corruption of Nature which hinders a real imbracing the true Religion, that also you tell us here, is universal. I ask a Remedy for these in your way. You say the Law for Conformity is general, excepts none. Very likely, none that do not conform; but punishes none who conforming, do neither impartially examine nor really imbrace the true Religion. From whence I conclude, there is no corruption of Nature in those, who are brought up or join in outward Communion with the Church of England. But as to Ignorance, Negligence and Prejudice, you say you desire me, or any Man else, to tell what better course can be taken to cure them, than that which you have mentioned. If your Church can find no better way to cure Ignorance and Prejudice, and the Negligence, that is in Men, to examine Matters of Religion and heartily imbrace the true, than what is impracticable upon Conformists, then of all others, Conformists are in the most deplorable Estate. But, as I remember. you have been told of a better way, which is, the [...] with Men seriously and friendly about Matters in Religion, by those whose Prosession is the Care of Souls; examining what they do understand, and where, either through Laziness, Prejudice or Dissiculty, they do stick; and applying to their several Diseases proper Cures, which it is as impossible to do by a general Harangue, once or twice a Week out of the [253] Pulpit, as to sit all Mens Feet with one Shoe, or cure all Mens Ails with one, though very wholsome, Diet-drink. To be thus instant in season and out of season, some Men have thought a better way of Cure, than a Desire, only to have Men driven by the Whip, either in your, or the Magistrate's hands, into the Sheepfold: where when they are once, whether they understand or no, their Ministers Se [...]mons; whether they are, or can be better for them or no; whether they are ignorant and hypocritical Conformists, and in that way like to remain so, rather than to become knowing and sincere Converts, some Bishops have thought is not sufficiently enquired; but this no body is to mention, for whoever does so, makes himself an occasion to she [...] his good Will to the Clergy.

This had not been said by me here, now I see how apt you are to be put out of temper with any thing of this kind, (though it be in every serious Man's Mouth) had not you desired me to shew you a better way than Force, your way apply'd. And to use your way of Arguing, since bare Preaching, as now us'd, 'tis plain, will not do, there is no other means left but this to deal with the corrupt Nature of Conformists; for Miracles are now ceased, and Penalties they are free from; therefore, by your way of concluding, no other being left, this of Visiting at home, conferring and instructing, and admonishing Men there, and the like Means, proposed by the Reverend Author of the Pastoral Care, is necessary; and Men, whose business is the Care of Souls, are obliged to use it: for you cannot prove, that it cannot do some Service (I think I need not say) [...] and at a distance. And if this be proper and sufficient to bring Consormists (notwithstanding the Corruption of their Nature) to examine impartially, and really imbrace the Truth that must save them, it will remain to shew, Why it may not do as well on Nonconformists (whose, I imagine, is the common Corruption of Nature) to bring them to examine and imbrace the Truth, that must save them? And though it be not so extraordinary a Re [...]edy as will infallibly cure all diseased Persons, to whom it is apply'd; yet since the Corruption of Nature, which is the same Disease, and [...]inders the impartial Examination, and hearty imbracing the Truth that must [...] them, is equally in both, Conformists and Nonconformists, 'tis reasonable to think it should in both have the same Cure, let that be what it will.

[254]

CHAP. X. Of the Necessity of Force in Matters of Religion.↩

You tell us you do not ground the lawfulness of such Force, P. 30. as you take to be useful for promoting the true Religion, upon the bare usefulness of such Force, but upon the necessity as well as usefulness of it; and therefore you declare it to be no fit means to be used, either for that purpose or any other, where it is not necessary as well as useful.

How useful Force in the Magistrate's Hand, for bringing Men to the true Religion, is like to be, we have shewn in the foregoing Chapter, in answer to what you have said for it. So that it being proved not useful, it is impossible it should be necessary. However we will examine what you say to prove the necessity of it. The Foundation you build on for its necessity we have in your Argument considered, where having at large dilated on Mens A. p. 10. inconsiderateness in the choice of their Religions, and their persisting in those they have once chosen, without due Examination, you conclude thus; Now if this be the case, if Men are so [...]verse se to a due Consideration, if they usually take up their Religion, without examining it as they ought, what other [...] is there left? Wherein you suppose Force necessary, instead of proving it to be so; for Preaching and Perswasion not prevailing upon all Men, you upon your own Authority think fit something else should be done; and that being resolv'd, you readily pitch on Force, because you say you can find nothing else, which in effect is only to tell us, if the Salvation of Mens Souls were only left to your discretion, how you would order the matter.

And in your answer to me, you very considently tell us, P. 7. the true Religion cannot prevail without the assistance either of Miracles, or of Authority. I shall here only observe one or two things, and then go on to examine how you make this good.

The first thing I shall observe is, that in your Argument considered, &c. you suppose Force necessary only to master the aversion there is in Men to considering and examination: And here in [255] your Answer to me, you make Force necessary to conquer the aversion there is in Men to imbrace and obey the true Religion. Which are so very different, that the former justisies the use of Force only to make Men consider, the other justisies the use of Force to make Men imbrace Religion. If you meant the same thing when you writ your first Trtatise, it was not very ingenuous to express your self in such Words as were not proper to give your Reader your true meaning; it being a far different thing to use Force to make Men consider, which is an action in their power to do or omit; and to use Force to make them imbrace, i. e. believe any Religion, which is not a thing in any ones power to do or forbear as he pleases. If you say you meant barely considering in your first Paper, as the whole current of it would make one believe, then I see your Hypothesis may mend, as we have seen in other parts, and in time, may grow to its full Stature.

Another thing I shall remark to you, is, That in your first Paper, besides Preaching and Perswasion, and the Grace of God, nothing but Force was necessary. Here in your second, it is either Miracles or Authority, which how you make good, we will now consider.

You having said, you had no reason from any Experiment or expect A. p. 2. L. 2. p. 3. that true Religion should be any way a gainer by Toleration. I in [...]anced in the prevailing of the Gospel, by its own Beauty, Force and Reasonableness, in the first Ages of Christianity. You reply, P. 5. that it has not the same Beauty, Force and Reasonableness now, that it had then, unless I include Miracles too, which are now ce [...]sed and as you tell us, were not withdrawn, till by their P. 37. help Christianity had prevailed to be received for the Religion of the Empire, and to be encouraged and supported by the Laws of it.

If therefore we will believe you upon your own word, Force being necessary (for prove it necessary you never can) you have enter'd into the Counsel of God, and tell us, when Force could not be had, Miracles were imploy'd to supply its want. I cannot but think, say you, it's highly probable (if we may be allowed to guess at P. 37. the Counsels of insinite Wisdom) that God was pleased to continue them till then, i. e. till the Laws of the Empire supported Christanity, not so much for any necessity there was of them all that time, for the evincing the Truth of the Christian Religion, as to supply the want of the Magistrate's Assistance. You allow your self to guess very frelly, when you will make God use Miracles [256] to supply a means he no where authorised or appointed; How long Miracles continued we shall see anon.

Say you, If we may be allowed to guess: this Modesty of yours where you confess you guess, is only concerning the time of the continuing of Miracles; but as to their supplying the want of coactive Force, that you are positive in, both here and where you tell us, Why Penalties were not necessary at first, to make Men to P. 38. give Ear to the Gospel, has already been shewn; and a little after, the great and wonderful things which were to be done for the evidencing the truth of the Gospel, were abundantly sufficient to procure Attention, &c. How you come to know so undoubtedly that Miracles were made use of to supply the Magistrate's Authority, since God no where tells you so, you would have done well to shew.

But in your Opinion Force was necessary, and that could not then be had, and so God must use Miracles. For, say you, Our P. 36. Saviour was no Magistrate, and therefore could not inflict political Punishments upon any Man, so much less could he impower his Apostles to do it. Could not our Saviour impower his Apostles to denounce or inflict Punishments on careless or obstinate Unbelievers, to make them hear and consider? You pronounce very boldly methinks of Christ's Power, and set very narrow limits to what at another time you would not deny to be infinite: But it was convenient here for your present purpose, that it should be so limited. But, they not being Magistrates, he could not impower his Apostles to inflict political Punishments. How is it of a sudden, that they must be political Punishments? You tell us all that is necessary, is to lay Briars and Thorns in Mens ways, to trouble and disease them to make them consider. This I hope our Saviour had power to do, if he had found it necessary, without the assistance of the Magistrates; he could have always done by his Apostles, and Ministers, if he had so thought [...]it, what he did once by St. Peter, have drop'd Thorns and Briars into their very Minds, that should have pricked, troubled and diseased them sufficiently. But sometimes it is Briars and Thorns only that you want, sometimes it must be Humane Means, and sometimes, as here, nothing will serve your turn but political Punishments; just as will best sute your occasion, in the Argument you have then before you.

[257]

That the Apostles could lay on Punishments, as troublesome and as great as any political ones when they were necessary, we see in Ananias and Saphira: And he that had all Power given him in Heaven and in Earth, could, if he had thought [...]it, have laid Briars and Thorns in the way of all that received not his Doctrine.

You add, But as he could not punish Men to make them hear him, P. 36. so neither was there any need that he should. He came as a Prophet sent from God to reveal a new Doctrine to the World; and therefore to prove his Mission, he was to do such things as could only be done by a Divine Power: And the Works which he did were abundantly sufficien both to gain him a hearing, and to oblige the World to receive his Doctrine. Thus the want of Force and Punishments are supplied. How far? so far as they are supposed necessary to gain a hearing, and so far as to oblige the World to receive Christ's Doctrine; whereby, as I suppose, you mean sufficient to lay an Obligation on them to receive his Doctrine, and render them inexcusable if they did not: But that they were not sufficient to make all that saw them effectually to receive and imbrace the Gospel, I think is evident, and you will not I imagine say, that all who saw Christ's Miracles believed on him. So that Miracles were not to supply the want of such Force, as was to be continued on Men to make them consider as they ought, i. e. till they imbraced the Truth that must save them. For we have little reason to think that our Saviour, or his Apostles, contended with their neglect or refusal by a constant train of Miracles, continued on to those who were not wrought upon by the Gospel preached to them. St. Matthew tells us, XIII. 57. that he did not many mighty works Lightfoot Harm. of the N. T. Sect. [...]. and [...]. in his own Country, because of their Unbelief; much less were Miracles to supply the want of Force in that use you make of it, where you tell us it is to punish the fault of not being of the true Religion: For we do not find any miraculously punished to bring them in to the Gospel. So that the want of Force to either of these purposes not being supplied by Miracles, the Gospel 'tis plain subsisted and spread it self without Force so made use of, and without Miracles to supply the want of it' and therefore it so far remains true, that the Gospel having the same Beauty, Force and Reasonableness now as it had at the beginning, it wants not Force to supply the defect of Miracles, to that for which Miracles were no where made use of. And so far, at least, [258] the Experiment is good, and this Assertion true, that the Gospel is able to prevail by its own Light and Truth, without the continuance of Force on the same Person, or punishing Men fo [...] not being of the true Religion.

You say, Our Saviour being no Magistrate, could not inslict Political P. 36. Punishments; much less could be impower his Apostles to do in. I know not what need there is, that it should be political; so there were so much Punishment used, as you say, is sufficient to make Men consider, it is not necessary it should come from this or that Hand: or if there be any odds in that, we should be apt to think it would come best, and most effectually, from those who preached the Gospel, and could tell them it was to make them consider, than from the Magistrate, who neither doth, nor according to your Scheme can, tell them it is to make them consider. And this Power, you will not deny, but our Saviour could have given to the Apos [...]les.

But if there were such absolute need of Political Punishments Titus or Trajan might as well have been converted, as Constantin [...] For how true it is, that Miracles supplied the want of Force front those Days till Constantine's, and then ceased, we shall see by and by. I say not this to enter boldly into the Counsels of God, [...] to take upon me to consure the Conduct of the Almighty, or to call his Providence to an account; but to answer your saying; Our S [...]viour was no Magistrate, and therefore could not inflict Political Punishments: For he could have had both Magistrates and Political Punishments at his Service, if he had thought sit, and needed not to have continued Miracles longer, than there was necessity for evincing the Truth of the Christian Religion, as you imagine, to supply P. 37. the want of the Magistrate's Assistance, by Force, which is necessary.

But how come you to know, that Force is necessary? Has God revealed it in his Word? no where. Has it been revealed to you in particular? that you will not say. What reason have you for it? none at all but this, that having set down the grounds, upon A. p. 6, 12. which Men take up and persist in their Religion, you conclude, what means is there lest bue Force? Force therefore you conclude necessary, because without any Authority, but from your own Imagination, you are peremptory, that other means, besides Preaching and Perswasion, is to be used; and therefore is it necessary, because you can think of no other.

[259]

When I tell you there is other Means, and that by your own confession the Grace of God is another Means, and therefore Force is not necessary: You reply, Though the Grace of God be P. 39.another Means, and you thought sit to mention it, to prevent Cavils; yet it is none of the Means of which you were speaking, in the place I refer to; which any one who reads that Paragraph wist find to be only HUMANE Means: and therefore though the Grace of God be both a proper and sufficient Means, and such as can work by it self, and without which neither Penalties nar any other Means can do any thing; yet it may be true however, that when Admonitions and Intreaties fail, there is no HUMANE Means left, but Penalties, to bring prejudiced Persons to hear and consider, what may convince them of their Errors, and discover the Truth to them. And then Penalties will be necessary in respect to that end as an HUMANE Means.

In which Words, if you mean any answer to my Argument, it is this, that Force is necessary, because to bring Men into the right way there is other HUMANE Means necessary, belides Admonitions and Perswasions. For else what have we to do with HUMANE in the case? But it is no small advantage one owes to Logick, that where Sense and Reason fall short, a distinction ready at hand may ech it out. Force, when Perswasions will not prevail, is necessary, say you, because it is the only Means lest, When you are told it is not the only Means left, and so cannot be necessary on that account: You reply, that when P. 40. Admonitions and Intreatics fail, there is no HUMANE Means left, but Penalties, to bring prej [...]diced Persons to hear and consider what may convince them of their Errors, and discover the Truth to them: And then Penalties will be necessary in respect to that end, as an HUMANE Means.

Suppose it be urged to you, when your moderate lower Penalties fail, there is no Humane Means left, but Dragooning and such other Severities; which you say you condemn as much as P. 9. I, to bring prejudiced Persons to hear and consider what may convince them of their Errors, and discover the Truth to them. And then Dragooning, Imprisonment, Scourging, Fining [...]. will be necessary in respect to that end, as an HUMANE Means. What can you say but this? that you are impower'd to judg what degrees of Humane Means are necessary, but others are not. For without such a considence in your own Judgment, where God has neither said how much, nor that any Force is necessary, I [260] think this is as good an Argument for the highest, as yours is for the lower Penalties. When Admonitions and Intreaties will not prevail, then Penalties, lower Penalties, some degrees of Force will be necessary, say you, as an HUMANE Means. And when your lower Penalties, your some degrees of Force will not prevail, then higher Degrees will be necessary, say I, as an HUMANE Means. And my reason is the same with yours, because there is no other Means (i. e. HUMANE Means) left. Shew me how your Argument concludes for lower Punishments being necessary, and mine not for higher, even to Dragooning, & eris mihi magnus Apollo.

But let us apply this to your Succedaneum of Miracles, and then it will be much more admirable. You tell us, Admonitions and Intreaties not prevailing to bring Men into the right way, Force is necessary, because there is no other Means left. To that 'tis said, yes, there is other Means left, the Grace of God. Ay, but, say you, that will not do; because you speak only of HUMANE Means. So that according to your way of arguing some other HUMANE Means is necessary: For you your self tell us, that the Means you were speaking of, where you say, that when Admonitions and Intreaties will not do, what other Means is there left but Force? were HUMANE Means. Your words are, Which any one, who reads that Paragraph, will find to be only HUMANE Means. By this Argument then other HUMANE Means are necessary besides preaching and perswasion, and those HUMANE Means you have found out to be either Force or Miracles: The latter are certainly notable Humane Means. And your distinction of Humane Means serves you to very good purpose, having brought Miracles to be one of your Humane Means. Preaching and Admonitions, say you, are not sufficient to bring Men into the right way, something else is necessary, Yes, the Grace of God; no, say you, that will not do, it is not Humane Means: 'tis necessary to have other Humane Means, therefore in the three or four First Centuries after Christianity, the insufficiency of Preaching and Admonitions was made up with Miracles, and thus the necessity of other Humane Means is made good. But to consider a little further your Miracles as supplying the want of Force.

The Question between us here is, whether the Christian Religion did not prevail in the first Ages of the Church, by its own [261] Beauty, Force and Reasonableness, without the Assistance of Force? I say it did, and therefore external Force is not necessary. To this you reply, that it cannot prevail by its own Light, and P. 7. Strength, without the Assistance either of Miracles, or of Authority; and therefore the Christian Reli [...]ion not being still accompanied with Miracles, Force is now necessary. So that to make your equivalent of Miracles correspond with your necessary Means of Force, you seem to require an actual application of Miracles, or of Force, to prevail with Men to receive the Gospel, i. e. Men could not be prevailed with to receive the Gospel without actually seeing of Miracles. For when you tell us, that you are sure I P. 6. cannot say the Christian Religion is still accompanied with Miracles, as it was at its first planting; I hope you do not mean that the Gospel is not still accompanied, with an undoubted testimony, that Miracles were done by the first publishers of it, which was as much of Miracles; as I suppose the greatest part of those had, with whom the Christian Religion prevailed, till it was supported and incouraged, as you tell us, by the Laws of the Empire: For I think P. 27. you will not say, or if you should, you could not expect to be believed, that all, or the greatest part of those, that imbraced the Christian Religion, before it was supported by the Laws of the Empire, which was not till the Fourth Century, had actually Miracles done before them, to work upon them. And all those, who were not Eye-witnesses of Miracles done in their Presence, 'tis plain had no other Miracles, than we have, that is upon report; and 'tis probable not so many, nor so well attested as we have. The greatest part then of those who were converted; at least, in some of those Ages, before Christianity was supported by the Laws of the Empire, I think you must allow, were wrought upon by bare preaching, and such Miracles as we still have, Miracles at a distance, related Miracles. In others, and those the greater number, Prejudice was not [...] moved, that they were prevailed on to consider, to consider as they ought, i. e. in your Language, to consider so as to imbrace. If they had not so considered in our Days, what, according to your Scheme, must have been done to them, that did not consider as they ought? Force must have been applied to them, what therefore in the Primitive Church was to be done to them? Why! your [...] Miracles, actual Miracles, such as you deny the Christian Religion to be still accompanied with, must have been doncin their presence, to work upon them. Will you say [262] this was [...] and [...] a new Church-History for us, and out do those Writers, who have been thought pretty liberal of Miracles If you do not, you must consess Miracles supplied not the place of Force, and so let fall all your fine Contrivance about the necessity either of Force or Miracles; and perhaps you will think it at last a more becoming Modesty, not to set the Divine Power and Providonce on work, by Rules, and for the ends of your Hypothesis, without having any thing in Authentick History, much less in Divine and unerring Revelation to justify you. But Force and Power deserve something more than ordinary and allowable Arts or Arguments, to get and keep them: Si violandum sit jus regnandi causa violandum cst.

If the Testimony, of Miracles having been done, wore sufficient to make the Gospel prevail, without Force, on those, who were not Eye-Witnesses of them, we have that still, and so upon that account need not Force to supply the want of it: But if Truth must have either the Law of the Country, or actual Miracles to support it, what became of it after the Reign of Constantine the Great, under all those Emperors, that were erroneous or Heretical? It supported it self in Piedmont, and France, and Turky, many Ages without Force or Miracles: And it spread it self in divers Nations and Kingdoms of the North and East, without any Force or other Miracles, than those, that were done many Ages before. So that, I think, you will, upon second thoughts, not deny, but that the true Religion is able to prevail now, as it did at first, and has done since in many places, without assistance from the Powers in being, by its own Beauty, Force, and Reasonableness, whereof well-attested Miraclesis a part.

But the account you give us of Miracles will deserve to be a little examined; we have it in these Words, Considering that those P. 37.extraordinary Means were not withdrawn, till by their help Christianity had prcvail'd to be received for the Religion of the Empire, and to be supported and incouraged by the Laws of it, you cannot you say but think it highly probable, (if we may be allow'd to guess at the Counsels of infinite Wisdom) that God was pleased to continue them till then, not so much for any necessity there was of them all that while, for the evincing the Truth of the Christian Religion, as to supply the want of the Magistrate's Assistance. Miracles then, if what you say be true, were continued till Christianity was received for the Religion of the Empire, not so much to evince the Truth of the Christian Religion, as to supply [263] the want of the Magistrate's Assistance. But in this the Leanned Author, whose Testimony you quote, f [...]ils you. For the tells Dodwell. Dissertar. in [...]. Diss. 2. you that the chief use of Miracles in the Church, after the Truth of the Christian Religion had been sufficiently consirmed by them in the World, was to oppose the salse and pretended Miracles of Hereticks and Heathens; and answerable hereunto Miracles ceased and returned again, as such oppositions made them more or less necessary. Accordingly Miracles which before had abated in Trajan's and Hadrian's time, which was in the latter end of the First, or beginning of the Second Century, did again revive to confound the Magical Delusions of the Hereticks of that time. And in the third Century the Hereticks using no such Tricks, and the Faith being consirm'd, they by dearees ceased, of which there then, he says, could be no imaginable necissity. His Words are, ‘Et quidem [...]o minus necessaria Sect. LXV. sunt pro veterum Principiis, recentiora illa Miracula, quod Haereticos (quos appellant) nullos adversarios habeant, qui contraria illis dogmata astruant Miraculis. Sic enim vidimus, apud veteres, dum nulli Ecclesiam exercerent Adversarii, seu Haretici, seu Gentiles; aut satis illi praeteritis Miraculis [...]; ant nullas ipsi praestigias opponerent quae veris essent Miraculis oppugnandae; [...] deinde paulatim esse mirificam illam spiritus virtutem. Ortos sub Trajano Hadrianoque Haereticos [...] praestigiis Magicis fuisse usos, & proinde Miraculorum verorum in Ecclesia usum una REVIXISSE. Ne dicam praestigiatores etiam Gentiles eodem illo seculo sane frequentissimos, Apuleium in Africa, in Asia, Alexandrum, Pseudomantim, multosque alios quorum meminit Aristides. Tertio seculo orto Haeretici Herniogenes, Praxeas, Noetus, Theodotus, Sabellius, Novatianus, Artemas, Samosatenus, nulla, [...] videtur, Miracula ipsi venditabant, nullis propterea Miraculis oppugnandi. Inde vidimus, apud ipsos etiam Catholicos, sensim defecisse Miracula. Et quidem, Haereticis nulla in contrarium Miracula ostentantibus, quae tandem singi potest miraculorum necessitas traditam ab initio fidem, Miraculisque adeo jamdudum confirmatam praedicantibus? Nulla certe prorsus pro Primaevo Miraculorum exemplo. Nulla denique consciis vere Primaevam esse fidem quam novis Miraculis suscipiunt confirmandam.’

[264]

The History therefore you have from him of Miracles, serves for his Hypothesis, but not at all for yours. For if they were continued to supply the want of Force, which was to deal with the Corruption of depraved Humane Nature, that being without any great variation in the World, constantly the same, there could be no reason why they should abate and fail, and then return and revive again. So that there being then, as you suppose, no necessity of Miracles for any other end, but to supply the want of the Magistrate's Assistance, they must, to sute that end, be constant and regularly the same, as you would have Force to be, which is steadily and uninterruptedly to be applied, as a constantly necessary Remedy, to the corrupt Nature of Mankind.

If you allow the Learned Dodwell's Reasons, for the continuation of Miracles, till the Fourth Century, your Hypothesis, that they were continued to supply the Magistrate's Assistance, will be only precarious. For if there was need of Miracles till that time to other purposes, the continuation of them in the Church, though you could prove them to be, as frequent and certain, as those of our Saviour, and the Apostles, it would not advantage your cause: since it would be no evidence, that they were used for that end, which as long as there were other visible uses of them, you could not, without Revelation, assure us were made use of by Divine Providence to supply the want of the Magistrate's Assistance. You must therefore confute his Hypothesis, before you can make any advantage of what he says, concerning the continuation of Miracles, for the establishing of yours. For till you can shew, that that which he assigns was not the end, for which they were continued in the Church; the utmost you can say, [...]is, that it may be imagined, that one reason of their continuation was to supply the want of the Magistrate's Assistance: But what you can without proof imagine possible, I hope you do not expect should be received as an unquestionable proof, that it [...]as so. I can imagin it possible they were not continued for that end, and one Imagination will be as good a proof as another.

To do your Modesty right therefore, I must allow, that you do faintly offer at some kind of reason, to prove that Miracles were continued to supply the want of the Magistrate's Assistance: And since God has no where declared, that it was for that end, you would perswade us in this Paragraph, that it was so, by two [265] Reasons. One is, that the Truth of the Christian Religion being sufficiently evinced by the Miracles done by our Saviour and his Apostles, and perhaps their immediate Successors, there was no other need of Miracles to be continued till the Fourth Century, and therefore they were used by God to supply the want of the Magistrate's Assistance. This I take to be the meaning of these Words of yours, I cannot but think it highly probable that God was pleased to continue them till then, not so much for any necessity there was of them all that while for the evincing the Truth of the Christian Religion, as to supply the want of the Magistrate's Assistance. Whereby, I suppose, you do not barely intend to tell the World what is your opinion in the case, but use this as an Argument, to make it probable to others, that this was the end for which Miracles were continued, which at best will be but a very doubtful Probability to build such a bold Assertion on, as this of yours is, viz. That the Christian Religion is not able to subsist and pre [...]ail in the World, by its own Light and Strength, without the assistance either of Force, or actual Miracles. And therefore you must either produce a Declaration from Heaven that authorizes you to say, that Miracles were used to supply the want of Force, or shew that there was no other use of them but this. For if any other use can be assigned of them, as long as they continued in the Church, one may safely deny, that they were to supply the want of Force: and it will lie upon you to prove it by some other way than by saying you think it highly probable. For I suppose you do not expect that your thinking any thing highly probable, should be a sufficient Reason for others to acquiesce in. When perhaps, the History of Miracles considered, no Body could bring himself to say he thought it probable, but one whose Hypothesis stood in need of such a poor support.

The other Reason you seem to build on is this, That when Christianity was received for the Religion of the Empire, Miracles ceased; because there was then no longer any need of them: which I take to be the Argument infinuated in these Words, Considering that those extraordinary means were not withdrawn, till by P. 37. their help Christianity had prevailed to be received for the Religion of the Empire. If then you can make it appear that Miracles lasted till Christianity was received for the Religion of the Empire, without any other Reason for their continuation, but to supply the wants of the Magistrate's Assistance; and that they ceased as soon as the [266] Magistrates became Christian: Your Argument will have some kind of probability, that within the Roman Empire this was the method God used for the propagating the Christian Religion. But it will not serve to make good your Position, That the Christian Religion cannot subsist and prevail by its own Strength and Light, without the assistance of Miracles or Authority, unless you can shew, that God made use of Miracles, to introduce and support it in other parts of the World, not subject to the Roman Empire, till the Magistrates there also became Christians. For the corruption of Nature being the same without, as within the Bounds of the Roman Empire; Miracles, upon your Hypothesis, were as necessary to supply the want of the Magistrate's Assistance in other Countries as in the Roman Empire. For I do not think you will find the Civil Sovereigns were the first converted in all those Countries, where the Christian Religion was planted after Constantine's Reign: And in all those it will be necessary for you to shew us the Assistance of Miracles.

But let us see how much your Hypothesis is favoured by Church-History. If the Writings of the Fathers of greatest Name and Credit are to be believed, Miracles were not withdrawn when Christianity had prevail'd to be received for the Religion of the Empire. Athanasius, the great Defender of the Catholick Orthodoxy, writ the Life of his Contemporary St. Anthony, full of Miracles; which though some have question'd, yet the Learned Dodwell allows to be writ by Athanasius: and the Stile evinces it to be his, which is also confirmed by other Ecclesiastical Writers.

Palladius tells us, That Ammon did many Miracles: But that particularly St. Athanasius related in the Life of Anthony, That Ammon going with some Monks, Anthony had sent to him; when they came to the River Lycus, which they were to pass, was afraid to strip for fear of seeing himself naked; and whilst he was in dispute of this matter, he was taken up, and in an extasy carry'd over by an Angel, the rest of the Monks swimming the River. When he came to Anthony, Anthony told him he had sent for him, because God had revealed many things to him concerning him, and particularly his Translation. And when Ammon died, in his retirement, Anthony saw his Soul carried into Heaven by Angels. Palladius in vita Ammonis.

Socrates tells us, That Anthony saw the Soul of Ammon taken [...] 3. up by Angels, as Athanasius writes in the Life of Anthony.

[267]

And again, says he, It seems supersluous for me to relate the many Miracles Anthony did, how he fought openly with Devils, discovering all [...]heir Tricks and Cheats: For Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria has prevented me on that Subject, having writ a Book [...]. l. 1. c. 21. particularly of his Life.

Anthony was thought worthy of the Vision of God, and led a Life perfectly conformable to the Laws of Christ. This whoever reads the Book, wherein is contain'd the History of his Life, will easily know; wherein he will also see Prophecy shining out: For he prophesied very clearly of those who were infected with the Arian Contagion, and foretold what Mischief from them was threatned to the Churches, God truly reuealing all these things to him, which is certainly the principal evidence of the Catholick Faith. No such Man being to be found amongst the Hereticks. But do not take this upon my Word, but read and study the Book it self.

This Account you have from St. Chrysostom, whom Mr. Dodwell Chrysost. Hom. 8. in Mat. 2. calls the Contemner of Fables.

St. Hierom, in his Treatise De Viro Perfecto, speaks of the frequency of Miracles done in his time, as a thing past question: Besides those, not a few which he has left upon record, in the Lives of Hilarion and Paul, two Monks, whose Lives he has writ. And he that has a mind to see the plenty of Miracles of this kind, need but read the Collection of the Lives of the Fathers, made by Rosweydus.

Russin tells us, That Athanasius lodg'd the Bones of St. John Baptist in the Wall of the Church, knowing by the Spirit of Prophecy, the good they were to do to the next Generation: And of what Efficacy and Use they were, may be concluded from the Church with the golden Roof, built to them soon after, in the place of the Temple of Serapis.

St. Austin tells us, That he knew a blind Man restor'd to sight C [...]cum illuminatum fuisse jam noveram. Necea quae cognoscimus, enumerare possumus. Aug. Retract. l. 1. c. 13. by the Bodies of the Millan Martyrs, and some other such things; of which kind, there were so many done in that time, that many scaped his Knowledg; and those which he knew, were more than he could number. More of this you may see Epist. 137.

He further assures us, that by the simple Reliques of St. Stephen, a blind Woman receiv'd her Sight. Lucullus was cured of an old Fistula; Eucharius of the Stone; Three Gouty Men recovered; A Lad kill'd with a C art-wheel going over him, restor'd to Life safe and sound, as if he had received no hurt: A Nun lying at the point of [268] Death, they sent ber Coat to the Shrine, but she dying before it was brought back, was restor'd to Life by its being laid on her dead Body. The like happened at Hippo to the Daughter of BASSUS; and two others, whose Names he sets down, were by the same Reliques raised from the dead.

After these and other Particulars there set down, of Miracles done in his time by those Reliques of St. Stephen, the holy Father goes on thus; What shall I do? pressed by my Promise of dispatching this Work, I cannot here set down all: And without doubt Que uti (que) mecum [...]iunt. many, when they shall read, his, will be troubled that I have omitted so many Particulars, which they truly know as well as I. For if I should, [...]assing by the rest, [...] only the miraculous Cures which have been wrought by this most glorious Martyr Stephen, in the Colony of [...] dati sunt. Cum videremus antiquis [...] divinarum signa [...] etiam nostris [...] frequentari. Aug. de Civ. [...] I. [...] 8. Calama, and this of ours, I should fill many Books, and yet should not take in all of them: But only of those of which there are Collections published, which are read to the People: For this I took care should be done, when I saw that Signs of divine Power, like those of old, were FREQUENT also in our Times. It is not now two Years since that Shrine has been at Hippo: And many of the Books (which I certainly knew to be so) not being published, those which are published concerning those miraculous Operations, amounted to near fifty when I writ this. But at Calama, where this Shrine was before, there are more published, and their number is incomparably greater. At Uzal also a Colony, and near Utica, we know many famous Things to have been done by the same Martyr.

Two of those Books he mentions, are printed in the Appendix of the X [...] Tome of St. Austin's Works of Plantius Edit. One of them contains two Miracles, the other, as I remember, about seventeen. So that at Hippo alone, in two Years time, we may count, besides those omitted, there were published above 600 Miracles, and, as he says, incomparably more at Calama: besides what were done by other Reliques of the same St. Stephen in other parts of the World, which cannot be suppos'd to have had less virtue than those sent to this part of Africa. For the Reliques of St. Stephen, discovered by the Dream of a Monk, were divided and sent into distant Countries, and there distributed to several Churches.

These may suffice to shew, that if the Fathers of the Church of great it Name and Authority are to be believed, Miracles were not withdrawn, but continued down to the latter end of [269] the 4^th Century, long after Christianity had prevailed to be received for the Religion of the Empire.

But if these Testimonies of Athanas [...], Chrysostom, Palladius, Russin, St. Hierom, and St. Austin, will not serve your turn, you may find much more to this purpose in the same Authors; and if you please, you may consult also St. Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nazianzen, St. Ambrose, St. Hilary, Theodoret, and others.

This being so, you must either deny the Authority of these Fathers, or grant that Miracles continued in the Church after Christianity was received for the Religion of the Empire: and then they could not be to supply the want of the Magistrate's Assistance, unless they were to supply the want of what was not wanting; and therefore they were continued for some other end. Which end of the Continuation of Miracles, when you are so far instructed in, as to be able to assure us, that it was different from that for which God made use of them in the 2d and 3d Centuries: when you are so far admitted into the Secrets of Divine Providence, as to be able to convince the World that the Miracles between the Apostles and Constantine's Time, or any other Period you shall pitch on, were to supply the want of the Magistrate's Assistance, and those after, for some other purpose, what you say may deserve to be consider'd. Till you do this, you will only shew the Liberty you take, to assert with great Confidence, though without any ground, whatever will sute your System; and that you do not stick to make bold with the Counsels of infinite Wisdom, to make them subservient to your Hypothesis.

And so I leave you to dispose of the Credit of Ecclesiastical Writers, as you shall think fit; and by your Authority, to establish or invalidate theirs as you please. But this, I think, is evident, that he who will build his Faith or Reasonings upon Miracles delivered by Church-Historians, wi [...] find cause to go no farther than the Apostles time, or else not to stop at Constantine's: since the Writers after that period, whose Word we readily take as unquestionable in other things, speak of Miracles in their time with no less Assurance, than the Fathers before the 4^th Century; and a great part of the Miracles of the 2d and 3d Centuries stand upon the Credit of the Writers of the 4^th. So that that sort of Argument which takes and rejects the Testimony of the Ancients at pleasure, as may best sute with it, will [270] not have much force with those, who are not disposed to imbrace the Hypothesis, without any Arguments at all.

You grant, That the True Religion has always Light and Strength P. 7. of its own, i. e. without the Assistance of Force or Miracles, sufficient to prevail with all that consider it seriously, and without Prejudice: That therefore, for which the Assistance of Force is wanting, is to make Men consider seriously, and without Prejudice. Now whether the Miracles, that we have still, Miracles done by Christ and his Apostles, attested, as they are, by undeniable History, be not fitter to deal with Mens Prejudices, than Force, and than Force which requires nothing but outward Conformity, I leave the World to judg. All the Assistance the true Religion needs from Authority, is only a Liberty for it, to be truly taught; but it has seldom had that, from the Powers in being, in its first entry into their Dominions, since the withdrawing of Miracles: And yet I desire you to tell me, into what Country the Gospel, accompanied (as now it is) only with past Miracles, hath been brought by the Preaching of Men, who have labour'd in it after the Example of the Apostles, where it did not so prevail over Mens Prejudices, that as many as were ordain'd to eternal Life, consider'd and believ'd it. Which, as you may see, A [...]t. XIII. 48. was all the Advance it made, even when assisted with the Gift of Miracles: For neither then were all, or the majority wrought on to consider, and embrace it.

But yet the Gespel cannot prevail by its own Light and Strength; and therefore Miracles were to supply the place of Force. How was Force used? A Law being made, there was a continued Application of Punishment to all those, whom it brought not to imbrace the Doctrine proposed. Were Miracles so used till Force took place? For this, we shall want more new Church-History, and I think contrary to what we read in that part of it which is unquestionable; I mean in the Acts of the Apostles, where we shall find, that the then Promulgators of the Gospel, when they had preach'd, and done what Miracles the Spirit of God directed, if they prevail'd not, they often left them: Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the Word of Acts XIII. 46. Ver. 51. God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing you put it from you, and judg your selves unworthy, we turn to the Gentiles. They shook off the Dust of their Feet against them, and came unto Iconium. Acts XIX. 9. But when divers were hardned, and believed not, but spake evil of [271] that way, before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the Disciples. Paul was pressed in Spirit, and testisied to the Jews Acts VIII. 6. that Jesus was Christ; and when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his Raiment, and said unto them, Your Blood be upon your own heads, I am clean, from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles. Did the Christian Magistrates ever do so, who thought it necessary to support the Christian Religion by Laws? Did they ever, when they had a while punish'd those, whom Perswasions and Preaching had not prevail'd on, give off, and leave them to themselves, and make trial of their Punishment upon others? Or is this your way of Force and Punishment? If it be not, your's is not what Miracles came to supply the room of, and so is not necessary. For you tell us, they are punish'd to make them consider, and they can never be suppos'd to consider as they ought, whilst they persist in rejecting; and therefore, they are justly punish'd P. 24, 25. to make them so consider: So that not so considering, being the Fault for which they are punish'd, and the Amendment of that Fault the end which is design'd to be attain'd by punishing, the Punishment must continue. But Men were not always heat upon with Miracles. To this, perhaps you will reply, that the seeing of a Miracle or two, or half a dozen, was sufficient to procure a hearing; but that being punish'd once or twice, or half a dozen times, is not; for you tell us, the Power P. 36. of Miracles communicated to the Apostles, served altogether, as well as Punishment, to procure them a hearing: Where, if you mean by Hearing, only Attention, who doubts but Punishment may also procure that? if you mean by Hearing, receiving and imbracing, what is propos'd, that even Miracles themselves did not effect upon all Eye-witnesses. Why then, I beseech you, if one be to supply the place of the other, is one to be continued on those who do reject, when the other was never long continued, nor, as I think, we may safely say, often repeated to those, who persisted in their former Perswasions?

After all therefore, may not one justly doubt, whether Miracles supplied the place of Punishment; nay, whether you your self, if you be true to your own Principles, can think so? You tell us, that not to join themselves to the True Church, where sufficient Evidence is offered to convince Men that it is so, is a Fault that P. 25. it cannot be unjust to punish. Let me ask you now; Did the Apostles, by their Preaching and Miracles, offer sufficient Evidence [272] to convince Men that the Church of Christ was the True Church; or, which is, in this case, the same thing, that the Doctrine they preach'd was the True Religion? If they did, were not those, who persisted in Unbelief, guilty of a Fault? And if some of the Miracles done in those days, should now be repeated, and yet Men should not imbrace the Doctrine, or join themselves to the Church which those Miracles accompanied, would you not think them guilty of a Fault, which the Magistrate might justly, nay, ought to punish? If you would answer truly and sincerely to this Question, I doubt you would think your beloved Punishments necessary notwithstanding Miracles, there being no other [...]umane Means left. I do not make this Judgment of you, from any ill Opinion I have of your good Nature, but it is consonant to your Principles: For if not Professing the True Religion, where sufficient evidence is offer'd by bare Preaching, be a Fault, and a Eault jus [...]y to be punish'd by the Magistrate, you will certainly think it much more his Duty to punish a greater Fault, as you must allow it is, to reject Truth propos'd with, Arguments and Miracles, than with bare Arguments: Since you tell us, that the P. 77. Magistrate is obliged to procure, as much as in him lies, that every Man take care of his own Soul, i. e. consider as he ought; which no Man can be suppos'd to do, whilst he persists in rejecting: As you tell us, pag. 24.

Miracles, say you, supplied the want of Force, till by their help Christianity had prevailed to be received for the Religion of the Empire. Not that the Magistrates had not as much Commission then, from the Law of Nature, to use Force, for promoting the true Religion, as since: But because the Magistrates then, not being of the true Religion, did not afford it the assistance of their Political Power. If this be so, and there be a necessity either of Force or Miracles, will there not be the same Reason for [...] ever since, even to this Day, and so on to the end of the World, in all those Countries where the Magistrate is not of the true Religion? Unless (as you urge it) you will say (what [...]. p. 16. without Impiety cannot be said) that the wise and benign Disposer of all things, has not furnished Mankind with competent means for the promoting his own Honour in the World, and the good of Souls.

But to put an end to your pretence to Miracles, as supplying the place of Force. Let me ask you, whether since the withdrawing of Miracles, your moderate degree of Force has been [273] made use of, for the support of the Christian Religion? if not, then Miracles were not made use of to supply the want of Force, unless it were for the supply of such Force as Christianity never had, which is for the supply of just no Force at all; or else for the supply of the Severities which have been in use amongst Christians, which is worse than none at all. Force, you say, is necessary: what Force? not Eire and Sword, not loss of E [...]ates not maiming with Corporal Punishments, not st [...]ving and tormenting in [...] Prisons: those you condemn. Not Compulsion: these Severities, you say, are apter to hinder, than promote the true Religion; but moderate lower Penalties, tolerable Inconveniencies, such as should a little disturb and disease Men. This assistance not being to be had from the Magistrates, in the First Ages of Christianity, Miracles, say you, were continued till Christianity became the Religion of the Empire, not so much for any necessity there was of them, all that while, for the ev [...]ncing the Truth of the Christian R [...]ligion, as to supply the want of the Magistrate's Assistance. For the true Religion not being able to support it self by its own Light, and Strength, without the assistance either of Miracles, or of Authority, there was a necessity of the one or the other; and therefore, whilst the Powers in being assisted not with necessary Force, Miracles supplied that want. Miracles, then being to supply necessary Force, and necessary Force being only lower moderate Penalties, some Inconveni [...]ncies, such as only disturb and disease a little. If you cannot shew that in all Countries, where the Magistrates have been Christian, they have assisted with such Force, 'tis plain t [...]at Miracles supplied not the want of necessary Force; unless to supply the want of your necessary Force, for a time, were to supply the want of an Assistance, which true Religion had not upon the withdrawing of Miracles, and I think I may say, was never thought on by any Authority, in any Age or Country, till you now, above 1300 Years after, made this happy discovery. Nay, Sir, since the true Religion, as you tell us cannot prevail or subsist without, Miracles or Authority, i. e. your moderate Force; it must necessarily follow, that the Christian Religion has, in all Ages and Countries, been accompanied either with actual Miracles, or such Force: which, whether it be so or no, I leave you and all sober Men to consider. When you can shew, that it has been so, we shall have reason to be satis [...] with your bold Assertion: That the Christian Religion, as delivered in the New Testament, [274] cannot prevail by its own Light, and Strength, without the assistance of your moderate Penalties, or of actual Miracles accompanying it. But if ever since the withdrawing of Miracles in all Christian Countries, where Force has been thought necessary by the Magistrate to support the National, or (as every where it is called) the true Religion, those Severities have been made use of, which you (for a good Reason) condemn, as apter to hinder, than promote the true Religion; 'tis plain that Miracles supplied the want of such an Assistance from the Magistrate, as was apter to binder, than promote the true Religion. And your substituting of Miracles, to supply the want of moderate Force, will shew nothing, for your Cause, but the zeal of a Man so sond of Force, that he will without any warrant from Scripture, enter into the Counsels of the Almighty; and without authority from History, talk of Miracles, and Political Anministrations, as may best sute his System.

To my saying, a Religion that is from God, wants not the assistance of Humane Authority to make it prevail; you answer, This is not simply nor always true. Indeed when God takes the matter P. 8. wholly into his own Hands, as he does at his first revealing any Religion, there can be no need of any assistance of Humane Authority: but when God has once sufficiently settled his Religion in the World, so that if Men from thenceforth will do what [...]ey may and ought, in their several Capacities, to preserve and propagate it, it may [...] and prevail without that extraordinary Assistance from him, which was necessary for its first establishment. By this Rule of yours, how long was there need of Miracles to make Christianity subsist and prevail? If you will keep to it, you will find there was no need of Miracles, after the promulgation of the Gospel by Christ and his Apostles; for I ask you, was it not then so sufficiently settled in the World, that if Men would from thenceforth have done what they might and ought, in their several Capacities, it would have subsisted and prevailed without that extraordinary assistance of Miracles? unless you will on this occasion retract what you say in other places, viz. that it is a Fault not to receive the true Religion, where sufficient evidence is offered to convince Men that it is so. If then from the times of the Apostles, the Christian Religion has had sufficient evidence, that it is the true Religion, and Men did their Duty, i. e. receive it, it would certainly have subsisted and prevailed, even from the Apostles Times, without [275] that extraordinary Assistance, and then Miracles after that were not necessary.

But perhaps you will say, that by Men in their several Capacities, you mean the Magistrates. A pretty way of speaking, proper to you alone: But even in that Sense, it will not serve your turn. For then there will be need of Miracles, not only in the time you propose, but in all times after. For if the Magistrate, who is as much subject as other Men to that Corruption of Humane Nature, by which you tell us False Religions prevall against the True, should not do what he may and ought, so as to be of the true Religion, as 'tis the odds he will not, what then will become of the true Religion, which according to you cannot subsist or prevail without either the Assistance of Miracles or Authority? Subjects cannot have the Assistance of Authority, where the Magistrate is not of the true Religion; and the Magistrate wanting the assistance of Authority to bring him to the true Religion, that want must be still supplied with Miracles, or else, according to your Hypothesis, all must go to wrack; and the True Religion, that cannot subsist by its own Strength and Light, must be lost in the World. For I presume you are scarce yet such an Adorer of the Powers of the World, as to say, that Magistrates are privileged from that common Corruption of Mankind, whose opposition to the true Religion you suppose cannot be overcome, without the assistance of Miracles or Force. The Flock will stray, unless the Bell-weather conduct them right; the Bell-weather himself will stray, unless the Shepherd's Crook and Staff (which he has as much need of as any Sheep of the Flock) keep him right. Ergo, The whole Flock will stray, unless the Bell-weather have that assistance which is necessary to conduct him right. The Case is the same here. So that by your own Rule, either there was no need of Miracles to supply the want of Force, after the Apostles time, or there is need of them still.

But your Answer, when looked into, has something in it more excellent. I say, a Religion that is of God, wants not the assistance of Humane Authority to make it prevail. You answer, True, when God takes the matter into his own Hands. But when once P. 8. he has sufficiently settled Religion, so that if Men will but do what they may and ought, it may subsist without that extraordinary assistance from Heaven; then he leaves it to their Care. Where you suppose, [276] if Men will do their Duties in their several Capacities, true Religion, being once establish'd, may subsist without Miracles. And is it not as true, that if they will, in their several Capacities, do what they may and ought, true Religion will also subsist without Force? But you are sure Magistrates will do what they may and ought, to preserve and propagate the true Religion, but Subjects will not. If you are not, you must bethink your self how to answer that old Question,

—Sed quis custodiet ipsos
Custodes?—

To my having said, that prevailing without the assistance of Force, I thought was made use of as an Argument for the Truth of Christian Religion. You reply, that you hope I am mistaken, for sure this is a very bad Argument, That the Christian Religion, P. 6. so contrary in the [...] of is, as well to Elesh and Blood, as to the Powers of Darkness, should prevail as it did; and that not only without any assistance from Authority, but even in spight of all the opposition which Authority and a wicked World, joined with those infernal Powers, could make against it. This I acknowledg has deservedly been insisted upon by Christians as a very good proof of their Religion. But to argue the Truth of the Christian Religion, from its [...]eer prevailing in the World, without any aid from Force, or the assistance of the Powers in being; as is whatever Religion should so prevail, must needs be the true Religion, (whatever may be intended) is really not to desend the Christian Religion, but to be [...]ray it. How you have mended the Argument by putting in [...]eer, which is not any where used by me, I will not examine. The Question is, whether the Christian Religion, such as it was then, (for I know not any other Christian Religion) and is still contrary to the Flesh and Blood, and to the Powers of Darkness, prevail'd not without the assistance of Humane Force, by those aids it has still? This, I think, you will not deny to be an Argument used for its Truth by Christians, and some of our Church. How far any one in the use of this Argument, pleases or displeases you, I am not concern'd. All the use I made of it was to shew, that it is confessed that the Christian Religion did prevail, without that Humane Means of the coactive Power of the Magistrate, which you assumed to be necessary; and this, I think, makes good the [277] Experiment I brought. Nor will your seeking, your way, a Refuge, in Miracles, help you to evade it; as I have already shewn.

But you give a Reason for what you say, in these following words; For neither does the True Religion always prevail without P. 6. the Assistance of the Powers in being; nor is that always the True Religion, which does so spread and prevail. Those who use the Argument of its prevailing without Force, for the Truth of the Christian Religion, 'tis like will tell you, that, if it be true, as you say, that the Christian Religion (which at other times does) some-times does not prevail without the Assistance of the Powers in being, it is, because when it fails, it wants the due Assistance and Diligence of the Ministers of it. How shall they hear without a Preacher? How shall the Gospel be spread and prevail, if those who take on them to be the Ministers and Preachers of it, either neglect to teach it others as they ought, or confirm it not by their Lives? If therefore you will make this Argument of any use to you, you must shew, where it was, that the Ministers of the Gospel, doing their Duty by the Purity of their Lives, and their interrupted Labour, in being instant in season and out of season, have not been able to make it prevail. An Instance of this, 'tis believed you will scarco find: And if this be the case, that it fails not to prevail where those, whose Charge it is, neglect not to teach and spread it with that Care, Assiduity, and Application which they ought, you may hereafter know where to lay the blame; Not on the Want of sufficient Light and Strength in the Gospel to prevail, (wherein methinks, you make very bold with it) but on the want of what the Apostle requires in the Ministers of it; some part whereof, you may read in these Words to Timothy; But thou, O Man of God, follow after Righteousness, Godliness, Faith, Love, Patience, Meekness: Give Attendance to Reading, to Exhortation, to Doctrine, preach the Word, be instant in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all Long-suffering and Doctrine: And more to this purpose in his Epistles to Timothy and Titus.

That the Christian Religion has prevail'd, and supported it self in the World now above these 1600 Years, you must grant, and that it has not been by Force, is Demonstration. For where-ever the Christian Religion prevail'd, it did it, as far as we know any thing of the means of its Propagation and Support, [278] without the help of that Force, moderate Force, which you say, is alone useful and necessary. So that if the Severities you condemn, be, as you confess, apter to hinder than promote the Gospel, and it has no where had the Assistance of your moderate Penalties, it must follow, that it prevail'd without Force, only by its own Strength and Light, displaid and brought home to the Understandings and Hearts of the People, by the Preaching, Intreaties and Exhortations of its Ministers. This at least you must grant, that Force can be by no means necessary to make the Gospel prevail any where, till the utmost has been tried that can be done by Arguments and Exhortations, Prayers and Intreaties, and all the friendly Ways of Perswasion.

As to the other part of your Assertion, Nor is that always the True Religion, that does so spread and prevail. 'Tis like they will demand Instances of you, where False Religions ever prevail'd against the Gospel, without the assistance of Force on the one side, or the betraying of it by the Negligence and Carelesness of its Teachers on the other? So that if the Gospel any where wants the Magistrate's Assistance, it is only to make the Ministers of it do their Duty. I have heard of those, and possibly there are Instances of it now not wanting, who by their pious Lives, peaceable and friendly Carriage, and diligent Application to the several Conditions and Capacities of their Parishioners, and screening them as much as they could from the Penalties of the Law, have in a short time scarce left a Dissenter in a Parish; where, notwithstanding the Force had been before used, they scarce found any other. But how far this has recommended such Ministers to those who ought to incourage or follow the Example, I wish you would inform your self, and then tell me. But who sees not that a Justice of Peace's Warrant Vid. Pastoral Care, pag. 202. is a shorter, and much easier way for the Minister, than all this [...]do of instruction, Debates, and particular Application. Whether it be also more Christian, or more effectual to make real Converts, others may be apt to enquire. This, I am sure, it is not justifiable (even by your very Principles) to be used till the other has been throughly tried.

But if there be any thing in the Argument for the Truth of Christianity, (as God forbid there should not) that it has, and consequently can prevail without Force, I think it can scarce be [...] in matter of Fact, that False Religions do also prevail against [279] the Christian Religion, when they come upon equal Terms in Competition; and as much Diligence and Industry is used by the Teachers of it, as by Seducers to False Religions, the Magistrate using his Force on neither side. For if in this case, which is the fair trial, Christianity can prevail, and False Religions too, 'tis possible Contrarieties may prevail against one another both together. To make good therefore your Assertion, you must shew us, where-ever any other Religion so spread and prevail'd, as to drive Christianity out of any Country without Force, where the Ministers of it did their Duty to teach, adorn and support it.

As to the following words, Nor is that always the True Religion P. 6. which does so spread and prevail; as I doubt not but you will acknowledg with me, when you have but consider'd within how few Generations after the Flood, the Worship of false Gods prevail'd against that which Noah professed and taught his Children, which was undoubtedly the True Religion, almost to the utter Exclusion of it, (though that at first was the only Religion in the World) without any aid from Force, or assistance from the Powers in being. This will need something more than a negative Proof, as we shall see by and by.

Where I say, ‘The Inventions of Men need the Force and L. 2. p. 3. Help of Men: A Religion that is from God, wants not the assistance of humane Authority.’ The first part of those Words you take no notice of; neither grant nor deny it to be so, though perhaps it will prove a great part of the Controversy between us.

To my Question, Whether if such a Toleration as is propos'd by the Author of the First Letter, were establish'd in France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, &c. the True Religion would not P. 8. be a gainer by it? You answer, That the True Religion would be a loser by it in those few Places where it is now establish'd as the National Religion; and particularly, you name England. It is then, it seems, by your way of moderate Force and lower Penalties, that in all Countries where it is National, the True Religion hath prevail'd and subsists. For the Controversy is between the Author's universal Toleration, and your new Way of Force; for greater degrees of Force, you condemn as hurtful. Say then that in England, and where-ever the True Religion is National, it has been beholden to your Force for the Advantages and Support it has had, and I will yeild you the Cause. But of National Re [280] ligions, and particularly that of England, I have occasion to speak more in another place.

In the next place you answer, That you suppose I do not hope P. 9. I shall perswade the World to consent to my Toleration. I think by your Logick, a Proposition is not less true or false, because the World will or will not be perswaded to consent to it. And therefore, though it will not consent to a general Toleration, it may nevertheless be true that it would be advantageous to the True Religion: and if no body must speak Truth till he thinks all the World will be perswaded by it, you must have a very good Opinion of your Oratory, or else you will have a very good Excuse to turn your Parsonage, when you have one, into a sine-Cure. But though I have not so good an Opinion of my Gift of Perswasion, as perhaps you have of yours; yet I think I may without any great Presumption hope, that I may as soon perswade England, the World, or any Government in it, to consent to my Toleration, as you perswade it to content it self with moderate Penalties.

You farther answer, If such a Toleration, establish'd there, would permit the Doctrine of the Church of England to be truly preach'd, and its Worship set up in any Popish, Mahometan or Pagan Country, you think True Religion would be a gainer by it for a time; but you think withal, that an universal Toleration P. 10. would ruin it both there and every where else, in the end. You grant it then possible, notwithstanding the Corruption of humane Nature, that the True Religion may gain some where, and for some time, by Toleration: It will gain under a new Toleration you think, but decay under an old one; Would you had told us the Reason why you think so. But you think there is great reason to fear, that without God's extraordinary Providence, it wo [...]ld in a P. 9. much shorter time, than any one, who does not well consider the matter, will imagine, be most effectually [...] by it throughout the World. If you have considered right, and the matter be really so, it is demonstration, that the Christian Religion, since Constantine's time, as well as the True Religion before Moses's time, must needs have been totally extinguish'd out of the World, and have so continued, unless by Miracle and immediate Revelation restor'd. For those Men, i. e. the Magistrates, upon whose being of the True Religion, the Preservation of it, according to you, depends, living all of them under a free Toleration, must [281] needs lose the True Religion effectually and speedily, from among them; a [...]d they quitting the True Religion, the assistance of Force, which should support it against a general Defection, be utterly lost.

The Princes of the World are, I suppose, as well infected with the depraved Nature of Man, as the rest of their Brethren. These, whether 100 or 1000, suppose they lived together in one Society, wherein, with the True Religion, there were a free Toleration, and no Coactive Power of the Magistrate imployed about Matters of Religion, would the True Religion be soon extirpated amongst them? If you say it would not, you must grant Toleration not to be so destructive of the True Religion, as you say; or you must think them of another race, than the rest of corrupt Men, and free from that general Taint. If you grant that the True Religion would be quickly extirpated amongst them, by Toleration, living together in one Society, the same will happen to them, living as Princes, where they are free from all Coactive Power of the Magistrate in Matters of Religion, and have as large a Toleration as can be imagin'd. Unless you will say, that depraved humane Nature works less in a Prince than a Subject; and is most tame, most mortified, where it has most Liberty and Temptation. Must not then, if your Maxim be true, Toleration quickly deprive the few Orthodox Princes that are in the World (take it when you will) of the True Religion; and with them, take away the Assistance of Authority, which is necessary to support it amongst their Subjects? Toleration then does not, whatever your Fears are, make that woful wrack on True Religion which you talk of.

I shall give you another Evidence of it, and then come to examine your great Reason taken from the Corruption of humane Nature, and the Instance you so often repeat, and build so much on, the Apostacy after the Flood. Toleration, you sav, would quickly, and effectually extirpate the True Reiigion throughout the World. What now is the Means to preserve True Religion in the World? If you may be believed, 'tis Force, but not all Force, great Severities, Fire, Faggot, Imprisonment, loss of Estate, &c. These will do more harm than good; 'tis only lower and moderate Penaltics, some tolerable Inconveniences, can do the business. If then moderate Force hath not been all along, no, nor any where, made use of for the Preservation of [282] the True Religion, the Maintenance and Support of the True Religion in the World, has not been owing to what you oppose to Toleration: And so your Argument against Toleration is out of doors.

You give us in this and the foregoing Pages, the Grounds of your Fear, It is the Corruption of humane Nature which opposes the True Religion. You express it thus, Idolatry prevailing against p. 7. it [the True Reigion] not by its own Light and Strength, for it could have nothing of either, but meerly by the Advantage it had in the Corruption and Pravity of humane Nature, finding out to it self more agreeable Religions than the true. For, say you, whatever Hardships some False Religions may impose, it will however, always be easier to carnal and worldly-minded Men, to give even their First-born for their Transgressions, than to mortify their Lusts from which they spring, which no Religion but the True, requires of them. I wonder, saying this, how you could any longer mistake the Magistrate's Duty, in reference to Religion, and not see wherein Force truly can and ou [...]ht to be serviceable to it. What you have said, plainly shews you, that the Assistance the Magistrate's Authority can give to the True Religion, is in the subduing of Lusts, and its being directed against Pride, Injustice, Rapine, Luxury and Debauchery, and those other Immoralities which come properly under his Cognisance, and may be corrected by Punishments; and not by the imposing of Creeds and Ceremonics, as you tell us. Sound and Decent, you might have left out, p. 13. whereof their Fancies, and not the Law of God, will always be Judg and consequently the Rule.

The Case between the true and false Religions, as you have stated it, in short, sounds thus, True Religion has always Light and p. 7. [...] of its own sufficient to prevail with all that seriously consider it, and without prejudice. [...] or False Religions have nothing of Light or Strength to prevail with. Why then does not the true Religion prevail against the false, having so much the advantage in Light and Strength? The Counter-ballance of Prejudice hinders. And wherein does that Str [...]ngth? The Drunkard must part with his Cups and Companions, and the Voluptuous Man with his Pleasures. The Proud and Vain must lay by all Excess in Apparel, Furniture and Attendance; and Money, the support of all these, must be got only by the ways of Justice, Honesty, and fair Industry. And every one must live peaceably, uprightly, and [283] friendly with his Neighbour. Here then the Magistrate's a [...]istance is wanting: Here they may and ought to interpose their Power, and by Severities, against Drunkenness, Laciviousnes, and all sorts of Debauchery; by a steady and unrelaxed Punishment of all the ways of Fraud and Injustice; and by their Administration, Countenance, and Example, reduce the Irregularities of Mens Manners into order, and bring Sobriety, Peaceableness, Industry and Honesty into Fashion. This is their proper Business every-where; and for this they have a Commission from God, both by the Light of Nature and Revelation; and by this, removing the great Counterpoise, which lies in strictness of Life, and is so strong a Bias, with the greatest part, against: the true Religion, they would cast the Ballance on that [...]de. For if Men were forced by the Magistrate to live sober, honest and strict Lives, whatever their Religion were, would not the advantage be on the side of Truth, when the gratifying of their Lusts were not to be obtained by for saking her? In Mens Lives lies the main Obstacle to right Opinions in Religion: and if you will not believe me, yet what a very rational Man of the Church of [...] [...] of the Folly of [...]. p. 16. England says in the case, will deserve to be remembred. Did Religion bestow Heaven, without any Forms and Conditions, indifferently upon all; If the Crown of Life was Hereditary, and free to good and bad, and not settled by Covenant upon the Elect of God only, such as live soberly, righteously and godly in this present World; I believe there would be no such thing as an Insidel among us. And without Controversy 'tis the way and means of attaining to Heaven, that makes profane Scoffers so willing to let go the expeclation of it. 'Tis not the Articles of the Creed, but their Dury to God and their Neighb [...]r, that is such an inconsi [...]tent incredible Legend. They will not practise the Rules of Religion, and therefore they cannot believe the Doctrines of it. The ingenious Author will pardon me the change of one word, which I doubt not but [...] his Opinion, though it did not so well that Argument he was then on.

You grant the true Religion has always Light, and Strength to prevail; [...] Religions have neither. Take away the satisfaction of Men; Lusts, and which then, I pray, hath the advantage? Will Men, against the Light of their Reason, do violence to their Understandings, and for sake Truth, and Salvation too, gratis? You tell us here, No Religion but the true requires of Men the difficult Task of mortifying their Lust s. This being granted you, [284] what Service will this do you to prove a necessity of Force to punish all Disseuters in England? Do none of their Religions require the mortisying of Lusts as well as yours?

And now, let us consider your Instance whereon you build so much that we hear of it over and over again. For you tell us. Idolatry [...], but yet not by the help of Force, as has beenp. 7. P. 10.sufficiently [...]. And again, That Truth left to shift for her self, will not [...] well enough, has been sufficiently [...]. What you have done to shew this, is to be seen, where you tell us, Within how P. 6.few Generations after the [...]ood, the Worship of False Gods prevail'd against the Religion which Noah professed, and taught his Children, (which [...] [...] the true Religion) almost to the [...]tter exclusion of it, (though that at [...] [...] was the only Religion in the World) without any Aid from [...]orce, or the Assistance of the Powers in being, for any thing we find in the History of those Times, as we may reasonably believe, considering that it found an entrance into the World, and entertainment in it, when it could have no such Aid, or Assistance. Of which (besides the Corruption of Humane Nature) you suppose there can no other Cause be assigned, or none more probable than this, that the Powers then in being, did not do what they might and ought to have done, towards the preventing, or checking that horrible Apostacy. Here you tell us, that the Worship of False Gods, within a very few Generations after the Flood prevail'd against the true Religion, almost to the [...]tter exclusion of it. This you say indeed, but without any Proofs, and unless that be shewing, you have not, as you pretend, any way shewn it. Out of what Records, I beseech you, have you [...] that the true Religion was almost wholly extirpated out of the Wo [...]ld, within a few Generations after the Flood? The Scripture, the largest History we have of those Times, says [...] of it, nor does, as I remember, mention any as guilty of Idolatry, within 2 or 300 Years after the Flood. In Canaan it self, I do not think that you can out of any credible History [...], t [...]at th [...]re was any Idolatry within ten or twelve Generations after Noah; much less that it had so overspread the World and extirpated the true Religion, out of that part of it where the Scene lay of those Actions recorded in the History of the Bible. In Abraham's [...], [...] who was King of [...], was also the Priest of the most High God. We read that God, with an immediate Hand, punish'd miraculously, first [...], at the Confusion of Babel, and afterward Sodom, and [285] four other Cities; but in neither of these Places is there any, the le [...]st, mention of Idolatry, by which they provoked God, and drew down Vengeance on themselves. So that truly you have shewn nothing at all, and what the Scripture shews is against you. For besides, that it is plain, b [...] Melchisedeck the King of Sale [...] and Priest of the most High God, to whom Abraham P. 6. paid Tithes, that all the Land of Canaan was not yet overspread with Idolatry, though afterwards in the Time of [...], by the forsciture was therefore made of it to the Israelites, one may have reason to suspect it were more desiled with it, than any part of the World. Besides Salem, I say, he that reads the Gen. XX, XXI, XXVI. Story of Abimelech, will have reason to think, that he also and his Kingdom, though Philistines, were not then infected with Idolatry.

You think they, and almost all Mankind were Idolaters, but you may be mistaken; and that which may serve to shew it, is the Example of Elijah the Prophet, who was at least as infallible a Guesser as you, and was as well instructed in the State and History of his own Country, and Time, as you can be in the State of the whole World 3 or 4000 Years ago. Elijah thought that Idolatry had wholly extirpated the true Religion out of Israel, and complains thus to God. The Children of Israel have for saken 1 Kings XIX. 10. thy Covenant, thrown down thy Altars, and stain thy Prophets with the Sword; and I, even I alone, am left, and they seek my Life to take it Ver. 14. away. And he is so fully perswaded of it, that he repeats it again: and yet God tells him, that he had there yet 7000 Knees that had not bowed to Baal, 7000 that were not Idolaters: though this was in the Reign of Ahab, a King zealous for Idolatry; and in a Kingdom set up in an Idolatrous Worship, which had continued the National Religion, established and promoted by the continued Succession of several Idolatrous Princes. And though the National Religions soon after the Flood were false, which you are far enough from proving; how does it thence follow, that the true Religion was near extirpated? which it must needs quite have been, before St. Peter's time, if there were so great reason to fear, P. [...]. as you tell us, That the true Religion, without the assistance of Force, would in a much shorter time, than any one that does not well consider the matter would imagine, be most effectually extirpated throughout the World. For above 2000 Years after Noah's time, St. Peter tells us, That in every Nation, he that search God, and ActsX 35. [286] worketh [...], is accepted by him. By which Words, and by the occa [...]ion on which they were spoken, it is manifest, that in Countries where for 2000 Years together no Force had been used for the support of Noah's true Religion, it was not yet wholly [...]. But that you may not think it was so near, that there was but one left, only Cornelius, if you will look into Acts XVII. 4. you will find a great Multitude of them at Thessalonica, And of the devo [...]t Greeks a great Multitude believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas. And again, more of them in A [...]ens, Ver. 17. a City wholly given to Idol [...]try. For that those [...], which we translate devout, and whereof many are mentioned in the Acts, were Gen [...]iles, who worshipped the true God, and kept the Precepts of No [...], Mr. Mede has abundantly proved. So that what [...]ever you, [...]ho have well considered the matter, may imagine of the shortness of time, wherein Noah's Religion would be effectually extirpated throughout the World, without the assistance of Force, we find it at Athens, at Philippi, at [...], amongst the Rom [...]ns, in Antioch of Pisidia, in Th [...]ssalonica, above 2000 Years after, and that not so near being extinguish'd, but that in some of those Places the Professors of it were numerous: at Thessalonica they are call'd a great Multitude: at [...] many: and how many of them there were in other parts of the World, whereof there was no occasion to make mention in that short History of the [...] of the Apostles, who knows? If they answered, in other Places, to what were found in these, as [...]hat reason is there to suppose they should not? I think we may imagine them to be as many, as there were effectually of the true Religion Christians in Europe, a little before the Reformation, not withstanding the assistance the [...] Religion had from Authority, after the withdrawing of Mira [...]les.

But you have a Salvo, for you write warily, and endeavour to save your self on all hand [...]; you say, There is great reason to P. [...]. fear, that without God's EXTRAORDINARY PROVIDENCE, it would in a much shorter time, than any one, who does not well consider the matter, would imagine, be most [...] extirpated by it, throughout the World. 'Tis, without doubt, the Provide [...]ce of God which governs the A [...]airs both of the World and his Church; and to that, whether you call it Ordinary or Extraordinary, you may trust the Preservation of his Church, without the use of such Means, as he has no where appointed or authorized. [287] You fancy Force necessary to preserve the True Religion, and hence you conclude the Magistrate authorized, without any farther Commission from God, to use it, if there be no other Means left; and therefore that must be used: If Religion should be preserved without it, it is by the Extraordinary Providence of God; where Extraordinary signi [...]cs nothing, but begging the thing in question. The true Religion has been preserved many Ages, in the Church, without Force. Ay, say you, that was by the Extraordinary Provid [...]ce of God. His Providence which over-rules all Events, we ea [...]ly grant it: But why Extraordinary Providence? because Force was [...] to preserve it. And why was Force [...]? because otherwise, without Extraordinary Providence, it cannot be preserv'd. In such Circles, covered under good Words, but misapplied, one might shew you taking many a Turn in your answer, if it were [...]it to waste others time to trace your Wanderings. God has appointed Preaching, Teaching, Perswa [...]on, Instruction, as a means to continue and propagate his true Religion in the World; and if it were any where preserved and propagated without that, we might call it his Extraordinary Providence; but the means he has appointed being used, we may conclude, that Men have done their Duties, and so may leave it to his Providence, however we will call it, to preserve the little Flock (which he bids not to fear) to the end of the World.

But let us return again to what you say, to make good this Hypothesis of yours, That Idolatry entred first into the World by the Contrivance, and spread it self by the Endeavours of private Men, without the Assistance of the Magistrates, and P. 6. those in Power. To prove this, you tell us, That it found Entrance into the World, and Enterta [...]nment in it, when it could have no such Aid or Assistance. When was this, I b [...]eech you, that Idolatry found this Entrance into the World? Under what King's Reign was it, that you are so positive it could have no such Aid or Assistance? If you had named the time, the thing (though of no great mom [...]nt to you) had been sure. But now we may very justly question this bare Assertion of yours. For since we find, as far back as we have any History of it, that the great Men of the World were always forward to set up and promote Idolatry and False Religions, you ought to have given us some reason why, without Authority from History, you a [...]irm that [288] Idolatry, at its entrance into the World, had not that Assistance from Men in Power, which it never fail'd of afterwards. Who they were that made Israel to sin, the Scripture tells us. Their Kings were so zealous Promoters of Idolatry, that there is [...] one of them, that has not that Brand left upon him in holy Writ.

One of the first False Religions, whose rise and way of propagating we have an account of in Sacred History, was by an ambitious Usurper, who having rebell'd against his Master, with a False Title set up a False Religion, to secure his Power and Dominion. Why this might not have been done before Jeroboam's days, and Idols set up at other places, as well as at Dan and Bethel, to serve politick Ends, will need some other Proof, than barely saying, it could not be so at first. The Devil, unless much more ignorant, was not less busy in those days to engage Princes in his favour, and to weave Religion into Affairs of State, the better to introduce his Worship, and support Idolatry, by accommodating it to the Ambition, Vanity, or Superstition, of Men in Power: and therefore, you may as well say, that the Corruption of humane Nature, as that the Assistance of the Powers in being, did not, in those days, help forward False Religions; because your Reading has furnish'd you with no particular mention of it out of History. But you need but say, P. 6. that the Worship of False Gods prevail'd without any aid from Force, or the assistance of the Powers in being, for any thing we find in the History of those times, and then you have sufficiently [...], what? even that you have just nothing to shew for your Assertion.

But whatever that any thing is, which you find in History, you may meet with Men (whose reading yet I will not compare with yours) who think they have found in History, that Princes and those in Power, first corrupted the True Religion, by setting up the Images and Symbols of their Predecessors in their Temples; which, by their Influence, and the ready Obedience of the Priests they appointed, were in succession of Time, propos'd to the People as Objects of their Worship. Thus they think they find in History that [...], Queen of Egypt, with her Counsellor Thoth, instituted the Funeral-Rites of King Osir [...], by the Honour done to the sacred Ox. They think they find also in History, that the [...]ame Thoth, who was also King of Egypt in his [289] turn, invented the Figures of the first Egyptian Gods, Saturn, Dagon, Jupiter Hammon, and the rest: that is, the Figures of their Statues or Idols; and that he instituted the Worship and Sacrifices of these Gods: And his Institutions were so well assisted by th [...]se in Authority, and observed by the [...] they set up, that the Worship of those Gods soon became the Religion of that, and a Pattern to other Nations. And here we may perhaps, with good reason, place the rise and original of Idolatry after the Flood, there being nothing of this kind more ancient. So ready was the Ambition, Vanity, or Superstition of Princes, to introduce their Predecessors into the Divine Worship of the People, to secure to themselves the greater Veneration from their Subjects, as descended from the Gods; or to erect such a Worship, and such a Priesthood, as might awe the blinded and seduced People into that Obedience they desired. Thus Ham, by the Authority of his Successors, the Rulers of Egypt, is first brought for the Honour of his Name and Memory into their Temples, and never left, till he is erected into a God, and made Jupiter Hammon, &c. which Fashion took afterwards with the Princes of other Countries.

Was not the great God of the Eastern Nations, Baal, or Jupiter Bel [...], one of the first Kings of Assyria? And which, I pray, is the more likely, that Courts, by their Instruments the Priests, should thus advance the Honour of Kings amongst the People for the ends of Ambition and Power; or the People find out these resined Ways of doing it, and introduce them into Courts for the enslaving themselves? What Idolatry does your History tell you of among the Greeks, before Phoroncus and Danaus, Kings of the Argives, and Cecrops and Theseus Kings of [...], and Cadmus King of Thebes, introduced it? An Art of Rule 'tis probable they borrowed from the Egyptians. So that if you had not vouch'd the Silence of History, without consulting it, you would possibly have found, that in the first Ages, Princes, by their Influence and Aid, by the Help and Artisice of the Priests they imploy'd, their Fables of their Gods, their Mysteries and Oracles, and all the Assistance they could give it by their Authority, did so much against the Truth, before direct Force was grown into fashion, and appear'd openly, that there would be little reason of putting the Guard and Propagation of the True Religion, into their hands now, and arming them with Force to promote it.

[290]

That this was the Original of Idolatry in the World, and that it was borrowed by other Magistrates from the Egyptians, is farther evident in that this Worship was setled in Egypt, and grown the National Religion there, before the Gods of Greece, and several other Idolatrous Countries, were bo [...]. For though they took their Pattern of Deifying their deceased Princes, from the Egyptians, and kept, as near as they could, to the Number and Genealogies of the Egyptian Gods; yet they took the Names still of some great Men of their own, which they accommodated to the Mythology of the Egyptians. Thus, by the assistance of the Powers in being, Idolatry entred into the World after the Flood. Whereof, if there were not so clear Footsteps in History, why yet should you not imagine Princes and Magistrates, ingaged in False Religions, as ready to imploy their Power for the maintaining and promoting their False Religions, in those days, as we find them now? And therefore, what you say in the next Words, of the entrance of Idolatry into the World, and P. 6. the it sound in it, will not pass for so very evident without Proof, though you tell us never so considently, that you suppose, besides the Corruption of humane Nature, there can no other Carse be assigned of it, or none more probable than this, That the Powers then in being, did not what they might and ought to have done ( [...]. e. if you mean it to your purpose, use Force your way, to make Men consider, or to impose Creeds and Ways of Worship) towards the [...] or checking that horrible Apostacy.

I grant that the entranee and growth of Idolatry, might be owing to the Negligence of the Powers in being, in that they did not do what they might and ought to have done, in using their Authority to suppress the Enormities of Mens Manners, and correct the Irregularity of their Lives. But this was not all the Assistance they gave to that horrible Apostacy: They were, as for as History gives us any light, the Promoters of it, and Leaders in it, and did what they ought not to have done, by setting up False Religions, and using their Authority to establish them to serve their corrupt and ambitious Designs.

National Religions, establish'd by Authority, and inforced by the Powers in being, we hear of every where, as far back as we have any account of the rise and growth of the Religions of the World. Shew me any place, within those few Generations, wherein you say the [...] prevail'd after the Flood, where [291] the Magistrates, being of the True Religion, the Subjects by the Liberty of a Toleration, were lead into False Religions, and then you will produce something against Liberty of Cons [...]ience. But to talk of that great Apostacy, as wholly owing to Toleration, when you cannot produce one Instance of Toleration then in the World, is to say what you please.

That the majority of Mankind were then, and always have been, by the Corruption and Pravity of humane Nature, led away, and kept from imbracing the True Religion, is past doubt. But whether this be owing to Toleration, in Matters of Religion, is the Question. David describes an horrible Corruption and Apostacy in his time, so as to say, There is none that doth Psal. XIV good, no not one; and yet I do not think you will say, a Toleration, then in that Kingdom, was the cause of it. If the greatest part cannot be ill without a Toleration, I am afraid you must be fain to find out a Toleration in every Country, and in all Ages of the World. For I think it is true, of all Times and Places, that the Broad way that leadeth to Destruction, has had most Travellers. I would be glad to know where it was that Force, your way apply'd, i. e. with Punishments only upon Nonconformists, ever prevail'd to bring the greater number into the Narrow-way, that leads unto Life; which our Saviour tells us, there are sew that sind.

The Corrup [...]on of Humane Nature, you say, opposes the True Religion. I grant it you. There was also, say you, an horrible Apostacy after the Flood; let this also be granted you: and yet from hence it will not follow, that the True Religion cannot subsist and prevail in the World without the assistance of Force, your way apply'd, till you have shewn, that the False Religions, which were the Inventions of Men, grew up under Toleration, and not by the Encouragement and Assistance of the Powers in being.

How near soever therefore, the True Religion was to be extinguish'd within a few Generations after the Flood, (which whether more in danger then, than in most Ages since, is more than you can shew.) This will be still the Question, Whether the Liberty of Toleration, or the Authority of the Powers in being, contributed most to it? And whether there can be no other, nor more probable Cause assigned, than the want of Force, your way apply'd, I shall leave the Reader to judg. This I am sure, whatever [292] Causes any one else shall assign, are as well proved as yours, if they offer them only as their Conjectures.

Not but that I think Men could run into false and foollsh Ways of Worship, without the Instigation or Assistance of humane Authority; but the Powers of the World, as far as we have any History, having been always forward enough (True Religion as little serving Princes as private Mens Lusts) to take up Wrong Religions, and as forward to imploy their Authority to [...] the Religlon, good or bad, which they had once taken up, I can see no reason why the not using of Force, by the Princes of the World, should be assigned as the sole, or so much as the most probable Cause of propagating the False Religions of the World, or extirpating the True; or how you can so positively say, Idolatry prevail'd without any assistauce from the Powers in being.

Since therefore History leads us to the Magistrates, as the Authors and Promoters of Idolatry in the World, to which we may suppose their not supressing of Vice, joined as another Cause of the spreading of False Religions, you were best consider, whether you can still suppose there can no other Cause be assigned, of the prevailing of the worship of False Gods, but the Magistrate's not interposing his Authority in matters of Religion. For that that cannot with any probability at all be assigned as any Cause, I shall give you this further Reason. You impute the prevailing of False Religions, to the Corruption and Pravity of Humane Nature, left to it self, unbridled by Authority. Now, if Force, your way applied, does not at all bridle the Corruption and Pravity of Humane Nature, the Magistrate's not so interposing his Authority, cannot be assigned as any Cause at: all of that Apostacy. So that let that Apostacy have what rise, and spreas as far as you please, it will not make one jot for Force, your way applied, or shew that that can receive any assistance your way from Authority. For your use of Authority and Force, being only to bring Mento an outward Conformity to the National Religion, it leaves the Corruption and Prauity of Humane Nature, as unbridled as before; as I have shewn elsewhere.

You tell us, That it is not true, that the true Religion will preuail P. 7. by its own Light and Strength, without Miracles, or the assistance of the Powers in being, because of the Corruption of Humane Nature. [293] And for this you give us an instance in the Apostacy presently after the Flood. And you tell. us, That without the [...] of Force it would presently be extirpated out of the World. [...] the P. 9. Corruption of Humane Nature be so universal, and so strong, that, without the help of Force, the true Religion is too weak to stand it, and cannot at all prevail, without Miracles or Force; How come Men ever to be converted, in Countries where the National Religion is False? If you say by Extraordinary Providence, what that amounts to, has been shewn. If you say this Corruption is so potent in all Men, as to oppese and prevail against the Gospel, not assisted by Force or Miracles, that is not true. If in most Men, so it is still, even where Force is used. For I desire you to name me a Country, where the greatest part are really and truly Christians, such as you confidently believe Christ, at the last Day, will own to be so. In England, having, as you do, excluded all the Dissenters (or else why would you have them punish'd, to bring them to imbrace the true Religion?) you must, I fear, allow your self a great Latitude in thinkiing, if you think that the Corruption of Humane Nature, does not so far prevail, even amongst Conformists, as to make the Ignorance, and Lives, of great numbers amongst them, such as sutes not at all with the Spirit of [...]ue Christianity. How great their Ignorance may be, in the more spiritual and elevated parts of the Christian Religion, may be guessed, by what the Reverend Bishop, before cited, says of it, in reference to a Rite of the Church; the most easy and obvious to be instructed in, and understood. His Words are, In the common management of that Holy Right [Consirmation] it is but too uisible, that of those Multitudes Pastoral Care, [...]. 189. that croud to it, the far greater part co [...] meerly as if they were to receive the [...] Blossing, without any sense of the Vow made by them, and of their renewing their Baptismal Engagements in it. And if Origen were now alive, might he not sind many in our Church to whom these Words of his Orig. Hom. in Jos. IX. might be apply'd; Whose Faith signifi [...]only [...] much, and goes no farther than this, VIZ. that they come duly to the Church, and how their Heads to the Priests? &c. For it seems it was then the Fashion to bow to the Priest as it is now to the Altar. If therefore you say Force is necessary, because without it no Men will so consider as to imbrace the true Religion, for the Salvation of their Souls, that I think is manifestly false. If you say it is necessary to use such means as will make the greatest part so imbrace it, you must [294] use some other means than Force, your way applied, for that does not so far work on the Majority. If you say it is necessary, because possibly it may work on some, which bare Preaching, and Perswasion, will not: I answer, If possibly your moderate Punishments may work on some, and therefore they are necessary, 'tis as possible, that greater Punishments may work on others, and therefore they are necessary, and so on to the utmost Severities.

That the Corruption of Humane Nature is every where spread, P. 25. and that it works powerfully in the Children of Disobedience, who received not the Love of the Truth, but had Pleasure in Unrighteousness; and therefore God gives them up to believe a Lie, no Body, I think, will deny. But that this Corruption of Humane Nature works equally in all Men, or in all Ages; and so, that God will, or ever did, give up all Men, not restrained by Force, your way modified and applied, to believe a Lie, (as all False Religions are) that I yet see no reason to grant. Nor will this Instance of Noah's Religion, you so much rely on, ever perswade, till you have proved, that from those eight Men which brought the true Religion with them into the new World, there were not eight thousand, or eighty thousand, which retain'd it in the World in the worst Times of the Apostacy. And Secondly, till you have proved, that the False Religions of the World prevail'd, without any aid from Force, or the assistance of the Powers in being. And Thirdly, That the decay of the true Religion was for want of Force, your moderate Force, neither of which you have at all proved, as, I think it manifest.

One Consideration more touching Noah, and his Religion, give me leave to suggest, and that is; If Force were so necessary for the support of the true Religion, as you make it, 'tis strange God, who gave him Precepts about other things, should never reveal this to him, nor any Body else, that I know. To this, you, who have confessed the Scripture not to have given the Magistrate this Commission, must say, that it is plain enough in the Commission that he has from the Law of Nature, and so needed not any Revelation, to instruct the Magistrate in the Right he has to use Force. I confess the Magistrates have used Force in matters of Religion, and have been as considently and constantly put upon it by their Priests, as if they had as clear a Commission from Heaven, as St. Peter had to preach the Gospel to the [295] Gentiles. But yet 'tis plain, notwithstanding that Commission from the Law of Nature, there needs some farther instruction from Revelation, since it does not appear, that they have found out the right use of Force, such as the true Religion requires for its Preservation; and though you have after several thousands of Years, at last, discovered it, yet it is very [...], you not being able to tell, if a Law were now to be made against those who have not consider'd as they ought, what are those moderate Penalties which are to be imployed against them, though yet without that all the rest signifies nothing. But however P. 7. doubtful you are in this, I am glad to find you so direct, in putting Mens rejecting the [...] Religion, upon the difficulty they have to [...] their [...], which the true Religion requires of them, and I desire you to remember it in other places, where I have occasion to mind you of it.

To conclude, That we may see the great advantage your Cause will receive from that Instance, you so much rely on, of the Apostacy after the Flood; I shall oppose another to it. You say, That Idolatry prevail'd in the World, in a few Generations, almost to P. 6. the [...]tter exclusion of the true Religion, without any Aid from Force, or Assistance of the Powers in being, by reason of Toleration. And therefore, you think there is great reason to fear, that the trac Religion P. 9. would, by Toleration, quickly be most effectually extirpated thoughout the World. And I say, that after Christianity was received for the Religion of the Empire, and whilst Political Laws, and Force, interposed in it, an horrible Apostacy prevail'd [...] [...] [...]. XXX. p-194. & Apost. of the late [...] most the [...]tter exclusion of the true Religion, and a general introducing of Idolatry. And therefore I think there is great reason to fear more harm than good, from the use of Force in Religion.

This I think as good an Argument against, as yours for Force, and something better; since what you build on is only presum'd by you, not proved from History: whereas the matter of Fact here is well known, nor will you deny it, when you consider the State of Religion in Christendom under the assistance of that Force, which you tell us, succeeded and supplied the place of withdrawn Miracles, which in your Opinion, are so necessary in the absence of Force, that you make that the reason of their continuance; and tell us, they were continued [...]ill P. 37. Force could be had; not so much for evincing the Truth of Christian [296] Religion, as to supply the want of the Magistrate's Assistance. So that when ever Force fail'd, there, according to your Hypothesis, are Miracles to supply its want; for without one of them, the True Religion (if we may believe you) will soon be [...]terly extirpated; and what Force, in the absence of Miracles, produced in Christendoin several Ages before the Reformation, is so well known, that it will be hard to find what Service your way of arguing will do any but the Romish Religion.

But to take your Argument in its full Latitude, you say, but you say it without Book, that there was once a Toleration in the World to the almost utter Extirpation of the true Religion; and I say to you, that as far as Records authorize either Opinion, we may say Force has been always used in matters of Religion, to the great prejudice of the true Religion, and the Professors of it. And there not being an Age wherein you can shew me, upon a fair Trial of an establish'd National Toleration, that the true Religion was extirpated, or indangered, so much as you pretend by it: Whereas there is no Age (whereof we have sufficient History to judg of this matter) wherein it will not be easy to find that the true Religion, and its Followers, suffered by Force. You will in vain endeavour, by Instances, to prove the ill effects, or uselesness of Toleration, such as the Author proposed, which I challenge you to shew me was ever yet set up in the World, or that the true Religion sufferd by it; and 'tis to the want of it, the Restraints and Disadvantages the true Religion has laboured under, and its so little spreading in the World will justly be imputed; until, from better Experiments, you have something to say against it.

Our Saviour has promised that he will build his Church on this fundamental Truth, That he is Christ the Son of God; so that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it: And this I believe, though you tell us the True Religion is not able to subsist without the assistance of Force, when Miracles cease. I do not remember that our Saviour any where promises any other assistance but that of his Spirit, or gives his little Flock any Encouragement to expect much Countenance or Help from the great Men of the World, or the Coercive Power of the Magistrates, nor any where authorizes them to use it for the support of his Church; Not many wise Men after the Flesh; not many 1 Cor. 1.25 mighty, not many noble, is the Stile of the Gospel; and I believe will [297] be found to belong to all Ages of the Church Militant, past and to come, as well as to the first: For God, as St. Paul tells us, has chosen the foolish things of the World to confound the wise, and the weak things of the World to confound the mighty; and this not only till Miracles ceased, but ever since. To be hated for Christ's Name sake, and by much Tribulation to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, has been the general and constant Lot of the People of God, as well as it seems to be the current Strain of the New Testament; which promises nothing of secular Power or Greatness; says nothing of Kings being nursing Fathers, or Queens nursing Mothers: which Prophecy, whatever meaning it have, 'tis like our Saviour would not have omitted to support his Church with some Hopes and Assurance of such Assistance, if it were to have any Accomplishment before his second Coming; when Israel shall come in again, and with the Gentiles make up the Fulness of his glorious Kingdom. But the Tenor of the New Testament is, All that will live Godly in Jesus Christ, shall suffer Persecution, 2 Tim. III.

In your Argument consider'd, you tell us, That no Man can fail A. p. 7. of finding the way of Salvation that seeks it as he ought. In my answer, I take notice to you, that the places of Scripture you cite to prove it, point out this way of seeking as we ought, to be a good Life; as particularly that of St. John, If any one will do his Will, he shall know of the Doctrine whether it be of God: upon which I use these Words. ‘So that these places, if they prove what you L. 2. p. 5. cite them for, That no Man can fail of finding the way of Salvation, who seeks it as the ought; they do also prove, that a good Life is the only way to seek as we ought; and that therefore, the Magistrates, if they would put Men upon seeking the way of Salvation as they ought, should by their Laws and Penalties force them to a good Life; a good Conversation being the surest and readiest way to a right Understanding. And that if Magistrates will severely and impartially set themselves against Vice, in whomsoever it is found, True Religion will be spread wider—than ever hitherto it has been by the Imposition of Creeds and Ceremonies.’ To this you reply, Whether the P. 13. Magistrates setting themselves severely and impartially against what you suppose I call Vice, or the Imposition of sound Creeds and decent Ceremonies, does more conduce to the spreading the True Religion, and rendring it fruitful in the Lives of its Professors, we need not examine; [298] you confess, you think, both together do best; and this, you think, is as much as needs be [...] to that Paragraph. If it had been put to you, Whether a good Living, or a good Prebend would more conduce to the enlarging your Fortune, I think it would be allow'd you as no improper or unlikely Answer, what you say here, I think both together would do best; but here the case is otherwise, your Thinking determines not the Point: and other People of equal Authority, may, and I will answer for it, do think otherwise: but because I pretend to no Authority, I will give you a Reason, why your Thinking is insufficient. You tell us, That Force is not a fit Means, where it is not necessary as well as P. 30. useful; and you prove it to be necessary because there is no other Means left. Now if the Severity of the Magistrate, against what I call Vice, will, as you will not deny, promote a good Life, and that be the right Way to seek the Truths of Religion, here is another Means besides imposing, of Creeds and Ceremonies, to promote True Religion; and therefore, your Argument for it Necessity because of no other Means left, being gone, you cannot say both together are best, when one of them being not necessary, is therefore, by your own Confession, not to be used.

I having said, That if [...] an indirect and at a distance Usefulness were sufficient to justify the Use of Force, the [...] might make his Subjects Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven: You reply, That you suppose I will not say Castration is necessary, P. 31. because you hope I acknowledge, that Marriage, and that Grace which God denies to none, who seriously ask it, are sufficient for that Purpose. And I hope you acknowledg, that Preaching, Admonitions and Instructions, and that Grace which God denies to none who seriously ask it, are sufficient for Salvation. So that by this Answer of yours, there being no more necessity of Force to make Men of the True Religion, than there is of Castration to make Men chaste, it will still remain that the Magistrate, when he thinks fit, may, upon your Principle;, as well castrate Men to make them chaste, as use Force to make them imbrace the Truth that must save them.

If Castration be not [...], because Marriage and the Grace of God is sufficient, without it; nor will Force be necessary, because Preaching, and the Grace of God is sufficient without it; and this, I think, by your own Rule, where you tell us, Where there are many useful Means, and some of them are sufficient without P. 34. [299] the rest, there is no necessity of using them all. So that you must either quit your necessity of Force, or take in Castration, too, which however, it might not go down with the untractable and desperately perverse and obstinate People in these Western Countries, yet is a Doctrine, you may hope, may meet with a better Reception in the Ottoman Empire, and recommend you to some of my Mahometans.

To my saying, ‘If what we are apt to think useful, were L. 2. p. 1 [...].thence to be concluded so we might be in danger to be obliged to believe the pretended Miracle of the Church of Rome, by your way of Reasoning; Unless we will say (that which without Impiety cannot be said) that the wise and benign Disposer and Governor of all things, does not use all useful Means for promoting his own Honour in the World, and the good of Souls.’ This, I think, will conclude as much for Miracles as for Force: You reply, You think it will not; For in the place I intend, you speak not of useful, P. 3. but of competent, i. e. sufficient Means: Now competent, or sufficient Means are necessary; but you think no Man will say that all useful Means are so: And therefore though, as you [...], it cannot be said without [...], that the wise and benign Disposer and Governor of all things has not furnish'd Mankind with competent Means for the promoting his own Honour in the World, and the Good of Souls; yet it is very agreeable with Pie [...]y, and with Truth too, to say that he does not now use all useful Means: Because as none of his Attributes obliges him to use more than sufficient Means; s, he may use sufficient Means, without using all useful Means. For where there are many useful Means, and some of them are sufficient without the rest, there is no necessity of using them all. So that from God's not using Miracles now, to promote the True Religion, I cannot conclude that he does not think them useful now, but only that he does not think them necessary. And therefore, though what we are apt to think useful, were thence to be concluded so; yet if whatever is useful, be not [...] to be concluded necessary, there is no reason to fear that we should be obliged to believe the Miracles pretended to by the Church of Rome. For if Miracles be not now necessary, there is no inconv [...]nience in thinking the Miracles pretended to by the Church of Rome, to be but pretended Miracles. To which I answer, Put it how you will, for competent Means, or useful Means, it will conclude for Miracles still as much as for Force. Your Words are these, If such a degree of outward Force, as [...] been mentioned, be really of great A. p. 16. [300] and necessary use for the advancing these Ends, as taking the World as we find it, you say, you think it appears to be; then it must be acknowledg'd there is a right somewhere to use it for the advancing those Ends; unless we will say (what without Impiety cannot be said) that the wise and benign Disposer of all things, has not furnish'd Mankind with competent Means for the promoting his own Honour in the World, and the Good of Souls. What, I beseech you, now is the sum of this Argument, but this, Force is of great and [...] use; therefore, the wise and benign Disposer of all things, who will not leave Mankind unfurnish'd (which it would be Impiety to say) of competent Means for the promoting his Honour in the World, and the Good of Souls, has given somewhere a right to use it?

Let us try it now, whether it will not do as well for Miracles. Miracles are of great and necessary use, (as great and necessary at least as Force;) therefore, the wise and benign Disposer of all things, who will not leave Mankind unfurnish'd (which it would be Impiety to say) of competent Means for the promoting his Honour in the World, and the Good of so [...]ls, has given somewhere a Power of Miracles. I ask you, when I in the Second Letter used your own Words, apply'd to Miracles instead of Force, would they not conclude then as well for Miracles as for Force. For you must remember there was not then in all your Scheme one word of Miracles to supply the place of Force. Force alone was mention'd, Force alone was necessary, all was laid on Force. Nor was it easy to divine, that Miracles should be taken in, to mend the Defects of your Hypothesis, which in your Answer to me, you now have done, and I easily allow it, without holding you to any thing you have said, and shall always do so. For seeking Truth, and not Triumph, as you frequently suggest, I shall always take your Hypothesis as you please to reform it, and either imbrace it, or shew you why I do not.

Let us see therefore, whether this Argument will do any better now your Scheme is mended, and you make Force or Miracles necessary. If Force or Miracles are of great and necessary use for the promoting True Religion, and the Salvation of Souls, then it must be acknowledged, that there is somewhere a Right to use the one, or a Power to do the other, for the advancing those Ends; unless we will say (what without Impiety cannot be said) that the wise and be [...]ign Disposer and Governor of all things has not furnish'd Mankind with competent Mean; for the promoting his own Honour, and [301] the Good of Souls. From whence it will follow, if your Argument be good, that where Men have not a Right to use Force, there still we are to expect Miracles, unless we will say, &c. Now where the Magistrates are not of the True Religion, there by this part of your Scheme, there is a Right in no body to use Force; for if there were, what need of Miracles (as you tell us there was) in the first Ages of Christianity, to supply that Want? Since the Magistrates, who were of False Religions then, were furnish'd with as much Right, if that were enough, as they are now. So that where the Magistrates are of False Religions, there you must, upon your Principles, affirm Miracles are still to supply the want of Force; unless you will say (what without Impiety cannot be said) that the wise and benign Disposer and Governor of all things, hath not furnish'd Mankind with competent Means for the promoting his own Honour in the World, and the good of So [...]ls. Now how far this will favour the Pretences of the Church of Rome to Miracles in the East and West-Indies, and other Parts not under Popish Governments, you were best consider. This is evident, that in all Countries where the True Religion is not received for the Religion of the State, and supported and encouraged by the Laws of it, you must allow Miracles to be as necessary now, as ever they were any where in the World, for the supply of the want of Force, before the Magistrates were Christians. And then what advantage your Doctrine gives to the Church of Rome, is very visible. For they, like you, supposing theirs the one only True Religion, are supply'd by you with this Argument for it, viz. That the True Religion will not prevail by its own P. 7. Light and Strength, without the assistance of Miracles or Authority. Which are the competent Means, which, without Impiety, it cannot be said, that the wise and benign Disposer and Governor of all things, has not furnish'd Mankind with. From whence they will not think it hard to draw this Consequence; that therefore the wise and benign Governor of all things, has continued in their Church the Power of Miracles (which yours does not so much as pretend to) to supply the want of the Magistrate's Assistance, where that cannot be had to make the True Religion prevail. And if a Papist should press you with this Argument, I would gladly know what you would reply to him.

[302]

Though this be enough to make good what I said, yet since I seek Truth, more than my own Justification, let us examine a little, what 'tis you here say of competent Means: Competent Means, P. 33. you say, are necessary; but you think no Man will say, all useful Means are so. If you think you speak plain clear determin'd Sense, when you used this good English Word Competent, I pity you: if you did it with Skill, I send you to my Pagans and [...]. But this safe way of Talking, though it be not altogether so clear, yet it so often occurs in you, that 'tis hard to P. 25. judg, whether it be Art or Nature. Now pray what do you mean by Mankind's being furnish'd with competent Means? If it be such Means as any are prevail'd on by to imbrace the Truth that must save them, Preaching is a competent Means; for by Preaching alone, without Force, many are prevail'd on, and become truly Christians; and then your Force, by your own Confession, is not necessary. If by competent, you understand such Means by which all Men are prevail'd on, or the majority, to become truly Christians, I fear your Force is no competent Means.

Which way ever you put [...], you must acknowledg Mankind to be destitute of competent Means, or your moderate Force not to be that necessary competent Means: Since whatever Right the Magistrates may have had any where to use it, where-ever it has not been used, (let the cause be what it will that kept thi [...] Means from being used, there the People have been destitute of that Means.

But you will think there is little reason to complain of Obscurity, you having abundantly explain'd what you mean by competent, in saying, competent, i. e. sufficient Means. So that we have nothing to do but to find out what you mean by sufficient: and the Meaning of that Word, in your use of it, you happily give us in these following, What does any Man mean by sufficient P. 51. Evidence, but such as will certainly win Assent where-ever it is duly consider'd? Apply this to your Means, and then tell me, whether your Force be such competent, i. e. sufficient Means; that it certainly produced imbracing the Tr [...], where-ever it was duly, i. e. your way apply'd; if it did not, 'tis plain it is not your competent sufficient Means, and so the World, without any such Imputation to the Divine Wisdom and Benignity, might be without it. If you will say it was sufficient, and did produce that end where-ever it was apply'd, I desire you then to tell me whether [303] Mankind hath been always furnish'd with competent Means. You have it now in your choise, either to talk impiously or renounce Force, and disown it to be competent Means; one of the two I do not see how, by your own Argument, you can avoid.

But to lay by your competent and sufficient Means, and to ease you of the uncertainty and difficulty you will be in to determine what is so, in respect of Mankind; I suppose it will be little less impious to say, that the wise and benign Disposer and Governor hath not furnish'd Mankind with necessary Means, as to say he hath not furnish'd them with competent Means. Now, Sir, if your moderate Penalties, and nothing else, be, since the withdrawing of Miracles, this necessary Means, what will be left you to say, by your Argument, of the Wisdom and Benignity of God in all those Countries, where moderate Penalties are not made use of? where Men are not furnish'd with this Means to bring them to the True Religion? For unless you can say, that your moderate Penalties have been constantly made use of in the World for the Support and Encouragement of the True Religion, and to bring Men to it, ever since the withdrawing of Miracles, you must con [...]s, that not only some Countries, (which yet were enough against you) but Mankind in general, have been unfurnish'd of the necessary Means for the promoting the Honour of God in the World, and the Salvation of Mens Souls. This Argument out of your own Mouth (were there no other) is sufficient to shew the Weakness and Unreasonableness of your Scheme; and I hope the due, Consideration of it, will make you cautious another time, how you intitle the Wisdom and Benignity of God to the support of what you once fancy to be of great and necessary use.

I having thereupon said, ‘Let us not therefore be more wise L. 2. p. 19. than our Maker in that stupendous and supernatural Work of our Salvation, the Scripture, &c.’

You reply, Though the Work of our Salvation be, as I justly P. 35. call it, stupendous and supernatural; yet you suppose no sober Man doubts, but it both admits, and ordinarily requires the use of natural and humane Means, in Subordination to that Grace which works it.

If you had taken notice of these immediately following Words of mine, ‘The Scripture that reveals it to us, contains all that we can know or do, in order to it; and where that is silent, [304] 'tis presumption in us to direct;’ You would not have thought what you here say a sufficient Answer: For though God does make use of natural and humane Means in Subordination to Grace, yet it is not for Man to make use of any Means, in Subordination to his Grace, which God has not appointed, out of a Conceit it may do some Service indirectly and at a distance.

The whole Covenant and Work of Grace, is the Contrivance of God's infinite Wisdom. What it is, and by what Means he will dispense his Grace, is known to us by Revelation only; which is so little suted to humane Wisdom, that the Apostle calls it the Foolishness of Preaching. In the Scripture, is contain'd all that Revelation, and all things necessary for that Work, all the Means of Grace: There God has declared all what he would have done for the Salvation of Souls; and if he had thought Force necessary to be join'd with the Foolishness of Preaching, no doubt but he would some where or other have reveal'd it, and not left it to the Wisaom of Man: which how disproportion'd and opposite it is to the Ways and Wisdom of God in the Gospel, and how unfit to be trusted in the business of Salvation, you may see 1 Cor. I. from v. 17, to the end.

The Work of Grace admits, and or dinarily requires the use of natural and bumane Means. I deny it not: Let us now hear your Inference; Therefore till I have shewn that no Penal Laws, that can P. 35. be made, can do any Service towards the Salvation of Mens Souls in Subordination to God's Grace, or that God has forbidden the Magistrate to use Force, (for so you ought to put it;) but you rather choose (according to your ordinary way) to use general and doubtful Words; and therefore you say, To serve him in that great Work with the Authority which he has given him, there will be no occasion for the Caution I have given, not to be wiser than our Maker in that stupendous Work of our Salvation. By which way of Arguing, any thing that I cannot shew, cannot possibly, cannot indirectly and at a distance, or by accident, do any Service, or God has not forbidden, may be made use of for the Salvation of Souls. I suppose you mean expresly forbidden, for else I might think these Words, [Who has required this at your hands?] a sufficient Prohibition of it. The sum of your Argument is what cannot be shew'd not to do any Service, may be used as an humane Means in Subordination to Grace, in the Work of Salvation. To which I reply, That what may, through the Grace of God, [305] sometimes do some Service, cannot without a farther warrant from Revelation, than such an Usefulness be requir'd, or made use of as a subordinate Means to Grace. For if so, then Auricular Confession, Penance, Pilgrimages, Processions, &c. which no body can shew, do not ever do any Service, at least, indirectly and at a distance, towards the Salvation of Souls.

'Tis not enough that it cannot be shewn that it cannot do any Service to justify its Usefulness; For what is there that may not, indirectly and at a distance, or by accident, do some Service? To shew that it is an humane Means, that God has no where appointed, in Subordination to Grace, in the supernatural Work of Salvation, is enough to prove it an unwarrantable Boldness to use it: And much more so in the present case of Force, which, if put into the Magistrate's hands with Power to use it in Matters of Religion, will do more harm than good; as I think I have sufficiently shewon.

And therefore, since according to you, the Magistrate's Commission, to use Force for the Salvation of Souls, is from the Law of Nature; which Commission reaches to none, since the Revelation of the Gospel, but Christian Magistrates; 'tis more natural to conclude, (were there nothing else in the case but the Silence of Scripture) that the Christian Magistrate has no such Power, because he has no such Commission any where in the Gospel, wherein all things are appointed necessary to Salvation; than that there was so clear a Commission given to all Magistrates by the Law of Nature, that it is necessary to shew a Prohibition from Revelation, if one will deny Christian Magistrates to have that Power. Since the Commission of the Law of Nature to Magistrates, being only that general one, of doing Good according to the best of their Judgments: if that extends to the use of Force in Matters of Religion, it will abundantly more oppose than promote the True Religion, if Force in the case has any Efficacy at all, and so do more harm than good: Which though it shews not, (what you here demand) that it can not do any Service towards the Salvation of Mens Souls, for that cannot be shewn of any thing; yet it shews the Disservice it does, is so much more, than any Service can be expected from it, that it can never be proved, that God has given Power to Magistrates to use it by the Commission they have of doing Good, from the Law of Nature.

[306]

But [...] you tell me, Till I have [...] that Force and Penalties cannot do any Service towards [...]he Sa [...]ation of Souls, there will be no occa [...]ion for the Caution I gave you, not to be wiser than our Maker in that stupendous and supernatural Work, you have forgot your own [...], That it is not enough to authorize P. 30. the use of Force, that it may be useful, if it be not also necessary. And when you can prove such Means necessary, which though it cannot be shewn, never upon any occasion, to do any Service; yet may be, and is abundantly shewn, to do so little Service, and so uncertainly, that if it be used, it will, if it has any Efficacy, do more harm than good: If you can, I say, prove such a Means as that necessary, I think I may yield you the Cause. But the use of it has so much certain Harm, and so little and uncertain Good in it, that it can never be suppos'd included or intended in the general Commission to the Magistrates, of doing good: Which may serve for an Answer to your next Paragraph.

Only let me take notice, that you here make this Commission P. 35. of the Law of Nature to extend the use of Force, only to induce those, who would not otherwise, to hear what may and ought to move them to imbrace the Truth. They have heard all that is offered to move them to imbrace, i. e. believe, but are not moved: Is the [...] by the Law of Nature commission'd to punish them for what is not in their Power? for Faith is the Gift of God, and not in a Man's Power: Or is the Magistrate commission'd by the Law of Nature, which impowers him in general, only to do them good? Is he, I say, commission'd to make them lie, and [...] that which they do not believe? And is this for their good? If he punish them till they imbrace, i. e. believe, he punishes them for what is not in their Power; if till they imbrace, i. e. barely prosess, he punishes them for what is not for their good: To neither of which, can he be commission'd by the Law of Nature.

To my saying, Till you can shew us a [...] in Scripture, it will be fit for us to obey that [...] of the Gospel, Mark 4. 24. which bids us take [...]eed what we [...]. You reply, That this you suppose is only intended for the [...] Reader; P. 36. For it ought to be renderd, Attend to what you hear; which you prove out of [...]. What if I or my Readers are not so learned, as to understand either the Greek Original, or [...] [307] Latin Comment? Or if we did, are we to be blamed for understanding the Scripture in that Sense, which the National, i. e. (as you say) the True Reli [...]ion authorizes, and which you tell us, would be a Fault in us if we did not believe? P. 20.

For if, as you suppose, there be sufficient Provision made in England for instructing all Men in the Truth, we cannot then but take the Words in this Sense, it being that which the Publick Authority has given them; for if we are not to follow the Sense as it is given us in the Transtation authorized by our Governors, and used in our Worship establish'd by Law, but must seek it elsewhere, 'twill be hard to find, how there is any other Provision made for instructing Men in the Sense of the Scripture, which is the Truth that must save them, but to leave them to their own Inquiry and Judgment, and to themselves, to take whom they think best for Interpreters and Expounders of Scripture, and to quit that of the True Church, which she has given in her Translation. This is the Liberty you take to differ from the True Church, when you think [...]it, and it will serve your purpose. She says, take take what you hear; but you say, the true Sense is, [...] to what you hear. Methinks you should not be at such variance with Distenters; for after all, nothing is so like a Nonconformist as a Conformist. Though it be certainly every one's Right to understand the Scripture in that Sense which appears truest to him, yet I do not see how you, upon your Principles, can depart from that which the Church of England has given it: but you, I nd [...], when you think fit, take that Liberty; and so much Liberty as that, would, I think, satisfy all the [...] in England.

As to your other place of Scripture; if St. Paul, as it seems to me in that Xth to the Romans, were shewing that the Gentiles were provided with all things necessary to Salvation, as well as the Jews; and that by having Men sent to them to preach the Gospel, that Provision was made, what you say in the two next Paragraphs will shew us, that you understand, that the Greek P. 37. Word [...] signifies both Hearing and Report, but does no more answer the Force of those two Verses, against you, Rom. X. 14, 17. than if you had spared all you said with your Greek Criticism. The Words of St. Paul are these; How then shall they call on him on whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear [308] without a Preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? So then Faith cometh by Hearing, and Hearing by the Word of God. In this Deduction of the Means of propagating the Gospel, we may well suppose St. Paul would have put in Miracles or Penalties, if, as you say, one of them had been necessary. But whether or no every Reader will think St. Paul set down in that place all necessary Means, I know not; but this, I am consident, he will think, that the New Testament does; and then I ask, Whether there be in it one word of Force to be used to bring Men to be Christians, or to hearken to the good Tidings of Salvation, offer'd in the Gospel?

To my asking, ‘What if God, for Reasons best known to Himself, would not have Men compell'd?’ You answer, If he would not have them compell'd now Miracles are ceased, as far as moderate P. 38. Penalties compel, (otherwise you are not concern'd in the Demand) he would have told us so. Concerning Miracles supplying the want of Force, I shall need to say nothing more here but to your Answer, That God would have told us so. I shall in few Words state the Matter to you. You first suppose Force necessary to co [...]pel Men to hear, and thereupon suppose the Magistrate invested with a Power to compel them to hear, and from thence peremptorily declare, that if God would not have Force used, he would have told us so. You suppose also, that it must be only moderate Force. Now may we not ask one, that is so far of the Council of the Almighty that he can positively say what he would or would not have, to tell us, whether it be not as probable that God, who knows the Temper of Man that he has made, who knows how apt he is not to spare any degree of Force wh [...] he believes he has a Commission to compel Men to do any thing in their power, and who knows also how prone Man is to think it reasonable to do so: whether, I say, it is not as probable that God, if he would have the Magistrate to use none but moderate Force to compel Men to hear, would also have told us so? Fathers are not more apt than Magistrates to strain their Power beyond what is convenient for the Education of their Children; and yet it has pleased God to tell them in the New-Testament of this Moderation, by a Precept more than once repeated.

[309]

To my demanding, `What if God would have Men left to their freedom in this Point, if they will hear or if they will forbear, will you constrain them? Thus we are sure he did `with his own People, &c. You answer, But those Words, whether P. 38. they will hear or whether they will sorbear, which we find thrice used in the Prophet Ezekiel, are nothing at all to my purpose. For by Hearing there, no Man understands the bare giving an Ear to what was to be preach'd, nor yet the considering it only; but the complying with it, and obeying it, according to the Paraphrase which Grotius gives of the Words. Methinks, for this once, you might have allow'd me to have hit upon something to the purpose, you having deny'd me it in so many other places: if it were but for Pity, and one other Reason; which is, that all you have to say against it, is, that by Hearing there, no Man understands the bare giving an ear to what was to be preach'd, nor yet the considering it, but the complying with it, and obeying it. If I misremember not, your Hypothesis pretends the use of Force to be not barely to make Men give an ear, nor yet to consider, but to make them consider as they ought, i. e. so as not to reject; and therefore, though this Text out of Ezekiel, be nothing to the purpose against have giving an ear, yet if you please, let it stand as if it were to the purpose against your Hypothesis, till you can find some other Answer to it.

If you will give your self the pains to turn to A [...]s XXVIII. 24,—28. you will read these Words, And some believed the things that were spoken, and some believed not. And when they agreed not among themselves they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word; Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the Prophet, unto our Fathers, saying, Go unto this People, and say, Hearing, ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and Seeing, ye shall see, and not perceive. For the Heart of this People is waxed gross, and their Ears are dull of hearing, and their Eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their Eyes, and hear with their Ears, and understand with their Heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. Be it known therefore unto you, that the Salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.

If one should come now, and out of your Treatise, call'd the Argument of the Letter concerning Toleration consider'd and answer'd, A. p. 7, &c. reason thus, It is evident that these Jews have not sought the Truth in this matter, with that Application of Mind and Freedom of Judgment [310] which was requisite, whilst they suffer'd their Lusts and Passions to [...]it in judgment, and manage the Enquiry. The Impressions of Education, the Reverence and Admiration of Persons, worldly Respects, and the like incompetent Motives, have determin'd them. Now if this be the case; if these Men are averse to a due Consideration of things, where they are most concern'd to use it, WHAT MEANS IS THERE LEFT (besides the Grace of God) to reduce them out of the wrong Way they are in, but to lay Thorns and Briars in it? Would you not think this a good Argument to shew the necessity of using Force and Penalties upon these Men in the Acts, who refused to be brought to imbrace the True Religion upon the Preaching of St. Paul? For what other Means was left, what humane Method could be used to bring them to make a wiser and more rational Choice, but laying such Penalties upon them as might ballance the weight of such Prejudices, which inclin'd them to prefer a false Way before the true? Tell me, I [...] you, would you not (had you been a Christian Magistrate in those days) have thought your self obliged to try, by Force, to over-ballance the P. 11. Weight of those Prejudices which inclin'd them to prefer a false Way to the true? for there was no other humane Means lefe; and if that be not enough to prove the necessity of using it, you have no Proof of any necessity of Force at all.

If you would have laid Penalties upon them, I ask you, what if God, for Reasons best known to himself, thought it not necessary to use any other Humane Means, but Preaching and Perswasion? You have a ready Answer, There is no other Humane Means but Force, and some other Humane Means besides Preaching, is necessary, i. e. in your Opinion: and is it not fit your Authority should carry it? For as to Miracles, whether you think fit to rank them amongst Humane Means or no; or whether or no there were any shew'd to these unbelieving Jews to supply the want of Force, I guess, in this case, you will not be much help'd, which ever you suppose: Though to one unbi [...]s'd, who reads that Chapter, it will, I imagine, appear most probable that St. Paul, when he thus parted with them, had done no Miracles amongst them.

But you have, at the Close of the Paragraph before us, provided a Salvo for all, in telling us, However the Penalties you P. 38. defend, are not skch as can any way be pretended to take away Mens Freedom in this Point. The Question is, Whether there be a necessity [311] of using other Humane Means but Preaching, for the bringing Men to imbrace the Truth that must save them; and whether Force be it? God himself seems, in the Places quoted and others, to teach us that he would have Men left to their freedom from any Constraint of Force in that Point; and you answer, The Penalties you defend are not such as can any ways be pretended to take away Mens freedom in this Point. Tell us what you mean by these Words of yours, take away Mens Freedom in this Point; and then apply it. I think it pretty hard to use Penalties and Force to any Man, without taking away his Freedom from Penalties and Force. Farther, the Penalties you think necessary, if we may believe you your self, are to be such as may ballance the Weight of A. p. 11. those Prejudices which incline Men to prefer a false Way before a true: whether these be such as you will defend, is another Question. This, I think, is to be made plain, that you must go beyond the lower degrees of Force and moderate Penalties, to ballance these Prejudices.

To my saying, ‘That the Method of the Gospel is to pray L. 2. p. 21. and beseech, and that if God had thought it necessary to have Men punish'd to make them give ear, he could have called Magistrates to be Spreaders of the Gospel as well as poor Fishermen, or Paul a Persecutor, who yet wanted not Power to punish Ananias and Sapbira, and the incestuous Corinthian.’ You P. 38. reply, Though it be the Method of the Gospel, for the Ministers of it to pray and beseech Men; yet it appears from my own Words here, both that Punishments may be sometimes necessary; and that Punishing; and that even by those who are to pray and beseech, is inconsistent with that Metbod. I fear, Sir, you so greedily lay hold upon any Examples of Punishment, when on any account they come in your way, that you give your self not liberty to consider whether L. 2. p. 19. they are for your purpose or no; or else you would scarce inser, as you do from my Words, that, in your case, Punishments may be sometimes necessary. Ananias and Saphira were punished; therefore it appears, say you, that Punishment may be sometimes necessary. For what, I beseech you? For the only End, you say, Punishments are useful in Religion, i. e. to make Men consider. So that Ananias and Saphira were struck dead: For what end? To make them consider. If you had given your self the leisure to have reflected on this and the other Instance of the incestuous Corinthian, 'tis possible you would have [312] found neither of them to have served very well to shew Punishment necessary to bring Men to imbrace the True Religion; for both these were Punishments laid on those who had already imbraced the True Religion, and were in the Communion of the True Church, and so can only shew (if you will infer any thing concerning the necessity of Punishments from them) that Punishments may be sometimes necessary for those who are in the Communion of the True Church. And of that you may make your advantage.

As to your other In [...]erence from my Words, viz. That Punishing, and that even by those who are, as Ambassadors, to pray and beseech, is consistent with that Method: When they can do it as the Apostles did, by the immediate Direction and Assistance of the Spirit of God, I shall easily allow it to be consistent with the Method of the Gospel. If that will not content you, 'tis plain you have an itch to be handling the secular Sword; and since Christ has not given you the Power you desire, you would be executing the Magistrate's pretended Commission from the Law of Nature. One thing more let me mind you of, and that is, that if, from the Punishments of Ananias and Saphira, and the incestuous [...], you can infer a necessity of Punishment to make Men consider, it will follow that there was a necessity of Punishment to make Men consider, notwithstanding Miracles; which cannot therefore be suppos'd, to supply the want of Punishments.

To my asking, ‘What if God, foreseeing this Force would L. 2. p. 21. be in the hands of Men, as passionate, as humoursom, as liable to Prejudice and Error, as the rest of their Brethren, did not think it a proper Means to bring Men into the right Way?’ You reply, But if there be any thing of an Argument in this, it P. 39. proves that there ought to be no Civil Government in the World; and so proving too much, proves nothing at all. This you say; but you being one of those Mortals which is liable to Error as well as your Brethren, you cannot expect it should be received for insallible Truth, till you have proved it; and that you will never do, till you can shew, that there is as absolute a necessity of Force in the Magistrate's hand for the Salvation of Souls, as there is of Force in the Magistrate's hands for the Preservation of Civil Society; And next, till you have proved that Force, in the hands of Men, as passionate, and humoursom, or liable to Pr [...]judice and Error as their Brethren, would contribute as much to the [313] bringing Men, and keeping them in the right Way to Salvation, as it does to the support of Civil Society, and the keeping Men at Peace in it.

Where Men cannot live together without mutual Injuries, not to be avoided without Force, Reason has taught them to seek a Remedy in Government, which always places Power somewhere in the Society to restrain and punish such Injuries; which Power, whether placed in the Community it self, or some chosen by the Community to govern it, must still be in the hands of Men; and where (as in Society of civiliz'd and setled Nations) the Form of the Government place this Power out of the Community it self, it is unavoidable, that out of Men (such as they are) some should be made Magistrates, and have Coercive Power or Force put into their hands, to govern and direct the Society for the Publick Good; without which, Force so placed in the hands of Men, there could be no Civil Society, nor the ends for which it is instituted to any degree attain'd. And thus Government is the will of God.

'Tis the Will of God also, that Men should be saved; but to this, it is not necessary that Force or Coa [...]live Power should be put into Mens hands; because God can, and hath provided other Means to bring Men to Salvation: To which, you indeed suppose, but can never prove Force necessary.

The Passions, Humours, Liableness to Prejudices and Errors, common to Magistrates with other Men, do not render Force in their hands so dangerous and unuseful, to the Ends of Society, which is the Publick Peace, as to the Ends of Religion, which is the Salvation of Mens Souls. For though Men of all Rank [...], could be content to have their own Humours, Passions and Prejudices satisfied, yet when they come to make Laws, which are to direct their Force in civil Matters, they are driven to oppose their Laws to the Humours, Passions and Prejudices of Men in general, whereby their own come to be restrain'd: For if Lawmakers, in making of Laws, did not direct them against the irregular Humours, Prejudices and Passions of Men, which are apt to mislead them: If they did not endeavour with their best Judgment, to bring Men from their Humours and [...], to the Obedience and Practice of right Reason, the Society could not subsist, and so they themselves would be in danger to lose their Station in it, and be expos'd to the unrestrain'd Humours, Passions, [314] and Violence of others. And hence it comes, that be Men as humoursom, passionate, and prejudiced as they will, they are still by their own Interest obliged to make use of their best Skill, and with their most unprejudiced and sedatest Thoughts take care of the Government and endeavour to preserve the Common-wealth; and therefore, notwithstanding their Humours and Passions, their liableness to Error and Prejudice, they do provide pretty well for the Support of Society, and the Power in their hands is of use to the maintenance of it.

But in Matters of Religion it is quite otherwise; you had told us, about the latter end of your Argument C. how liable Men were in choosing their Religion, to be misled by Humour, Passion and Prejudice; and therefore, it was not fit that in a Business of such Concernment they should be left to themselves: and hence, in this Matter of Religion, you would have them subjected to the Coactive Power of the Magistrate. But this Contrivance is visibly of no advantage to the True Religion, nor can serve at all to secure Men from a wrong Choice. For the Magistrates, by their Humours, Prejudices and Passions, (which they are born to like other Men) being as liable, and likely to be misled in the Choice of their Religion, as any of their Brethren, as constant Experience hath always shewn, what advantage could it be to Mankind, for the Salvation of their Souls, that the Magistrates of the World should have Power to use Force to bring Men to that Religion which they, each of them, by whatsoever Humour, Passion or Prejudice influenc'd, had chosen to themselves as the True? For whatsoever you did, I think with Reverence we may say, that God foresaw, that whatever Commission one Magistrate had by the Law of Nature, all Magistrates had: And that Commission, if there were any such, could be only to use their Coactive Power to bring Men to the Religion they believed to be true, whether it were really the true or no: And therefore, I shall, without taking away Government out of the World, or so must as question it, still think this a reasonable Question; ‘What if God, foresecing this Force would be in the hands of Men, as passionate, as humoursom, as liable to Prejudice and Error as the rest of their Brethren, did not think it a proper Means, in such hands, to bring Men into the right Way?’ And that it needs a better Answer than you have given to it: And therefore, you might have spared [315] the pains you have taken in this Paragraph, to prove that the Magistrates, being liable as much as other Men to Humour, Prejudice, Passion and Error, makes not Force, in his hand, wholly Un [...]erviceable to the Administration of Civil Government. Which is what no body denies: and you would have better imploid it to prove, that if the Magistrate's being as liable to Passion, Humour, Prejudice and Error as other Men, made Force, in his hands, improper to bring Men to the True Religion, this would take away Government out of the World: which is a Consequence, I think, I may deny.

To which, let me now add, What if God foresaw that if Force, of any kind or degree whatsoever, were allow'd in behalf of Truth, it would be us'd by [...]rring, passionate, prejudiced Men, to the restraint and ruin of Truth, as constant Experience in all Ages has shewn, and therefore commanded that the Tares should be [...] to grow with the Wheet till the Harvest, when the infallible Judg should sever them. That Parable of our Saviour's plainly tells us, If Force were once permitted, even in favour of the True Religion, what Mischief it was like to do in the Misapplication of it, by forward busy mistaken Men, and therefore be wholly forbid it; and yet, I hope, this does not take away Civil Government out of the World?

To my demanding, `What if there be other Means? and saying, `Then yours ceases to be necessary upon that account, that there is no other Means left; for the Grace of God is another Means. You answer, That though the Grace of God be P. 39. another Means, yet it is none of the Means of which you were speaking in the place I refer to, which any one, who reads that Paragraph, will find to be only Humane Means. In that place, you were endeavouring to prove Force necessary to bring Men to the True Religion, as appears; and there having dilated for four or five A. p. 6. Pages together upon the Carelesness, Prejudices, Passions Lusts, Impressions of Education, worldly Respects, and other the like Causes, which you think mislead and keep Men from the True Religion; you at last, conclude Force necessary to bring Men to it, because Admonitions and [...] not prevailing, there is no other Means left. To this, Grace being instanced in as another Means, you tell us here, you mean, no other HUMANE Means left. So that to prove Force necessary, you must prove that God would have other Humane Means used besides Praying, [316] Preaching, Perswasion and Instruction; and for this, you will need to bring a plain Direction from Revelation for your moderate Punishments; unless you will pretend to know, by your own natural Wisdom, what Means God has made necessary; without which, those whom he hath foreknown and predestinated, Rom. VIII. 29. and will in his good time call by such Means as he thinks sit, according to his purpose, cannot be brought into the Way of Salvation Perhaps you have some Warrant we know not of, to enter thus boldly into the Counsel of God; without which, in another Man, a modest Christian would be apt to think it Presumption.

You say, there are many who are not prevail'd on by Prayers, Intreaties and Exhortations, to imbrace the Religion. What then is to be done? Some degrees of Force are necessary to be used. Why? Because there is no other Humane Means left. Many are not prevail'd on by your moderate Force; What then is to be done? Greater degrees of Force are necessary, because there is no other Humane Means left. No, say you, God has made moderate Force necessary, because there is no other Humane Means left where Preaching and Intreaties will not prevail: but he has not made greater degrees of Force necessary, because there is no other Humane Means left where moderate Force will not prevail. So that your Rule changing, where the Reason continues the same, we must conclude you have some way of Judging concerning the Purposes and Ways of the Almighty in the Work of Salvation, which every one understands not. You would not else, upon so slight Ground as you have yet produced for it, which is nothing but your own Imagination, make Force, your moderate Force so necessary, that you bring in question the Wisdom and Bounty of the Disposer and Governour of all things, A. p. 16. as if he had not furnish'd Mankind with competent Means for the promoting his own Honour in the World, and the good of Souls, if your moderate Force were wanting to bring them to the True Religion; whereas you know, that most of the Nations of the World always were destitute of this Humane Means to bring them to the True Religion. And I imagine you would be put to it, to name me one now that is furnish'd with it.

Besides, if you please to remember what you say in the next Words, And therefore thongh the Grace of God be both a proper and sussicient Means, and such as can work by it self, and without P. 39. [317] which, neither Penalties nor any other Means can do any thing; and by consequence, can make any Means effectual: How can you say any Humane Means, in this supernatural Work, unless what God has declar'd to be so, is necessary? Preaching and Instruction, and Exhortation, are Humane Means that he has appointed: These, therefore, Men may and ought to use; they have a Commission from God, and may expect his Blessing and the Assistance of his Grace; but to suppose, when they are used and prevail not, that Force is necessary, because these are not sussicient, is to exclude Grance, and ascribe this Work to Humane Means; as in effect you do, when'you call Force competent and sussicient Means, as you have done. For if bare Preaching, by the Assistance of Grace, can and will certainly prevail; and moderate Penalties, as you confess, or any kind of Force, without the Assistance of Grace, can do nothing, How can you say, that Force is in any case a more necessary or a more competent, or sufficient Means, than bare Preaching and Instruction? unless you can shew us, that God hath promised the Co-operation and Assistance of his Grace to Force, and not to Preaching? The contrary whereof, has more of Appearance. Preaching and Perswasion are not competent Means, you say; Why? because, without the Co-operation of Grace, they can do nothing: But by the Assistance of Grace, they can prevail even without Force. Force too, without Grace, you acknowledge can do nothing; but join'd with Preaching and Grace, it can prevail. Why then, I pray, is it a more competent Means than Preaching, or why necessary, where Preaching prevails not? since it can do nothing without that, which, if joined to Preaching, can make Preaching effectual without it.

You go on, Yet it may be true however, that when Admonitions P. 40. and Intreaties fail, there is no HUMANE Means left but Penalties, to bring prejudiced Persons to hear and consider what may convince them of their Errors, and discover the Truth to them: And then Penalties will be necessary in respect to that end, as an HUMANE Means. Let it be true or not true, that when Intreaties, &c. fail, there is no HUMANE Means left but Penalties: Your Inference I deny, that then Penalties will be necessary as an HUMANE Means. For I ask you, since you lay so much stress to so little purpose on HUMANE Means, is some Humane Means necessary? if that be your Meaning, you have Humane Means in [318] the case, viz. Ad [...]onitions, Intreaties, being instant in season and out of season. i ask you again; Are Penalties necessary because the End could not be obtain'd by Preaching, without them? that you cannot say, for Grace co-operating with Preaching will prevail; Are Penalties then necessary as sure to produce that End? nor so are they necessary, for without the Assistance of Grace, you consess, they can do notbing. So that Penalties, neither as Humane Means, nor as any Means, are at all necessary. And now you may understand what I intend, by saying that the Grace of God is the only Means; which is the Enquiry of your next Paragraph, viz. this I intend, that it is the only efficacious P. 40. Means, without which all Humane Means is ineffectual. You tell me, If by it I intend that it does either always, or ordinarily, exclude Ibid. All other Means; you see no ground I have to say it. And I see no ground you have to think I intended, that it excludes any other Means that God in his Goodness will be pleased to make use of: But this I intend by it, and this, i think, i have ground to say, that it excludes all the Humane Means of Force from being necessary, or so much as lawful to be used, unless God hath required it by some more authentick Declaration than your bare saying or imagining it is necessary. And you must have more than Humane Confidence, if you continue to mix this poor and humane Contrivance of yours, with the Wisdom and Counsel of God in the Work of Salvation; since he having declar'd the Means and Methods to be used for the saving Mens Souls, has in the Revelation of the Gospel, by your own Consession, prescribed no such Humane Means.

To my saying, God alone can open the Ear that it may hear, and open the Heart that it may understand. You reply, But by, P. 40. your favour, this does not prove that he makes use of no Means in doing of it. Nor needs it: it is enough for me, if it proves, that if Preaching and Instruction doth not open the Ear, or the Heart, [...] not necessary any one should try his Strength with an Hammer or an Auger. Man is not in this business, (where no Means can be effectual, without the assistance and co-operation of his Grace) to make use of any Means which God hath not prescribed. You here set up a way of propagating Christianity according to your Fancy, and tell us how you would have the work of the Gospel carried on: You commission the Magistrate by Arguments of Congruity; you find an efficacy in Punishment [319] towards the converting of Men: you limit the Force, to be used to low and moderate degrees; and to Countries where sufficient Means of Instruction are provided by the Law. And where the Magistrate's Religion is the True, i. where it pleases you; and all this without any Direction from God, or any Authority so much as pretended from the Gospel; and without its being truly for the Propagation of Christianity, but only so much of it as you think fit, and what else you are pleas'd to join to it. Why else, in the Religion you are content to have establish'd by Law, and promoted by Penalties, is any thing more or less requir'd, than is exprestly contain'd in the New Testament.

This indeed is well suited to any one, who would have a Power of punishing those who differ from his Opinion, and would have Men compell'd to Conformity in England. But in this your fair Contrivance, what becomes of the rest of Mankind, left to wander in Darkness out of this Goshen, who neither have, nor (according to your Scheme) can have your necessary Means of Force and Penalties to bring them to imbrace the Truth that must save them: For if that be necessary, they cannot without a Miracle, either Prince or People, be wrought on without it. If a Papist at Rome, a Lutheran at Stockholm, or a Calvinist at Geneva, should argue thus for his Church, would you not say, that such as these look'd like the Thoughts of a poor prejudiced narrow Mind? But they may mistake, and you cannot; they may be prejudiced, but you cannot. Say too, if you please, you are confident you are in the Right, but they cannot be confident that they are so. This I am sure, God's Thoughts are not as Man's Thoughts, nor his Ways as Man's Ways, Isai. LV. 8. And it may abate any one's Confidence of the necessity or use of Punishments, for not receiving our Saviour, or his Religion, when those who had the power of Miracles were told, that they knew not what manner of Spirit they were of, when they would have Joh. IX. 5. commanded down Fire from Heaven. But you do well to take care to have the Church you are of, supported by Force and Penalties, whatever becomes of the Propagation of the Gospel, or the Sal [...]ation of Mens Souls, in other parts of the World, as not coming within your Hypothesis.

[320]

In your next Paragraph, to prove that God does bless the use of Force, you say you suppose I mean, by the Words you there P. 40. cite, that the Magistrate has no ground to hope that God will bless any Penalties that he may use to bring Men to hear and consider the Doctrine of Salvation; or (which is the same thing) that God does not (at least not ordinarily) afford his Grace and Assistance to them who are brought by such Penalties to hear and consider that Doctrine, to enable them to hear and consider it as they ought, i. e. so as to be moved heartily to imbrace it. You tell me, If this be my Meaning; then to let me see that it is not true, you shall only desire me to tell you, whether they that are so brought to hear and consider, are bound to believe the Gospel or not? If I say they are; (and you suppose I dare not say otherwise;) then it evidently follows, that God does afford them that Grace which is requisite to enable them to believe the Gospel: Because, without that Grace, it is impossible for them to believe it; and they cannot be bound to believe what it is impossible for them to believe. To which, I shall only answer, That by this irrefragable Argument, it is evident, that where-ever due Penalties have been used (for those you tell us are sufficient and competent Means) to make Men hear and consider as they ought, there all Men were brought to believe the Gospel; which, whether you will resolve with your self to be true or false, will be to me indifferent, and on either hand equally advantage your Cause. Had you appeal'd to Eperience for the Success of the use of Force by the Magistrate, your Argument had not shewn half so much depth of Theological Learning: But the Mischief is, that if you will not make it all of a piece Scholastick, and by arguing that all whom the Magistrates use Force upon, are brought to consider as they ought, and to all that are so wrought upon, God does afford that Grace which is [...]; and so roundly conclude for a greater Success of Force, to make Men believe the Gospel, than ever our Saviour and the Apostles had by their Preaching and Miracles, (for that wrought not on all) your unanswerable Argument comes to nothing. And in truth, as you have in this Paragraph ordered the matter, by being too sparing of your abstract Metaphysical Reasoning, and imploying it but by halves, we are fain, after all, to come to the dull way of Experience; and must be forced to count, as the Parson does his Communicantes, by his Easter-Book, how many those are that are so broughs to hear and consider, to know how far God blesses [321] Penalties. Indeed, were it to be measur'd by conforming; the Easter-Book would be a good Register to determin it. But since you put it upon Believing, that will be of some-what a harder Disquisition.

To my saying, (upon that place out of Isaiah VI. 10. Make the Heart of this People fat, lest they understand, and convert, and be healed) ‘Will all the Force you can use be a means to make such People hear and understand, and be converted?’ You reply, No, sir, it will not. But what then? What if God declares P. 41. that he will not heal those who have long resisted all his ordinary Methods, and made themselves, morally speaking, incurable by them? (Which is the utmost, you say, I can make of the Words I quote.) Will it follow from thence, that no good can be done by Penalties upon others, who are not so far gone in Wickedness and Obstinacy? If it will not, as it is evident it will not, to what purpose is this said? It is said to this purpose, viz. to shew that Force ought not to be used at all. Those ordinary Methods which, resisted, are punished with a Reprobate Sense, are the ordinary Methods of Instruction, without Force; as is evident by this place and many others, particularly Rom. I. From whence I argue; That what State soever you will suppose Men in, either as past, or not yet come to the Day of Grace, no Body can be justified in using Force to work upon them. For till the ordinary Methods of Instruction and Persuasion can do no more, Force is not necessary, (for you cannot say what other Means is there left) and so by your own Rule not lawful. For till God hath pronounced this Sentence here, on any one, Make his Heart fat, &c. the ordinary Means of Instruction and Perswasion, may, by the assistance of God's Grace, prevail. And when this Sentence is once passed upon them, and God will not afford them his Grace to [...] them; (I take it, you confess in this place) I am sure you must confess your Force to be wholly useless, and so utterly [...]: Unless that can be pertinent to be used, which you own can do nothing. So that whether it will follow, or no, from Mens being given up to a Reprobate Mind, for having resisted the preaching of Salvation, That no good can be done by Penalties upon others; this will follow, that not knowing whether Preaching may not, by the Grace of God, yet work upon them; or whether the Day of Grace be past with them; neither you nor any Body else can say [322] that Force is necessary; and if it be not necessary, you your self tell us it is not to be used.

In your next Paragraph, you complain of me, as representing P. 41. your Argument, as you say I commonly do, as if you allow'd any Magistrate, of what Religion soever, to lay Penalties upon all that dissent from him. Unhappy Magistrates that have not your allowance! But to console them, I imagine they will [...] that they are all under the same Obligation, one as another, to propagate the Religion they believe to be the true, whether you allow it them or no. For to go no farther than the first Words of your Argument, which you complain I have misrepresented, and which you tell me runs thus, When Men fly from the Means of right Information; I ask you here, who shall be Judg of those Means of right Information, the Magistrate who joins Force with them to make them be [...] to, or no? When you have answer'd that, you will have resolv'd a great part of the Question, What Magistrates are to use Force.

But that you may not complain again of my misrepresenting, I must beg my Readers leave to set down your Argument at large in your own Words, and all you say upon it. When Men fly from the Means of a right Information, and will not so much as consider how reasonable A. p. 11. it is, throughly and impartially to examine a Religion, which they imbraced upon such Inducements, as ought to have no sway at all in the matter, and therefore with little or no Examination of the proper grounds of it; What Humane Method can be used to bring them to act like Men, in an Affair of such consequence, and to make a wiser and more rational choice, but that of laying such Penalties upon them, as may ballance the weight of those Prejudices, which inclined them to prefer a False Way before the True, &c. Now this Argument, you tell me, I pretend to retort in this manner: ‘And, I say, I see no P. 41. other Means left (taking the World as we now find it, wherein the Magistrate never lays Penalties, for Matters of Religion, upon those of his own Church, nor is it to be expected they ever should) to make Men of the National Church, any where, throughly and impartially examine a Religion, which they imbraced upon such Inducements as ought to have no sway at all in the matter, and therefore with little or no examination of the proper Grounds of it: And therefore, I conclude the use of Force by Dissenters upon Conformists necessary. I appeal [323] to all the World, whether this be not as just and natural a Con [...]clusion as yours?’ And you say, you are well content the World should judg. And when it determines, that there is the same reason to say, That to bring those who conform to the National Church, to examine their Religion, it is necessary for Dissenters (who cannot possibly have the [...] Power, because the National Church has that [...] its side, and cannot be National without it) to use Force upon Conformists, As there is to say, That where the National Church is the True Church, there to bring Dissenters (as I call them) to examine their Religion, it is necessary for the Magistrate (who has the Coactive Power) to lay moderate Penalties upon them for dissenting: You say, when the World determines thus, you will never pretend any more to judg what is reasonable, in any case what soever. For you doubt not but you may safely presume that the World will easily admit these two things. 1. That though it be very fit and desirable, that all that are of the true Religion, should understand the true Grounds of it; that so they may be the better able, both to defend themselves against the assaults of Seducers, and to reduce such as are out of the Way; yet this is not strictly necessary to their Salvation: Because Experience shews (as far as Men are capable to judg of such Matters) that many do [...] believe and profess the true Religion, and conscientiously practise the Duties of it, who yet do not understand the true Grounds upon which it challenges their Belief: And no Man doubts but who soever does so believe, profess, and practise the True Religion, if he perseveres to the end, shall certainly attain Salvation by it. 2. That how much soever i [...] concerns those who reject the true Religion (whom I may call P. 39. Dissenters if I please) to examine and consider why they do so; and how needful soever Penalties may be to bring them to this; it is, however, [...]tterly unreasonable that such as have not the Coactive Power, should take upon them to inslict Penalties for that purpose: Because, as that is not consistent with Order and Government; which cannot stand, A. p. 6. where private Persons are permitted to usurp the Coactive Power; So there is nothing more manifest, than that the prejudice which is done to Religion, and to the Interest of Mens Souls, by destroying Government, does infinitely outweigh any good that can possibly be done by that which destroys it. And whoever admits and considers these things, you say, you are very secure will be far enough from admitting, that there is any Parity of Reason in the Cases we here speak of, or that mine is as just and natural a Conclusion as yours.

[324]

The sum of what you say, amounts to thus much. Men being apt to take up their Religion, upon Inducements that ought to have no sway at all in the Matter, and so, with little or no Examination of the Grounds of it; therefore Penalties are necessary to be laid on them, to make them throughly and impartially examine. But yet Penalties need not be laid on Conformists, in England, to make them examine; because they, and you, believe yours to be the true Religion: Though it must be laid on Presbyterians and Independents, &c. to make them examine, though they believe theirs to be the true Religion; because you believe it not to be so. But you give another very substantial Reason, why Penalties cannot be laid on Conformists, to make them examine; and that is, because the National Church has the Coactive Power on its side, and therefore they have no need of Penalties to make them examine. The National Church of France too, has the Co-active Power on its side; and therefore, they who are of it have no need of Penalties, any of them, to make them examine.

If your Argument be good, that Men take up their Religions A. p. 11. upon wrong Inducements, and without due Examination of the proper Grounds of it; and that therefore, they have need of Penalties to be laid on them to make them examine, as they ought, the Grounds of their Religion; You must confess there are some in the Church of England to whom Penalties are necessary: Unless you will affirm, that all, who are in the Communion of the Church of England, have so examin'd: But that I think you will not do, however you indeavour to palliate their Ignorance, and Negligence, in this matter. There being therefore a need of Penalties; I say, 'tis as necessary that Presbyterians should lay Penalties on the Conformists of the Church of England, to make them examine, as for the Church of England to lay Penalties on the Presbyterians to make them do so: For they each equally believe their Religion to be true; and we suppose, on both sides, there are those who have not duly examin'd. But here you think you have a sure advantage, by saying it is not consistent with the Order of Government, and so is impracticable. I easily grant it. But is yours more practicable? When you can make your way practicable, for the end for which you pretend it necessary (viz.) to make all, who have taken up their Religion upon such Inducements, as ought to have no sway at all in the Matter, to examine [325] throughly and impartially the proper grounds of it; When, I say, you can shew your way practicable, to this end, you will have clear'd it of one main Objection, and convinc'd the World that yours is a more just and natural Conclusion than mine.

If your Cause were capable of any other defence, I suppose we should not have had so long and elaborate an Answer as you have given us in this Paragraph, which at last bottoms only on these two things: 1. That there is in you, or those of your Church, some Approaches towards Insallibility; in your Belief that your Religion is true; which is not to be allow'd those of other Churches, in the Belief of theirs. 2. That it is enough if any one does but conform to it, and remain in the Communion of your Church: Or else one would think there should be as much need for Conformists too of your Church, to examine the Grounds of their Religion, as for any others.

To understand the true Grounds of the True Religion; is not, P. 42. you say, strictly necessary to Salvation. Yet, I think, you will not deny, but it is as strictly necessary to Salvation, as it is to conform to a National Church in all those things it imposes: some whereof, are not necessary to Salvation; some whereof, are acknowledg'd by all to be indifferent; and some whereof, to some conscientious Men, who thereupon decline Communion, appear unsound or unlawful. If not being strictly necessary to Salvation, will excuse from Penalties in the one case, why will it not in the other? And now I shall excuse the World from determining my Conclusion to be as natural as yours: For 'tis pity so reasonable a Disputant as you are, should take so desperate a Resolution as never to pretend any more to judg what is reasonable in any case what soever.

Whether you have proved that Force, used by the Magistrate, be a Means prescrib'd by God to procure the Gift of Faith from him, (which is all you say in the next Paragraph,) others must judg.

In that following; you quote these Words of mine. ‘If all the Means God has appointed to make Men hear and consider, be Exhortation in season and out of season, &c. together with Prayer for them, and the Example of Meekness, and a good Life; this is all ought to be done, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear. ’To which you thus reply, But if P. 43. these be not all the Means God has appointed, then these things are [326] not all that ought to be done. But if I ask you, How do you know that this is not all God has appointed, you have nothing to answer (to bring it to your present purpose) but that you know it by the Light of Nature. For all you say is but this; That by the Light of Nature you know Force to be useful and necessary to bring Men into the way of Salvation; By the Light of Nature you know the Magistrate has a Commission to use Force to that purpose; And by the same Light of Nature, you know that Miracles were appointed to supply the want of Force till the Magistrates were Christians. I imagine, Sir, you would scarce have thought this a reasonable Answer, if you had taken notice of my Words in the same Paragraph immediately preceding those you have cited; Which (that you may see the Scope of my Argument) I will here trouble you with again; and they are these.‘It is not for you and me, out of an Imagination that they may I. 2. p. 22. be useful, or are necessary, to prescribe Means in the great mysterious Work of Salvation, other than what God himself has directed. God has appointed Force as useful and necessary, and therefore it is to be used, is a way of Arguing becoming the Ignorance and Humility of poor Creatures. But I think Force useful or necessary, and therefore it is to be used, has methinks a little too much Presumption in it. You ask what Means is there left? None, say I, to be used by Man, but what God himself has directed in the Scriptures, wherein are contained all the Means and Methods of Salvation. Faith is the Gift of God. And we are not to use any other Means to procure this Gift to any one, but what God himself has prescribed. If he has prescribed appointed, that any should be forced to hear those who tell them they have mistaken their way, and offer to [...] then the right; and that they should be [...] by the Magistrate, if they did not; 'twill be past doubt, it is to be made [...] of. But till that can be done, 'twill be in vain to say, what other Means is there left.’

My Argument here lies plainly in this; That all the Means and Methods of Salvation are contain'd in the Scripture: Which either you were to have deny'd, or else have [...] where it was, in Scripture, that Force was appointed. But instead of that, you tell us, that God appointed Miracles in the beginning of the Gospel. And though, when these [...], the Means I mention were all the Ministers had left, yet this proves not that the [327] Magistrate was not to use Force. Your Words are, As to the first Spreaders of the Gospel, it has already been shown that God appointed other Means besides these for them to use, to [...]nduce Men to P. 43. hear and consider: And though, when those extraordinary Means ceased, these Means which I mention, (viz. Preaching, &c.) were the only Means left to the [...] of the Gospel; yet that is no Proof that the Magistrate, [...]hen he became Christian, could not lawfully [...] such Means as his Station [...] him to [...], when they became [...]. I said, in [...] words, ‘No Means was to be used by MAN, but what God himself has directed in the Scripture. And you answer, This is no Proof that the Christian Magistrate may not use Force. Perhaps when They so peremptorily interpose their decisive Decreas in the Business of Salvation; establish Religions by Laws and Penalties, with what Articles, Creeds, Ceremonies and Discipline they think fit; (for this we see done almost in all Countries) when they force Men to bear those, and those only, who, by their Authority, are chosen and allow'd [...] Men they have mistaken their way, and offer to shew them the right; it may be thought necessary to prove Magistrates to be MEN. If that needs no Proof, what I said needs some other Answer.’

But let us examine a little the Parts of what you here say. ‘As to the first Spreaders of the Gospel, say you, it has already been those, that God appointed other Means besides Exhortation in season, and out of season, Prayer, and the Example of a good Life, for them to use to induce Men to hear and consider. What were those other Means? To that you answer readily, Miracles. Ergo, Men are directed now by Scripture to use Miracles. Or else what Answer do you make to my Argument, which I gave you in these Words, `No Means is to be used by Man, but what God himself has directed in the Scriptures; wherein are contain'd all the Means and Methods of Salvation.’ No, they cannot use Miracles now as a Means, say you, for they have them not. What then? Therefore the Magistrate, who has it, must use Force to supply the want of those extraordinary Means which are now ceased. This indeed is an Inference of yours, but not of the Scriptures. Does the Scripture say any thing of this? Not a word: not so much as the least Intimation towards it in all the New Testament. Be it then true or false, that Force is a Means to be used by Men in the absence of Miracles, this is yet no Answer [328] to my Argument; this is no Proof that'tis appointed in Scripture; which is the thing my Argument turns on.

Revelation then fails you. Let us see now how Reason and Common Sense, that common Light of Nature, will help you out.

You then reason thus. Bare Preaching, &c. will not prevail on Men to hear and consider: and therefore some other Means is necessary to make them do so. Pray what do you mean by Men, or any other of those indefinite Terms, you have always used in this Case? Is it that bare Preaching will prevail on no Men? Does Reason (under which I comprehend Experience too, and all the ways of Knowledg, contradistinguish'd to Revelation) discover any such thing to you? I imagine you will not say that; or pretend that no Body was ever brought, by Preaching and Perswasion, to hear and consider the Truths of the Gospel, (mean by considering what you will) without other Means used by those who applied themselves to the care of converting them. To such therefore as may be brought to hear and consider, without other Means, you will not say that other Means are necessary.

In the next place, therefore, When you say bare Preaching will not prevail on Men; Do you mean that't will not prevail on all Men, and therefore'tis necessary that Men should use other Means? Neither, I think, will Reason authorise you to draw such a Consequence: Because neither will Preaching alone, nor Preaching [...] with Force; or any other Means Man can use, prevail on all Men. And therefore no other Means can be pretended to be necellary to be used by Man, to do what Men by those Means never did, nor never can do.

That some Men shall be saved, and not all, is, I think, past question to all that are Christians: And those that shall be saved, 'tis plain, are the [...]. If you think not this plain enough in Scripture, I desire you to turn to the 17th of the 29 Articles of the Church of England, where you will read these Words: Predestination to Life is the everlasting Purpose of God, whereby (before the Foundations of the World were laid) he hath const decreed by his Counsel secret to us, to deliver from Curse and Damnation those whom he ha [...] CHOSEN in Christ out of Mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting Salvation, as Vessels made to honour. Wherefore they which be indued with so excellent a Benefit [329] of God, be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit, [...] in due [...]: They through Grace obey the calling; They be justified freely; They be made Sons of God by Adoption; They be made like the Image of his only begotten Son Jesus Christ; They walk religiously in good Works; and at length by God's Mercy, They attain to everlasting Felicity. Now pray tell me whether bare Preaching will not prevail on all the Elect to hear and consider, without other Means to be used by Men. If you say it will; the neceslity of your other Means, I think, is out of doors. If you say it will not; I desire you to tell me how you do know it without Revelation; And whether by your own reason you can tell us, whether any, and what Means God has made necessary, besides what he has appointed in Scripture for the calling his Elect. When you can do this, we shall think you no ordinary Divine, nor a Stranger to the secret Counsels of the insinitely wise God. But till then, your mixing your Opinion with the Divine Wisdom in the great Work of Salvation, and from Arguments of Congruity, taking upon you to declare the Necessity or Usefulness of Means, which God has not expresly directed, for the gathering in of his Elect, will scarece authorize the Magistrate to use his Co [...]tive Power for the edisying and compleating the Body of Christ, which is his Church. Those whom God hath chosen in Christ out of Mankind, before the Foundations of the World, are called, according to God's Purpose, by his Spirit, working in due season, and through Grace obey the calling; say you in your Article. The outward Means that God has appointed for this, is Preaching. Ay, but Preaching is not enough; that is, not sussicient Means, say you. And I ask you how you know it; since the Scripture, which declares all that we can know in this matter, says nothing of the Insussiciency of it, or of the Necessity of any other? Nor can there be a Necessity of any other Means than wh [...]t God expresly appoints, in a Matter wherein no Means can operate effectually, without the Assistance of his Grace; and where the Assistance of his Grace can make any outward Means, he appoints effectual.

I must desire you here to take notice, that by Preaching, which I use for Shortness, I mean Exhortation, Instruction, Intreaty, Praying for, and in fine, any outward Means of Perswasion in the Power of Man, separate from Force.

[330]

You tell us here, As to the first Spreaders of the Gospel, God appointed other Means, viz. Miracles, for them to use to induce Men to hear and consider. If by the first Spreaders of the Gospel, you P. 43. mean the twelve Apostles and 70 Disciples, whom Christ himself sent to preach the Gospel; They indeed were appointed by his immediate Command, to shew Miracles by-the Power which he had bestowed upon them. But will you say, all the Ministers and Preachers of the Gospel had such a Commission, and such a Power all along from the Apostles time; and that they, every one, did actually shew Miracles to induce Men to hear and consider, quite down, till Christianity was supported by the Law of the Empire? Unless you could shew this, though you could produce some well-attested Miracles, done by some Men in every Age till that time, yet it would not be sufficient to prove that Miracles were appointed to be constantly used to induce Men to hear and consider; and so by your Reasoning, to supply the want of Force, till that necessary Assistance could be had from the Authority of the Magistrate become Christian. For since it is what You build upon, that Men will not hear and consider upon bare Preaching, (and I think you will forwardly enough agree, that till Christianity was made the Religion of the Empira, there were those every where that heard the Preachers of it so little, or so little consider'd what they said, that they rejected the Gospel;) and that therefore Miracles or Force are necessary Means to make Men hear and consider; You must own that those who preach'd without the Power of Miracles, or the Coactive Power of the Magistrate accompanying them, were unfurnish'd of competent and sufficient Means to make Men hear and consider; and so to bring them to the True Religion. If you will say the Miracles done by others were enough to accompany their Preaching, to make it be heard and consider'd; the Preaching of the Ministers at this day is so accompanied, and so will need no assistance of Force from the Magistrate. If the report of Miracles done by one Minister of the Gospel some time before, and in another place, were sufficient to make the Preaching of ten or a thousand others, be heard and consider'd, why is it not so now? For the Credibility and Attestation of the Report is all that is of moment; when Miracles done by others, in other places, are the Argument that prevails. But this, I fear, will not serve your turn in the business of Penalties; and whatever [331] might satisfy you in the case of Miracles, I doubt you would not think the Salvation of Souls sufficiently provided for, if the Report of the Force of Penalties, used some time since on one side of the Tweed, were all that should assist the Preachers of the True Religion on the other, to make Men hear and consider.

St. Paul, in his Epistle to Titus, instructs him what he, and the Presbyters he should ordain in the Cities of Crete, were to do for the propagating of the Gospel, and bringing Men heartily to imbrace it. His Directions are, that they should be blameless, not Rioters, not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to Wine nor filthy Lucre, not Strikers, not unruly; Lovers of Hospitality, and of good Men; sober, just, holy, temperate; To be able by sound Doctrine, both to exhort and convince Gain-sayers; In all things to be a Pattern of good Works; In Doctrine, shewing Uncorruptedness, Gravity, Sincerity, sound Speech that cannot be condemned, that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil to say of you. These things speak, and exhort, and r [...]buke, with all Authority. Avoid foolish Questions, and Genealogies, and Contentions. A Man that is an Heretick after the first and second Admonition, reject. To repay you the favour of your Greek, it is [...] which, if I may take your liberty of receding from ONr Translation, I would read avoid.

The Cretans, by the Account St. Paul gives of them, were a People that would require all the Means that were needful to prevail with any Strangers to the Gospel to hear and consider. But yet we find nothing directed for the Support and Propagation of the Gospel in this Island, but Preaching, Exhortation, Reproof, &c. with the Example of a good Life. In all this Epistle, writ on purpose to instruct the Preachers of the Gospel, in the Means they were to use among the Cretans, for their Conversion, not a word about Miracles, their Power or Use: Which one would think strange, if They were the Means appointed and necessary to make Men hear and consider, and without which they would not do it. Preaching, Admonition, Exhortation, Intreaties, Instruction, by the common Light of Reason, were known, and natural to be used, to perswade Men. There needed not be much said to convince Men of it. But if Miracles were a necessary Means, it was a Means wholly new, unexpected, and out of the Power of other Teachers. And therefore one would think, if they were appointed for the Ends you propose, one [332] should hear something of that Appointment: Since that they were to be used; or how, and when; was farther from common Apprehension; and seems to need some particular Direction.

If you say the same Spirit that gave them the Power of Mivacles, would also give them the knowledg both that they had it, and how to use it; I am far enough from limiting the Operations of that infinitely wise Spirit, who will not fail to bring all the Elect of God into the Obedience of Truth, by those Means, and in that manner he shall think necessary. But yet our Saviour, when he sent abroad his Disciples, with the Power of Miracles, not only put it in their Commission, whereby they were informed that they had that extraordinary Gift, but added Instructions to them in the use of it. Freely you have received, freely give; A Caution as necessary to the Cretan Elders, in the use of Miracles, if they had that Power; There being nothing more liable to be turn'd to the advantage of Filthy Lucre.

I do not question but the Spirit of God might give the Power, and stir up the Mind of the first Spreaders of the Gospel to do Miracles on some extraordinary occasion. But if they were a necessary means, to make Men hear and consider what was preached to them, till Force supplied their place; and so were ordinarily to accompany the preaching of the Gospel, (unless it should be preach'd without the means appointed and necessary to make it prevail) I think, in that case, we may expect it should expresly have made a part of the Preachers Commission; it making a necessary part of the effectual Execution of his Function.

But the Apo [...]le, it seems, thought fit to lay the stress upon instructing others, and living well themselves, upon being instant in season, and out of season. And therefore directs all his Advices for the ordering the Cretan Church, and the propagating the Gospel there, to make them attend to those necessary things of Life and Doctrine; without so much as mentioning the appointment, need, or use of Miracles.

I said, ‘But whatever Neglect or Aversion there is in some L. 2. p. 23. Men, impartially and throughly to be instructed; there will upon a due Examination (I fear) be sound no less a Neglect and Aversion in others, impartially and throughly to instruct them. 'Tis not the talking even general Truths in plain and [...]ear Language; much less a Man's own Fancies in Scholastical [333] or uncommon ways of speaking, an hour or two, once a week, in publick; that is enough to instruct even willing Hearers in the way of Salvation, and the Grounds of their Religion’: And that Politick Discourses and Inve [...]tives, from the Pulpit, instead of Friendly and Christian Debates with People at their Houses, were not the proper means to inform Men in the Foundations of Religion; and that if there were not a neglect in this part, I thought there would be little need of any other Means. To this you tell me, in the next Paragraph, You do not see how P. 43. pertinent my Discourse, about this matter, is to the present question. If the shewing the Neglects, observable in the use of what is agreed to be necessary Means, will not be allow'd by you to be pertinent, in a debate about necessary Means; when possibly those very Neglects may serve to make other Means seem requisite, which really are not so; Yet if you are not of those who will never think any such Discourse pertinent; you will allow me to mind you of it again, as not impertinent in answer to your last Letter, wherein you so often tell us of the sufficient Provision made for Instruction. For wherever the Neglect be, it can [...]arce be said there is sufficient Provision made for Instruction in a Christian Country, where great numbers of those, who are in the Communion of the National Church, are grosly ignorant of the Grounds of the Christian Religion. And I ask you, whether it be in respect of such Conformists you say, as you do in the same Paragraph, That when the best Provision is made that can be, for the Ibid. Instruction of the People, you fear a great part of them will still need some moderate Penalties to bring them to hear and receive Instruction?

But what if all the means that can, be not used for their Instruction? That there are Neglects of this kind, you will, I suppose, take the word of a Reverend Prelate of our Church, who thought he could not better shew his Good-will to the Clergy, Past. Care, p. 115,—118. than by a seasonable Discourse of the Pastoral Care, to c [...]re that Neglect for the future. There he tells you, that Ministers should watch over and seed their Flock, and not enjoy their Benesices as Farms, &c. Which Reproach, says he, (whatever We may be) our Church is free of; which he proves by the Stipulation and Covenant they make with Christ, that they will never cease their Labour, Care and Diligence, till they have done all that lieth in them, according to their bounden Duty, towards all such as are, or should [334] be committed to their Care, to bring them to a Ripeness of age in Christ. And a Page or two after, having repeated part of the Promise made by those who take Orders, he adds, In this is expressed the so much NEGLECTED, but so necessary Duty, which Incumbents owe their Flock in a private way; visiting, instracting and admonishing; which is one of the most useful and important Parts of their Duty, how generally socuer it may be disused or forgetten. P. 187. He says, Every, Priest that minds his Duty will find, that no Part of it is so useful as Catechistical Discourses; by means whereof, his People will understand all his Sermons the better, when they have once had a clear Notion of all those Terms that must run through them; for those not being understood, renders them all unintelligible. Another Part of the Priest's Duty, he tells you, is with relation to them Past. Care, p. 201. that are without, who are of the side of the Church of Rome, or among the Dissenters. Other Churches and Bodies are noted for their Z [...]al, in making Proselytes; for their [...] Endeavours, as well as their unlawful Methods in it: They reckoning perhaps that all will be [...] by the increasing their PARTY; which is the true Name of making Converts, except they become at the same time good Men, as well as Votaries to a Side or Cause. We are certainly very REMISS in this of both hands. Little pains is taken to gain either upon Papists or Nonconformists: The LAW HAS BEEN SO MUCH TRUSTED TO, that that Method only was thought sure; it was much valued, and others at the same time as much NEGLECTED. And whereas, at first, WITHOUT FORCE OR VIOLENCE, in forty Years time, Popery from being the prevailing Religion, was reduced to a bandful; we have now in above twice that number of Years, made very little Progress, &c.

Perhaps here again you will tell me, you do not see how this is pertinent to the present Question; Which, that you may see, give me leave to put you in mind, that neither you nor any body else can pretend Force necessary till all the Means of Perswasion have been used, and nothing negl [...]ted that can be done by all the softer Ways of Application. And since it is your own Doctrine, that Force is not lawful, unless where it i [...] necessary; the Magistrate, upon your Principles, can neither lawfully use Force, nor the Ministers of any National Church plead for it any where, but where they themselves have first done their Duties: A Draught whereof, a [...]apted to our present Circumstances, we have in the newly publish'd Discours: of the Pastoral Care. And [335] he that shall press the use of Force as necessary, before he can answer it to himself and the World, that those who have taken on them the care of Souls have performed their Duties, were best consider, whether he does not draw up an Accusation against the Men of that Holy Order, or against the Magistrate who suffers them to neglect any part of their Duty. For whilst what that Learned Bishop, in the Passages above cited and in other places, mentions, is neglected; it cannot be said that no other Means but Force is lest: Those, which are on all hands acknowledg necessary and useful Means, not having yet been made use of.

To vindicate your Method from Novelty, you tell me, 'tis P. 43. as old as St. Austin. Whatever he says in the place you quote, it shews only his Opinion, but not that it was ever used. Therefore, to shew it not to be new in practice, you add, that yon think it has been made use of by all those Magistrates, who having made all requisite Provisions for the instructing their People in the Truth, have likewise requir'd them under convenient Penalties to imbrace it. Which is as much as to say, that those Magistrates who used your Method, did use your Method. And that certainly you may think safely, and without fear of being gainsaid.

But now I will tell you what I think, in my turn: And that is, if you could have found any Magistrates who had made use of your Method, as well as you think you have found a Divine that approves of it, you would have named those Magistrates as forwardly as you do St. Austin. If I think amiss, pray correct me yet, and name them.

That which makes me imagine you will hardly find any Examples L. 2. p. 24. of it, is what I there said in these Words; ‘All other Law-makers have constantly taken this Method; that where any thing was to be amended, the Fault was first declared, and then Penalties denounced against all those who after a time set, should be found guilty of it. This the common Sense of Mankind, and the very Reason of Laws (which are intended not for Punishment but Correction) has made so plain, that the subtilest and most refined Law-makers have not gone out of this Course, nor have the most ignorant and barbarous Nations mist it. But you have out-done Solon and Lycurgus, Moses, and our Saviour, and are resolved to be a Law-maker of a Way by your self. 'Tis an old and obsolete Way, and will not, [336] serve your turn, to begin with Warnings and Threats of Penalties, to be inflicted on those who do not re [...]orm, but continue to do that which you think they fail in. To allow of Impunity to the Innocent, or the Opportunity of Amendment to those who would avoid the Penalties, are Formalities not worth your Notice. You are for a shorter and surer Way. Take a whole Tribe, and punish them at all Adventures, whether guilty or no of the Miscariage which you would have amended; or without so much as telling them what it is you would have them do, but leaving them to find it out if they can. All these Absurdities are contained in your Way of proceding; And are impossible to be avoided by any one, who will punish Dissenters, and only Dissenters, to make them consider and weigh the Grounds of their Religion, and impartially examine whether it be true or no, and upon what Grounds they took it up; that so they may find and [...] ace the [...] that must save them.’ These Absurdities, I fear, must be remov'd, before any Magistrates will find your Method practicable.

I having said, ‘Your Method is not altogether unlike the Plea made use of to excuse the late barbarous usage of the Protestants in France, from being a Persecution for Religion, viz. That it was not a Punishment for Religion, but for disobeying the King's Laws, which requir'd them to come to Mass: So by your Rule, Di [...]enters must be punish'd, not for the Religion they have imbraced, and the Religion they have rejected.’ In answer to this, in the next Paragraph, you take abundance of P. 44. pains to prove, that the King of France's Laws, that require going to Mass, are no Laws. You were best to say so on the other side of the Water. 'Tis sure the Punishments were Punishments, and the Dragooning was Dragooning. And if you think that Plea excus'd them not, I am of your Mind. But nevertheless am of Opinion, as I was, that it will prove as good a Plea as yours. Ibid. Which is what you argue against in your next Paragraph, in the Words following, wherein you examine the likeness of your new Method to this plea. You tell me, I say, by your Rule, the Di [...]enters' (from the true Religion, for you speak of no other) must be punish'd (or if I please subjected to moderate Penaltics, such as shall make them uneasy, but [...]uber destroy or undo them): For what? Indeed I thought by your [...] Book, you meant not for their Religion, but to make them consider; but here you ask me where it is you [337] say that Dissenters from the true Religion, are not to be punish'd for their Religion? `So then, it seems, in your Opinion now, Dissenters from the true Religion are to be punish'd, or (as you are pleased to mollify the Expression, for the thing is the same) subjected to moderate Penalties for their Religion. I think I shall not need to prove, to any one but one of your nice Stile, that the Execution of Penal Laws, let the Penalties be great or small, are Punishments.

If therefore the Religion of Dissenters from the true, be a Fault to be punish'd by the Magistrate; Who is to judg who are guilty of that Fault? Must it be the Ma istrate every-where, or the Magisrate in some Countries and not in others, or the Magistrate no-where? If the Magistrate no-where is to be judg who are Dissenters from the true Religion, he can no-where punish them. If he be to be every-where Judg, then the King of France, or the Great Turk, must punish those whom they judg Dissenters from the true Religion, as well as other Potentates. If some Magistrates have a right to judg, and others not; That yet, I fear, (how absurd soever it be) should I grant it, will not do your business. For besides that They will hardly agree to make you their infallible Umpire in the case, to determine who of them have, and who have not this right to judg which is the True Religion; or if they should, and you should declare the King of England had that Right, (viz. whilst he complied to support the Orthodoxy, Ecclesiastical Polity, and those Ceremonies which you approve of;) But that the King of France, and the Great Turk, had it not, and so could have no right to use Force on those they judg'd Dissenters from the true Religion; You ought to bethink your self what you will reply to one that should use your own Words; If such a degree of outward Force, as has been A. p. 16. mentioned, be really of great and even necessary use, for the advancing of the True Religion, and Salvation of Souls, then it must be acknowledg'd, that in France and Turky, &c. there is a right somewhere to use it, for the advancing those ends; unless we will say (what without Impiety cannot be said) that the wise and benign Disposer and Governour of all things, has not in France and Turky furnish'd Mankind with competent Means, for the promoting his own Honour, and the good of Souls.

You go on, and tell us, they are to be punish'd, not for following P. 44. the Light of their own Reason, nor for obeying the Dictates [338] of their own Con [...]lences, but rather for the contrary. For the Light of their own Reason, and the Dictates of their own Conscience (if their Reason and their Consciences were not perverted and abused) would undoubtedly lead them to the same thing, to which the Method you speak of is designed to bring them; i. e. to the same thing to which your Reason and your Conscience leads you. For if you were to argue with a Papist, or a Presbyterian, in the case; What privilege have you to tell him, that his Reason and Conscience is perverted, more than he has to tell you that yours is so? Unless it be this insupportable Presumption, that your Reason and Conscience ought to be the Measure of all Reason and Conscience in all others, which how you can claim, without pretending to Infallibility, is not easy to discern.

The Diversion you give your self, about the likeness and unlikeness of those two Pleas, I shall not trouble my self with; since, when your Fit of Mirth was over, you were forced to confess, That as I have made your Plea for you, you think there P. 45. is no considerable difference, as to the Fairness of them, excepting what arises from the different degrees of Punishment, in the French Discipline, and your Method. But if the French Plea be not true; and that which I make to be yours be not yours;—I must beg your pardon, Sir, I did not think it was your Opinion, (nor do I yet remember that you any where said in your A. &c.) that Men were to be punish'd for their Religion; but that it was purely to make Men examine the Religion they had imbraced, and the Religion that they had rejected. And if that were of moment, I should think my self sufficiently justified, for this my Mistake, by what you say in your Argument, &c. from p. 6, to 12. But since you explain your self otherwise here, I am not unwilling to take your Hypothesis, as you from time to time shall please to reform it. You answer then, That to make them examine, is indeed the Ibid. next End for which they are to be punish'd. But what is that to my Question? Which, if it be pertinent, demands for what Fault, not for what End, they are to be punish'd: As appears even by my next Words. ‘So that they are punish'd, not for having offended against a Law, (i. e. not for any Fault;) for there is no Law in England that requires them to examine.’ This, I must confess, was to shew, that here, as in France, whatever was pretended, yet the True Reason why People were punish'd, was their Religion. And it was for this Agreement, that in both Places Religion [339] was meant, though something else was talked of, that I said your plea was like that made use of in France. But I see I might have spared my Pains to prove that you punish Diffenters for their Religion, since you here own it.

You tell me, in the same place, I was impertinent in my Question, (which was this, For what then are they to be punish'd?) that I demanded for what End, and not for what Fault they are to be punish'd. In good earnest, Sir, I was not so subtile as to distinguish them. I always thought that the End of all Laws was to amend those Faults which were forbidden; and that when any one was punish'd, the Fault for which he was punish'd was the [...]ransgression of the Law, in that particular which was by the Law commanded or forbidden; and the End of the Punishment, was the Amendment of that Fault for the future. For Example; If the Law commanded to hear, not Hearing was the Fault punish'd; and the End of that Punishment, was to make the Offenders hear. If the Law commanded to examine, the Fault punish'd, when that Law was put in Execution, was not Examining; and the End of the Punishment, to make the Offenders examine. If the Law commanded Conformity, the Fault was Nonconformity, and the End of it to make Men conform.

This was my Apprehension concerning Laws, and Ends of Punishments. And I must own my self still so dull as not to distinguish otherwise between the Fault for which Men are to be punish'd, and the End for which they are to be punish'd, but only as the one is past, the other future. The Transgression or Fault, is an Omission or Action that a Man is already guilty of; the End of the Punishment, that it be not again repeated. So that if a Man be punish'd for the Religion he [...], I can see no other End for which he is punish'd, but to make him quit that Religion. No other immediate End I mean; for other remote Ends, to which this is subordinate, it may have. So that if not examining the Religion which Men have imbraced, and the Religion they have rejected, be not the Fault for which Men are punish'd; I would be glad you would shew me how it can be the next End, as you say it is, of their being punish'd. And that you may not think my Dullness gives you a Labour without Ground, I will tell you the Reason why I cannot find any other next End of Punishment, but the Amendment of the Fault forbidden; [340] and that is, Because That seems to me to be the End, the next End, of any Action; which, when obtain'd, the Action is to cease, and not cease till it be attain'd. And thus, I think, it is, in Punishments, ordain'd by the Law. When the Fault forbidden is amended, the Punishment is to cease, and not till then. This is the only way I have to know the End, or final Cause for which any Action is done. If you have any other, you will do me a kindness to instruct me. This 'tis which makes me conclude, (and I think with me all those who have not had the Leisure and Happiness to attain the utmost resining of the Schools) that if their Religion be the Fault for which Dissenters are punish'd, Examining is not the End for which they are punish'd; but the Change of their Religion: Though Examining may perhaps in some Men, precede their Change, and help to it. But that is not necessary. A Man may change his Religion without it: And when he has chang'd, let the Motive be what it will, the End the Law aims at is obtain'd, and the Punishment ceases. So on the other side, If not Hearing, not Examining, be the Fault for which Men are punish'd, Conformity is not the next End for which they are punish'd, though it may perhaps, in some, be a Consequence of it; but Hearing and Examining must be understood to be the Ends for which they are punish'd. If they are not the Ends, why does the Punishment cease when those Ends are attain'd? And thus you have my Thoughts concerning this Matter, which perhaps will not be very pertinent (as mine have not the good luck always to be to you) to a Man of nicer Distinctions.

But let us consider your Hypothesis as it now stands, and see what advantage you have got to your Cause by this new Explication. Dissenters from the True Religion are to be punish'd, say you, for their Religion. Why? Because 'tis a Fault. Against whom? Against God. Thence it follows indeed, that God, if he pleases, may punish it. But how will you prove that God has given the Magistrates of the Earth a Power to punish all Faults against himself? Covetousness, or not loving our Neighbour as our selves, are Faults or Sins against God. Ought the Magistrate to punish these? But I shall not need to trouble you much with that Question. This Matter I think will be decided between us without going so sar.

[341]

If the Magistrate may punish any one for not being of the True Religion, must the Magistrate judg what is that True Religion or no? If he must not, what must guide him in the punishing of some, and not of others? For so it is in all places where there is a National Religion establish'd by Penal Laws. If the Magistrate be commission'd by the same Law of Nature (for that is all the Commission you pretend to) to judg what is the True Religion, by which he is authorized to punish those who dissent from it; Must not all Magistrates judg, and accordingly punish those who dissent from that, which they judg the True Religion, i. e. in effect, those who dissent from theirs? And if all Magistrates have a Power to punish those who are not of their Religion, I ask you, Whether it be of more use or disadvantage to the promoting True Religion and Salvation of Souls? And when you have resolved that Question, you will then be able to tell me whether the Usefulness of it (which must be determin'd by the greater Good or Harm it is like to do) is such as to justify your Doctrine about it, or the Magistrate's use of it.

Besides, your making the Dissenting from the True Religion a Pault to be punish'd by the Magistrate, puts an end to your Pretence to moderate Punishments; which, in this place, you make use of to distinguish yours from the French Method; saying, That your Method punishes Men with Punishments which do not deserve to be called so, when compared with those of the French Discipline. But if the Dissenting from the True Religion, be a Fault that the Magistrate is to punish, and a Fault of that consequence, that it draws with it the loss of a Man's Soul; I do not see how other Magistrates, whose Duty it is to punish Faults under his Cognizance, and by punishing to amend them, can be more remiss than the King of France has been, and fo [...]bear declaring that they will have all their People saved, and endeavour by such Ways as he has done to effect it: Especially since you tell P. 8. us, That God now leaves Religion to the Care of Men, under his ordinary Providence, to try whether they will do their Duties in their several Capacities or not, leaving them answerable for all that may follow from their Neglect. In the correcting of Faults, Malo nodo [...] [...], is not only what is justifiable, but what is requisite. But of this more fully in another place.

[342]

In the next place; I do not see how, by your Method, as you explain it here, the Magistrate can punish any one for not being of the True Religion, (though we should grant him to have a Power to do it) whilst you tell us, That your Method punishes Men for rejecting the True Religion, propos'd to them with sufficient P. 45. Evidence, which certainly is a Fault. By this Part of your Scheme it is plain, that you allow the Magistrate to punish none but those to whom the True Religion is propos'd with sufficient Evidence. And sufficient Evidence, you tell us, is such as will certainly win P. 53. [...] where-ever it is duty consider'd. Now by this Rule, there will be very few that the Magistrate will have right to punish; since he cannot know whether those who dissent, do it for want of due Consideration in them, or want of sufficient Evidence in what is proposed; unless you mean by due Consideration, such Consideration that always does bring Men actually to [...]; which is in effect to say nothing at all. For then your Rule amounts to thus much, That sufficient Evidence is such as will certainly win Assent where-ever it is consider'd duly, i. e. so as to win Assent. This being like some of those other Rules we have met with, and ending in a Circle, Which after you have traced, you at last sind your self just where you were at setting out; I leave it to you to own as you think sit: And tell you, if by duly considering, you mean considering to his utmost; that then, that which is propos'd to one with sufficient Evidence to win Assent, may not be so to another.

There are Propositions extant in Geometry, with their Demonstrations annexed, and that with such sufficient Evidence to some Men of deep Thought and Penetration, as to make them see the Demonstration, and give Assent to the Truth: Whilst there are many others, and those no No [...]ices in Mathematicks, who with all the Consideration and Attention they can use, are never able to attain unto it. 'Tis so in other Parts of Truth. That which hath Evidence enough to make one Man certain, has not enough to make another so much as guess it to be true, though he has spared no Endcavour or Application in examining it. And therefore, if the Magistrate be to punish none but those who reject the True Religion, when it has been offer'd with sufficient Evidence, I imagine he will not have many to punish; if he will, as he ought, distinguish between the Innocent and the Guilty.

[343]

Upon your Forwardness to encourage the Magistrate's use of Force in Matters of Religion, by its Usefulness, even so far as to pretend Advantages from what your self acknowledge the Misapplication of it; I say that, ‘So instead of [...] from, L. 2. p. 26. you give Encouragement to the Mischief: which upon your Principle, join'd to the natural Thirst in Man after Arbitrary Power, may be carried to all manner of Exorbitancy, with some Pretence of Right.’ To which your Reply is, That you speak on-where but of the Use and Necessity of Force. What think you in the place mention'd, of the Gain that you tell the Sufferers they shall make by the Magistrate's punishing them to bring them to a wrong Religion? You do not, as I remember, there say, that Force is necessary in that case: Though they gaining, as you say, by it this Advantage, that they know better than they did before where the Truth does [...]; You cannot but allow, that such a Misapplication of Force may do some Service indirectly and at a distance towards the Salvation of Souls.

But that you may not think, whilst I had under Consideration the dangerous Encouragement you gave to Men in Power, to be very busy with their Force in Matters of Religion, by all the [...]orts of Usefulness you could imagine of it, however apply'd, right or wrong, that I declin'd mentioning the Necessity you pretend of Force, because it would not as well serve to the purpose for which I mention its Usefulness; I shall here take it so, that the Reader may see what reason you had to complain of my not doing it before.

Thus then stands your System. The procuring and advancing any way of the spiritual and eternal Interests of Men, is one of the Ends of Civil Society. And Force is put into the Magistrate's hands, as necessary for the attaining those Ends, where no other Means are left, ‘Who then upon your Grounds may quickly find Reason, where it [...]utes his Inclination, or serves his Turn, to punish Men directly to bring them to his Religion.’ For if he may use Force because it is necessary, as being the only Means left to make Men consider those Reasons and Arguments, which otherwise they would not consider, Why may he not by the same Rule use Force, as the only Means left to make Men degrees of G'ory, which otherwise they would not attain, and so to advance their eternal Interests? For St. Paul [...] us, that the [...] of this Life work for us a far more exce [...]ding weight of [344] Glory. So that whether the Magistrate may not, when it may serve his turn, argue thus from your Principles, judg you: Dissenters from my Religion must be punish'd, if in the wrong, to bring them into the right Way; if in the right, to make them by their Sufferings Gainers of a far more exceeding weight of Glory.

But you say, Unless it be as necessary for Men to attain any greater P. 73. degree of Glory as it is to attain Glory, it will not follow that if the Magistrate may use Force, because it may be indirectly, &c. useful towards the procuring any degree of Glory, he may by the same Rule use it where it may be in that manner useful towards the procuring a greater degree of Glory. But that there is the same necessity of Mens attaining a greater degree of Glory, as there is of their attaining Glory, no Man will affirm. For without attaining Glory, they cannot escape the Demnation of Hell, which yet they may escape, without any greater degree of Glory. One of the Ends of a Commonwealth is, say you, the advancing Mens eternal Interests. The procuring greater degrees of Glory, is the advancing a Man's eternal Interest. The use of Force, to make Men suffer for the Truth what otherwise they would not suffer, is as necessary for the attaining an higher degree of Glory, as using Force to make Men consider, what otherwise they would not consider, is necessary, P. 73. for the attaining any degree of Glory. But you will say, Attaining Glory is absolutely necessary, but the attaining any greater degree of Glory, however desirable, is not so necessary. Now if there be not the same necessity of the one of these, as there is of the other, there can be no Pretence to say, that whatever is [...] in respect of one of them, is likewise so in respect of the other. But there will always be a just Pretence to say, if advancing the eternal Interests of Men be one of the Ends of a Commonwealth, and that the Force in the Magistrate's hands be necessary to the attaining that End; that then the Magistrate is obliged to use it; whether you will think that End absolutely necessary, or as necessary as another, or no. I shall not here trouble you again with your Mistake about what is absolutely necessary, having taken notice of it in another place. Only I shall desire you to shew me, that the attaining of Glory is absolutely necessary, when next time you have occasion to affirm it. Attaining of Glory is necessary in order to Happiness: And attaining a greater degree of Glory, is necessary in order to greater Happiness: But neither of them is absolutely necessary, but in order to their respective Ends.

[345]

And now though, as you say, you do not think your self bound to take notice of all that may be done with some pretence of Right: Yet, I suppose, upon cooler Thoughts, when you have consider'd of what dangerous Consequence an Argument, manag'd as yours is, may be to the True Religion, and the sincere Prosessors of it; and what Occalion or Encouragement it may give to Men in Power warm'd with Zeal, and excited by the proper Ministers of their own Religion, to make a wrong and exorbitant Use of Force in Matters of Religion, you will another time think your self bound not to let it go abroad again without some Caution to the Magistrate in the Use of it; without one word of Advice at least, that since it is given him, as you say, only for promoting the True Religion, he should take care and examine impartially whether what he imploys it for, be the one only True Religion. It being your Opinion whenever he makes use of Force in Matters of Religion, for the promoting any thing but that, he goes beyond his Commission, injures his Subjects, and indangers his own Soul.

By this time, Sir, I suppose you see upon what Grounds I think you have not clear'd those Difficulties which were charg'd by me on your Method: And my Reader will see what reason there was for those Imputations which, with so loud an Outcry, you laid upon me of unfair Dealing; since there is not one of them which cannot be made good to be contain'd either in your Book or in your Hypothesis; and that so clearly, that I could not imagine that a Man who had so far consider'd Government, as to engage in Print, in such a Controversy as this, could miss seeing it as soon as mention'd to him. One of them which very much offends you, and makes you so often tell me what I say is impertinent and nothing to the purpose, and sometimes to use warmer Expressions, is, that I argue against a Power in the Magistrate to bring Men to his own Religion: For I could not imagine that, to a Man of any Thought, it could need proving; that if there were a Commission given to all Magistrates by the Law of Nature, which obliged them to use Force to bring Men to the True Religion, it was not possible for them to put this Commission in execution, without being Judges what was the True Religion; and then there needed no great quickness to perceive, that every Magistrate, when your Commission came to be put in execution, would, one as well as another, find himself obliged to [346] use Force to bring Men to that which he believed to be the True Religion. But since this was so hard for you to see, I now have been at the pains to prove it, and thereby to clear all thoseImputations. I shall not instance in any other: They are all of a like kind. Only where you complain I have not cited your Words fairly, if you can shew that I have done it any where in this or the Second Letter, to the advantage of my Cause; or to avoid any Argument in them, not answered; if you please to shew it me, I shall either let you see your Mistake, or acknowledg mine.

And now whether you shall think what I have said worth that Consideration you promise, or take it all for Cavils and Impertinencies, P. 78. to me is very indifferent. Enjoy if you please that short and easy way of answering. But if the Party you write for, be, as you say, God and the Souls of Men, it will require you seriously to weigh your Scheme, examine and put together the Parts of it, observe its Tendency and Consequences; and in a word, consider Things, and not Words. For the Party of God and Souls needs not any Help from Obscurity or Uncertainty of general and equivocal Terms, but may be spoke out clearly and distinctly; Needs no retreat in the round of equivalent, or the uncertainty of misapply'd Expressions, that may serve to amuse and deceive the unwary, but instruct no body; And lastly, needs no Leave nor Allowance from Men of Art to direct both Subjects and Magistrates to the Examination of the Scriptures, wherein God has reveal'd to the World the Ways and Means of Salvation. In doing of this, in a Treatise where you profess P. 68. the Subject of your Enquiry is only what Method is to be used to bring Men to the True Religion; the Party you profess to write for would have justified you against the Rules of any lawful Art; and no Christian Man, of what Art soever, would have denied you that Liberty: And, if I mistake not, the Party, you say you write for, demands it of you.

If you find upon a Review of the whole, that you have manag'd your Cause for God and the Souls of Men, with that Sincerity and Clearness that satisfies your own Reason, and you think may satisfy that of other Men, I shall congratulate to you so happy a Constitution. But if all your magnified and necessary Means of Force, in the way you contend for, reaches no farther than to bring Men to a bare outward Conformity to the Church of England; wherein you can [...]dately affirm, that it is presumable [347] that all that are of it are so upon Reason and Conviction; I suppose there needs no more to be said to convince the World what Party you write for.

The Party you write for is God, you say. But if all you have said, aims or amounts to nothing more than that the Church of England, as now establish'd by Law, in its Doctrines, Ceremonies and Discipline, should be supported by the Power of the Magistrate, and Men by Force be driven into it; I fear the World will think you have very narrow Thoughts of God; or that that is not the Party you write for. 'Tis true, you all along speak of bringing Men to the True Religion. But to evidence to you, that by the one only True Religion, you mean only that of the Church of England; I tell you, that upon your Principles, you cannot name any other Church now in the World, (and I again demand of you to do it) for the promoting whereof, or punishing Dissenters from it, the Magistrate has the same Right to use Force, as you pretend he has here in England. Till you therefore name some such other True Church and True Religion, besides that of England, your saying that God is the Party you write for, will rather shew that you make bold with his Name, than that you do not write for another Party.

You say too, you write not for any Party, but the So [...]s of Men. You write indeed, and contend earnestly, that Men should be brought into an outward Conformity to the Church of England. But that they imbrace that Profession upon Reason and Conviction, you are content to have it presumable, without any farther Enquiry or Examination. And those who are once in the outward Communion of the National Church, however ignorant or irreligious they are, you leave there [...] by your only competent Means, Force; without which, you tell us, the True Religion, by its own Light and Strength, is not able to prevail against Mens Lusts and the Corruption of Nature, so as to be consider'd as it ought, and heartily imbraced. And this drop'd not from your Pen by chance: But you professedly make Excuses for those of the National Religion who are ignorant of the Grounds of it; And give us Reasons why Force cannot be used to those who outwardly conform, to make them consider so as sincerely to imbrace, believe and obey, the Truth that must P. [...]. save them. But the [...]verend Author of the Pastoral Care tell [348] you, PARTY is the true Name of making Converts, except they become at the same time good Men.

If the use of Force be necessary for the Salvation of Souls; and Mens Souls be the Party you write for; you will be suspected to have betrayed your Party, if your Method and necessary Means of Salvation reach no farther than to bring Men to outward Conformity, though to the True Church; and after that abandons them to their Lusts and depraved Natures, destitute of the help of Force, your necessary and competent Means of Salvation.

This way of managing the Matter, whatever you intend, [...]ms rather, in the Fitness of it, to be for another Party. But since you assure us you write for nothing but God and Mens Souls, it can only be said you had a good Intention, but ill Luck; since your Scheme, put into the Language of the Country, will sit any National Church and Clergy in the World, that can but suppose it self the True; and that I presume none of them will fail to do.

You were more than ordinary reserv'd and gracious when you tell me, That what Party I write for, you will not undertake to P. [...]9. say. But having told me, that my Letter tends to the promoting of [...] in Religion, you thought ('tis like) that was sufficient to shew the Party I write for; and so you might safely end your Letter with Words that looked like civil. But that you may another time be a little better informed what Party I write for, I will tell you. They are those who in every Nation [...]ear God, [...] [...], and are accepted with him; and not those who in every Nation are zealous for Humane Constitutions, cry up nothing so much as outward Con [...]ormity to the National Religion, and are accepted by those who are the Promoters of it. Those that I write for are those, who, according to the Light of their own Con [...]ences, are every-where in earnest in Matters of their own Salvation, without any desire to impose on others; A Party so seldom favour'd by any of the Powers or Sects of the World; A Party that has so few Preferments to bestow; so few [...] to reward the [...]ndeavours of any one who appears for it, that I conclude I shall easily be believ'd when I say, that neither Hopes of Preferment, nor a Design to recommend my self to those I live amongst, has [...] my Understanding, or misled [349] me in my Undertaking. So much Truth as serves the turn of any particular Church, and can be accommodated to the narrow Interest of some Humane Constitution, is indeed often received with applause, and the Publisher finds his account in it. But I think I may say, Truth (in its full Latitude, of those generous Principles of the Gospel, which so much recommend and inculcate universal Charity, and a Freedom from the Inventions and Impositions of Men in the things of God,) has so seldom had a fair and favourable Hearing any where, that he must be very ignorant of the History and Nature of Man, however dignified and distinguish'd, who proposes to himself any secular Advantage by writing for her at that rate.

As to your Request in the Close of your Letter, I hope this will satisfy you, that you might have spar'd it; And you with the rest of the World will see that all I [...] in my former Letter was so true, that you need not have given me any caution for the future. As to the [...] of what I say, I doubt whether I shall please you: Because I find by your last Letter, that what is brought by me to shew the Weakness, Absurdities, or [...] of what you write, you are very apt to call [...], and nothing to the purpose. You must pardon me therefore, if I have endeavour'd more to please other Readers than you in that Point. I hope they will find, in what I have said, not much besides the matter. But to a Man who, supposing himself in the right, builds all upon that Supposition, and takes it for an Injury to have that Privilege deny'd him; To a Man who would soveraignly decide for all the World, what is the True Religion, and thereby impower what Magistrates he thinks fit, and what not, to use Force; To [...] a Man not to seem [...], would be really to be so. This makes me pleas'd with your Reply to so many Passages of my Letter, that they were nothing to the purpose: And 'tis in your Choice whether in your Opinion any thing in this shall be so.

But since this depends upon your keeping steadily to clear and [...] Notions of things, separate from Words and [...], used in a doubtful and undetermin'd Signification; wherewith [...] of Art often [...] themselves and others; I shall not P. 78. be so unreasonable as to expect, whatever you promise, that you should [...]y by your Learning to imbrace Truth, and own [350] what will not perhaps sute very well with your Circumstances and Interest.

I see, my Design not to omit any thing that you might think looks like an Argument In yours, has made mine grow beyond the size of a Letter. But an Answer to any one being very little different from a Letter, I shall let it go under that Title. I have in it also endeavour'd to bring the scatter'd Parts of your Scheme into some Method, under distinct Heads, to give a fuller and more [...] View of them. Wherein, if any of the Arguments which give support to your Hypothesis, have escaped me unawares; be pleased to shew them me; and I shall either acknowledg their Force, or endeavour to shew their Weakness. I am,

SIR,

June 20, 1692.

Your most Humble Servant,
PHILANTHROPUS.