A third letter for toleration, to the author of the Third letter concerning toleration

CHAP. IX. Of the Vsefulness of Force in Matters of Religion. (Book 9)

YOU having granted that in all Pleas for any thing, be∣cause * 1.1 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 Useles∣ness of Force in the Magistrate's Hands for promoting the true Religion, after it has been proved that, if any, then all Magi∣strates, who believe their Religion to be true, are under an Ob∣ligation 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 * 1.2 promised that Kings should be Nursing Fathers, and Queens Nursing Mothers to his Church. If we may judg of this Prophecy by what

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 pro∣pagating 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 as∣sistance 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, * 1.3 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 coun∣ted

a good Nurse of her own Child, who 〈◊〉〈◊〉 her self in whip∣ing Children not hers, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 belonging to her Nursery.

The 〈◊〉〈◊〉 which give you 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to hope for any advan∣tage 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 * 1.4 a little in your Light. It is not the Author's Toleration which here you accuse. That, you know, is universal: And the univer∣sality of it is that which a little before you wondred at, and com∣plained 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 consider∣ing 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 Na∣tion. For he that troubles not his Head at all about Religion, what other can so well suit 〈◊〉〈◊〉 as the National, with which the

Cry and Preferments go; And where (it being, as you say, pre∣sumable 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. * 1.5

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 Salva∣tion 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 Confor∣mists, 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 * 1.6 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

your way apply'd, (i. e. so that Men avoid the Penalties by an outward Conformity) cannot have any proper Efficacy to pro∣cure Consideration; since Men may outwardly conform, and re∣tain their Corruption, and Aversion to Consideration; and upon this account, Force, your way apply'd, is absolutely imperti∣nent.

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 Ortho∣dox are obliged to use it too. And this may serve for an An∣swer to all you have said, P. 16.

I having said, Whatever indirect Efficacy there be in Force * 1.7 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 ser∣viceable indirectly and at a distance, to make Men imbrace the Truth which must save them. ` And thus, say I, it may be ser∣viceable to bring Men to receive and imbrace Falshood, which ` will destroy them. To this you with great Triumph reply. How, * 1.8 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 Fals∣hood as will destroy them? It seems then, there are Reasons and Argu∣ments which are proper and sufficient to convince Men of the truth of Falshood, which will destroy them. Which is certainly a very extra∣ordinary 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 con∣vince Men of the Truth of Falshood? If a Magistrate of the True Religion may use Force to make Men consider Reasons and Ar∣guments 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 con∣vince them of what he believes to be true? And may not Force

thus be serviceable to bring Men to receive and imbrace Fals∣hood?

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 suf∣ficient 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 Sophi∣ster 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 exceed∣ingly pleased with, and think their very repeating a Triumph. But though there are no Arguments proper and sufficient to con∣vince 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 Argu∣ments and Reasons brought off, or seduced from your Church, to be a Dissenter, there were then I think Reasons and Argu∣ments 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 Nati∣onal 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.

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 profes∣sed 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 own∣ed 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, * 1.9 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, strong Delusion, i. e. such Reasons and Arguments as will prevail with Men, so disposed, to be∣lieve a Lie, that they may be damn'd; This you confess the Scripture plainly teaches us. But that there are any such Reasons or Argu∣ments 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,

you hope I will not undertake to maintain. And yet if it be not main∣tainable, what I say here is to no purpose: For if there be no such Rea∣sons 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 Ar∣guments 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 consi∣der, 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 Dis∣senters, 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.

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 outly∣ing 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 with∣in the Pale of the Church; Force, your way apply'd, serves only to bring them (even in the few Christian and Orthodox Coun∣tries) to the Profession, not to the Knowledg, Belief or Practice, of the True Religion.

You say corrupt Nature inclines Men from the True Reli∣gion 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 en∣joy 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 Na∣ture, 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

have little effect upon them. For such Men being awed by the Fear of Hell-fire, if that Fear will not make them consider bet∣ter 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 * 1.10 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 con∣cerned 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 Preach∣ing, Intreaty, Instruction and Perswasion shall never after pre∣vail upon a Man. But whatever you are here concerned to make * 1.11 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 Ac∣cident, 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 * 1.12 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 in∣crease 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

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 be∣tween 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 Questi∣on 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 Ar∣guing, viz. `That Force, your way apply'd, is more proper and likely to make Men imbrace Error than the Truth; be∣cause 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 be∣cause 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 e∣very 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 Ef∣ficacy

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, re∣turn 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 * 1.13 own proper Efficacy, but only to make Men consider, might indirectly and at a distance do some Service towards the bringing Men to im∣brace the Truth; After other Arguments against it, I say, that whatever Efficacy there is in Force, your way apply'd, (i. e.

To * 1.14 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 ap∣ter * 1.15 to use Force than others.

Which is what you are here an∣swering. And what can be done better to answer it, than to the Words I have above cited, to subjoin these following? Now * 1.16 whereas our Author says, that Penalties or Force is absolutely imperti∣nent 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 Rea∣sons 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 gi∣ven 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 suffi∣ciently proved that it cannot do some s•…•…rvice towards the bringing Men to imbrace the Truth; And therefore 'tis not absolutely imperti∣nent. 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.

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 Penal∣ties 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 Argu∣ments 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 ar∣guing when he said Penalties, in this case are absolutely imper∣nent; 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 with∣out 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 con∣sider. 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 Ar∣guments 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 im∣brace at all, they being not one jot the more in the Way of Salvation; and so Penalties are absolutely impertinent. But Im∣bracing 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 no∣thing but outward Conformity, or an outward Profession of Im∣bracing, 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

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 Peo∣ple 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 Hy∣pothesis. You tell us at large in your Argument consider'd, that * 1.17 Mens Lusts hinder them from even impartial Consideration and Examination of Matters in Religion, and therefore Force is ne∣cessary to remove this Hindrance. You tell us likewise at large * 1.18 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 im∣partial Examination, rising from Mens Lusts, nor the Aversion to imbracing the True Religion, rising from Mens corrupt Na∣ture, 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 Exa∣mining or Imbracing on the one hand, or Suffering the Penalties on the other; it is unavoidable, that he should neither imparti∣ally 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 necessa∣ry Remedy, must continue on to hinder both Examining and Im∣bracing. 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 re∣main

undone. So that if Penalties be necessary to make Men im∣partially examine and really imbrace; if Penalties are not so laid on Men as to make the Alternative to be either suffering the Pe∣nalties 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 incli∣nation 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 Inclina∣tion 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 Ob∣stacle 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 imper∣tinently as a Means to that End, nothing that I know can be im∣pertinent; 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 Car∣tesians, 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 (whe∣ther it be in England, Holland or Denmark) of the National Pro∣fession, 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

does, direct or indirect, near or at a distance, 'tis plain it pro∣duces 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 ap∣plying 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 * 1.19 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 * 1.20 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 abun∣dantly 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 acci∣dent does Service but seldom, and besides the Intention of the A∣gent, but yours the contrary.

First, as to the Intention, you tell us, in the use of Force, which * 1.21 you defend, the Effect is intended by him that uses it; that is, those who made Laws to punish Nonconformists, designed those Pe∣nalties to make all Men, under their Power, consider so as to be con∣vinced 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?

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 si∣lent: That Way then you can not know it to have been their Intention, if the Law says nothing of it. Whatever was the In∣tention of former Law-makers, if you had read with Attention the last Act of Uniformity of Car. 2. printed before the Com∣mon-Prayer Book, I conclude you would have been better sa∣tisfied 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 Vni∣formity 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 esta∣blish'd Liturgy, 'tis certain they had not over-much time se∣riously 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 In∣struction 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 pro∣vided of mending it, if Men would make a sufficient use of them; unless those two Faults are so connected, as one cannot be men∣ded 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 Pe∣nalties were intended to make Men so consider, whatever Provisi∣on there is made of Means of Instructi∣on.

But you will say, it is evident that Penalties on Nonconfor∣mists, were intended to make them use these Means of Instructi∣on.

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 * 1.22 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 un∣der the Magistrates Power, and so to be intended, to make them all consider, in any Sense. Can you, or any one know, or sup∣pose, that Penalties which are laid by the Law on Nonconfor∣mity, are intended to make all Men consider; where 'tis known that a great Number, under the Magistrates Power, are dispen∣sed with, and privileged from those Penalties? How many, omitting the Jews, are there; for example, in the King of Eng∣land'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 Magi∣strates 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 Con∣formists, 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

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 al∣ready: Unless you have a Privilege to affirm, against all appear∣ance whatsoever may serve your Cause. But to learn some Mo∣deration 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 * 1.23 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 * 1.24 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 de∣signed 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 in∣tend 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

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 re∣collect, what you meet with in the Sermons, and Printed Discour∣ses, of Divines of the Church of England, concerning the Igno∣rance 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 Confor∣mists, 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 Penal∣ty, so applied, to bring the irreligious, and those who are care∣less, 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 Religi∣on, lies only in Mens Lusts; it having Light and Strength enough (were it not for that) to prevail: and it is upon that account on∣ly 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 Na∣ture 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

help of Force, to make him a Conformist, and an outward Pro∣fessor. 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 de∣pends, 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 Ef∣fect 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 up∣on his Will, as naturally, as thirteen Ounces in one Scale, laid a∣gainst twelve Ounces in the other, incline the Ballance, and bring it down on that side. And this is by a direct and natu∣ral Efficacy, wherein there is nothing of Chance.

Let us see this how far this will go in your indirect and at a di∣stance Usefulness. In your Method, the Action, you propose to be done, is Considering, or a severe and impartial Examining Mat∣ters of Religion, which you tell us, Men by their great Negli∣gence 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

a direct and natural Efficacy produce Conformity: but if it pro∣duces a severe and impartial Examination, that is meerly by ac∣cident; because the Inconvenience of the Penalty is not laid a∣gainst 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 impar∣tially 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 Conformi∣ty, 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 Con∣formity, 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 * 1.25 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 Con∣formists; 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 Penal∣ties can do any Service, to bring them either to the Truth that

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 * 1.26 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 Profes∣sion 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 Pu∣nishments 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 Instan∣ces of it I believe to be so few, that you will have reason to re∣member

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

: * 1.27 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 Ca∣ses, 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 se∣veral 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 pre∣vail 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 Demonstra∣tion, •…•…s it not? That their Compliance was the fruit of their Con∣viction; and that the Magistrate was concern'd for their Compli∣ance 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 Effi∣cacy 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

necessarily allow that all Force, used for the bringing Men to the True Religion, is absolutely impertinent; for that must be abso∣lutely impertinent to be used as a Means, which can contribute no∣thing 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 Go∣spel. 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 * 1.28 it. If that be so, methinks Force should most properly and perti∣nently 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

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 Di∣stinction 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 Salva∣tion.

Another Reason I gave against the Vsefulness of Force in Mat∣ters 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 * 1.29 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 Re∣ligion, 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 con∣vince them that they ought to go to Mass?

You reply; A Question which you shall then think your self obliged to answer, when * 1.30 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.

Especially, if you consider, that as the Magistrate will cer∣tainly 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 suf∣ficient 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 pu∣nishing 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 a∣ny Men? And that all the Papists in th•…•… World go to Mass with∣out believing it their Duty? And whosoever believes it to be his Duty, does it upon Reasons and Arguments, proper and suffici∣ent 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 re∣sisted all sorts of Torments, even to Death it self, for the Ro∣mish 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 confi∣dent of the Truth of your Religion, than you profess to be. But Arguments set on with Force, have a strange Efficacy up∣on

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•…•…li∣gion, 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 pro∣per 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 * 1.31 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 * 1.32 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 Dis∣course, rather than add three Words to make it good Gram∣mar, as well as intelligible Sense.

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, * 1.33 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 Ma∣strate 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 Reli∣gion? If you say, Yes, he will ask you how you know it? and no doubt, but you will give the Answer whereby our Saviour pro∣ved 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 a∣gain, 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 Reli∣gion 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 Confi∣dence: and thus all Magistrates who believe their Religion to

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 * 1.34 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 in∣direct and at a distance Vsefulness of your Force, from that which is barely by accident; by these two Marks, viz. 1st. That Pu∣nishment 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 * 1.35 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 De∣gree 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 thou∣sand 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 Over∣sight

neglect to do it.

Your Answer is, But where the Law pro∣vides sufficient means of Instruction for all, as well as Punishment for Dissentors, it is so plain to all concern'd, that the Punishment is in∣tended * 1.36 to make them consider, that you see no danger of Mens neg∣lecting 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 Conformi∣ty;) 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 Uni∣formity, or against Conventicles, or the Penalties in either of them, were ever intended to make Men seriously study Religi∣on, 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 Understan∣dings, 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 neg∣lecting to do it, through Ignorance or Oversight, is more for its ser∣ving 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 Sun∣day, 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 every∣where, but only where the Law provides sufficient means of Instructi∣on

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 Pla∣ces 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 Eng∣land but the 39 Articles, the Liturgy, and the Scripture, and how either of them by it self, or these altogether, with a Nati∣onal Clergy, make it plain, that the Penalties laid on Noncon∣formity, are intended to make Men consider, study, and imparti∣ally examine Matters of Religion, you would do well to shew. For Magistrates usually know (and therefore make their Laws ac∣cordingly) that the People seldom carry either their Interpre∣tation or Practice beyond what the express Letter of the Law requires of them. You would do well also to shew, that a suf∣ficient provision of means of Instruction, cannot but be under∣stood 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 Conformi∣ty 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 pre∣sent at a Discourse concerning Mathematicks, and studying Ma∣thematicks, so as to become a knowing Mathematician, are dif∣ferent one from the other.

People generally think they have done their Duties abun∣dantly, 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

Conviction, would he not have taken some care to have them in∣structed 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 in∣spir'd with A•…•…uteness enough to sind out this; I suspect the Vulgar who have scarce time and thought enough to make In∣ferences 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 Abi∣lities to argue about it, will find reason to think, that those Pe∣nalties 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 Judg∣ments, (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 ig∣norant and careless Dissenters.

To my saying,

Some Dissenters may have consider'd alrea∣dy, 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 * 1.37 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 re∣ject 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.

I said,

The greatest part of Mankind, being not able to discern betwixt Truth and Falshood, that depends upon long * 1.38 and many Proofs, and remote Consequences; nor ha•…•…ing A∣bility enough to discover the false Grounds, and resist the cap∣tious and fallacious Arguments of Learned Men versed in Con∣troversies, 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 Re∣ligion, 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 erro∣neous, 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 * 1.39 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 im∣brace 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 Mat∣ters concerning their Salvation (as I must mean if I speak to the pur∣pose) their Condition must needs be very hazardous, if they have not some Guide or Judg, to whose Determination and Direction they may

securely resign themselves. And therefore they must resign them∣selves 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 Sub∣jects 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 neces∣sary 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: consi∣der 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 be∣lieve, assent or consent to. What now is to be done with him? He must either be punished on, or resign himself up to the Deter∣mination 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.

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 * 1.40 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 ne∣cessary 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 ne∣cessary to Salvation are obvious; so that those who seek them sin∣cerely 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 Dan∣ger most are in to be led into Error, by the Magistrate's adding Force to the Arguments for their National establish'd Religi∣ons; 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 Commu∣nion with the Church of England, but what is necessary to Salva∣tion; 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 law∣ful 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 can∣not lawfully be used, to bring Men to that, which they do not need, or is not necessary, to their Salvation; for in such an Ap∣plication 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 * 1.41 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

my Salvation, that you or I should believe and pronounce all those damn'd who do not believe that Creed, i. e. every Pro∣position 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 un∣derstand. 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 be∣lieve 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 Litur∣gy: 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 en∣quire 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 neces∣sary Parts of the National Religion?

If you say it may be so, then I have nothing farther to en∣quire; 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,

is the Privilege of those who join themselves in outward Pro∣fession to any National Church whatsoever. And it is not im∣possible, 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 * 1.42 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 Na∣ture, 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 Sy∣stem, upon a strong Probability of the Success of greater punish∣ment, 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 Perse∣entors.

The other Reason of your iudging Force to be useful, you say, is grounded on the indisputable Att•…•…station of Experience. Pray

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 re∣ceiv'd, and establish'd by moderate Penal Laws, that the observing Persons you appeal to, may know where to imploy their Obser∣vation: 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 Ex∣perience 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 Exam∣ples: 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 * 1.43 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 esta∣blish'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 Pe∣nalties of the Law, kept in the Communion of the National Re∣ligion, 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 stron∣ger tie of Co•…•…science and Conviction.

You go on, Whether Sects and Hercsies (even the wildest and most absurd, and even Epicurism and Atheism) have not continually * 1.44 thereupon spread themselves, and whether the very Life of Christiani∣ty 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, whe∣ther they more spread under Toleration, or National Religions, establish'd by moderate Penal Laws, when you shew us the Coun∣tries 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 * 1.45 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 Scep∣ticism in Religion among us. In which number, you say, you shall not much need my pardon, if you reckon the First and Second Let∣ter concerning Toleration. Wherein, by a broad Insinuation, you impute the spreading of Atheism among us, to the late Relaxa∣tion 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 Scep∣ticism in Religion amongst us; and for instance, you name the First and Second Letter concerning Toleration. If one may guess at

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 pre∣sently, 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 ten∣ding 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 Tolera∣tion, to be added to the Catalogue, which asserting and building * 1.46 upon this, that True Religion may be known by those who profess it, to be the only True Religion, does not a little towards be∣traying 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 Chri∣stian 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 re∣quire, and you cannot blame him if he does not receive your Religion, upon the strongest probable Arguments, without De∣monstration.

And if one should demand of you Demonstration of the Truths of your Religion, which I beseech you, would you do, ei∣ther 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 Let∣ter concerning Toleration, we shall have reason to think you have some ground for what you say.

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 con∣cern'd in Toleration. And for the Toleration of corrupt Man∣ners, and the Debaucheries of Life, neither our Author, nor I do plead for it; but say it is properly the Magistrate's Busi∣ness, 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 incon∣sistent 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 else∣where.

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 * 1.47 〈◊〉〈◊〉, for fear of giving offence. Whom is it, I beseech you, you are so afraid of offending, if you should speak of the Epicurism, A∣theism, and D•…•…ay of the Spirit, and Life of Christianity •…•…gst 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉? But I see, he that is so mode•…•… in one 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 he will not take upon 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 what they cannot know 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 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 Ac∣cusations

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 Impu∣tation, 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 de∣cay'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 Re∣laxation * 1.48 of moderate Penal Laws, made for the preserving and advan∣cing 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 de∣bate * 1.49 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 Ana∣baptist; nay no more to you, than it can be allow'd to a Jew or Mahometan.

To which you reply, No Sir? Not whatever * 1.50 your Church or Religion be? That seems somewhat hard. And you think I might have given you some reason for what I say: For cer∣tainly it is not so self-evident as to need no proof. But you think it is

no hard matter to guess at my Reason, though I did not think fit ex∣presty 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 Reli∣gions 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 in∣genuously 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 ano∣ther (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, be∣ing 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

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 Re∣ligion, 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 o∣ther 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 re∣solved 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 say∣ing something to the same purpose, as I do here. But, Sir, if you will add but one more to your plentiful stock of Distincti∣ons, 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 Assu∣rance wherewith one Man supposes his Religion to be true, be∣ing 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.

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 * 1.51 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 ar∣gue for Force, as necessary to bring Men to the True Religion, without supposing yours to be it, you will find your self un∣der some such difficulty as this, that then it must be first de∣termin'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 * 1.52 one True Religion, and but one. Suppose not the National Religi∣on establish•…•…d by Law in England to be that, and then even up∣on your Principles of its being useful, and that the Magistrate has a Commission to use Force for the promoting the True Re∣ligion, 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 * 1.53 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 Natio∣nal Religion to be that only True Religion, I would gladly know

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 Reli∣gion 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 Reli∣gion 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 Reli∣gion, 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 Re∣ligion, 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 in∣consistent 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 Com∣munion, 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 dri∣ven 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 practi∣cable, upon your Principles of necessity, to use Force upon Dis∣senters from the National Religion, though it contain in it no∣thing

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 pur∣pose, 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 Re∣ligion, must know them all, and must be able to manifest them to others; for it is on that here you ground the Necessity and Rea∣sonableness 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 deter∣min'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 con∣stant 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

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 Re∣velation, 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 per∣swaded 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 demonstra∣tion, (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 Er∣ror 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 Re∣ligion, 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

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 con∣tents 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 * 1.54 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 con∣sider 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

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 Sup∣position, viz. That then it may be very fit and reasonable, for any * 1.55 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 * 1.56 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 out∣wardly 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 Con∣formity 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 Religi∣on, if Magistrates did every where so punish? You answer, * 1.57 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 Magi∣strates every where did so punish. For then we might reasonably hope •…•…hat all f•…•…lse Religions would soon vanish, and the true become on•…•…

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 Athe∣ism, as more agreeable to the Soil, would daily take deeper Root, and propagate themselves, till there were no room left for the true Reli∣gion (which is but a foreign Plant) in any Corner of the World.

If you can make it practicable that the Magistrate should pu∣nish Men for rejecting the True Religion, without judging which is the True Religion: or if True Religion could appear in Per∣son, 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 pu∣nish. An Oracle, or an Interpreter of the Law of Nature who speaks as clearly, tells the Magistrate, he may and ought to pu∣nish those, who reject the True Religion, tender'd with sufficient Evi∣dence: 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 pu∣nish 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 Commis∣sion 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

Commission; otherwise, without judging that to be the One on∣ly True Religion, 'tis wholly impracticable for him to punish those who imbrace it not, as Rejecters of the One only True Reli∣gion.

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 Magi∣strate 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 pre∣cedes, and is that which ultimately does, and must determine who are Rejecters of the True Religion, and so obnoxi•…•…us to Pu∣nishment. This being so, I would gladly see how your Meth•…•…d can be any way practicable to the advantage of the True Reli∣gion, 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 * 1.58 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 ex∣act 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, * 1.59 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 Punish∣ment 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,

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 * 1.60 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 un∣der 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 no∣thing 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 exa∣mine, whether the Author's Argument will not hold good, even against Punish∣ments in your way. For if the Magistrate's Authority be, as you here say, only to pro∣cure all his Subjects, (mark what you say, ALL HIS SVBJECTS) the means of dis∣covering 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 SUB∣JECTS; I desire you, or any Man else, to

tell me how this can be done, by the ap∣plication of Force only to a part of them; Unless you will still vainly suppose igno∣rance, negligence, or prejudice, only amongst that part which any-where differs from the Magistrate. If those of the Magi∣strate's Church may be ignorant of the way of Salvation; If it be possible there may be amongst them, those who refuse to im∣brace 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 Autho∣rity 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 pro∣cure them? Or must he use Force upon them too? And then, pray, shew me how this can be done. Shall the Magi∣strate 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

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 pur∣pose this Request of yours is, will quickly appear. For if the Magistrate provides sufficiently for the in∣struction of all his Sub∣jects in the true Reli∣gion; and then re∣quires them all, un∣der convenient Penal∣ties, to hearken to the Teachers and Mini∣sters of it, and to pro∣fess

and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it with one accord, un∣der their 〈◊〉〈◊〉, in Publick Assemb•…•…ies: Is there any prctence to say, that in so do∣ing 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 Pre∣judice, 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 mention∣ed. For if after all that God's Ministers, and the Magistrate can do, some will still remain ignorant, neg∣ligent, or prejudiced; I do not take that to be

any disparagement to it: For certainly that is a very extraordina∣ry Remedy, which in∣fassibly cures all dis∣cas'd Persons to whom it is applied.

The Backwardness and Lusts that hinder an impartial Exami∣nation, * 3.1 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 corrup∣tion 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 Re∣ligion, by those whose Prosession is the Care of Souls; examin∣ing what they do understand, and where, either through Lazi∣ness, 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

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 bet∣ter way of Cure, than a Desire, only to have Men driven by the Whip, either in your, or the Magistrate's hands, into the Sheep∣fold: where when they are once, whether they understand or no, their Ministers Se•…•…mons; whether they are, or can be bet∣ter for them or no; whether they are ignorant and hypocriti∣cal 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 men∣tion, 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 (notwith∣standing 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 Corrupti∣on of Nature, which is the same Disease, and •…•…inders the impar∣tial 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.

Notes

• * 1.1

  P. 10.
• * 1.2

  P. 10.
• * 1.3

  1 Cor. 1. 26.
• * 1.4

  P. 13.
• * 1.5

  P. 29.
• * 1.6

  P. 16.
• * 1.7

  L. 2. p. 30
• * 1.8

  P. 25.
• * 1.9

  P. 25.
• * 1.10

  P. 26.
• * 1.11

  P. 18.
• * 1.12

  P. 26.
• * 1.13

  A. p. 5.
• * 1.14

  L. 2. p. 12.
• * 1.15

  L. 2. p. 14.
• * 1.16

  P. 26.
• * 1.17

  A. p. 6, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 12.
• * 1.18

  P, 6,—8.
• * 1.19

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. 26.
• * 1.20

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. 17.
• * 1.21

  •…•…bid.
• * 1.22

  P. 22.
• * 1.23

  P. 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• * 1.24

  P. 6•…•….
• * 1.25

  A. p. 6, &c.
• * 1.26

  P. 17.
• * 1.27

  P. 18.
• * 1.28

  P. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.29

  P. 27.
• * 1.30

  P. 27.
• * 1.31

  P. 27.
• * 1.32

  A. p. 5.
• * 1.33

  P. 28.
• * 1.34

  P. 28.
• * 1.35

  L. 2. p. 15.
• * 1.36

  P. 28.
• * 1.37

  P. 28.
• * 1.38

  L. 2. p. 16.
• * 1.39

  P. 29.
• * 1.40

  P. 29.
• * 1.41

  P. 29.
• * 1.42

  P. 34
• * 1.43

  P. 3•…•….
• * 1.44

  P. 34.
• * 1.45

  P. 35.
• * 1.46

  P. 47.
• * 1.47

  P. 34.
• * 1.48

  P. 35.
• * 1.49

  〈1 line〉〈1 line〉.
• * 1.50

  P. 47.
• * 1.51

  P. 47.
• * 1.52

  P. 47.
• * 1.53

  Ibid.
• * 1.54

  P. 84.
• * 1.55

  P. 48.
• * 1.56

  P. 47.
• * 1.57

  P. 51.
• * 1.58

  P. 54.
• * 1.59

  L. 2. p. 47.
• * 1.60

  P. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 3.1

  A. p. 6,—12. P. 6,—8.