Laws the fault was first declared, and then penalties denounced against all those, who, after a time set, should be found guilty of it. This the common sense of mankind, and the very reason of laws, which are intended not for punishment, but correction, has made so plain, that the subtilest and most refined law-makers have not got out of this course; nor have the most ignorant and barbarous nations missed it. But you have outdone Solon and Lycurgus, Moses and our Saviour, and are resolved to be a law-maker of a way by yourself. It is an old and obsolete way, and will not serve your turn, to begin with warnings and threats of penalties to be inflicted on those who do not reform, but continue to do that which you think they fail in. To allow of impunity to the innocent, or the opportunity of amendment to those who would avoid the penalties, are formalities not worth your notice. You are for a shorter and surer way. 7 Take a whole tribe, and punish them at all adventures; whether guilty or no of the miscarriage which you would have amended; or without so much as telling them what it is you would have them do, but leaving them to find it out if they can. All these absurdities are contained in your way of proceeding; and are impossible to be avoided by any one who will punish dissenters, and only dissenters, to make them "consider and weigh the grounds of their religion, and impartially examine "whether it be true or no; and upon what grounds they "took it up, that so they may find and embrace the "truth that must save them." But that this new sort of discipline may have all fair play, let us inquire first, who it is you would have be punished. In the place above-cited, they are "those who are got into a wrong 66 way, and are deaf to all persuasions." If these are the men to be punished let a law be made against them: you have my consent; and that is the proper course to have offenders punished. For you do not, I hope, intend to punish any fault by a law, which you do not name in the law; nor make a law against any fault you would not have punished. And now, if you are sincere, and in earnest, and are, as a fair man should be, for what your words plainly signify, and nothing else; what what will such a law serve for? Men in the wrong way are to be punished; but who are in the wrong way is the question. You have no more reason to determine against one who differs from you; than he has to conclude against you, who differ from him. No, not though you have the magistrate and the national church on your side, For if to differ from them be to be in the wrong way, you, who are in the right way in England, will be in the wrong way in France. Every one here must be judge for himself: and your law will reach no-body, till you have convinced him he is in the wrong way. And then there will be no need of punishment to make him consider; unless you will affirm again, what you have denied, and have men punished for embracing the religion they believe to be true, when it differs from yours or the public. Besides being in the wrong way, those whom you would have punished must be such as are deaf to all persuasions. But any such, I suppose, you will hardly find who hearken to no-body, not to those of their own way. If you mean by deaf to all persuasions, all persuasions of a contrary party, or of a different church; such, I suppose, you may abundantly find in your own church, as well as elsewhere; and I presume to them you are so charitable, that you would not have them punished for not lending an ear to seducers. For constancy in the truth, and perseverance in the faith, is, I hope, rather to be encouraged, than by any penalties checked in the orthodox. And your church, doubtless, as well as all others, is orthodox to itself in all its tenets. If you mean by all persuasion, all your persuasion, or all persuasion of those of your communion; you do but beg the question, and suppose you have a right to punish those who differ from, and will not comply with you. Your next words are, "When men fly from the means "of a right information, and will not so much as con"sider how reasonable it is thoroughly and impartially "to examine a religion, which they embraced upon "such inducements as ought to have no sway at all in "the matter; and therefore with little or no examina ❝tion "tion of the proper grounds of it; what human me"thod can be used to bring them to act like men, in "an affair of such consequence, and to make a wiser " and more rational choice, but that of laying such pe"nalties upon them, as may balance the weight of "those prejudices which inclined them to prefer a false "way before the true; and recover them to so much sobriety and reflection, as seriously to put the question "to themselves, whether it be really worth the while "to undergo such inconveniences, for adhering to a religion, which, for any thing they know, may be 'false, or for rejecting another (if that be the case) "which for any thing they know may be true, till they have brought it to the bar of reason, and given it a "fair trial there?" Here you again bring in such as prefer a false way before a true: to which having answered already, I shall here say no more, but that, since our church will not allow those to be in a false way who are out of the church of Rome, because the church of Rome, which pretends infallibility, declares her's to be the only true way; certainly no one of our church, nor any other, which claims not infallibility, can require any one to take the testimony of any church, as a sufficient proof of the truth of her own doctrine. So that true and false, as it commonly happens, when we suppose them for ourselves, or our party, in effect signify just nothing, or nothing to the purpose; unless we can think that true or false in England, which will not be so at Rome, or Geneva: and vice versâ. As for the rest of the description of those on whom you are here laying penalties; I beseech you consider whether it will not belong to any of your church, let it be what it will. Consider, I say, if there be none in your church "who "have embraced her religion, upon such inducements as ought to have no sway at all in the matter, and "therefore with little or no examination of the proper grounds of it; who have not been inclined by preju"dices; who do not adhere to a religion, which for any thing they know may be false, and who have rejected "another which for any thing they know may be true. If you have any such in your communion, and it will be 22 an an admirable, though I fear but a little, flock that has none such in it; consider well what you have done. You have prepared rods for them, for which I imagine they will con you no thanks. For to make any tolerable sense of what you here propose, it must be understood that you would have men of all religions punished, to make them consider "whether it be really worth the while "to undergo such inconveniencies for adhering to a religion which for any thing they know may be false." If you hope to avoid that, by what you have said of true and false; and pretend that the supposed preference of the true way in your church ought to preserve its members from your punishment; you manifestly trifle. For every church's testimony, that it has chosen the true way, must be taken for itself; and then none will be liable; and your new invention of punishment is come to nothing or else the differing churches testimonies must be taken one for another; and then they will be all out of the true way, and your church need penalties as well as the rest. So that, upon your principles, they must all or none be punished. Choose which you please: one of them, I think, you cannot escape. What you say in the next words: "Where instruc"tion is stifly refused, and all admonitions and persua"sions prove vain and ineffectual;" differs nothing, but in the way of expressing, from deaf to all persuasions and so that is answered already. In another place, you give us another description of those you think ought to be punished, in these words: "Those who refuse to embrace the doctrine, and sub"mit to the spiritual government of the proper mini"sters of religion, who by special designation are appointed to exhort, admonish, reprove," &c. Here then, those to be punished, "are such who refuse to "embrace the doctrine, and submit to the government "of the proper ministers of religion." Whereby we are as much still at uncertainty, as we were before, who those are, who by your scheme and laws suitable to it are to be punished. Since every church has, as it thinks, its proper ministers of religion. And if you mean those that refuse to embrace the doctrine, and submit to the govern L government of the ministers of another church; then church you are, if you think the ministers of any one But why, I pray, all this boggling, all this loose talking as if you knew not what you meant, or durst not speak it out? Would you be for punishing some body, you know not whom? I do not think so ill of you. Let me then speak out for you. The evidence of the argu ment |