they are, understand what they hear from the pulpit? And then whether if a man did understand, what in many assemblies ordinarily is delivered once a week there for his instruction, he might not yet at threescore years end be ignorant of the grounds and principles of the Christian religion? Your having so often in your letter mentioned sufficient provision of instruction, has forced these two short questions from me. But I forbear to tell you what I have heard very sober people, even of the church of England, say upon this occasion: for you have warned me already, that it shall be interpreted to be a quarrel to the clergy in general, if any thing shall be taken notice of in any of them worthy to be mended. I leave it to those whose profession it is to judge, whether divinity be a science wherein men may be instructed by an harangue or two once a week, upon any subject at a venture, which has no coherence with that which preceded or that which is to follow; and this made to people that are ignorant of the first principles of it, and are not capable of understanding such discourses. I am sure he that should think this a sufficient means of instructing people in any other science, would at the end of seven or twenty years find them very little advanced in it; and, bating perhaps some terms and phrases belonging to it, as far from all true and useful knowledge of it as when they first began. Whether it be so in matters of religion, those who have the opportunity to observe must judge; and if it appear that amongst those of the national church there be very many so ignorant, that there is nothing more frequent than for the ministers themselves to complain of it; it is manifest from those of the national church, whatever may be concluded from dissenters, that the means of instruction provided by the law are not sufficient; unless that be sufficient means of instruction, which men of sufficient capacity for other things may live under many years, and yet know very little by. If you say it is for want of consideration, must not your remedy of force be used to bring them to it? Or how will the magistrate answer for it, if he

use force to make dissenters consider, and let those of his own church perish for want of it?

This being all one can well understand by your sufficient means of instruction, as you there explain it, I do not see but men, who have no aversion to be instructed, may yet fail of it, notwithstanding such a provision. Perhaps, by "exercising the true religion with one accord, under the direction of the ministers of it in public assemblies," you mean something farther; but that not being an ordinary phrase, will need your explication to make it understood.

CHAPTER II.

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

THOUGH in the foregoing chapter, on examining your doctrine concerning the magistrates who may or who may not use force in matters of religion, we have in several places happened to take notice of the commission whereby you authorize magistrates to act, yet we shall in this chapter more particularly consider that commission. You tell us, " to use force in matters of religion, is a duty of the magistrate as old as the law of nature, in which the magistrate's commission lies: for the Scripture does not properly give it him, but supposes it." And more at large you give us an account of the magistrate's commission in these words: "It is true, indeed, the Author and Finisher of our faith has given the magistrate no new power or commission: nor was there any need that he should (if himself had any temporal power to give): for he found him already, even by the law of nature, the minister

of God to the people for good, and bearing the sword not in vain, i. e. invested with coactive power, and obliged to use it for all the good purposes which it might serve, and for which it should be found needful, even for the restraining of false and corrupt religion: as Job long before (perhaps before any of the Scriptures were written) acknowledged, when he said, chap. xxxi. 26, 27, 28, that the worshipping the sun or the moon was an iniquity to be punished by the judge. But though our Saviour has given the magistrates no new power, yet being King of kings, he expects and requires that they should submit themselves to his sceptre, and use the power which always belonged to them for his service, and for the advancing his spiritual kingdom in the world. And even that charity which our great Master so earnestly recommends, and so strictly requires of all his disciples, as it obliges all men to seek and promote the good of others, as well as their own, especially their spiritual and eternal good, by such means as their several places and relations enable them to use; so does it especially oblige the magistrate to do it as a magistrate, i. e. by that power which enables him to do it above the rate of other men.

"So far, therefore, is the Christian magistrate, when he gives his helping hand to the furtherance of the Gospel, by laying convenient penalties upon such as reject it, or any part of it, from using any other means for the salvation of men's souls than what the Author and Finisher of our faith has directed, that he does no more than his duty to God, to his Redeemer, and to his subjects, requires of him."

"Christ," you say, "has given no new power or commission to the magistrate:" and for this you give several reasons. 1. "There was no need that he should." Yet it seems strange that the Christian magistrates alone should have an exercise of coactive power in matters of religion, and yet our Saviour should say nothing of it, but leave them to that commission which was common to them with all other magistrates. The Christian religion, in cases of less moment, is not wanting in its

rules; and I know not whether you will not charge the New Testament with a great defect, if that law alone which teaches the only true religion, that law which all magistrates, who are of the true religion, receive and embrace, should say nothing at all of so necessary and important a duty to those who alone are in a capacity to discharge it, but leave them only to that general law of nature, which others, who are not qualified to use this force, have in common with them.

This at least seems needful, if a new commission does not, that the Christian magistrates should have been instructed what degree of force they should use, and been limited to your moderate penalties; since for above these twelve hundred years, though they have readily enough found out your commission to use force, they never found out your moderate use of it, which is that alone which you assure us is useful and necessary.

2. You say, "If our Saviour had any temporal power to give;" whereby you seem to give this as a reason why he gave not the civil magistrate power to use force in matters of religion, that he had it not to give. You tell us in the same paragraph, that "he is the King of kings;" and he tells us himself, "That all power is given unto him in heaven and in earth," Matth. xxviii. 18. So that he could have given what power, to whom, and to what purpose he had pleased: and concerning this there needs no if.

3. "For he found him already, by the law of nature, invested with coactive power, and obliged to use it for all the good purposes which it might serve, and for which it should be found needful." He found also fathers, husbands, masters, invested with their distinct powers by the same law, and under the same obligation; and yet he thought it needful to prescribe to them in the use of those powers. But there was no need he should do so to the civil magistrates in the use of their power in matters of religion; because, though fathers, husbands, masters, were liable to excess in the use of theirs, yet Christian magistrates were not, as appears by their having always kept to those moderate mea

sures, which you assure us to be the only necessary and useful.

And what at last is their commission?"Even that of charity, which obliges all men to seek and promote the good of others, especially their spiritual and eternal good, by such means as their several places and relations enable them to use, especially magistrates as magistrates." This duty of charity is well discharged by the magistrate as magistrate, is it not? in bringing men to an outward profession of any, even of the true religion, and leaving them there? But, sir, I ask you who must be judge what is for the spiritual and eternal good of his subjects, the magistrate himself or no? If not he himself, who for him? Or can it be done without any one's judging at all? If he, the magistrate, must judge every where himself what is for the spiritual and eternal good of his subjects,-as I see no help for it, if the magistrate be every where by the law of nature obliged to promote their spiritual and eternal good,-is not the true religion like to find great advantage in the world by the use of force in the magistrate's hands? And is not this a plain demonstration that God has, by the law of nature, given commission to the magistrate to use force for the promoting the true religion, since, as it is evident, the execution of such a commission will do so much more harm than good?

To show that your indirect and at a distance usefulness, with a general necessity of force, authorizes the civil power in the use of it, you use the following words, "That force does some service towards the making of scholars and artists, I suppose you will easily grant. Give me leave, therefore, to ask, how it does it? I suppose you will say, not by its direct and proper efficacy (for force is no more capable to work learning or arts, than the belief of the true religion in men, by its direct and proper efficacy), but by prevailing upon those who are designed for scholars or artists to receive instruction, and to apply themselves to the use of those means and helps which are proper to make them what they are designed to be: that is, it does it indirectly and at a distance. Well, then, if all the