The paragraph of mine to which you mean your next for an answer, shall answer for itself.

But

L. III. p. 63. As to your next paragraph, I think I might now wholly pass it over. I shall only tell

L. II. p. 123. "You quote the author's argument, which he brings to prove that the care of souls is not committed to the magistrate, in these words: It is not committed to him by God, because it appears not that God has ever given any such authority to one man over another, as to compel any one to his religion.' This, when first I read it, I confess I thought a good argument. you say, this is quite beside the business;' and the reason you give is, for the authority of the magistrate is not authority to compel any one to his religion, but only an authority to procure all his subjects the means of discovering the way of salvation, and to procure withal, as much as in him lies, that none remain ignorant of it,' &c. I fear, sir, you forget yourself. The author was not writing against your new hypothesis before it was known in the world. He may be excused, if he had not the gift of prophecy, to argue against a notion which was not yet started. He had in view only the laws hitherto made, and the punishments, in matters of religion, in use in the world. The penalties, as I take it, are laid on men for being of different ways of religion: which, what is it other but to compel them to relinquish their own, and to conform themselves to that from which they differ?

you, that as I have often heard, so I hope I shall always hear of "religion established by law." For though the magistrate's authority can "add no force or sanction to any religion, whether true or false, nor any thing to the truth or validity of his own, or any religion whatsoever;" yet I think it may do much toward the upholding and preserving the true religion within his jurisdiction; and in that respect may properly enough be said to establish it.

If this be not to compel them to the magistrate's religion, pray tell us what is? This must be necessarily so understood; unless it can be supposed that the law intends not to have that done, which with penalties it commands to be done; or that punishments are not compulsion, not that compulsion the author complains of. The law says, Do this, and live; embrace this doctrine, conform to this way of worship, and be at ease and free; or else be fined, imprisoned, banished, burned. If you can show among the laws that have been made in England concerning religion (and I think I may say any where else), any one that punishes men 'for not having impartially examined the religion they have embraced or refused,' I think I may yield you the cause. Law-makers have been generally wiser than to make laws that could not be executed: and therefore their laws were against non-conformists, which could be known; and not for impartial examination, which could not. It was not, then, beside the author's business to bring an argument against the persecutions here in fashion. He did not know that any one, who was so free as to acknowledge that the magistrate has not an authority to compel any one to his religion, and thereby at once, as you have done, give up all the laws now in force against the dissenters; had yet rods in store for them, and by a new trick would bring them under the lash of the law, when the old pretences were too much exploded to serve any longer. Have you never heard of such a thing as the religion established by law? which is, it seems, the lawful religion of a country, and to be complied with as such. There being such things, such notions yet in the world, it was not quite beside the author's business to allege, that God never gave such authority to one man over another as to compel any one to his religion. I will grant, if you please, religion established by law is a pretty odd way of speaking in the mouth of a Christian, and yet it is much in fashion; as if the magistrate's authority could add any force or sanction to any religion, whether true or false. I am glad to find you have so far considered

the magistrate's authority, that you agree with the author, that he hath none to compel men to his religion. Much less can he, by any establishment of law, add any thing to the truth or validity of his own, or any religion whatsoever."

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

And thus you have my thoughts concerning the most material of what you say touching the magistrate's commission to use force in matters of religion, together with some incident places in your answer, which I have taken notice of as they have come in my way.

CHAPTER III.

Who are to be punished by your Scheme.

To justify the largeness of the author's toleration, who would not have Jews, Mahometans, and pagans excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth, because of their religion; I said, "I feared it will hardly be believed, that we pray in earnest for their conver sion, if we exclude them from the ordinary and profitable means of it, either by driving them from, or persecuting them when they are amongst us." You reply: "now I confess I thought men might live

quietly enough among us, and enjoy the protection of the government against all violence and injuries, without being endenizened, or made members of the commonwealth; which alone can entitle them to the civil rights and privileges of it. But as to Jews, Mahometans, and pagans, pagans, if any of them do not care to live among us, unless they may be admitted to the rights and privileges of the commonwealth; the refusing them that favour is not, I suppose, to be looked upon as driving them from us, or excluding them from the ordinary and probable means of conversion; but as a just and necessary caution in a Christian commonwealth, in respect to the members of it; who, if such as profess Judaism, or Mahometanism, or paganism, were permitted to enjoy the same rights with them, would be much the more in danger to be seduced by them; seeing they would lose no worldly advantage by such a change of their religion: whereas, if they could not turn to any of those religions, without forfeiting the civil rights of the commonwealth by doing it, it is likely they would consider well before they did it, what ground there was to expect that they should get any thing by the exchange, which would countervail the loss they should sustain by it." I thought protection and impunity of men, not offending in civil things, might have been accounted the civil rights of the commonwealth, which the author meant: but you, to make it seem more, add the word privileges. Let it be so. Live amongst you then Jews, Mahometans, and pagans may; but endenizened they must not be. But why? Are there not those who are members of your commonwealth, who do not embrace the truth that must save them, any more than they? What think you of Socinians, papists, anabaptists, quakers, presbyterians? If they do not reject the truth necessary to salvation, why do you punish them? Or if some that are in the way to perdition may be members of the commonwealth, why must these be excluded upon the account of religion? For I think there is no great odds, as to saving of souls, which is the only end for which they are punished, amongst those religions, each whereof will

make those who are of it miss salvation. Only if there be any fear of seducing those who are of the national church, the danger is most from that religion which comes nearest to it, and most resembles it. However, this you think "but a just and necessary caution in a Christian commonwealth, in respect of the members of it." I suppose, for you love to speak doubtfully, these members of a Christian commonwealth you take such care of, are members also of the national church, whose religion is the true; and therefore you call them, in the next paragraph, subjects of Christ's kingdom, to whom he has a special regard. For dissenters, who are punished to be made good Christians, to whom force is used "to bring them to the true religion, and to the communion of the church of God," it is plain are not in your opinion good Christians, or of the true religion; unless you punish them to make them what they are already. The dissenters, therefore, who are already perverted, and reject the truth that must save them, you are not, I suppose, so careful of, lest they should be seduced. Those who have already the plague, need not be guarded from infection: nor can you fear that men so desperately perverse, that penalties and punishments, joined to the light and strength of the truth, have not been able to bring from the opinions they have espoused into the communion of the church, should be seduced to Judaism, Mahometanism, or paganism, neither of which has the advantage of truth or interest to prevail by. It is therefore those of the national church, as I conclude also from the close of this paragraph, where you speak of God's own peculiar people, whom you think would be much the more in danger to be seduced by them, if they were endenizened, since they would lose no worldly advantage by such a change of their religion, i. e. by quitting the national church, to turn Jews, Mahometans, or pagans.

This shows, whatever you say of the sufficient means of instruction provided by the law, how well you think the members of the national church are instructed in the true religion. It shows also, whatever you say of its being presumable that they embrace it upon con