I said, "that if the magistrates would severely and impartially set themselves against vice in whomsoever it is found, and leave men to their own consciences in their articles of faith and ways of worship, true religion would spread wider, and be more fruitful in the lives of its professors than ever hitherto it has done by the imposing of creeds and ceremonies." Here I call only immorality of manners vice: you, on the contrary, in your answer, give the name of vice to errors in opinion, and difference in ways of worship from the national church; for this is the matter in question between us, express it as you please. This being a contest only about the signification of a short syllable in the English tongue, we must leave to the masters of that language to judge which of these two is the proper use of it. But yet, from my using the word vice, you conclude presently, taking it in your sense, not mine, that the magistrate has a power in England, for England we are speaking of, to punish dissenters from the national religion, because it is a vice. I will, if you please, in what I said, change the word vice into that I meant by it, and say thus: if the magistrates will severely and impartially set themselves against the dishonesty and debauchery of men's lives, and such immoralities as I contra-distinguish from errors in speculative opinions of religion and ways of worship: and then pray see how your answer will look, for thus it runs: "It seems, then, with you, the rejecting the true religion, and refusing to worship God in decent ways prescribed by those to whom God has left the ordering of those matters, are not comprehended in the name vice." But you tell me, "If I except these things, and will not allow them to be called by the name of vice, perhaps other men may think it as reasonable to except some other things (i. e. from being called vices) which they have a kindness for: for instance, some may perhaps except arbitrary divorce, polygamy, concubinage, simple fornication, or marrying within degrees thought forbidden." Let them except these, and, if you will, drunkenness, theft, and murder too, from the name of vice; nay, call them virtues: will

VOL. VI.

R

they, by their calling them so, be exempt from the magistrate's power of punishing them? Or can they claim an impunity by what I have said? Will these immoralities, by the names any one shall give, or for bear to give them, "become articles of faith, or ways of worship?" Which is all, as I expressly say in the words you here cite of mine, that I would have the magistrates leave men to their own consciences in. But, sir, you have, for me, liberty of conscience to use words in what sense you please; only I think, where another is concerned, it savours more of ingenuity and love of truth, rather to mind the sense of him that speaks, than to make a dust and noise with a mistaken word, if any such advantage were given you.

You say, "that some men would, through carelessness, never acquaint themselves with the truths which must save them, without being forced to do it, which (you suppose) may be very true, notwithstanding that (as I say) some are called at the third hour, some at the ninth, and some at the eleventh hour; and, whenever they are called, they embrace all the truths necessary to salvation. At least I do not show why it may not: and therefore this may be no slip, for any thing I have said to prove it to be one." This I take not to be an answer to my argument, which was, that, since some are not called till the eleventh hour, nobody can know who those are, "who would never acquaint themselves with those truths that must save them, without force," which is therefore necessary, and may, indirectly and at a distance, do them some service. Whether that was my argument or no, I leave the reader to judge; but that you may not mistake it now again, I tell you here it is so, and needs another answer.

Your way of using punishments, in short, is this, that all that conform not to the national church, where it is true, as in England, should be punished: what for? "to make them consider." This I told you had something of impracticable. To which you reply, that you used the word only in another sense, which I mistook. Whether I mistook your meaning in the use of that word or no, or whether it was natural so to take it, or

whether that opinion which I charged on you by that mistake, when you tell us," that not examining is indeed the next end for which they are punished," be not your opinion, let us leave to the reader; for, when you have that word in what sense you please, what I said will be nevertheless true, viz. "That to punish dissenters, as dissenters, to make them consider, has something impracticable in it, unless not to be of the national religion, and not to consider, be the same thing." These words you answer nothing to, having, as you thought, a great advantage of talking about my mistake of your word only. But unless you will suppose not to be of the national church, and not to consider, be the same thing, it will follow, that to punish dissenters, as dissenters, to make them consider, has something of impracticable in it.

The law punishes all dissenters: for what? To make them all conform, that is evident: to what end? To make them all consider, say you: that cannot be, for it says nothing of it; nor is it certain that all dissenters have not considered; nor is there any care taken by the law to inquire whether they have considered, when they do conform; yet this was the end intended by the magistrate. So, then, with you it is practicable and allowable, in making laws, for the legislator to lay punishments by law on men, for an end which they may be ignorant of, for he says nothing of it; on men, whom he never takes care to inquire whether they have done it or no, before he relax the punishment, which had no other next end but to make them do it. But though he says nothing of considering, in laying on the penalties, nor asks any thing about it when he takes them off, yet every body must understand that he so meant it. Sir, Sancho Pancha, in the government of his island, did not expect that men should understand his meaning by his gaping; but in another island it seems, if you had the management, you would not think it to have any thing of impracticable or impolitic in it: for how far the provision of means of instruction takes this off, we shall see in another place. And, lastly, to lay punishments on men for an end which is already at

tained, for some among the dissenters may have considered, is what other law-makers look on as impracticable, or at least unjust. But to this you answer, in your usual way of circle, That "if" I "suppose you are for punishing dissenters whether they consider or no," I "am in a great mistake; for the dissenters (which is my word, not yours) whom" you" are for punishing, are only such as reject the true religion proposed to them, with reasons and arguments sufficient to convince them of the truth of it, who therefore can never be supposed to consider those reasons and arguments as they ought, whilst they persist in rejecting that religion, or (in my language) continue dissenters; for, if they did so consider them, they would not continue dissenters." Of the fault for which men were to be punished, distinguished from the end for which they were to be punished, we heard nothing, as I remember, in the first draught of your scheme, which we had in "the argument considered," &c. But I doubt not but in your general terms you will be able to find it, or what else you please: for now having spoken out, that men who are of a different religion from the true, which has been tendered them with sufficient evidence, (and who are they whom the wise and benign Disposer and Governor of all things has not furnished with competent means of salvation) are criminal, and are by the magistrate to be punished as such, it is necessary your scheme should be completed; and whither that will carry you it is easy to

see.

But pray, sir, are there no conformists that so reject the true religion? and would you have them punished, too, as you here profess? Make that practicable by your scheme, and you have done something to persuade us that your end in earnest, in the use of force, is to make men consider, understand, and be of the true religion; and that the rejecting the true religion, tendered with sufficient evidence, is the crime which bona fide you would have punished; and, till you do this, all that you may say concerning punishing men "to make them consider as they ought, to make them receive the true

religion, to make them embrace the truth that must save them," &c. will, with all sober, judicious, and unbiassed readers, pass only for the mark of great zeal, if it scape amongst men as warm and as sagacious as you are, a harsher name; whilst those conformists, who neglect matters of religion, who reject the saving truths of the Gospel, as visibly and as certainly as any dissenters, have yet no penalties laid upon them.

You talk much" of considering and not considering as one ought; of embracing and rejecting the true religion," and abundance more to this purpose; which all, however very good and savoury words, that look very well, when you come to the application of force to procure that end expressed in them, amount to no more but conformity and non-conformity. If you see not this, I pity you; for I would fain think you a fair man, who means well, though you have not lit upon the right way to the end you propose: but if you see it, and persist in your use of these good expressions to lead men into a mistake in this matter; consider what my pagans and Mahometans could do worse to serve a bad cause.

Whatever you may imagine, I write so in this argument, as I have before my eyes the account I shall one day render for my intention and regard to truth in the management of it. I look on myself as liable to error as others; but this I am sure of, I would neither impose on you, myself, nor any body; and should be very glad to have the truth in this point clearly established; and therefore it is, I desire you again to examine, whether all the ends you name to be intended by your use of force, do in effect, when force is to be your way put in practice, reach any farther than bare outward conformity? Pray consider whether it be not that which makes you so shy of the term dissenters, which you tell me is mine, not your word. Since none are, by your scheme, to be punished, but those who do not conform to the national religion, dissenters, I think, is the proper name to call them by; and I can see no reason you have to boggle at it, unless your opinion has something in it you are unwilling should