are they to understand more, though it be plain the law of God expressly requires more. But that they have fully satisfied the law of the land, nobody doubts; nor is it easy to answer what was replied to me on this occasion, viz. If the magistrate intended any thing more in those laws but conformity, would he not have said it? To which let me add, if the magistrate intended conformity as the fruit of conviction, would he not have taken some care to have them instructed before they conformed, and examined when they did? But it is 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 their seats in the church.

If there be any whom your example or writing hath inspired with acuteness enough to find out this; I suspect the vulgar, who have scarce time and thought enough to make inferences from the law, which scarce one of ten of them ever so much as reads, or perhaps understands when read, are still, and will be ignorant of it and those who have the time and abilities to argue about it, will find reason to think that those penalties were not intended to make men examine the doctrine and ceremonies of religion; since those who should examine, are prohibited by those very laws to follow their own judgments, (which is the very end and use of examination) if they at all differ from the religion established by law. Nor can it appear so plain to all concerned, 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 ignorant and careless dissenters.

To my saying, "Some dissenters may have considered already, and then force employed 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 rejects truth necessary to his salvation, has considered 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 considered, studied, or examined 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 the supposition, that all dissenters reject the 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 considered already. To which the answer is, Yes, some of them may have considered already; but those who reject truth necessary to their salvation, have not considered as they ought.

I said, "The greatest part of mankind, being not able to discern betwixt truth and falsehood, that depends upon long and many proofs, and remote consequences; nor having ability enough to discover the false grounds, and resist the captious and fallacious arguments of learned men versed in controversies; are so much more exposed, 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 religion, to be led into falsehood and error, than they are likely this way to be brought to embrace the truth which must save them; by how much the national religious of the world are, beyond comparison, more of them false or erroneous, 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 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, it is nevertheless true, that the greatest part of men are unable to discern, as I said, between truth and falsehood 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 absurd 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 embrace; the using of force to make men consider, and the using of force to make them embrace any doctrine or opinion, is the same thing: and to show a difference betwixt imposing an opinion, and using force to make it be embraced, 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 falsehood, in matters concerning their salvation, (as I must mean ifI speak to the purpose) their condition must needs be very hazardous, if they have not some guide or judge, to whose determination and direction they may securely resign themselves." And therefore they must resign themselves to the determination and direction of the civil magistrate, or be punished. Here it is like you will have something again to say to my modesty and conscience, for imputing to you what you nowhere 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 fit, for what is sound and decent he I hope must be judge; and if he be judge of what is sound and decent, it amounts to no more but what he thinks fit: and if it be not what he thinks fit, why is one ceremony preferred 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 subjects' 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 necessary 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 cere monies pitched on; and the terms of communion thus set up; you have religion established by law: and what now is the subject to do? He is to conform. No; he must first consider. Who bids him consider? Nobody: he may, if he pleases; but the law says nothing to him. of it: consider or not consider, if he conforms, it is 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 believe, assent, or consent to. What now is to be done with him? He must either be punished on, or resign himself up to the determination and direction of the civil magistrate; which, till you can find 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 concerning men's 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 coactive power will be left out too. You think there is no need of any such; because notwithstanding the long and many proofs and remote consequences, the false grounds and the captious and fallacious arguments of learned men versed 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 necessary to salvation lies so obvious and exposed to all that sin cerely and diligently seek it, that no such person shall ever fail of attaining the knowledge of it." This then is your answer, that" truths necessary to salvation are obvious;" so that those who seek them sincerely and diligently are not in danger to be misled or exposed in those to error, by the weakness of their under.

standings. This will be a good answer to what I objected from the danger most are in to be led into error, by the magistrate's adding force to the arguments for their national established religions, when you have shown that nothing is wont to be imposed in national religions but what is necessary to salvation, or, which will a little better accommodate your hypothesis, when you can show that nothing is imposed, or required for communion with the church of England, but what is necessary to salvation, and consequently is very easy and obvious to be known, and distinguished from falsehood. 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 lawful to use it, to bring men to any thing but what is abso lutely necessary to salvation. For if the lawfulness of force be only from the need men have of it to bring them to salvation, it cannot lawfully be used to bring men to that which they do not need, or is not necessary to their salvation; for in such an application of it, it is not needful to their salvation. Can you therefore say, that there is nothing required to be believed and professed in the church of England, but what lies "so obvious and exposed to all that sincerely and diligently seek it, that no such person shall ever fail of attaining the knowledge of it?" What think you of St. Athanasius's Creed? Is the sense of that so obvious and exposed to every one who seeks it; which so many learned men have explained 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 damned who do not believe that creed, i. e. every proposition 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 understand. If ever you were acquainted with a country parish, you must needs have a strange opinion of them, if you think all the ploughmen and milkmaids at church understood all the propositions in Athanasius's Creed: it is more, truly, than I should be apt to think of any one of them;