dence is offered to convince men that it is so, is a fault that it cannot be unjust to punish." Let me ask you now, did the apostles, by their preaching and miracles, offer sufficient evidence to convince men that the church of Christ was the true church; or, which is, in this case, the same thing, that the doctrine they preached was the true religion? If they did, were not those who persisted in unbelief guilty of a fault? And if some of the miracles done in those days should now be repeated, and yet men should not embrace the doctrine, or join themselves to the church which those miracles accompanied; would you not think them guilty of a fault which the magistrate might justly, nay ought to punish? If you would answer truly and sincerely to this question, I doubt you would think your beloved punishments necessary, notwithstanding miracles, "there being no other human means left." I do not make this judg ment of you from any ill opinion I have of your goodnature; but it is consonant to your principles: for if not professing the true religion, where sufficient evidence is offered by bare preaching, be a fault, and a fault justly to be punished by the magistrate; you will certainly think it much more his duty to punish a greater fault, as you must allow it is, to reject truth proposed with arguments and miracles, than with bare arguments: since you tell us, that the magistrate is "obliged to procure, as much as in him lies, that every man take care of his own soul, i. e. consider as he ought; which no man can be supposed to do, whilst he persists in rejecting" as you tell us, p. 24.

Miracles, say you, supplied the want of force, "till by their help Christianity had prevailed to be received for the religion of the empire." Not that the magistrates had not as much commission then, from the law of nature, to use force for promoting the true religion, as since; but because the magistrates then, not being of the true religion, did not afford it the assistance of their political power. If this be so, and there be a necessity either of force or miracles, will there not be the same reason for miracles ever since, even to this day, and so on to the end of the world, in all those

countries where the magistrate is not of the true religion? "Unless, as you urge it, you will say (what without impiety cannot be said) that the wise and benign Disposer of all things has not furnished mankind with competent means for the promoting his own honour in the world, and the good of souls."

But to put an end to your pretence to miracles, as supplying the place of force; let me ask you, whether, since the withdrawing of miracles, your moderate degree of force has been made use of for the support of the Christian religion? If not, then miracles were not made use of to supply the want of force, unless it were for the supply of such force as Christianity never had, which is for the supply of just no force at all; or else for the supply of the severities which have been in use amongst Christians, which is worse than none at all. Force, you say, is necessary: what force? "not fire and sword, not loss of estates, not maiming with corporal punishments, not starving and tormenting in noisome prisons:" those you condemn. "Not compulsion: these severities," you say, "are apter to hinder than promote the true religion; but moderate lower penalties, tolerable inconveniencies, such as should a little disturb and disease men." This assistance not being to be had from the magistrates, in the first ages of Christianity, miracles, say you, were continued till "Christianity became the religion of the empire, not so much for any necessity there was of them, all that while, for the evincing the truth of the Christian religion, as to supply the want of the magistrate's assistance. For the true religion not being able to support itself by its own light and strength, without the assistance either of miracles, or of authority," there was a necessity of the one or the other; and therefore, whilst the powers in being assisted not with necessary force, miracles supplied that want. Miracles then being to supply necessary force, and necessary force being only "lower moderate penalties, some inconveniencies, such as only disturb and disease a little;" if you cannot show that in all countries, where the magistrates have been Christian, they have assisted with

such force, it is plain that miracles supplied not the want of necessary force; unless to supply the want of your necessary force, for a time, were to supply the want of an assistance, which true religion had not upon the withdrawing of miracles; and, I think I may say, was never thought on by any authority, in any age or country, till you now, above thirteen hundred years after, made this happy discovery. Nay, sir, since the true religion, as you tell us, cannot prevail or subsist without miracles or authority, i. e. your moderate force, it must necessarily follow, that the Christian religion has, in all ages and countries, been accompanied either with actual miracles, or such force: which, whether it be so or no, I leave you and all sober men to consider. When you can show that it has been so, we shall have reason to be satisfied with your bold assertion, that the Christian religion, as delivered in the New Testament, cannot "prevail by its own light and strength, without the assistance" of your moderate penalties, or of actual miracles accompanying it. But if ever since the withdrawing of miracles in all Christian countries, where force has been thought necessary by the magistrate to support the national, or, as every where it is called, the true religion; those severities have been made use of, which you, for a good reason, "condemn as apter to hinder than promote the true religion;" it is plain that miracles supplied the want of such an assistance from the magistrate, as was apter to hinder than promote the true religion. And your substituting of miracles, to supply the want of moderate force, will show nothing, for your cause, but the zeal of a man so fond of force, that he will, without any warrant from Scripture, enter into the counsels of the Almighty; and without authority from history talk of miracles, and political administrations, as may best suit his system.

To my saying, a religion that is from God wants not the assistance of human authority to make it prevail; you answer, "This is not simply nor always true. Indeed, when God takes the matter wholly into his own hands, as he does at his first revealing any religion, there can be no need of any assistance of human

authority; but when God has once sufficiently settled his religion in the world, so that if men from thenceforth will do what they may and ought, in their several capacities, to preserve and propagate it, it may subsist and prevail without that extraordinary assistance from him, which was necessary for its first establishment." By this rule of yours, how long was there need of miracles to make Christianity subsist and prevail? If you will keep to it, you will find there was no need of miracles, after the promulgation of the Gospel by Christ and his apostles; for I ask you, was it not then so "sufficiently settled in the world, that if men would from thenceforth have done what they might and ought, in their several capacities," it would have subsisted and prevailed without that extraordinary assistance of miracles? unless you will on this occasion retract what you say in other places, viz. that it is a fault not to receive the "true religion, where sufficient evidence is offered to convince men that it is so." If then, from the times of the apostles, the Christian religion has had sufficient evidence that it is the true religion, and men did their duty, i. e. receive it; it would certainly have subsisted and prevailed, even from the apostles' times, without that extraordinary assistance; and then miracles after that were not necessary.

But perhaps you will say, that by men in their several capacities, you mean the magistrates. A pretty way of speaking, proper to you alone: but, even in that sense, it will not serve your turn. For then there will be need of miracles, not only in the time you propose, but in all times after. For if the magistrate, who is as much subject as other men to that corruption of human nature, by which you tell us false religions prevail against the true, should not do what he may and ought, so as to be of the true religion, as it is the odds he will not; what then will become of the true religion, which, according to you, cannot subsist or prevail without either the assistance of miracles or authority? Subjects cannot have the assistance of authority, where the magistrate is not of the true religion; and the magistrate wanting the assistance of authority to bring him to the true religion,

that want must be still supplied with miracles, or else, according to your hypothesis, all must go to wreck; and the true religion, that cannot subsist by its own. strength and light, must be lost in the world. For I presume you are scarce yet such an adorer of the powers of the world as to say, that magistrates are privileged from that common corruption of mankind, whose opposition to the true religion you suppose cannot be overcome without the assistance of miracles or force. The flock will stray, unless the bell-wether conduct them right; the bell-wether himself will stray, unless the shepherd's crook and staff, which he has as much need of as any sheep of the flock, keep him right: ergo, the whole flock will stray, unless the bell-wether have that assistance which is necessary to conduct him right. The case is the same here. So that, by your own rule, either there was no need of miracles to supply the want of force, after the apostles' time, or there is need of them still.

But your answer, when looked into, has something in it more excellent. I say, a religion that is of God wants not the assistance of human authority to make it prevail. You answer, "True, when God takes the matter into his own hands. But when once he has sufficiently settled religion, so that if men will but do what they may and ought, it may subsist without that extraor dinary assistance from heaven; then he leaves it to their care. Where you suppose, if men will do their duties in their several capacities, true religion, being once established, may subsist without miracles. And is it not as true, that if they will, in their several capacities, do what they may and ought, true religion will also subsist without force? But you are sure magistrates will do what they may and ought, to preserve and propagate the true religion, but subjects will not. If you are not, you must bethink yourself how to answer that old question,

"Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?"

To my having said, that prevailing without the assistance of force, I thought was made use of as an argu