sion. But if they were a necessary means to make men hear and consider what was preached to them, till force supplied their place, and so were ordinarily to accompany the preaching of the Gospel, unless it should be preached without the means appointed and necessary to make it prevail; I think in that case, we may expect it should expressly have made a part of the preacher's commission; it making a necessary part of the effectual execution of his function.

But the apostle, it seems, thought fit to lay the stress upon instructing others, and living well themselves; upon "being instant in season, and out of season;" and therefore directs all his advices for the ordering the Cretan church, and the propagating the Gospel there, to make them attend to those necessary things of life and doctrine, without so much as mentioning the appointment, need, or use of miracles.

I said, "But whatever neglect or aversion there is in some men, impartially and thoroughly to be instructed; there will, upon a due examination, I fear, be found no less a neglect and aversion in others, impartially and thoroughly to instruct them. It is not the talking even general truths in plain and clear language, much less a man's own fancies in scholastical or uncommon ways of speaking an hour or two, once a week, in public, that is enough to instruct even willing hearers in the way of salvation, and the grounds of their religion:" and that politic discourses and invectives from the pulpit, instead of friendly and Christian debates with people at their houses, were not the proper means to inform men in the foundations of religion; and that if there were not a neglect in this part, I thought there would be little need of any other means. To this you tell me, in the next paragraph, " you do not see how pertinent my discourse, about this matter, is to the present question." If the showing the neglects, observable in the use of what is agreed to be necessary means, will not be allowed by you to be pertinent, in a debate about necessary means; when possibly those very neglects may serve to make other means seem requisite, which really

are not so; yet if you are not of those who will never think any such discourse pertinent, you will allow me to mind you of it again, as not impertinent in answer to your last letter, wherein you so often tell us of the sufficient provision made for instruction. For whereever the neglect be, it can scarce be said there is sufficient provision made for instruction in a Christian country, where great numbers of those, who are in the communion of the national church, are grossly ignorant of the grounds of the Christian religion. And I ask you, whether it be in respect of such conformists you say, as you do in the same paragraph, that "when the best provision is made that can be, for the instruction of the people, you fear a great part of them will still need some moderate penalties to bring them to hear and receive instruction ?"

But what if all the means that can, be not used for their instruction? That there are neglects of this kind, you will, I suppose, take the word of a reverend prelate of our church, who thought he could not better show his good-will to the clergy, than by a seasonable discourse of the pastoral care, to cure that neglect for the future. There he tells you, p. 115, 118, that “ministers should watch over and feed their flock, and not enjoy their benefices as farms, &c. Which reproach, says he, whatever we may be, our church is free of; which he proves by the stipulation and covenant they make with Christ, that they will never cease their labour, care, and diligence, till they have done all that lieth in them, according to their bounden duty; towards all such as are or should be committed to their care, to bring them to a ripeness of age in Christ." And a page or two after, having repeated part of the promise by those who take orders, he adds, " In this is expressed the so much neglected, but so necessary duty, which incumbents owe their flock in a private way; visiting, instructing, and admonishing; which is one of the most useful and important parts of their duty, how generally soever it may be disused or forgotten." P. 187 he says, "every priest that minds his

duty will find, that no part of it is so useful as catechistical discourses; by means whereof, his people will understand all his sermons the better, when they have once a clear notion of all those terms that must run through them; for those not being understood, renders them all unintelligible. Another part of the priest's duty," he tells you, p. 201,"is with relation to them that are without, who are of the side of the church of Rome, or among the dissenters. Other churches and bodies are noted for their zeal in making proselytes; for their restless endeavours, as well as their unlawful methods in it; they reckoning perhaps that all will be sanctified by the increasing their party, which is the true name of making converts, except they become at the same time good men as well as votaries to a side or cause. We are certainly very remiss in this of both hands. Little pains is taken to gain either upon papists or non-conformists: the law has been so much trusted to, that that method only was thought sure; it was much valued, and others at the same time was much neglected. And whereas, at first, without force or violence, in forty years' time popery, from being the prevailing religion, was reduced to a handful: we have now, in above twice that number of years, made very little progress," &c.

Perhaps here again you will tell me, you "do not see how this is pertinent to the present question;" which, that you may see, give me leave to put you in mind, that neither you, nor any body else, can pretend force necessary, till all the means of persuasion have been used, and nothing neglected that can be done by all the softer ways of application. And since it is your own doctrine, that force is not lawful, unless where it is necessary; the magistrate, upon your principles, can neither lawfully use force, nor the ministers of any national church plead for it any where, but where they themselves have first done their duties: a draught whereof, adapted to our present circumstances, we have in the newly published discourse of the pastoral care. And he that shall press the use of force as necessary, before he

can answer it to himself and the world, that those who have taken on them the care of souls have performed their duties; were best consider, whether he does not draw up an accusation against the men of that holy order, or against the magistrate who suffers them to neglect any part of their duty. For whilst what that learned bishop, in the passages above-cited, and in other places, mentions, is neglected, it cannot be said, that no other means but force is left; those, which are on all hands acknowledged necessary and useful means, not having yet been made use of.

To vindicate your method from novelty, you tell me, it is as old as St. Austin. Whatever he says in the place you quote, it shows only his opinion, but not that it was ever used. Therefore, to show it not to be new in practice, you add, that you "think it has been made use of by all those magistrates, who having made all requisite provisions for the instructing their people in the truth, have likewise required them, under convenient penalties, to embrace it." Which is as much as to say, that those magistrates who used your method did use your method. And that certainly you may think safely, and without fear of being gainsaid.

But now I will tell you what I think, in my turn : and that is, if you could have found any magistrates who had made use of your method, as well as you think you have found a divine that approves of it; you would have named those magistrates as forwardly as you do St. Austin. If I think amiss, pray correct me yet, and name them.

That which makes me imagine you will hardly find any examples of it, is what I there said in these words: "All other law-makers have constantly taken this method; that where any thing was to be amended, the fault was first declared, and then penalties denounced against all those who, after a time set, should be found guilty of it. This the common sense of mankind, and the very reason of laws, (which are intended not for punishment, but correction) has made so plain, that the subtilest and most refined law-makers have not gone out of this course, nor have the most ignorant and bar

VOL. VI

M M

barous nations missed it. But you have outdone Solon and Lycurgus, Moses and our Saviour; and are resolved to be a law-maker of a way by yourself. It is an old and obsolete way, and will not serve your turn, to begin with warnings and threats of penalties, to be inflicted on those who do not reform, but continue to do that which you think they fail in. To allow of impunity to the innocent, or the opportunity of amendment to those who would avoid the penalties, are formalities not worth your notice. You are for a shorter and surer way. Take a whole tribe, and punish them at all adventures, whether guilty or no of the miscarriage which you would have amended; or without so much as telling them what it is you would have them do, but leaving them to find it out if they can. All these absurdities are contained in your way of proceeding, and are impossible to be avoided by any one, who will punish dissenters, and only dissenters, to make them consider and weigh the grounds of their religion, and impartially examine whether it be true or no; and upon what grounds they took it up; that so they may find and embrace the truth that must save them." These absurdities, I fear, must be removed, before any magistrates will find your method practicable.

I having said, "Your method is not altogether unlike the plea made use of to excuse the late barbarous usage of the protestants in France, from being a persecution for religion, viz. That it was not a punishment for religion, but for disobeying the king's laws, which required them to come to mass: so by your rule dissenters must be punished, not for the religion they have embraced, but the religion they have rejected." In answer to this, in the next paragraph, you take abundance of pains to prove, that the king of France's laws, that require going to mass, are no laws. You were best to say so on the other side of the water. It is sure the punishments were punishments, and the dragooning was dragooning. And if you think that plea excused them not, I am of your mind. But nevertheless am of opinion, as I was, that it will prove as