commending and persuading such a toleration as he proposed. And now pray tell me yourself, whether you do not think true religion would be a gainer by it, if such a toleration, established there, would permit the doctrine of the church of England to be freely preached, and its worship set up, in any popish, mahometan, or pagan country? if you do not, you have a very ill opinion of the religion of the church of England, and must own that it can only be propagated and supported by force. If you think it would gain in those countries, by such a toleration, you are then of the author's mind, and do not find it so hard to conceive how the recommending such a toleration might do service to that which you think true religion. But if you allow such a toleration useful to truth in other countries, you must find something very peculiar in the air, that must make it less useful to truth in England; and it will savour of much partiality, and be too absurd, I fear, for you to own, that toleration will be advantageous to true reli gion all the world over, except only in this island: though, I much suspect, this, as absurd as it is, lies at the bottom; and you build all you say upon this lurking supposition, that the national religion now in England, backed by the public authority of the law, is the only true religion, and therefore no other is to be tolerated; which being a supposition equally unavoidable, and equally just in other countries, unless we can imagine that every-where but in England men believe what at the same time they think to be a lie; will in other places exclude toleration, and thereby hinder truth from the means of propagating itself.

What the fruits of toleration are, which in the next words you complain do "remain still among us," and which you say, " give no encouragement to hope for "any advantages from it;" what fruits, I say, these are, or whether they are owing to the want or wideness of toleration among us, we shall then be able to judge when you tell us what they are. In the mean time I will boldly say, that if the magistrates will severally and impartially set themselves against vice, in whomsoever

66

it is found, and leave men to their own consciences; in their articles of faith, and ways of worship, " true religion will be spread wider, and be more fruitful in "the lives of its professors," than ever hitherto it has been, by the imposition of creeds and ceremonies.

66

I

You tell us," that no man can fail of finding the way of salvation, who seeks it as he ought." wonder you had not taken notice, in the places you quote for this, how we are directed there to the right way of seeking. The words, John vii. 17, are, "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doc"trine whether it be of God." And Psalm xxv. 9, 12, 14, which are also quoted by you, tell us, "The "meek will he guide in judgment, and the meek will "he teach his way. What man is he that feareth the

66

66

"Lord, him shall he teach in the way that he shall "choose. The secret of the Lord is with them that "fear him, and he will show them his covenant." So that these places, if they prove what you cite them for, "that no man can fail of finding the way of salvation, who seeks it as he ought;" they do also prove, that a good life is the only way to seek as we ought; and that therefore the magistrates, if they would put men upon seeking the way of salvation as they ought, should, by their laws and penalties, force them to a good life; a good conversation being the readiest and surest way to a right understanding. Punishments

and severities thus applied, we are sure, are both practicable, just, and useful. How punishments will prove in the way you contend for, we shall see when we come to consider it.

Having given us these broad marks of your goodwill to toleration, you tell us, "It is not your design "to argue against it, but only to inquire what our au"thor offers for the proof of his assertion," And then you give us this scheme of his argument.

1." There is but one way of salvation, or but one "true religion.

2. "No man can be saved by this religion, who does "not believe it to be the true religion.

3. "This belief is to be wrought in men by reason "and argument, not by outward force and compul

❝sion.

4. "Therefore all such force is utterly of no use for "the promoting true religion, and the salvation of "souls.

5. "And therefore nobody can have any right to "use any force or compulsion, for the bringing men "to the true religion."

And you tell us, "the whole strength of what that "letter urged for the purpose of it, lies in this argu"ment," which I think you have no more reason to say, than if you should tell us, that only one beam of a house had any strength in it, when there are several others that would support the building, were that gone.

The purpose of the letter is plainly to defend toleration, exempt from all force; especially civil force, or the force of the magistrate. Now, if it be a true consequence" that men must be tolerated, if magistrates "have no commission or authority to punish them for "matters of religion;" then the only strength of that letter lies not in the unfitness of force to convince men's understanding. See letter, p. 381.

Again; if it be true that "magistrates being as liable "to errour as the rest of mankind, their using of force "in matters of religion, would not at all advance the "salvation of mankind," allowing that even force could work upon them, and magistrates had authority to use it in religion, then the argument you mention is not "the only one in that letter of strength to prove the

necessity of toleration." See letter, p. 319. For the argument of the unfitness of force to convince men's minds being quite taken away, either of the other would be a strong proof for toleration. But let us consider the argument as you have put it.

"The two first propositions, you say, you agree to." As to the third, you grant, that "force is very impro"per to be used to induce the mind to assent to any "truth." But yet you deny, But yet you deny, "that force is utterly "useless for the promoting true religion, and the sal

"vation of men's souls:" which you call the author's fourth proposition; but indeed that is not the author's fourth proposition, or any proposition of his, to be found in the pages you quote, or any-where else in the whole letter, either in those terms, or in the sense you take it. In page 319, which you quote, the author is showing that the magistrate has no power, that is, no right, to make use of force in matters of religion, for the salvation of men's souls. And the reason he gives for it there, is, because force has no efficacy to convince men's minds; and that without a full persuasion of the mind, the profession of the true religion itself is not acceptable to God. "Upon this ground, says he, I affirm "that the magistrate's power extends not to the establishing any articles of faith, or forms of worship, by the force of his laws. For laws are of no force "at all without penalties; and penalties in this case are "absolutely impertinent, because they are not proper "to convince the mind." And so again, p. 331, which is the other place you quote, the author says: "Whatsoever may be doubted in religion, yet this at least is certain, that no religion which I believe not to be "true, can be either true, or profitable unto me. In "vain therefore do princes compel their subjects to "come into their church-communion, under the pre

66

66

66

66

tence of saving their souls." And more to this purpose. But in neither of those passages, nor any-where. else, that I remember, does the author say that it is impossible that force should any way, at any time, upon any person, by any accident, be useful towards the promoting of true religion, and the salvation of souls; for that is it which you mean by "utterly of no use." He does not deny that there is any thing which God in his goodness does not, or may not, sometimes graciously make use of towards the salvation of men's souls; as our Saviour did of clay and spittle to cure blindness; and that so force also may be sometimes useful. But that which he denies, and you grant, is, that force has any proper efficacy to enlighten the understanding, or produce belief. And from thence he infers, that therefore the magistrate cannot lawfully compel men in mat

ters of religion. This is what the author says, and what I imagine will always hold true, whatever you or any one can say or think to the contrary.

That which you say is, "Force indirectly and at a "distance may do some service." What you mean by doing service at a distance, towards the bringing men to salvation, or to embrace the truth, I confess I do not understand; unless perhaps it be what others, in propriety of speech, call by accident. But be it what it will, it is such a service as cannot be ascribed to the direct and proper efficacy of force. And so, say you, "Force, indirectly, and at a distance, may do some "service." I grant it: make your best of it. What do you conclude from thence, to your purpose?

66

That

therefore the magistrate may make use of it? That I deny, that such an indirect, and at a distance usefulness, will authorise the civil power in the use of it, that will never be proved. Loss of estate and dignities may make a proud man humble: sufferings and imprisonment may make a wild and debauched man sober: and so these things may indirectly, and at a dis"tance, be serviceable towards the salvation of men's "souls." I doubt not but God has made some, or all of these, the occasions of good to many men. But will you therefore infer, that the magistrate may take away a man's honour, or estate, or liberty for the salvation of his soul; or torment him in this, that he may be happy in the other world? What is otherwise unlawful in itself, as it certainly is to punish a man without a fault; can never be made lawful by some good that, indirectly and at a distance, or, if you please, indirectly and by accident, may follow from it. Running a man through, may save his life, as it has done by chance, opening a lurking imposthume. But will you say therefore, that this is lawful, justifiable chirurgery? The gallies, it is like, might reduce many a vain, loose protestant to repentance, sobriety of thought, and a true sense of religion and the torments they suffered in the late persecution might make several consider the pains of hell, and put a due estimate of vanity and contempt on all