Works

tiWl

-,.yr v

\6£-2> THE

WORKS

OF

JOHN LOCKE.

A NEW EDITION, CORRECTED.

3hc

*\

ri

/AT raw VOLUMES.
VOL. VI.

LONDON :

PRINTED FOR THOMAS TEGG ; W. SHARPE AND SON ; G. OFFOR ;
G. AND J. ROBINSON; J.EVANS AND CO.: ALSO R. GRIFFIN
AND CO. GLASGOW ; AND 3. CUMMING, DUBLIN.

|MMM|

1823.

ttS

vm*'

t

LONDON .
M1NTKD B1 iiiomxs MLVIftONj \mi i n i iu \w>.

CONTENTS

OF THE

SIXTH VOLUME.

Page
A Letter concerning Toleration, being a Translation

of the Epistola de Tolerantia 1

A Second Letter concerning Toleration 59

A Third Letter for Toleration : to the Author of the

Third Letter concerning Toleration - lol)

A Fourth Letter for Toleration - 517
Index.

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2010 with funding from

University of Toronto

http://www.archive.org/details/workslock06lock

LETTER

CONCERNING

TOLERATI

VOL. VI. B

TO THE READER.

The ensuing Letter concerning Toleration, first
printed in Latin this very year, in Holland, has already
been translated both into Dutch and French. So ge-
neral and speedy an approbation may therefore bespeak
its favourable reception in England. I think indeed
there is no nation under heaven, in which so much has
already been said upon that subject as ours. But yet
certainly there is no people that stand in more need of
having something further both said and done amongst
them, in this point, than we do.

Our government has not only been partial in matters
of religion, but those also who have suffered under that
partiality, and have therefore endeavoured by their
writings to vindicate their own rights and liberties,
have for the most part done it upon narrow principles,
suited only to the interests of their own sects.

This narrowness of spirit on all sides has undoubtedly
been the principal occasion of our miseries and con-
fusions. But whatever have been the occasions, it is
now high time to seek for a thorough cure. We have
need of more generous remedies than what have yet
been made use of in our distemper. It is neither de-
clarations of indulgence, nor acts of comprehension,
such as have yet been practised or projected amongst

b CZ

4 To the Reader.

us, that can do the work. The first will but palliate,
the second increase our evil.

Absolute liberty, just and true liberty, equal and im-
partial liberty, is the thing that xce stand in need of. Now,
though this has indeed been much talked of, I doubt it
has not been much understood ; I am sure not at all
practised, either by our governors towards the people
in general, or by any dissenting parties of the people
towards one another.

I cannot, therefore, but hope that this discourse,
which treats of that subject, however briefly, yet more
exactly than any we have yet seen, demonstrating both
the equitableness and practicableness of the thing, will
be esteemed highly seasonable by all men who have
souls large enough to prefer the true interest of the
public, before that of a party.

It is for the use of such as are already so spirited, or
to inspire that spirit into those that are not, that I have
translated it into our language. But the thing itself is
so short, that it will not bear a longer preface. I leave
it, therefore, to the consideration of my countrymen ;
and heartily wish they may make the use of it that it
appears to be designed for.

LETTER

CONCERNING

TOLERATION.

HONOURED SIR,

Since you are pleased to inquire what are my thoughts
about the mutual toleration of Christians in their dif-
ferent professions of religion, I must needs answer you
freely, that I esteem that toleration to be the chief
characteristical mark of the true church. For whatso-
ever some people boast of the antiquity of places and
names, or of the pomp of their outward worship; others,
of the reformation of their discipline; all, of the ortho-
doxy of their faith, for every one is orthodox to him-
self: these things, and all others of this nature, are
much rather marks of men's striving for power and
empire over one another, than of the church of Christ.
Let any one have ever so true a claim to all these things,
yet if he be destitute of charity, meekness, and good-
will in general towards all mankind, even to those that
are not Christians, he is certainly yet short of being a
true Christian himself. " The kings of the Gentiles
exercise lordship over them, said our Saviour to his
disciples, but ye shall not be so, Luke xxii. 25, 26'.
The business of true religion is quite another thing.

A Letter concerning Toleration,

o

It is not instituted in order to the erecting an external
pomp, nor to the obtaining of ecclesiastical dominion,
nor to the exercising of compulsive force ; but to the
regulating of men's lives according to the rules of
virtue and piety. Whosoever will list himself under
the banner of Christ, must, in the first place, and above
all things, make war upon his own lusts and vices. It
is in vain for any man to usurp the name of Christian,
without holiness of life, purity of manners, and be-
nignity and meekness of spirit. " Let every one that
nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity/' 2 Tim.
ii. 19. " Thou, when thou art converted, strengthen
thy brethren," said our Lord to Peter, Luke xxii. 32.
It would indeed be very hard for one that appears
careless about his own salvation, to persuade me that
he were extremely concerned for mine. For it is im-
possible that those should sincerely and heartily apply
themselves to make other people Christians, who have
not really embraced the Christian religion in their own
hearts. If the Gospel and the apostles may be credited,
no man can be a Christian without charity, and without
that faith which works, not by force, but by love. Now
I appeal to the consciences of those that persecute, tor-
ment, destroy, and kill other men upon pretence of
religion, whether they do it out of friendship and kind-
ness towards them, or no : and I shall then indeed, and
not till then, believe they do so, when I shall see those
fiery zealots correcting, in the same manner, their
friends and familiar acquaintance, for the manifest sins
they commit against the precepts of the Gospel; when
I shall see them prosecute with fire and sword the
members of their own communion that are tainted with
enormous vices, and without amendment are in danger
of eternal perdition; and when I shall see them thus
express their love and desire of the salvation of their
souls by the infliction of torments, and exercise of all
manner of cruelties. For if it be out of a principle of
charity, as they pretend, and love to men's souls, that

they deprive them of their estates, maim them with cor-
poral punishments, starve and torment them in noisome

A Letter concerning; Toleration.

©

prisons, and in the end even take away their lives ; I
say, if all this be done merely to make men Christians,
and procure their salvation, why then do they suffer
" whoredom, fraud, malice, and such like enormities,"
which, according to the apostle, Rom.i. manifestly relish
of heathenish corruption, to predominate so much and
abound amongst their flocks and people? These, and
such like things, are certainly more contrary to the
glory of God, to the purity of the church, and to the
salvation of souls, than any conscientious dissent from
ecclesiastical decision, or separation from public wor-
ship, whilst accompanied with innocency of life. Why
then does this burning zeal for God, for the church, and
for the salvation of souls; burning, I say, literally with
fire and faggot ; pass by those moral vices and wicked-
nesses, without any chastisement, which are acknow-
ledged by all men to be diametrically opposite to the
profession of Christianity, and bend all its nerves either
to the introducing of ceremonies, or to the establish-
ment of opinions, which for the most part are about
nice and intricate matters, that exceed the capacity of
ordinary understandings ? Which of the parties con-
tending about these things is in the right, which of them
is guilty of schism, or heresy, whether those that domi-
neer or those that suffer, will then at last be manifest,
when the cause of their separation comes to be judged
of. He certainly that follows Christ, embraces his
doctrine, and bears his yoke, though he forsake both
father and mother, separate from the public assemblies
and ceremonies of his country, or whomsoever, or what-
soever else he relinquishes, will not then be judged an
heretic.

Now, though the divisions that are amongst sects
should be allowed to be ever so obstructive of the sal-
vation of souls, yet, nevertheless, " adultery, fornica-
tion, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, and such
like things, cannot be denied to be works of the
flesh ;" concerning which the apostle has expressly
declared, that " they who do them shall not inherit
the kingdom of God," Gal. v. 21. % Whosoever, there-

8 . A Letter concerning Toleration.

c

ibre, is sincerely solicitous about the kingdom of God,
and thinks it his duty to endeavour the enlargement of
it amongst men, ought to apply himself with no less
care and industry to the rooting out of these immorali-
ties, than to the extirpation of sects. But if any one
do otherwise, and, whilst he is cruel and implacable
towards those that differ from him in opinion, he be
indulgent to such iniquities and immoralities as are
unbecoming the name of a Christian, let such a one
talk ever so much of the church, he plainly demon-
strates by his actions, that it is another kingdom he
aims at, and not the advancement of the kingdom of
God.

That any man should think fit to cause another man,
whose salvation he heartily desires, to expire in tor-
ments, and that even in an unconverted estate, would,
I confess, seem very strange to me, and, I think, to any
other also. But nobody, surely, will ever believe that
such a carriage can proceed from charity, love, or good-
will. Qf any one maintain that men ought to be com-
pelled by fire and sword to profess certain doctrines,
and conform to this or that exterior worship, without
any regard had unto their morals ; if any one endeavour
to convert those that are erroneous unto the faith, by
forcing them to profess things that they do not believe,
and allowing them to practise things that the Gospel
does not permit ; it cannot be doubted, indeed, that
such a one is desirous to have a numerous assembly
joined in the same profession with himself; but that he
principally intends by those means to compose a truly
Christian church, is altogether incredible^T^t is not
therefore to be wondered at, if those who do not really
contend for the advancement of the true religion, and
of the church of Christ, make use of arms that do not
belong to the Christian warfare, ijlf, like the Captain of
Olir salvation, they sincerely desired the good of souls,
they would tread in the steps and follow the perfect
example of that Prince of Peace, who sent out his sol-
diers to the subduing of nations, and gathering them
into his church, no1 armed with the sword, or other

A Letter concerning Toleration. 9

'O

instruments of force, but prepared with the Gospel of
peace, and with the exemplary holiness of their con-
versation. J This was his method. Though if infidels
were to be'eonvcrted by force, if those that are either
blind or obstinate were to be drawn off from their
errors by armed soldiers, we know very well that it
was much more easy for him to do it with armies of
heavenly legions, than for any son of the church, how
potent soever, with all his dragoons.

The toleration of those that differ from others in
matters of religion, is so agreeable to the Gospel of
Jesus Christ, and to the genuine reason of mankind,
that it seems monstrous for men to be so blind, as not
to perceive the necessity and advantage of it, in so clear
a light. I will not here tax the pride and ambition of
some, the passion and uncharitable zeal of others. These
are faults from which human affairs can perhaps scarce
ever be perfectly freed ; but yet such as nobody will
bear the plain imputation of, without covering them
with some specious colour ; and so pretend to com-
mendation, whilst they are carried away by their own
irregular passions. But, however, that some may not
colour their spirit of persecution and unchristian cruelty
with a pretence of care of the public weal, and observa-
tion of the laws, and that others, under pretence of reli-
gion, may not seek impunity for their libertinism and
licentiousness; in a word, that none may impose either
upon himself or others, by the pretences of loyalty and
obedience to the prince, or of tenderness and sincerity
in the worship of God ; I esteem it above all things
necessary to distinguish exactly the business of civil
government from that of religion, and to settle the just
bounds that lie between the one and the other. If this
be not done, there can be no end put to the controver-
sies that will be always arising between those that have,
or at least pretend to have, on the one side, a con-
cernment for the interest of men's souls, and, on the
other side, a care of the commonwealth.

The commonwealth seems to me to be a society of
men constituted only for the procuring, preserving, and

vancmg their own civil interests.

10 A Letter concerning Toleration.

&

Civil interest I call life, liberty, health, and indo-
lency of body ; and the possession of outward things,
such as money, lands, houses, furniture, and the like.

It is the duty of the_ciyiL magistrate, by the im-
partial execution oTequal laws, to secure unto all the
people in general, and to every one of his subjects in
particular, the just possession of these things belonging
to this life. If any one presume to violate the laws of
public justice and equity, established for the preserva-
tion of these things, his presumption is to be checked
by the fear of punishment, consisting in the deprivation
or diminution of those civil interests, or goods, which
otherwise he might and ought to enjoy. But seeing no
man does willingly suffer himself to be punished by the
deprivation of any part of his goods, and much less of
his liberty or life, therefore is the magistrate armed
with the force and strength of all his subjects, in order
to the punishment of those that violate any other man's
rights.

Now that the whole jurisdiction of the magistrate
reaches only to these civil concernments ; and that all
civil power, right, and dominion, is bounded and con-
fined to the only care of promoting these things ; and
that it neither can nor ought in any manner to be ex-
tended to the salvation of souls; these following con-
siderations seem unto me abundantly to demonstrate.

First, Because the care of souls is not committed to
the civil magistrate, any more than to other men. It
is not committed unto him, I say, by God ; because it
appears not that God has ever given any such authority
to one man over another, as to compel any one to his
religion. Nor can any such power be vested in the ma-
gistrate by the consent of the people ; because no man
can so far abandon the care of his own salvation as
blindly to leave it to the choice of any other, whether
prince or subject, to prescribe to him what faith or wor-
ship he shall embrace. For no man can, if he would,
conform his faith to the dictates of another. All tl
lill' and power of 1 rue religion consists in the inward and
full persuasion of the mind,' and faith is not faith with-

1

A Letter concerning Toleration. 11

out believing. Whatever profession we make, to what-
ever outward worship we conform, if we are not fully
satisfied in our own mind that the one is true, and the
other well-pleasing unto God, such profession and such
practice, far from being any furtherance, are indeed
great obstacles to our salvation. For in this manner,
instead of expiating other sins by the exercise of re-
ligion, I say, in offering thus unto God Almighty such
a worship as we esteem to be displeasing unto him, we
add unto the number of our other sins, those also of
hypocrisy, and contempt of his Divine Majesty.

In the second place. The oare of souls cannot be-
ong to the civil magistrate, becausi*"his power consists
only in oujts^ai^d force : but true and saving religion
consists in the inward persuasion of the mind, without
which nothing can be acceptable to God. And such is
the nature of the understanding, that it cannot be com-
pelled to the belief of any thing by outward force.
Confiscation of estate, imprisonment, torments, nothing
of that nature can have any such efficacy as to make
men change the inward judgment that they have framed
of things.

It may indeed be alleged that the magistrate may
make use of arguments, and thereby draw the heterodox
into the way of truth, and procure their salvation. I
grant it ; but this is common to him with other men.
Jn teaching, instructing, and redressing the erroneous
by reason, he may certainly do what becomes any good
man to do. Magistracy does not oblige him to put off
either humanity or Christianity. But it is one thing to
persuade, another to command; one thing to press with
arguments, another with penalties. This the civil power
alone has a right to do ; to the other, good-will is
authority enough. Every man has commission to ad-
monish, exhort, convince another of error, and by rea-
soning to draw him into truth : but to give laws, receive
obedience, and compel with the sword, belongs to none
but the magistrate. And upon this ground I affirm,
that the magistrate's power extends not to the establish-
ing of any articles of faith, or forms of worship, by the

12 A Letter concerning Toleration,

o

force of his laws. For laws are of no force at all with-
out penalties, and penalties in this case are absolutely
impertinent ; because they are not proper to convince
the mind. Neither the profession of any articles of faith,
nor the conformity to any outward form of worship, as
has been already said, can be available to the salvation
of souls, unless the truth of the one, and the acceptable-
ness of the other unto God, be thoroughly believed by
those that so profess and practise. But penalties are no
ways capable to produce such belief. It is only light
and evidence that can work a change in men's opinions;
and that light can in no manner proceed from corporal
sufferings, or any other outward penalties.

In the third place, The care of the salvation of men's
souls cannot belong to the magistrate ; because, though
the rigour of laws and the force of penalties were ca-
pable to convince and change men's minds, yet would
not that help at all to the salvation of their souls. For,
there being but one truth, one way to heaven ; what
hopes is there that more men would be led into it, if
they had no other rule to follow but the religion of the
court, and were put under a necessity to quit the light
of their own reason, to oppose the dictates of their own
consciences, and blindly to resign up themselves to the
will of their governors, and to the religion, which either
ignorance, ambition, or superstition had chanced to esta-
blish in the countries where they were born ? In the
variety and contradiction of opinions in religion, where-
in the princes of the world are as much divided as in
their secular interests, the narrow way would be much
straitened; one country alone would be in the right,
and all the rest of the world put under an obligation
of following their princes in the ways that lead to de-
struction: and that winch heightens the absurdity, and
very ill suits the notion of a Deity, men would owe
their eternal happiness or misery to the places of their
nativity .

These considerations, to omit many others that might
have been urged to the purpose, seem unto me

sufficient to c le? that all the power of civil uo-

A Letter concerning Toleration. 1$

*£>

vcrnment relates only to men's civil interests, is con-
fined to the care of the things of this world, and hath
nothing to do with the world to come.

Let us now consider what a church is. A church
then I take to be a voluntary society of men, joining
themselves together of their own accord, in order to the
public worshipping of God, in such a manner as they
judge acceptable to him, and effectual to the salvation
of their souls.

I say, it is a free and voluntary society. Nobody is'
born a member of any church ; otherwise the religion
of parents would descend unto children, by the same
right of inheritance as their temporal estates, and every
one would hold his faith by the same tenure he does his
lands ; than which nothing can be imagined more ab-
surd. Thus therefore that matter stands. No man by
nature is bound unto any particular church or sect, but
every one joins himself voluntarily to that society in
which he believes he has found that profession and wor-
ship which is truly acceptable to God. The hopes of
salvation, as it was the only cause of his entrance into
that communion, so it can be the only reason of his stay
there. For if afterwards he discover any thing either
erroneous in the doctrine, or incongruous in the wor-
ship of that society to which he has joined himself, why
should it not be as free for him to go out as it was to
enter ? No member of a religious society can be tied
with any other bonds but what proceed from the certain
expectation of eternal life. A church then is a society
of members voluntarily uniting to this end.

It follows now that we consider what is the power
of this church, and unto what laws it is subject.

Forasmuch as no society, how free soever, or upon
whatsoever slight occasion instituted, (whether of phi-
losophers for learning, of merchants for commerce, or
of men of leisure for mutual conversation and discourse)
no church or company, I say, can in the least subsist
and hold together, but will presently dissolve and break
to pieces, unless it be regulated by some laws, and the
members all consentto observe some order. Place

14 A Letter concerning Toleration.

and time of meeting must be agreed on ; rules for ad-
mitting and excluding members must be established;
distinction of officers, and putting things into a regular
course, and such like, cannot be omitted. But since the
joining together of several members into this church-
society, as has already been demonstrated, is absolutely
free and spontaneous, it necessarily follows, that the
, ri^ht of making its laws can belong to none but the
[ society itselt, or at least, which is the same thing, to
'those whom the society bv common consent has au-
thorized thereunto.

Some perhaps may object, that no such society can be
said to be a true church, unless it have in it a bishop,
or presbyter, with ruling authority derived from the
very apostles, and continued down unto the present
time by an uninterrupted succession.

To these I answer. In the first place, Let them show
me the edict by which Christ has imposed that law upon
his church. And let not any man think me imperti-
nent, if, in a thing of this consequence, I require that
the terms of that edict be very ex] and positive. — ■

For the promise he has made us, that " wheresoever two
or three are leathered together in his name, he will be
in the midst of them," Matth. xviii. 90, seems to imply
the contrary. Whethei such an assembly want any
thing necessary to a true church, pray do you con-
fer. Certain I am, that nothing can be there want-
ing unto the salvation of souls which is sufficient for
our purpose.

xt, pray observe how great have ai been the

divisions amongst even those who lav so much str<
upon the divine institution, and contin;: ion

a certain order of rulers in the church. Now their
ry disc >n unii folj pi. upon a necessity

deliberatin I tly allows a liberty Of

choosing that , which upon con- tion we prefer.

And, in the , I consent that tl mm h;

their church, established by such a lo

bey judge nee ided 1

veUbert at the same time to join myself to that

A Letter concerning Toleration, 15

society, in which I am persuaded those things are to be
found which are necessary to the salvation of my soul.
In this manner ecclesiastical liberty will be preserved
on all sides, and no man will have a legislator imposed
upon him, but whom himself has chosen.

But since men are so solicitous about the true church,
I would only ask them here by the way, if it be not
more agreeable to the church of Christ to make the con-
ditions of her communion consist in such things, and
such things only, as the Holy Spirit has in the holy
Scriptures declared, in express words, to be necessary
to salvation ? I ask, I say, whether this be not more
agreeable to the church of Christ, than for men to im-
pose their own inventions1 and interpretations upon
others, as if they were of divine authority ; and to esta-
blish by ecclesiastical laws, as absolutely necessary to
the profession of Christianity, such things as the holy
Scriptures do either not mention, or at least not ex-
pressly command ? Whosoever requires those things in
order to ecclesiastical communion, which Christ does
not require in order to life eternal, he may perhaps in-
deed constitute a society accommodated to his own
opinion, and his own advantage ; but how that can be
called the church of Christ, which is established upon
laws that are not his, and which excludes such persons
from its communion as he will one day receive into
the kingdom of heaven, I understand not. But this
being not a pVoper place to inquire into the marks of
the true church, I will only mind those that contend so
earnestly for the decrees of their own society, and that
cry out continually the church, the church, with as
much noise, and perhaps upon the same principle, as
the Ephesian silversmiths did for their Diana ; this, I
say, I desire to mind them of, that the Gospel fre-
quently declares, that the true disciples of Christ must
suffer persecution ; but that the church of Christ should
persecute others, and force others by fire and sw ord to
embrace her faith and doctrine, I could never yet find
in any of the books of the New Testament.

The end of a religious society, as has already been

16 A Letter concerning Toleration.

b

said, is the public worship of God, and by means thereof
the acquisition of eternal life. All discipline ought
therefore to tend to that end, and all ecclesiastical laws
to be thereunto confined. Nothing ought, nor can be
transacted in this society, relating to the possession of
civil and worldly goods. No force is here to be made
use of, upon any occasion whatsoever : for force be-
longs wholly to the civil magistrate, and the possession
of all outward goods is subject to his jurisdiction.

But it may be asked, by what means then shall ec-
clesiastical laws be established, if they must be thus de-
stitute of all compulsive power ? I answer they must be
established by means suitable to the nature of such
things, whereof the externrfl profession and observation,
if not proceeding from a thorough conviction and ap-
probation of the mind, is altogether useless and unpro-
fitable. The arms by which the members of this society
are to be kept within their duty, are exhortations, ad-
monitions, and advice. If by these means the offenders
will not be reclaimed, and the erroneous convinced,
there remains nothing farther to be done, but that such
stubborn and obstinate persons, who give no ground to
hope for their reformation, should be cast out and se-
parated from the society. This is the last and utmi
force of ecclesiastical authority: no other punishment
can thereby be inflicted, than that the relation ceasing
between the body and the member which is cut off,
the person so condemned ceases to bef a part of that
church.

These things being thus determined, let us inquire,
in the next place, how far the duty of toleration ex-
tends, and what is required from every one by it.

And old, that no church is bound by the

(duty of toleration to retain any such person in her bo
join, as after admonition continues obstinately to offend
againsUthe laws of the society! For these being the
condition of communion, and the bond of society, If
the breach of them were permitted without any animi
\crsion,1he society would immediately be therein dis-
ilved. But nevertheless, in all such cases care is to

A Letter concerning Toleration. 17

taken that the sentence of excommunication, and the
execution thereof, carry with it no rough usage, of word
or action, whereby the ejected person may any ways be
damnified in body or estate. For all force, as has often
been said, belongs only to the magistrate, nor ought
any private persons, at any time, to use force ; unless it
be in self-defence against unjust violence. Excommu-
nication neither does nor can deprive the excommuni-
cated person of any of those civil goods that he formerly
possessed. All those things belong to the civil govern- \
ment, and are under the magistrate's protection. The
whole force of excommunication consists only in this,
that the resolution of the society in that respect being
declared, the union that was between the body and some
member, comes thereby to be dissolved ; and that re-
lation ceasing, the participation of some certain things,
which the society communicated to its members, and
unto w7hich no man has any civil right, comes also to
cease. For there is no civil injury done unto the ex-
communicated person, by the church minister's refusing
him that bread and wine, in the celebration of the Lord's
supper, which was not bought with his, but other men's
money.

Secondly : No private person has any right in any
manner to prejudice another person in his civil enjoy i \
ments, because he is of another church or religion. All
the rights and franchises that belong to him as a man,
or as a denison, are inviolably to be preserved to him.
These are not the business of religion. No violence
nor injury is to be offered him, whether he be Christian
or pagan. Nay, we must not content ourselves with
the narrow measures of bare justice : charity, bounty,
and liberality must be added to it. This the Gospel
enjoins, this reason directs, and this that natural fel-
lowship we are born into requires of us. If any man
err from the right way, it is his own misfortune, no
injury to thee : nor therefore art thou to punish him
in the things of this life, because thou supposest he will
be miserable in that which is to come. ;

What I say concerning the mutual toleration of
private persons differing from one another in religion,

VOL,, vi. c

18 A Letter concerning Toleration,

I understand also of particular churches; which stand as
it were in the same relation to each other as private

" persons among themselves ; nor has any one of them
any manner of jurisdiction over any other, no, not even
when the civil magistrate, as it sometimes happens,
comes to be of this or the other communion. For the
civil government can give no new right to the church,
nor the church to the civil government. So that whether

<the magistrate join himself to any church, or separate
from it, the church remains always as it was before, a
free and voluntary society. It neither acquires the
power of the sword by the magistrate's coming to it,
nor does it lose the right of instruction and excom-
munication by his going from it. This is the funda-
mental and immutable right of a spontaneous society,
that it has to remove any of its members who transgress
the rules of its institution : but it cannot, by the ac-
cession of any new members, acquire any right of juris-
diction over those that are not joined with it. And
therefore peace, equity, and friendship, are always mu-
tually to be observed by particular churches, in the
same manner as by private persons, without any pre-
tence of superiority or jurisdiction over one another.

That the thing may be made yet clearer by an ex-
ample; let us suppose two churches, the one of Armi-
nians, the other of Calvinists, residing in the city of
Constantinople. Will any one say, that either of these
churches has right to deprive the members of the other
of their estates and liberty, as we see practised else-
where, because of their differing from it in some doc-
trines or ceremonies; whilst the Turks in the mean-
while silently stand by, and laugh to see with what in-
human cruelty Christians thus rage against Christians?
But if one of these churches hath this power of treat-
ing the other ill, I ask which of them it is to whom
that power belongs, and by what right? It will be an*
swered, undoubtedly, that it is the orthodox church
which has the light of authority over the erroneous or
heretical. This is, in great and specious words, to
say just nothing at all. For every church is orthodox
to itself; to others, erroneous or heretical. AVhatso-

A Letter concerning Toleration. 19

■e

ever any church believes, it believes to be true ; and
the contrary thereunto it pronounces to be error. So
that the controversy between these churches about the j
truth of their doctrines, and the purity of their wor-
ship, is on both sides equal ; nor is there any judge,
either at Constantinople, or elsewhere upon earth, by X *
whose sentence it can be determined. The decision of
that question belongs only to the Supreme Judge of all
men, to whom also alone belongs the punishment of
the erroneous. In the mean while, let those men con-
sider how heinously they sin, who, adding injustice, if
not to their error, yet certainly to their pride, do rashly
and arrogantly take upon them to misuse the servants
of another master, who are not at all accountable to
them.

Nay, further: if it could be manifest which of these
two dissenting churches were in the right way, there
would not accrue thereby unto the orthodox any right
of destroying the other. For churches have neither any
jurisdiction in worldly matters, nor are fire and sword
any proper instruments wherewith to convince men's
minds of error, and inform them of the truth. Let us
suppose, nevertheless, that the civil magistrate is in-
clined to favour one of them, and to put his sword into
their hands, that, by his consent, they might chastise
the dissenters as they pleased. Will any man say, that
any right can be derived unto a Christian church, over
its brethren, from a Turkish emperor ? An infidel, who
has himself no authority to punish Christians for the
articles of their faith, cannot confer such an authority
upon any society of Christians, nor give unto them a
right which he has not himself. This would be the
case at Constantinople. And the reason of the thing is
the same in any Christian kingdom. The civil power
is the same in every place : nor can that power, in the
hands of a Christian prince, confer any greater authority s^
upon the church, than in the hands of a heathen ; which
is to say, just none at all.

Nevertheless, it is worthy to be observed, and la-
mented, that the most violent of these defenders of the
truth, the opposers of error, the exclaimers against

c 2

4

20 A Letter concerning Toleration.

schism, do hardly ever let loose this their zeal for God,
with which they are so warmed and inflamed, unless
where they have the civil magistrate on their side. But
so soon as ever court favour has given them the better
end of the staff, and they begin to feel themselves the
\ stronger ; then presently peace and charity are to be laid
aside : otherwise they are religiously to be observed.
Where they have not the power to carry on persecution,
and to become masters, there they desire to live upon
fair terms, and preach up toleration. When they are
not strengthened with the civil power, then they can
bear most patiently, and unmovedly, the contagion of
idolatry, superstition, and heresy, in their neighbour-
hood ; of which, on other occasions, the interest of
religion makes them to be extremely apprehensive.
They do not forwardly attack those errors which are in
fashion at court, or are countenanced by the govern-
ment. Here they can be content to spare their ar-
guments : which yet, with their leave, is the only right
method of propagating truth; which has no such way
of prevailing, as when strong arguments and good
reason are joined with the softness of civility and good

isage.

Nobody therefore, in fine, neither single persons,
nor churches, nay, nor even commonwealths, have any
just title to invade the civil rights and worldly goods of
each other, upon pretence of religion. Those that are
of another opinion, would do well to consider with
themselves how pernicious a seed of discord and war,
how powerful a provocation to endless hatreds, rapines,
and slaughters, they thereby furnish unto mankind.
No peace and security, no, not so much as common
friendship, can ever be established or preserved amongst
men, so long as this opinion prevails, "that dominion
is founded in grace, and that religion is to be propa-
gated by force of arms."

In the third place : Let us see what the duty of to-
leration requires from those who are distinguished from
the rest of mankind, from the laity, as they please to
call us, by some eeelesiast ical character and otliee ;
whether they be bishops, priests, presbyters, ministers,

A Letter concerning Toleration. 21

or however else dignified or distinguished. It is not
my business to inquire here into the original of the
power or dignity of the clergy. This only I say, that
vvhencesoever their authority be sprung, since it is ec-
clesiastical, it ought to be confined within the bounds
of the church, nor can it in any manner be extended to
civil affairs ; because the church itself is a thing abso-
lutely separate and distinct from the commonwealth.
The boundaries on both sides are fixed and immoveable.
He jumbles heaven and earth together, the things most
remote and opposite, who mixes these societies, which
are, in their original, end, business, and in every thing,
perfectly distinct, and infinitely different from each
other. No man therefore, with whatsoever ecclesiastical
office he be dignified, can deprive another man, that is
not of his church and faith, either of liberty, or of any
part of his worldly goods, upon the account of that
difference which is between them in religion. For
whatsoever is not lawful to the whole church cannot,
by any ecclesiastical right, become lawful to any of its
members.

But this is not all. It is not enough that ecclesia-
stical men abstain from violence and rapine, and all
manner of persecution. He that pretends to be a suc-
cessor of the apostles, and takes upon him the office of
teaching;, is obliged also to admonish his hearers of the
duties of peace and good-will towards all men ; as well
towards the erroneous as the orthodox ; towards those
that differ from them in faith and worship, as well as
towards those that agree with them therein : and he
ought industriously to exhort all men, whether private
persons or magistrates, if any such there be in his church,
to charity, meekness, and toleration ; and diligently en-
deavour to ailay and temper all that heat, and unrea-
sonable averseness of mind, which either any man's
fiery zeal for his own sect, or the craft of others, has
kindled against dissenters. I will not undertake to re-
present how happy and how great would be the fruit,
both in church and state, if the pulpits every where
sounded with this doctrine of p pa pp an rl t, pi p- r a \ i o n ; lest
I should seem to reflect too severely upon those men

c2°2, A Letter concerning Toleration.

o

whose dignity I desire not to detract from, nor would
have it diminished either by others or themselves. But
this I say, that thus it ought to be. And if any one
that professes himself to be a minister of the word of
God, a preacher of the Gospel of peace, teach other-
wise ; he either understands not, or neglects the busi-
ness of his calling, and shall one day give account
thereof unto the Prince of Peace. If Christians are to
be admonished that they abstain from all manner of re-
venge, even after repeated provocations and multiplied
injuries ; how much more ought they who suffer nothing,
who have had no harm done them, to forbear violence,
and abstain from all manner of ill usage towards those
from whom they have received none ! This caution and
temper they ought certainly to use towards those who
mind only their own business, and are solicitous for no-
thing but that, whatever men think of them, they may
worship God in that manner which they are persuaded is
acceptable to him, and in which they have the strongest
hopes of eternal salvation. In private domestic affairs,
in the management of estates, in the conservation of
bodily health, every man may consider what suits his
y own conveniency, and follow what course he likes best.
No man complains of the ill management of his neigh-
bour's affairs. No man is angry with another for an
error committed in sowing his land, or in marrying
his daughter. Nobody corrects a spendthrift for con-
suming his substance in taverns. Let any man pull
down, or build, or make whatsoever expenses he pleases,
nobody murmurs, nobody controls him ; he has his
liberty. But if any man do not frequent the church,
if lie do not there conform his behaviour exactly to the
accustomed ceremonies, or if he brings not his chil-
dren to be initiated in the sacred mysteries of this or
the other congregation; this immediately causes an
uproar, and the neighbourhood is filled with noise and
Clamour. Every one is ready to be the avenger of so
great a crime. And the zealots hardly have patience to
refrain from violence and rapine, so long till the cause
be heard, and the poor man be, according to form,
condemned to the loss of liberty, goods, or life. Oh

A Letter concerning Toleration. %3

w&

that our ecclesiastical orators, of every sect, would ap-
ply themselves, with all the strength of argument that
they are able, to the confounding of men's errors ! But
let them spare their persons. Let them not supply
their want of reasons with the instruments of force,
which belong to another jurisdiction, and do ill become
a churchman's hands. Let them not call in the magi-
strate's authority to the aid of their eloquence or learn-
ing ; lest perhaps, whilst they pretend only love for the
truth, this their intemperate zeal, breathing nothing
but fire and sword, betray their ambition, and show
that what they desire is temporal dominion. For it will
be very difficult to persuade men of sense, that he, who
with dry eyes, and satisfaction of mind, can deliver his
brother unto the executioner, to be burnt alive, does
sincerely and heartily concern himself to save that
brother from the flames of hell in the world to come.

In thejast^place. Let us now consider what is the
magistrate's duty in the business of toleration : which
is certainly very considerable.

We have already proved, that the care of souls does
not belong to the magistrate : not a magisterial care, I
mean, if I may so call it, which consists in prescribing
by laws, and compelling by punishments. But a cha-
ritable care, which consists in teaching, admonishing,
and persuading, cannot be denied unto any man. The
care therefore of every man's soul belongs unto him-
self, and is to be left unto himself. But what if he
neglect the care of his soul? I answer, what if he neglect ^
the care of his health, or of his estate ; which things
are nearlier related to the government of the magistrate
than the other ? Will the magistrate provide by an ex-
press law, that such an one shall not become poor or
sick ? Laws provide, as much as is possible, that the
goods and health of subjects be not injured by the fraud
or violence of others; they do not guard them from the
negligence or ill husbandry of the possessors themselves.
No man can be forced to be rich or healthful, whether

I he will or no. Nay, God himself -will not save men
against their wills. Let us suppose, however, that some
prince were desirous to force his subjects to accumulate

24 A Letter concerning Toleration.

o

riches, or to preserve the health and strength of their
bodies. Shall it be provided by law, that they must
consult none but Roman physicians, and shall every
one be bound to live according to their prescriptions?
What, shall no potion, no broth be taken, but what is
prepared either in the Vatican, suppose, or in a Geneva
shop? Or to make these subjects rich, shall they all be
obliged by law to become merchants, or musicians ?
Or, shall every one turn victualler, or smith, because
there are some that maintain their families plentifully,
and grow rich in those professions ? But it may be said,
there are a thousand ways to wealth, but one only way
to heaven. It is well said indeed, especially by those
that plead for compelling men into this or the other
way; for if there were several ways that lead thither,
there would not be so much as a pretence left for
compulsion. But now, if I be marching on with my
utmost vigour, in that way which, according to the
sacred geography, leads straight to Jerusalem ; why am
I beaten and ill used by others, because, perhaps, I wear
not buskins ; because my hair is not of the right cut ;
because, perhaps, I have not been dipt in the right fa-
shion ; because I eat flesh upon the road, or some other
food which agrees with my stomach ; because I avoid
certain by-ways, which seem unto me to lead into briars
or precipices; because, amongst the several paths that
are in the same road, I choose that to walk in which
seems to be the straightest and cleanest; because I avoid
to keep company with some travellers that are less
grave, and others that are more sour than they ought
to be; or in fine, because I follow a guide that either is,
or is not, clothed in white, and crowned with a mitre?
Certainly, if wc consider right, we shall rind that for
the most part they are such frivolous things as these,
that, without any prejudice to religion or the salvation
of souls, if not accompanied with superstition or hy-
pocrisy, might either be observed or omitted; I say,
they are such like things as these, which breed impla-
cable enmities among Christian brethren, who are all
agreed in the substantial anil truly fundamental part of
religion.

A Letter concerning Toleration. %5

'O

But let us grant unto these zealots, who condemn all
things that are not of their mode, that from these cir-
cumstances arise different ends. What shall we con-
clude from thence? There is only one of these which
is the true way to eternal happiness. But, in this great
variety of ways that men follow, it is still doubted which
is this right one. Now, neither the care of the com-
monwealth, nor the right of enacting laws, does dis-

- cover this way that leads to heaven more certainly to the
magistrate, than every private man's search and study
discovers it unto himself. I have a weak body, sunk
under a languishing disease, for which I suppose there
is only one remedy, but that unknown : does it there-
fore belong unto the magistrate to prescribe me a re-
medy, because there is but one, and because it is un-
known ? Because there is but one way for me to escape
death, will it therefore be safe for me to do whatsoever
the magistrate ordains ? Those things that every man
ought sincerely to inquire into himself, and by medi-
tation, study, search, and his own endeavours, attain
the knowledge of, cannot be looked upon as the pecu-
liar profession of any one sort of men. Princes, indeed,
are born superior unto other men in power, but in
nature equal. Neither the right, nor the art of ruling,
does necessarily carry along with it the certain know^-

~ ledge of other things; and least of all of the true reli-
gion ; for if it were so, how could it come to pass that
the lords of the earth should differ so vastly as they do
in religious matters? But let us grant that it is pro-
bable the way to eternal life may be better known by
a prince than by his subjects ; or, at least, that in this
incertitude of things, the safest and most commodious
way for private persons is to follow his dictates. You
will say, what then ? If he should bid you follow mer-
chandize for your livelihood, would you decline that
course, for fear it should not succeed? I answer, I would
turn merchant upon the prince's command, because in
case I should have ill success in trade, he is abundantly
able to make up my loss some other way. If it be true,
as he pretends, that he desires I should thrive and grow
rich, he can set me up again when unsuccessful voyages

26 A Letter concerning Toleration.

have broke me. But this is not the case in the things
that regard the life to come. If there I take a wrong
course, if in that respect I am once undone, it is not
in the magistrate's power to repair my loss, to ease my
suffering, or to restore me in any measure, much less
entirely, to a good estate. What security can be given
for the kingdom of heaven ?

Perhaps some will say, that they do not suppose this
infallible judgment, that all men are bound to follow in
the affairs of religion, to be in the civil magistrate, but
in the church. What the church has determined, that
the civil magistrate orders to be observed ; and he pro-
vides by his authority, that nobody shall either act or
believe, in the business of religion, otherwise than the
church teaches; so that the judgment of those things
is in the church. The magistrate himself yields obe-
dience thereunto, and requires the like obedience from
others. I answer, Who sees not how frequently the
name of the church, which was so venerable in the time
of the apostles, has been made use of to throw dust in
people's eyes, in following ages ? But, however, in the
present case it helps us not. The one only narrow way
which leads to heaven is not better known to the ma-
gistrate than to private persons, and therefore I cannot
safely take him for my guide, who may probably be as
ignorant of the way as myself, and who certainly is less
concerned for my salvation than I myself am. Amongst
so many kings of the Jews, how many of them were
there whom any Israelite, thus blindly following, had
not fallen into idolatry, and thereby into destruction ?
Yet, nevertheless, you bid me be of good courage, and
tell me that all is now safe and secure, because the ma-
gistrate does not now enjoin the observance of his own
decrees in matters of religion, but only the decrees of
the church. Of what church, I beseech you? Of that
which certainly likes him best. As if he that compels,,
me by laws and penalties to enter into this or the other
church, did not interpose his own judgment in the
matter. What difference is there whether he lead me
himself, or deliver me over to be led by others? I depend
both ways upon his will, and it is he that determines

A Letter concerning Toleration. 27

both ways of my eternal state. Would an Israelite, that
had worshipped Baal upon the command of his king,
have been in any better condition, because somebody
had told him that the king ordered nothing in religion
upon his own head, nor commanded any thing to be
done by his subjects in divine worship, but what was
approved by the counsel of priests, and declared to be
of divine right by the doctors of the church ? If the
religion of any church oecome, therefore, true and
saving, because the head of that sect, the prelates and
priests, and those of that tribe, do all of them, with
all their might, extol and praise it ; what religion can
ever be accounted erroneous, false, and destructive? I
am doubtful concerning the doctrine of the Socinians,
I am suspicious of the way of worship practised by the
Papists or Lutherans ; will it be ever a jot the safer for
me to join either unto the one or the other of those ^
churches, upon the magistrate's command, because he
commands nothing in religion but by the authority and
counsel of the doctors of that church ?

But to speak the truth, we must acknowledge that
the church, if a convention of clergymen, making
canons, must be called by that name, is for the most
part more apt to be influenced by the court, than the ^
court by the church. How the church was under the
vicissitude of orthodox and Arian emperors is very well
known. Or if those things be too remote, our modern
English history affords us fresher examples, in the reigns
of Henry VIII. Edward VI. Mary, and Elizabeth, how
easily and smoothly the clergy changed their decrees,
their articles of faith, their form of worship, every
thing, according to the inclination of those kings and
queens. Yet were those kings and queens of such dif-
ferent minds, in points of religion, and enjoined there-
upon such different things, that no man in his wits, I
had almost said none but an atheist, will presume to say
that any sincere and upright worshipper of God could,
with a safe conscience, obey their several decrees. To
conclude, it is the same thing whether a king that pre-
scribes laws to another man's religion pretend to do it
by his own judgment, or by the ecclesiastical authority

28 A Letter concerning Toleration.

B

and advice of others. The decisions of churchmen,
whose differences and disputes are sufficiently known,
cannot be any sounder or safer than his : nor can all
their suffrages joined together add any new strength
unto the civil power. Though this also must be taken
v notice of, that princes seldom have any regard to the
suffrages of ecclesiastics that are not favourers of their
own faith and way of worship.

But after all, the principal consideration, and which
absolutely determines this controversy, is this: although
the magistrate's opinion in religion be sound, and the
way that he appoints be truly evangelical, yet if I be
not thoroughly persuaded thereof in my own mind,
there will be no safety for me in following it. No way
whatsoever that I shall walk in against the dictates of
my conscience, will ever bring me to the mansions of
the blessed. I may grow rich by an art that I take not
delight in; I may be cured of some disease by remedies
that I have not faith in ; but I cannot be saved by a
religion that I distrust, and by a worship that I abhor.
It is in vain for an unbeliever to take up the outward
show of another man's profession. Faith only, and in-
ward sincerity, are the things that procure acceptance
with God. The most likely and most approved remedy
can have no effect upon the patient, if his stomach
reject it as soon as taken ; and you will in vain cram
a medicine down a sick man's throat, which his par-
ticular constitution will be sure to turn into poison. In
a word, whatsoever may be doubtful in religion, yet

( ^ this at least is certain, that no religion, which I believe
^2 not to be true, can be either true or profitable unto me.

} lln vain, therefore, do princes compel their subjects to
come into their church-communion, under pretence of
saving their souls.. If they believe, they will come of
their own accord; if the) believe not, their coming will
nothing avail them. How great, soever, in fine, may
be the pretence of good-will and charity, and concern
for the salvation of men's souls, men cannot be forced
to be Baved whether they will or no; and therefore,
when all is done, they must be left to their own con-
sciences.

fH

A Letter eonccrning Toleration. 29 |

Having thus at length freed men from all dominion
over one another in matters of religion, let us now con-
sider what tfiey are to do. All men know and acknow-
ledge that God ought to be publicly worshipped. Why
otherwise do they'compel one another unto the public
assemblies? Men, therefore, constituted in this liberty
are to enter into some religious society, that they may
meet together, not only for mutual edification, but to
own to the world that they worship God, and offer unto
his divine majesty such service as they themselves are
not ashamed of, and such as they think not unworthy
of him, nor unacceptable to him; and finally, that by
the purity of doctrine, holiness of life, and decent form
of worship, they may draw others unto the love of the
true religion, and perform such other things in religion
as cannot be done by each private man apart.

These religious societies I call churches: and these
I say the magistrate ought to tolerate : for the business
of these assemblies of the people is nothing but what is
lawful for every man in particular to take care of; I
mean the salvation of their souls: nor, in this case, is
there any difference between the national church and
other separated congregations.

But as in every church there are two things especially
to be considered ; the outward form and rites of wor-
ship, and the doctrines and articles of faith ; these
things must be handled each distinctly, that so the
whole matter of toleration may the more clearly be
understood.

Concerning outward worship, I say, in the first place,j
that the magistrate has no power to enforce bylaw, eitheij.
in his own church, or much less in another, the use oft
any rites or ceremonies whatsoever in the worship of'
God. And this, not only because these churches are
free societies, but because whatsoever is practised in the
worship of God is only so far justifiable as it is believed
by those that practise it to be acceptable unto him. —
Whatsoever is not done with that assurance of faith, is
neither well in itself, nor can it be acceptable "to God.
To impose such things, therefore, upon any people,

JB

30 A Letter concerning Toleration.

&

contrary to their own judgment, is, in effect, to com-
mand them to offend God; which, considering that the
end of all religion is to please him, and that liberty is
essentially necessary to that end, appears to be absurd
beyond expression.

But perhaps it may be concluded from hence, that I
deny unto the magistrate all manner of power about
indifferent things; which, if it be not granted, the whole
subject matter of law-making is taken away. No, I
readily grant that indifferent things, and perhaps none
but such, are subjected to the legislative power. But
it does not therefore follow, that the magistrate may
ordain whatsoever he pleases concerning any thing that
is indifferent. The public good is the rule and mea-
sure of all law-making. If a thing be not useful to the
commonwealth, though it be ever so indifferent, it may
not presently be established by law.

But further : Things ever so indifferent in their own
nature, when they are brought into the church and
worship of God, are removed out of the reach of the
magistrate's jurisdiction, because in that use they have
no connexion at all with civil affairs. The only business
of the church is the salvation of souls : and it no ways
concerns the commonwealth, or any member of it, that
this or the other ceremony be there made use of. Neither
the use, nor the omission, of any ceremonies in those
religious assemblies does either advantage or prejudice
the life, liberty, or estate, of any man. For example:
Let it be granted, that the washing of an infant with
water is in itself an indifferent thing: let it be granted
also, that if the magistrate understand such washing
to be profitable to the curing or preventing of any
disease that children are subject unto, and esteem the
matter weighty enough to be taken care of by a law, in
that case he may order it to be done. But will any one,
therefore, say, that the magistrate has the same right
to ordain, by law, that all children shall be baptized by
priests, in the sacred font, in order to. the purification
of their souls? The* extreme difference of these two
eases is visible to every one at first sight. Or let us

+s

A Letter concerning Toleration. 31

■©

apply the last case to the child of a Jew, and the thing
will speak itself: for what hinders but a Christian ma-
gistrate may have subjects that are Jews? Now, if we
acknowledge that such an injury may not be done unto
a Jew, as to compel him, against his own opinion, to
practise in his religion a thing that is in its nature
indifferent, how can we maintain that any thing of this
kind may be done to a Christian ?

Again : Things in their own nature indifferent, cannot,
by any human authority, be made any part of the wor-
ship of God, for this very reason, because they are in-
different. For since indifferent things are not capable,
by any virtue of their own, to propitiate the Deity, no
human power or authority can confer on them so much
dignity and excellency as to enable them to do it. In
the common affairs of life, that use of indifferent things
which God has not forbidden is free and lawful ; and
therefore in those things human authority has place.
But it is not so in matters of religion. Things indif-
ferent are not otherwise lawful in the worship of God
than as they are instituted by God himself; and as
he, by some positive command, has ordained them to
be made a part of that worship which he will vouch-
safe to accept of at the hands of poor sinful men.
Nor when an incensed Deity shall ask us, " Who has
required these or such like things at your hands ?" will
it be enough to answer him, that the magistrate com-
manded them. If civil jurisdiction extended thus far,
what might not lawfully be introduced into religion ?
What hodge-podge of ceremonies, what superstitious
inventions, built upon the magistrate's authority, might
not, against conscience, be imposed upon the worship-
pers of God ! For the greatest part of these ceremonies
and superstitions consists in the religious use of such
things as are in their own nature indifferent : nor are
they sinful upon any other account, than because God
is not the author of them. The sprinkling of water,
and use of bread and wine, are both in their own nature,
and in the ordinary occasions of life, altogether indif-
ferent. Will any man, therefore, say that these things
could have been introduced into religion, and made a

32 A Letter concerning Toleration.

part of divine worship, if not by divine institution ? If
any human authority or civil power could have done
this, why might it not also enjoin the eating offish,
and drinking of ale, in the holy banquet, as a part of
divine worship? Why not the sprinkling of the blood
of beasts in churches, and expiations by water or fire,
and abundance more of this kind? But these things,
how indifferent soever they be in common uses, when
they come to be annexed unto divine worship, without
divine authority, they are as abominable to God as the
sacrifice of a dog. And why a dog so abominable ?
What difference is there between a dog and a goat,
in respect of the divine nature, equally and infinitely
distant from all affinity with matter ; unless it be that
God required the use of the one in his worship, and not
of the other? We see, therefore, that indifferent things,
how much soever they be under the power of the civil
magistrate, yet cannot, upon that pretence, be intro-
duced into religion, and imposed upon religious assem-
blies; because in the worship of God they wholly cease
to be indifferent. He that worships God, does it with
design to please him, and procure his favour: but that
cannot be done by him, who, upon the command of
another, offers unto God that which he knows will be
displeasing to him, because not commanded by himself.
This is not to please God, or appease his wrath, but
willingly and knowingly to provoke him, by a manifest
y contempt; which is a thing absolutely repugnant to
the nature and end of worship.

But it will here be asked, If nothing belonging to
divine worship be left to human discretion, how is it
then that churches themselves have the power of order-
ing any thing about the time and place of worship, and
the like? To this 1 answer; that in religious worship
we must distinguish between what is part of the wor-
ship itself, and what is but a circumstance. That is a
part of the worship which is believed to be appointed
by God, and to be well pleasing to hire,; and therefore
that is necessary. ( 'ircmnstanccs are such things which,
though in general they cannot be separated from wor-
ship, yet the particular instances or modifications of

A Letter concerning Toleration, 33

them are not determined; and therefore they are indif-
ferent. Of this sort are the time and place of worship,
the habit and posture of him that worships. These are
circumstances, and perfectly indifferent, where God
has not given any express command about them. For
example: amongst the Jews, the time and place of
their worship, and the habits of those that officiated in
it, were not mere circumstances, but a part of the
worship itself; in which, if any thing were defective, or
different from the institution, they could not hope that
it would be accepted by God. But these, to Christians,
under the liberty of the Gospel, are mere circumstances
of worship which the prudence of every church may
bring into such use as shall be judged most subservient
to the end of order, decency, and edification. Though
even under the Gospel also, those who believe the first,
or the seventh day to be set apart by God, and con-
secrated still to his worship, to them that portion of
time is not a simple circumstance, but a real part
of divine worship, which can neither be changed nor
neglected.

In the next place: As the magistrate has no power to
impose, by his laws, the use of any rites and ceremonies
in any church ; so neither has he any power to forbid the X
use of such rites and ceremonies as are already received,
approved, and practised by any church : because, if he
did so, he would destroy the church itself; the end of
whose institution is only to worship God with freedom,
after its own manner.

You will say, by this rule, if some congregations
should have a mind to sacrifice infants, or, as the pri-
mitive Christians were falsely accused, lustfully pollute
themselves in promiscuous uncleanness, or practise any
other such heinous enormities, is the magistrate obliged
to tolerate them, because they are committed in a reli-
gious assembly ? I answer, No. These things are not
lawful in the ordinary course of life, nor in any private
house; and, therefore, neither are they so in the worship
of God, or in any religious meeting. But, indeed, if
any people congregated upon account of religion, should
vol. vi. D

34* A Letter concerning Toleration,

cr

be desirous to sacrifice a calf, I deny that that ought to
be prohibited by a law. Melibceus, whose calf it is,
may lawfully kill his calf at home, and burn any part
of it that he thinks fit: for no injury is thereby done
to any one, no prejudice to another man's goods. And
for the same reason he may kill his calf also in a reli-
gious meeting. Whether the doing so be well-pleasing
to God or no, it is their part to consider that do it. —
The part of the magistrate is only to take care that the
commonwealth receive no prejudice, and that there be
no injury done to any man, either in life or estate. And
thus what may be spent on a feast may be spent on a
sacrifice. But if, peradventure, such were the state of
things, that the interest of the commonwealth required
all slaughter of beasts should be forborn for some while,
in order to the increasing of the stock of cattle, that had
been destroyed by some extraordinary murrain ; who
sees not that the magistrate, in such a case, may forbid
all his subjects to kill any calves for any use whatso-
ever ? Only it is to be observed, that in this case the law
is not made about a religious, but a political matter :
nor is the sacrifice, but the slaughter of calves thereby
prohibited.

By this we see u hat difference there is between the
church and the commonwealth. Whatsoever is lawful
in the commonwealth, cannot be prohibited by the ma-
gistrate in the church. Whatsoever is permitted unto
any of his subjects for their ordinary use, neither can
nor ought to be forbidden by him to any sect of people
for their religious uses. If any man may lawfully take
bread or wine, either sitting or kneeling, in his own
house, the law ought not to abridge him of the same
liberty in his religious worship; though in the church
the use of bread and wine he very different, and he there
applied to the mysteries of faith, and rites of divine
worship. But those things that are prejudicial to the
common weal of a people in their ordinary use, and arc
f therefore forbidden by laws, those things ought not to
be permitted to churches in their sacred rites. Only
the magistrate ought always to he very careful that he

A Letter concerning Toleration. 35

do not misuse his authority, to the oppression of any
church, under pretence of public good.

It may be said, What if a church be idolatrous, is
that also to be tolerated by the magistrate? In answer,
I ask, what power can be given to the magistrate for the
suppression of an idolatrous church, which may not, in
time and place, be made use of to the ruin of an ortho-
dox one ? For it must be remembered, that the civil
power is the same every where, and the religion of every
prince is orthodox to himself. If, therefore, such a
power be granted unto the civil magistrate in spirituals,
as that at Geneva, for example ; he may extirpate, by
violence and blood, the religion which is there reputed
idolatrous ; by the same rule, another magistrate, in
some neighbouring country, may oppress the reformed
religion; and, in India, the Christian. The civil power
can either change every thing in religion, according X
to the prince's pleasure, or it can change nothing. If
it be once permitted to introduce any thing into reli-
gion, by the means of laws and penalties, there can be
no bounds put to it-y but it will, in the same manner,
be lawful to alter every thing, according to that rule
of truth which the magistrate has framed unto himself. x
No man whatsoever ought therefore to be deprived of
his terrestrial enjoyments, upon account of his religion.
Not even Americans, subjected unto a Christian prince, r>
are to be punished either in body or goods, for not
embracing our faith and worship. If they are per-
suaded that they please God in observing the rites of
their own country, and that they shall obtain happiness
by that means, they are to be left unto God and them-
selves. Let us trace this matter to the bottom. Thus
it is : an inconsiderable and weak number of Christians,
destitute of every thing, arrive in a pagan country ;
these foreigners beseech the inhabitants, by the bowels
of humanity, that they would succour them with the ,
necessaries of life ; those necessaries are given them,
habitations are granted, and they all join together,
and grow up into one body of people. The Christian
religion by this means takes root in that country, and

d 2

36 A Letter concerning Toleration.

b

spreads itself; but does not suddenly grow the strongest.
While things are in this condition, peace, friendship,
faith, and equal justice, are preserved amongst them.
At length the magistrate becomes a Christian, and by
that means their party becomes the most powerful.
Then immediately all compacts are to be broken, all
civil rights to be violated, that idolatry may be extir-
pated: and unless these innocent pagans, strict ob-
servers of the rules of equity and the law of nature,
and no ways offending against the laws of the society, I
say unless they will forsake their ancient religion, and
embrace a new and strange one, they are to be turned
' out of the lands and possessions of their forefathers,
and perhaps deprived of life itself. Then at last it
"V, appears what zeal for the church, joined with the desire
of dominion, is capable to produce : and how easily the
pretence of religion, and of the care of souls, serves for
a cloke to covetousness, rapine, and ambition.

Now, whosoever maintains that idolatry is to be rooted
out of any place by laws, punishments, fire, and sword,
may apply this story to himself: for the reason of the
thing is equal, both in America and Europe. And
neither pagans there, nor any dissenting Christians
here, can with any right be deprived of their worldly
goods by the predominating faction of a court-church;
nor are any civil rights to be either changed or vio-
lated upon account of religion in one place more than
1 another.

But idolatry, say some, is a sin, and therefore not
to be tolerated. If they said it were therefore to be
avoided, the inference were good. But it does not
follow, that because it is a sin, it ought therefore to be
punished by the magistrate. For it docs not belong unto
the magistrate to make use of his sword in punishing
every thing, indifferently, that he takes to be a sin
against God. Covetousness, uncharitableness, idleness,
and many oilier tilings are sins, by the consent of all
men, which yet no man ever said were to be punished
by the magistrate The reason is, because they are not
prejudicial to other men's rights, nor do they break the

A Letter concerning Toleration. 37

o

public peace of societies. Nay, even the sins of lying
and perjury arc nowhere punishable bylaws; unless in
certain cases, in which the real turpitude of the thing,
and the offence against God, are not considered, but
only the injury done unto men's neighbours, and to the
commonwealth. And what if, in another country, to
a Mahometan or a pagan prince, the Christian religion
seem false and offensive to God ; may not the Christians,
for the same reason, and after the same manner, be
extirpated there ?

But it may be urged farther, that by the law of
Moses idolaters were to be rooted out. True indeed,
by the law of Moses ; but that is not obligatory to us
Christians. Nobody pretends that every thing, gene-
rally, enjoined by the law of Moses, ought to be prac-
tised by Christians. But there is nothing more frivolous
than that common distinction of moral, judicial, and
ceremonial law, which men ordinarily make use of:
for no positive law whatsoever can oblige any people
but those to whom it is given. " Hear, O Israel,"
sufficiently restrains the obligation of the law of Moses
only to that people. And this consideration alone is
answer enough unto those that urge the authority of
the law of Moses, for the inflicting of capital punish-
ments upon idolaters. But however I will examine this
argument a little more particularly.

The case of idolaters, in respect of the Jewish^, corn -
monwealth, falls under a double consideration. The
first is of those, who, being initiated in the Mosaical
rites, and made citizens of that commonwealth, did
afterwards apostatize from the worship of the God of
Israel. These were proceeded against as traitors and
rebels, guilty of no less than high treason; for the com-
monwealth of the Jews, different in that from all others,
was an absolute theocracy: nor was there, or could
there be, any difference between that commonwealth
and the church. The laws established there concerning
the worship of one invisible Deity, were the civil laws
of that people, and a part of their political govern-
ment, in which God himself was the legislator. Now

SS A Letter concerning Toleration.

to

if any one can show me where there is a commonwealth,
at this time, constituted upon that foundation, I will
acknowledge that the ecclesiastical laws do there un-
avoidably become a part of the civil ; and that the
subjects of that government both may, and ought to be,
kept in strict conformity with that church, by the civil
power. But there is absolutely no such thing, under
the Gospel, as a Christian commonwealth. There are,
indeed, many cities and kingdoms that have embraced
the faith of Christ ; but they have retained their ancient
forms of government, with which the law of Christ
hath not at all meddled. He, indeed, hath taught men
how, by faith and good works, they may attain eternal
life. But he instituted no commonwealth ; he pre-
. scribed unto his followers no new and peculiar form of
government ; nor put he the sword into any magistrate's
hand, with commission to make use of it in forcing men
to forsake their former religion, and receive his.

Secondly, Foreigners, and such as were strangers to
the commonwealth of Israel, were not compelled by
force to observe the rites of the Mosaical law: but, on
the contrary, in the very same place where it is ordered
that an Israelite that was an idolater should be put to
death, there it is provided that strangers should not
be " vexed nor oppressed," Exod. xxii. 21. I confess
that the seven nations that possessed the land which
was promised to the Israelites were utterly to be cut
off. But this was not singly because they were idolaters;
for if that had been the reason, why were the Moabites
and other nations to be spared? No; the reason is
this : God being in a peculiar manner the King* of the
Jews, he could not suffer the adoration of any other
deity, which was properly an act of high treason against
himself, in the land of Canaan, which was his king-
dom ; for such a manifest revolt could no ways consist
with his dominion, which was perfectly political, in that
country. All idolatry was therefore to be rooted out of
the bounds of his kingdom; because it was an acknow-
ledgment of another God, that is to say, another king,
against the laws of empire. The inhabitants were also

A Letter concerning Toleration* 39

'o

to be driven out, that the entire possession of the land
might be given to the Israelites. And for the like
reason the Emims and the Horims were driven out of
their countries by the children of Esau and Lot ; and
their lands, upon the same grounds, given by God
to the invaders, Deut. ii. 12. But though all idolatry
was thus rooted out of the land of Canaan, yet every
idolater was not brought to execution. The whole
family of Rahab, the whole nation of the Gibeonites,
articled with Joshua, and were allowed by treaty ; and
there were many captives amongst the Jews, who were
idolaters. David and Solomon subdued many countries
without the confines of the Land of Promise, and car-
ried their conquests as far as Euphrates. Amongst so
many captives taken, of so many nations reduced under
their obedience, we find not one man forced into the
Jewish religion, and the worship of the true God, and
punished for idolatry, though all of them were cer-
tainly guilty of it. If any one indeed, becoming a pro-
selyte, desired to be made a denizen of their common-
wealth, he was obliged to submit unto their laws ; that
is, to embrace their religion. But this he did willingly,
on his own accord, not by constraint. He did not un-
willingly submit, to show his obedience; but he sought
and solicited for it, as a privilege ; and as soon as he
was admitted, he became subject to the laws of the
commonwealth, by which all idolatry was forbidden
within the borders of the land of Canaan. But that law,
as I have said, did not reach to any of those regions,
however subjected unto the Jews, that were situated
without those bounds.

Th u^J^jconaerning. outward^ worsh ip . Let us now
consider articles of faith.

The articles of religion are some of them practical,
and some speculative. Now, though both sorts consist
in the knowledge of truth, yet these terminate simply
in the understanding, those influence the will and man-
ners. Speculative opinions, therefore, and articles of
faith, as they are called, which are required only to be
believed, cannot be imposed on any church by the law
of the land ; for it is absurd that things should be

40 A Letter concerning Toleration.

cr

enjoined by laws which are not in men's power to per-
form ; and to believe this or that to be true does not
depend upon our will. But of this enough has been
said already. But, will some say, let men at least pro-
fess that they believe. A sweet religion, indeed, that
obliges men to dissemble, and tell lies both to God and
man, for the salvation of their souls ! If the magistrate
thinks to save men thus, he seems to understand little
of the way of salvation ; and if he does it not in order
to save them, why is he so solicitous about the articles
of faith as to enact them by a law ?

Further, The magistrate ought not to forbid the
preaching or professing of any speculative opinions in
any church, because they have no manner of relation
to the civil rights of the subjects. If a Roman Catholic
believe that to be really the body of Christ, which
another man calls bread, he does no injury thereby to
his neighbour. If a Jew does not believe the New
Testament to be the word of God, he does not thereby
alter any thing in men's civil rights. If a heathen doubt
of both Testaments, he is not therefore to be punished
as a pernicious citizen. The power of the magistrate,
and the estates of the people, may be equally secure,
whether any man believe these things or no. I readily
grant that these opinions are false and absurd ; but
the business of laws is not to provide for the truth of
opinions, but for the safety and security of the common-
wealth, and of every particular man's goods and person.
And so it ought to be ; for truth certainly would do
well enough, if she were once left to shift for herself.
She seldom has received, and I fear never will receive,
much assistance from the power of great men, to whom
she is but rarely known, and more rarely welcome. She
is not taught by laws, nor has she any need of force to
procure her entrance into the minds of men. Errors
indeed prevail by the assistance of foreign and bor-
rowed succours. But if truth makes not her way into
the understanding by her own light, she will be hut
the weaker for any borrowed force violence can add to
her. Thus much for speculative opinions* Let us now
proceed to the practical ones.

A Lctler concerning Toleration. 41

A good life, in which consists not the least part of
religion and true piety, concerns also the civil govern-
ment : and in it lies the safety both of men's souls and
of the commonwealth. Moral actions belong there-
fore to the jurisdiction both of the outward and inward
court; both of the civil and domestic governor; I mean,
both of the magistrate and conscience. Here therefore
is great danger, lest one of these jurisdictions intrench
upon the other, and discord arise between the keeper of
the public peace and the overseers of souls. But if what
has been already said concerning the limits of both these
governments be rightly considered, it will easily remove
all difficulty in this matter.

Every man has an immortal soul, capable of eternal
happiness or misery; whose happiness depending upon
his believing and doing those things in this life, which
are necessary to the obtaining of God's favour, and are
prescribed by God to that end : it follows from thence,
first, that the observance of these things is the highest "
obligation that lies upon mankind, and that our utmost
care, application, and diligence, ought to be exercised
in the search and performance of them ; because there
is nothing in this world that is of any consideration in
comparison with eternity/ Secondly, that seeing one
man does not violate the right of another, by his er-
roneous opinions, and undue manner of worship, nor is
his perdition any prejudice to another man's affairs;
therefore the care of each man's salvation belongs only
to himself. But I would not have this understood, as
if I meant hereby to condemn all charitable admoni-
tions, and affectionate endeavours to reduce men from
errors; which are indeed the greatest duty of a Chri-
stian. Any one may employ as many exhortations and
arguments as he pleases, towards the promoting of an-
other man's salvation. But all force and compulsion are
to be forborn. Nothing is to be done imperiously. —
Nobody is obliged in that manner to yield obedience
unto the admonitions or injunctions of another, farther
than he himself is persuaded. Every man, in thatf'"
has the supreme and absolute authority of judging for
himself; and the reason is, because nobody else is con-

42 A Letter concerning Toleration.

^

cerned in it, nor can receive any prejudice from his
conduct therein.

But besides their souls, which are immortal, men have
also their temporal lives here upon earth ; the state
whereof being frail and fleeting, and the duration un-
certain, they have need of several outward conveniencies
to the support thereof, which are to be procured or pre-
served by pains and industry; for those things that are
necessary to the comfortable support of our lives, are
not the spontaneous products of nature, nor do offer
themselves fit and prepared for our use. This part,
therefore, draws on another care, and necessarily gives
another employment. But the pravity of mankind being
such, that they had rather injuriously prey upon the
fruits of other men's labours than take pains to pro-
vide for themselves ; the necessity of preserving men in
the possession of wrhat honest industry has already ac-
quired, and also of preserving their liberty and strength,
whereby they may acquire what they farther want, ob-
liges men to enter into society with one another; that
by mutual assistance and joint force, they may secure
unto each other their properties, in the things that con-
tribute to the comforts and happiness of this life; leaving
in the mean while to every man the care of his own eter-
nal happiness, the attainment whereof can neither be
facilitated by another man's industry, nor can the loss
of it turn to another man's prejudice, nor the hope of
it be forced from him by any external violence. But
forasmuch as men thus entering into societies, grounded
upon their mutual compacts of assistance, for the de-
fence of their temporal goods, may nevertheless be de-
prived of them, either by the rapine and fraud of their
fellow-citizens, or by the hostile violence of foreigners :
the remedy of this evil consists in arms, riches, and
multitudes of citizens : the remedy of others in laws:
and the care of all things relating both to the one and
the other is committed by the society to the civil ma-
gistrate. This is the original, this is the use, and th
are the bounds of the legislative, which is the supreme
power in every commonwealth. I mean, that provision
\\ may be made for the security of each man's private

is

A Inciter concerning Toleration, 43

possessions ; for the peace, riches, and public commo- 1/ J
dities of the whole people, and, as much as possible,
for the increase of their inward strength against foreign
invasions.

These things being thus explained, it is easy to un-
derstand to what end the legislative power ought to be
directed, and by what measures regulated, and that is
the temporal good and outward prosperity of the so-
ciety, which is the sole reason of men's entering into
society, and the only thing they seek and aim at in it ;
and it is also evident what liberty remains to men in re-
ference to their eternal salvation, and that is, that every
one should do what he in his conscience is persuaded to
be acceptable to the Almighty, on whose good pleasure
and acceptance depends his eternal happiness; for obe-
dience is due in the first place to God, and afterwards
to the laws.

But some may ask, " What if the magistrate should
enjoin any thing by his authority, that appears unlaw-
ful to the conscience of a private person ?" I answer,
that if government be faithfully administered, and the
* counsels of the magistrate be indeed directed to the
public good, this will seldom happen. But if perhaps
it do so fall out, I say, that such a private person is to
abstain from the actions that he judges unlawful ; and
he is to undergo the punishment, which is not unlawful
for him to bear; for the private judgment of any per-
son concerning a law enacted in political matters, for
the public good, does not take away the obligation of
that law, nor deserve a dispensation. But if the law in-
deed fye concerning things that lie not within the verge
of the ■magistrate^; authority; as, for example, that the
people, o'panyjpiarty amongst them, should be compelled
to embrace a strange religion, and join in the worship
and ceremonies ef another church ; men are not in
these c^ses obliged by that law, against their con-1*
sciences,; *^br the political society is instituted for no
other end, but only to secure every man's possession^
of the things of thisjj£e. The care of each man's soul,
and of the* things of heaven, which neither does belong

^ —

V

44 A Letter concerning Toleration.

s

to the commonwealth, nor can be subjected to it, is left
entirely to every man's self. Thus the safeguard of men's
lives, and of the things that belong unto this life, is the
business of the commonwealth ; and the preserving of
those things unto their owners is the duty of the magi-
strate ; and therefore the magistrate cannot take away
these worldly things from this man, or party, and give
them to that ; nor change property amongst fellow-
subjects, no not even by a law, for a cause that has no
relation to the end of civil government ; I mean for
their religion ; which, whether it be true or false, does
no prejudice to the worldly concerns of their fellow-
subjects, wThich are the things that only belong unto
the care of the commonwealth.

" But what if the magistrate believe such a law as this
to be for the public good ?" I answer : as the private
judgment of any particular person, if erroneous, does
not exempt him from the obligation of law, so the
private judgment, as I may call it, of the magistrate,
does not give him any new right of imposing laws upon
his subjects, which neither was in the constitution of
the government granted him, nor ever was in the power
of the people to grant: and least of all, if he make it
his business to enrich and advance his followers and fel-
low-sectaries with the spoils of others. But what if the
magistrate believe that he has a right to make such laws,
and that they are for the public good ; and his subjects
believe the contrary? Who shall be judge between
them? I answer, God alone; for there is no judge
upon earth between the supreme magistrate and the
people. God, I say, is the only judge in this case, who
will retribute unto every one at the last day according
to his deserts ; that is, according to his sincerity and
uprightness in endeavouring to promote piety, and the
public weal and peace of mankind. But what shall be
done in the mean while? I answer: the principal and
chief care of every one ought to be of his own soul first,
and, in the next place, of the public peace : (hough
yei there are few will think ii is peace there, where they
see all laid waste. There are two sorts of contests

A Letter concerning Toleration. 45

■5

amongst men ; the one managed by law, the other by
force : and they are of that nature, that where the one
ends, the other always begins. But it is not my busi-
ness to inquire into the power of the magistrate in the
different constitutions of nations. I only know what
usually happens where controversies arise, without a
judge to determine them. You will say then the ma-
gistrate being the stronger will have his will, and carry
his point. Without doubt. But the question is not
here concerning the doubtfulness of the event, but the
rule of right.

But to come to particulars. I say, first, No opi-

ruu
which are necessary to the preservation of civil society

~^w r J , , - - J

nions contrary to human society, or to those moral ruie

I

are to be tolerated by the magistrate. But of those
indeed examples in any church are rare. For no sect
can easily arrive to such a degree of madness, as that it
should think fit to teach, for doctrines of religion, such y
things as manifestly undermine the foundations of so- r
ciety, and are therefore condemned by the judgment
of all mankind : because their own interest, peace, re-
putation, every thing would be thereby endangered.

Another more secret evil, but more dangerous to the
commonwealth, is when men arrogate to themselves,
and to those of their own sect, some peculiar jprerogaj
tive, covered over with a specious show of deceitful!
words, but in effect opposite to the civil rights of the
community. For example : we cannot find any sect
that teaches expressly and openly, that men are not
obliged to keep their promise ; that princes may be
dethroned by those that differ from them in religion ;
or that the dominion of all things belongs only to them-
selves. For these things, proposed thus nakedly and
plainly, would soon draw on them the eye and hand of
the magistrate, and awaken all the care of the common-
wealth to a watchfulness against the spreading of so
dangerous an evil. But nevertheless, we find those that
say the same things in other words. What else do they
mean, who teach that " faith is not to be kept with
heretics?" Their meaning, forsooth, is, that the privi-
lege of breaking faith belongs unto themselves : for

e-

40 A Letter concerning Toleration

&

they declare all that are not of their communion to be
heretics, or at least may declare them so whensoever
they think fit. What can be the meaning of their as-
■^ serting that " kings excommunicated forfeit their
L crowns and kingdoms ?" It is evident that they thereby
arrogate unto themselves the power of deposing kings :
because they challenge the power of excommunication
as the peculiar right of their hierarchy. " That do-
minion is founded in grace," is also an assertion by
which those that maintain it do plainly lay claim to the
possession of all things. For they are not so wanting
to themselves as not to believe, or at least as not to
profess, themselves to be the truly pious and faithful.
These therefore, and the like, who attribute unto the
faithful, religious, and orthodox, that is, in plain terms,
unto themselves, any peculiar privilege or power above
other mortals, in civil concernments; or who, upon
pretence of religion, do challenge any manner of au-
thority over such as are not associated with them in
their ecclesiastical communion ; I say these have no
right to be tolerated by the magistrate ; as neither the
that will not own and teach the duty of tolerating all
men in matters of mere religion. For what do all the
and the like doctrines signify, but that they may, and
are ready upon any occasion to seize the government,
and possess themselves of the estates and fortunes of
their fellow-subjects ; and that they only ask leave to
be tolerated by the magistrates so long, until they find
themselves strong enough to effect it.

Again : That church can have no right to be tole-
rated by the magistrate, which is constituted upon such
a bottom, that all those who enter into it, do thereby,
ipso facto, deliver themselves up to the protection and
service of another prince. For by this means the ma-
gistrate would give way to the settling of a foreign ju-
risdiction in his own country, and sutler his own people
to be listed, as it were, for soldiers against his own go-
vernment. Nor does the frivolous and fallacious di-
stinct ion between the court and the church afford any
remedy to this inconvenience; especially when both the
one and the other are equally subject to the absolute

2

'.I

A I Alter concerning Toleration. 47

authority of the same person ; who lias not only power
to persuade the members of his church to whatsoever
he lists, either as purely religious, or as in order there-
unto ; but can also enjoin it them on pain of eternal
fire. It is ridiculous for any one to profess himself to
be a Mahometan only in religion, but in every thing
else a faithful subject to a Christian magistrate, whilst
at the same time he acknowledges himself bound to
yield blind obedience to the mufti of Constantinople ;
who himself is entirely obedient to the Ottoman em-
peror, and frames the famed oracles of that religion ac-
cording to his pleasure. But this Mahometan, living
amongst Christians, would yet more apparently renounce
their government, if he acknowledged the same person
to be head of his church, who is the supreme magistrate
in the state.

Lastly, Those are not at all to be tolerated who deny
the being of God. Promises, covenants, and oaths,
which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold
upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but
even in thought, dissolves all. Besides also, those that
by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion,
can have no pretence of religion whereupon to chal-
lenge the privilege of a toleration. As for other prac-
tical opinions, though not absolutely free from all
error, yet if they do not tend to establish domination
over others, or civil impunity to the church in which
they are taught, there can be no reason why they should
not be tolerated.

It remains that I say something concerning those
assemblies, which being vulgarly called, and perhaps
having sometimes been convejQL^l&s, and nurseries of
factions and seditions, are thought to afford the strongest
matter of objection against this doctrine of toleration.
But this has not happened by any thing peculiar unto
the genius of such assemblies, but by the unhappy cir-
cumstances of an oppressed or ill-settled liberty. These
accusations would soon cease, if the law of toleration
were once so settled, that all churches wTere obliged to
lay down toleration as the foundation of their own li-
berty ; and teach that liberty of conscience is every

48 A Letter concerning Toleration.

o

man's natural right, equally belonging to dissenters as
to themselves ; and that nobody ought to be compelled
in matters of religion either by law or force. The
establishment of this one thing would take away all
ground of complaints and tumults upon account of
conscience. And these causes of discontents and ani-
mosities being once removed, there would remain no-
thing in these assemblies that were not more peaceable,
and less apt to produce disturbance of state, than in
any other meetings whatsoever. But let us examine
particularly the heads of these accusations.

You will say, that " assemblies and meetings en-
danger the public peace, and threaten the common-
wealth." I answer: if this be so, why are there daily
such numerous meetings in markets, and courts of judi-
cature ? Why are crowds upon the Exchange, and a
concourse of people in cities suffered? You will reply,
these are civil assemblies ; but those we object against
are ecclesiastical. I answer : it is a likely thing indeed,
that such assemblies as are altogether remote from civil
affairs should be most apt to embroil them. O, bttf
civil assemblies are composed of men that differ from
one another in matters of religion: but these ecclesia-
stical meetings are of persons that are all of one opinion.
As if an agreement in matters of religion were in ef-
fect a conspiracy against the commonwealth: or as if
men would not be so much the more warmly unanimous
in religion, the less liberty they had of assembling. But
it will be urged still, that civil assemblies are open,
and free for any one to enter into ; whereas religious
conventicles are more private, and thereby give op-
portunity to clandestine machinations. I answer, that
this is not strictly true: for many civil assemblies arc
not open to every one. And if some religions meetings
be private, who are they, 1 beseech you, that are to be
blamed for it? those that desire, or those that forbid
their being public ? Again: you will say, that religious
communion does exceedingly unite men's minds and
affections to one another, and is therefore the more
dangerous. But if this be so, why is not the magistrate
afraid of his own church; and why does he not forbid

A Letter concerning Toleration. 49

their assemblies, as things dangerous to his govern-
ment? You will say, because he himself is a part,
and even the head of them. As if he were not also a
part of the commonwealth, and the head of the whole
people.

Let us therefore deal plainly. The magistrate is afraid
of other churches, but not of his own; because he is
kind and favourable to the one, but severe and cruel to
the other. These he treats like children, and indulges
them even to wantonness. Those he uses as slaves ;
and how blamelessly soever they demean themselves, re-
compenses them no otherwise than by galleys, prisons,
confiscations, and death. These he cherishes and de-
fends : those he continually scourges and oppresses.
Let him turn the tables : or let those dissenters enjoy
but the same privileges in civils as his other subjects,
and he will quickly find that these religious meetings
will be no longer dangerous. For if men enter into se-f
ditious conspiracies, it is not religion inspires them to
it in their meetings, but their sufferings and oppressions
that make them willing to ease themselves. Just and
moderate governments are every where quiet, every
where safe. But oppression raises ferments, and makes
men struggle to cast off an uneasy and tyrannical yoke.
I know that seditions are very frequently raised upon
pretence of religion. But it is as true, that, for reli-
gion, subjects are frequently ill treated, and live mi-
serably. Believe me, the stirs that are made proceed
not from any peculiar temper of this or that church or
religious society ; but from the common disposition of
all mankind, who, when they groan under any heavy
burthen, endeavour naturally to shake off the yoke that
galls their necks. Suppose this business of religion
were let alone, and that there were some other distinc-
tion made between men and men, upon account of their
different complexions, shapes, and features, so that those
who have black hair, for example, or gray eyes, should
not enjoy the same privileges as other citizens; that
they should not be permitted either to buy or sell, or
live by their callings ; that parents should not have the
government and education of their own children ; that

vol. vr. e

50 A Letter concerning Toleration.

cr

they should either be excluded from the benefit of the
laws, or meet with partial judges : can it be doubted
but these persons, thus distinguished from others by
the colour of their hair and eyes, and united together
by one common persecution, would be as dangerous to
the magistrate, as any others that had associated them-
selves merely upon the account of religion ? Some enter
into company for trade and profit : others, for want of
business, have their clubs for claret. Neighbourhood
joins some, and religion others. But there is one thing
only which gathers people into seditious commotions,
and that is oppression.

You will say ; what, will you have people to meet
at divine service against the magistrate's will ? I an-
swer ; why, I pray, against his will ? Is it not both law-
ful and necessary that they should meet ? Against his
will, do you say? That is what I complain of. That
is the very root of all the mischief. Why are assemblies
less sufferable in a church than in a theatre or market ?
Those that meet there are not either more vicious, or
more turbulent, than those that meet elsewhere. The
business in that is, that they are ill used, and therefore
they are not to be suffered. Take away the partiality
that is used towards them in matters of common right ;
change the laws, take away the penalties unto which
they are subjected, and all things will immediately be-
come safe and peaceable : nay, those that are averse to
the religion ol the magistrate, will think themselves so
much the more bound to maintain the peace of the com-
monwealth, as their condition is better in that place
than elsewhere ; and all the several separate congrega-
tions, like so many guardians of the public peace, will
watch one another, that nothing may be innovated or
changed in the form of the government : because they
can hope for nothing better than what they already en-
joy; thai is, an equal condition with their fellow-sub-
j jrcts, under a just and moderate1 government. Now if
that church, which agrees in religion with the prince*
be esteemed the chief support of any civil government,
and that for no Other reason, as has already been shown,
than because the prince is kind, anil the laws arc fa-

A Letter concerning Toleration. 51

'<:->

vourable to it ; how much greater will be the security
of a government, where all good subjects, of whatso-
ever they be, without any distinction upon account of
religion, enjoying the same favour of the prince, and
the same benefit of the laws, shall become the common
support and guard of it; and where none will have any
occasion to fear the severity of the laws, but those that
do injuries to their neighbours, and offend against the
civil peace !

That we may draw towards a conclusion. " The ^
sum of all we drive at is, that every man enjoy the
same rights that are granted to others." Is it per-
mitted to worship God in the Roman manner? Let it
be permitted to do it in the Geneva form also. Is it
permitted to speak Latin in the market-place? Let
those that have a mind to it, be permitted to do it also —
in the church. Is it lawful for any man in his own house
to kneel, stand, sit, or use any other posture ; and clothe
himself in white or black, in short or in loner gar-
ments ? Let it not be made unlawful to eat bread, drink
wine, or wash with water in the church. In a word :
whatsoever things are left free by law in the common
occasions of life, let them remain free unto every church
in divine worship. Let no man's life, or body, or
house, or estate, suffer any manner of prejudice upon
these accounts. Can you allow of the presbyterian
discipline? why should not the episcopal also have
what they like ? Ecclesiastical authority, whether it be
administered by the hands of a single person, or many, is
everywhere the same; and neither has any jurisdiction
in things civil, nor any manner of power of compulsion,
nor any thing at all to do with riches and revenues.

Ecclesiastical assemblies and sermons, are justified
by daily experience, and public allowance. These are
allowed to people of some one persuasion : why not to
all ? If any thing pass in a religious meeting seditiously,
and contrary to the public peace, it is to be punished
in the same manner, and no otherwise, than as if it had
happened in a fair or market. These meetings ought
not to be sanctuaries of factious and flagitious fellows :
nor ought it to be less lawful for men to meet in churches

E 2

52 A Letter concerning Toleration.

than in halls : nor are one part of the subjects to be
esteemed more blamable for their meeting together
than others. Every one is to be accountable for his own
actions ; and no man is to be laid under a suspicion, or
odium, for the faidt of another. Those that are seditious,
murderers, thieves, robbers, adulterers, slanderers, &c.
of whatsoever church, whether national or not, ought
to be punished and suppressed. But those whose doc-
trine is peaceable, and whose manners are pure and
blameless, ought to be upon equal terms with their fel-
low-subjects. Thus if solemn assemblies, observations
of festivals, public worship, be permitted to any one sort
of professors ; all these things ought to be permitted
to the presbyterians, independents, anabaptists, Armi-
nians, quakers, and others, with the same liberty. Nay,
jif we may openly speak the truth, and as becomes one
J man to another, neither pagan, nor Mahometan, nor
Jew, ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the
commonwealth, because of his religion. The Gospel
commands no such thing. The church, " which judgeth
not those that are without/' 1 Cor. v. 11, wants it not.
And the commonwealth, which embraces indifferently
all men that are honest, peaceable, and industrious, re-
quires it not. Shall we suffer a pagan to deal and trade
with us, and shall we not suffer him to pray unto and
worship God ? If we allow the Jews to have private
houses and dwellings amongst us, why should we not
allow them to have synagogues ? Is their doctrine more
false, their worship more abominable, or is the civil
peace more endangered, by their meeting in public,
than in their private houses? But if these things may
be granted to Jews and pagans, surely the condition of
any Christians ought not to be worse than theirs, in a
Christian commonwealth.

You will say, perhaps, yes, it ought to be: because
they are more inclinable to factions, tumults, and civil
wars. J answer: is this the fault of the Christian re-
ligion ? 11 it be so, truly the Christian religion is the

worst of all religions, and ought neither to be embraced
by any particular person, nor tolerated by any common-
wealth. For if this be the genius, this the nature of

A Letter concerning Toleration. 53

the Christian religion, to be turbulent and destructive
of the civil peace, that church itself which the magi-
strate indulges will not always be innocent. But far be
it from us to say any such thing of that religion, which
carries the greatest opposition to covetousness, ambition,
discord, contention, and all manner of inordinate de-
sires ; and is the most modest and peaceable religion that
ever was. We must therefore seek another cause of
those evils that are charged upon religion. And if we
consider right, we shall find it consist wholly in the
subject that I am treating of. It is not the diversity of
opinions, which cannot be avoided ; but the refusal of
toleration to those that are of different opinions, which
might have been granted, that has produced all the
bustles and wjxg, that have been in the Christian world,
upon account of religion. The heads and leaders of
the church, moved by avarice and insatiable desire of
dominion, making use of the immoderate ambition of />
magistrates, and the credulous superstition of the giddy
multitude, have incensed and animated them against
those that dissent from themselves, by preaching unto
them, contrary to the laws of the Gospel, and to the
precepts of charitjr, that schismatics and heretics are
to be outed of their possessions, and destroyed. And
thus have they mixed together, and confounded two
things, that are in themselves most different, the church
and the commonwealth. Now as it is very difficult for
men patiently to suffer themselves to be stripped of the
goods, which they have got by their honest industry ; /
and contrary to all the laws of equity, both human and
divine, to be delivered up for a prey to other men's
violence and rapine ; especially when they are otherwise
altogether blameless ; and that the occasion for which
they are thus treated does not at all belong to the ju-
risdiction of the magistrate, but entirely to the con-
science of every particular man, for the conduct of
which he is accountable to God only; what else can be
expected, but that these men, growing weary of the
evils under which they labour, should in the end think
it lawful for them to resist force with force, and to de-
fend their natural rights, which are not forfeitable upon

5 I A Letter concerning Toleration.

CT

account of religion, with arms as well as they can?
That this has been hitherto the ordinary course of things,
is abundantly evident in history : and that it will con-
tinue to be so hereafter, is but too apparent in reason.
It cannot indeed be otherwise, so long as the principle
of persecution for religion shall prevail, as it has done
hitherto, with magistrate and people ; and so long as
those that ought to be the preachers of peace and con-
cord, shall continue, with all their art and strength, to
excite men to arms, and sound the trumpet of war. But
that magistrates should thus suffer these incendiaries,
and disturbers of the public peace, might justly be won-
dered at, if it did not appear that they have been in-
vited by them unto a participation of the spoil, and
have therefore thought fit to make use of their covet-
ousness and pride, as means whereby to increase their
own power. For who does not see that these good
men are indeed more ministers of the government than
ministers of the Gospel ; and that by flattering the am-
bition, and favouring the dominion of princes and men
in authority, they endeavour with all their might to
promote that tyranny in the commonwealth, which
otherwise they should not be able to establish in the
church ? This is the unhappy agreement that we see
between the church and the state. Whereas if each of
them would contain itself within its owrn bounds, the
one attending to the worldly welfare of the common-
wealth, the other to the salvation of souls, it is impos-
sible that any discord should ever have happened be-
tween them. " Sed pudet hrec opprobria," &c. God
Almighty grant, I beseech him, that the Gospel of peace
may at length be preached, and that civil magistrates,
growing more careful to conform their own consciences
to the law of God, and less solicitous about the bind-
ing of other men's consciences by human laws, may,
like fathers of their country, direct all their counsels
and endeavours to promote universally the civil welfare
of all their children ; except .only of such as are arro-
gant, ungovernable, and injurious to their brethren;
and that all ecclesiastical men, who boast themselves to
be the successors of the apostles, walking peaceably ami

A Letter concerning Toleration, .05

*b

modestly in the apostles' steps, without intermeddling
with state affairs, may apply themselves wholly to pro-
mote the salvation of souls. Farewell.

Perhaps it may not be amiss to add a few things con-
cerning heresy and schism. A Turk is not, nor can be
either heretic or schismatic to a Christian ; and if any
man fall off from the Christian faith to Mahometism, he
does not thereby become a heretic, or a schismatic, but
an apostate and an infidel. This nobody doubts of.
And by this it appears that men of different religions
cannot be heretics or schismatics to one another.

We are to inquire, therefore, what men are of the
same religion : concerning which, it is manifest that
those who have one and the same rule of faith anal
worship are of the same religion, and those who have*
not the same rule of faith and worship are of different^
religions. For since all things that belong unto that
religion are contained in that rule, it follows necessarily,
that those who agree in one rule are of one and the same
religion ; and vice versa. Thus Turks and Christians
are of different religions ; because these take the Holy
Scriptures to be the rule of their religion, and those
the Koran. And for the same reason, there may be
different religions also, even amongst Christians. The
papists and the Lutherans, though both of them profess
faith in Christ, and are therefore called Christians, yet
are not both of the same religion : because these ac-
knowledge nothing but the Holy Scriptures to be the
rule and foundation of their religion ; those take in
also traditions and decrees of popes, and of all these
together make the rule of their religion. And thus
the Christians of St. John, as they are called, and the
Christians of Geneva, are of different religions : because
these also take only the Scriptures, and those, I know
not what traditions, for the rule of their religion.

This being settled, it follows, First, That heresy is
a separation made in ecclesiastical communion between
men of the same religion, for some opinions no way con-
tained in tRe rule itself. And secondly, That amongst
those who acknowledge nothing but the Holy Scriptures
to be their rule of faith, heresy is a separation made in

56 A Letter concerning Toleration.

s

their Christian communion, for opinions not contained
in the express words of Scripture.

Now this separation may be made in a twofold
manner :

First, When the greater part, or, by the magistrate's
patronage, the stronger part, of the church separates
itself from others, by excluding them out of her com-
munion, because they will not profess their belief of
certain opinions which are not to be found in the express
words of Scripture. For it is not the paucity of those
that are separated, nor the authority of the magistrate,
that can make any man guilty of heresy; but he only is
an heretic who divides the church into parts, introduces
names and marks of distinction, and voluntarily makes
a separation because of such opinions.

Secondly, When any one separates himself from the
communion of a church, because that church does not
publicly profess some certain opinions which the Holy
Scriptures do not expressly teach.

Both these are "heretics, because they err in funda-
mentals, and they err obstinately against knowledge."
For when they have determined the Holy Scriptures
to be the only foundation of faith, they nevertheless
lay down certain propositions as fundamental, which
are got in the Scripture ; and because others will not
acknowledge these additional opinions of theirs, nor build
upon them as if they were necessary and fundamental,
they therefore make a separation in the church, either
by withdrawing themselves from the others, or expel-
ling the others from them. Nor does it signify any
thing for them to say that their confessions and symbols
are agreeable to Scripture, and to the analogy of faith :
for if they be conceived in the express words of Scrip-
ture, there can be no question about them ; because
those are acknowledged by all Christians to be of divine
inspiration, and therefore fundamental. But if they
say that the articles which they require to be professed
are consequences deduced from the Scripture, it is
undoubtedly well done of i hem to believe and profess
such things as seem unto them so agreeable to the rule
of faith : but it would be very ill done to obtrude those

A Letter concerning Toleration. 07

things upon others, unto whom they do not seem to be
the indubitable doctrines of the Scripture. And to make
a separation for such things as these, which neither are
nor can be fundamental, is to become heretics. For I
do not thick there is any man arrived to that degree
of madness, as that he dare give out his consequences
and interpretations of Scripture as divine inspirations,
and compare the articles of faith, that he has framed
according to his own fancy, with the authority of the
Scripture. I know there are some propositions so
evidently agreeable to Scripture, that nobody can deny
them to be drawn from thence : but about those there-
fore there can be no difference. This only I say,
that however clearly we may think this or the other
doctrine to be deduced from Scripture, we ought not I
therefore to impose it upon others as a necessary article
of faith, because we believe it to be agreeable to the
rule of faith ; unless we would be content also that
other doctrines should be imposed upon us in the same
manner ; and that we should be compelled to receive
and profess all the different and contradictory opinions
of Lutherans, Calvinists, remonstrants, anabaptists, and
other sects, which the contrivers of symbols, systems,
and confessions, are accustomed to deliver unto their
followers as genuine and necessary deductions from the
Holy Scripture. I cannot but wonder at the extrava-
gant arrogance of those men who think that they them-
selves can explain things necessary to salvation more
clearly than the Holy Ghost, the eternal and infinite
wisdom of God.

Thus much concerning heresy ; which word in com-
mon use is applied only to the doctrinal part of religion.
Let us now consider schism, which is a crime near akin
to it : for both those words seem unto me to signify an
" ill-grounded separation in ecclesiastical communion,
made about things not necessary." But since use,
which is the supreme law in matter of language, has
determined that heresy relates to errors in faith, and
schism to those in worship or discipline, we must con-
sider them under that distinction.

58 A Letter concerning Toleration.

o

Schism then, for the same reasons that have already
been alleged, is nothing else but a separation made in
the communion of the church, upon account of some-
thing in divine worship, or ecclesiastical discipline, that
is not any necessary part of it. Now nothing in wor-
ship or discipline can be necessary to Christian com-
munion, but what Christ our legislator, or the apostles,
by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, have commanded in
express words.

In a word : he that denies not any thing that the
Holy Scriptures teach in express words, nor makes a
separation upon occasion of any thing that is not mani-
festly contained in the sacred text ; however he may be
nicknamed by any sect of Christians, and declared by
some, or all of them, to be utterly void of true Chri-
stianity ; yet in deed and in truth this man cannot be
either a heretic or schismatic.

These things might have been explained more largely,
and more advantageously ; but it is enough to have
hinted at them, thus briefly, to a person of your parts.

SECOND LETTER

CONCERNING

TOLERATION.

SECOND LETTER

CONCERNING

TOLERATION

to the author of the argument of the letter
concerning toleratjon briefly considered and
answered.

Sir,

You will pardon me if I take the same liberty with
you, that you have done with the author of the Letter
concerning Toleration ; to consider your arguments,
and endeavour to show you the mistakes of them ; for
since you have so plainly yielded up the question to
him, and do own that " the severities he would dissuade
Christians from, are utterly unapt and improper to bring
men to embrace that truth which must save them:"
I am not without some hopes to prevail with you to
do that yourself, which you say is the only justifiable
aim of men differing about religion, even in the use of
the severest methods, viz. carefully and impartially to
weigh the whole matter, and thereby to remove that
prejudice which makes you yet favour some remains

62 A Second Letter concerning Toleration.

of persecution : promising myself that so ingenious a
person will either be convinced by the truth which
appears so very clear and evident to me : or else con-
fess, that, were either you or I in authority, we should
very unreasonably and very unjustly use any force
upon the other, which differed from him, upon any
pretence of want of examination. And if force be not
to be used in your case or mine, because unreasonable,
or unjust; you will, I hope, think fit that it should be
forborn in all others, where it will be equally unjust and
unreasonable ; as I doubt not but to make it appear it
will unavoidably be, wherever you will go about to
punish men for want of consideration ; for the true way
to try such speculations as these is, to see how they
will prove when they are reduced into practice.

The first thing you seem startled at, in the author's
letter, is the largeness of the toleration he proposes ;
and you think it strange that he would not have so
much as a " Pagan, Mahometan, or Jew, excluded
from the civil rights of the commonwealth, because of
his religion,,, p. 1. We pray every day for their con-
version, and I think it our duty so to do: but it will,
I fear, hardly be believed that we pray in earnest, if
we exclude them from the other ordinary and probable
means of conversion, either by driving them from, or
persecuting them when they are amongst us. Force,
you allow, is improper to convert men to any religion.
Toleration is but the removing that force; so that why
those should not be tolerated as well as others, if you
wish their conversion, I do not see. But you say, "It
seems hard to conceive how the author of that letter
should think to do any service to religion in general,
or to the Christian religion, by recommending and
persuading such a toleration; for how much soever it
may tend to the advancement of trade and commerce
(which some seem to place above all other considera-
tions), 1 see no reason, from any experiment that has
been made, to expect that true religion would he a
miner by it; that it would be either the better pre-
served, the more widely propagated, or rendered any

A Second Letter concerning Toleration. 63

&

whit the more fruitful in the lives of its professors by
it." Before I come to your doubt itself, " Whether
true religion would be a gainer by such a toleration ;"
give me leave to take notice, that if, by other considera-
tions, you mean any thing but religion, your paren-
thesis is wholly beside the matter ; and that if you do
not know that the author of the letter places the ad-
vancement of trade above religion, your insinuation is
very uncharitable. But I go on.

" You see no reason, you say, from any experiment
that has been made, to expect that true religion would
be a gainer by it." True religion and Christian reli-
gion are, I suppose, to you and me, the same thing.
But of this you have an experiment in its first appear-
ance in the world, and several hundreds of years after.
It was then " better preserved, more widely propagated,
in proportion, and rendered more fruitful in the lives
of its professors," than ever since ; though then Jews
and pagans were tolerated, and more than tolerated,
by the governments of those places where it grew up.
I hope you do not imagine the Christian religion has
lost any of its first beauty, force, or reasonableness, by
having been almost two thousand years in the world ;
that you should fear it should be less able now to shift
for itself, without the help of force. I doubt not but
you look upon it still to be " the power and wisdom of
God for our salvation ;" and therefore cannot suspect
it less capable to prevail now, by its own truth and
light, than it did in the first ages of the church, when
poor contemptible men, without authority, or the coun-
tenance of authority, had alone the care of it. This,
as I take it, has been made use of by Christians gene-
rally, and by some of our church in particular, as an
argument for the truth of the Christian religion; that it
grew, and spread, and prevailed, without any aid from
force, or the assistance of the powers in being ; and if
it be a mark of the true religion, that it will prevail by
its own light and strength, but that false religions will
not, but have need of force and foreign helps to sup-
port them, nothing certainly can be more for the ad-

C4 A SecoJid Letter concerning Toleration.

vantage of true religion, than to take away compulsion
every where ; and therefore it is no more " hard to
conceive how the author of the letter should think to
do service to religion in general, or to the Christian
religion," than it is hard to conceive that he should
think there is a true religion, and that the Christian
religion is it ; which its professors have always owned
not to need force, and have urged that as a good argu-
ment to prove the truth of it. The inventions of men
in religion need the force and helps of men to support
them. A religion that is of God wants not the assist-
ance of human authority to make it prevail. I guess,
when this dropped from you, you had narrowed your
thoughts to your own age and country : but if you will
enlarge them a little beyond the confines of England,
I do not doubt but you will easily imagine that if in
Italy, Spain, Portugal, &c. the Inquisition ; and in
France their dragooning ; and in other parts those
severities that are used to keep or force men to the
national religion, were taken away; and instead thereof
the toleration proposed by the author were set up, the
true religion would be a gainer by it.

The author of the letter says, " Truth would do
well enough, if she were once left to shift for herself.
She seldom hath received, and he fears never will
receive, much assistance from the power of great men,
to whom she is but rarely known, and more rarely
welcome. Errors indeed prevail, by the assistance of
foreign and borrowed succours. Truth makes way
into our understanding, by her own light, and is but
the weaker for any borrowed force that violence can
add to hen" These words of his, how hard soever
they may seem to you, may help you to conceive how
he should think to do service to true religion, by re-
commending and persuading such a toleration as he pro-
posed. And now pray tell me yourself, whether you do
not think line religion would be a gainer by it, if such
a toleration, established there, would permit the doc-
trine of the church of England to be freely preached,
and its worship set up, in any popish, Mahometan, or

A Second Letter concerning Toleration. 65

o

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 recom-
mending 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 advan-
tageous to true religion 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 reli-
gion 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 coun-
tries, 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 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 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.

VOL. VI. f

6G A Second Letter concerning Toleration.

You tell us, * that no man can fail of finding the
way of salvation, who seeks it as he ought." I 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 doctrine 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 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 conversa-
tion being the readiest and surest way to a right under-
standing. 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 good
will to toleration, you tell us, " It is not your design to
argue against it, but only to inquire what our author
otters for the proof of his assertion." And then you
give us this scheme of his argument.

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

11 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 compulsion.

" 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 lo use

A Second Letter concerning Toleration, f>7

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 tolera-
tion, exempt from all force ; especially civil force, or
the force of the magistrate. Now, if it be a true con-
sequence " 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. 28.

Again ; if it be true, that " magistrates being as liable
to error as the rest of mankind, their using of force in
matters of religion, would not at all advance the salva-
tion 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. 12. 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 im-
proper to be used to induce the mind to assent to
any truth." But yet you deny, " that force is utterly
useless for the promoting true religion, and the salva-
tion 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 12, which you quote, the author is showing

f 2

68 A Second Letter concerning: Toleration.

&

that the magistrate has no power, that is, no right, to
make use of force in matters of religion, for the salva-
tion of mens 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 accept-
able to God. " Upon this ground, says he, I affirm
that the magistrate's power extends not to the esta-
blishing 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 abso-
lutely impertinent, because they are not proper to con-
vince the mind." And so again, p. 28, which is the
other place you quote, the author says: u 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 pretence 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 reli-
gion, 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 matters of
religion. This is what the author says, and what I ima-
gine 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

A Second Letter concerning Toleration. G9

©

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 pro-
priety 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? That
therefore the magistrate may make use of it ? That I
deny, that such an indirect, and at a distance useful-
ness, will authorize the civil power in the use of it,
that will never be proved. Loss of estate and dig-
nities 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
distance, 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 galleys, 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 things of this world. But will you say, because those
punishments might, indirectly, and at a distance, serve
to the salvation of men's souls, that therefore the king
of France had right authority to make use of them ?
If your indirect and at a distance serviceableness may

JO A Second Letter concerning Toleration.

authorize the magistrate to use force in religion, all the
cruelties used by the heathens against Christians, by
papists against protestants, and all the persecuting of
Christiana one among another, are all justifiable.

But what if I should tell you now of other effects,
contrary effects, that punishments in matters of religion
may produce ; and so may serve to keep men from the
truth and from salvation ? What then will become of
your indirect and at a distance usefulness ? For in all
pleas for any thing because of its usefulness, it is not
enough to say as you do, and is the utmost that can be
said for it, that it may be serviceable : but it must be
considered not only what it may, but what it is likely
to produce : and the greater good or harm like to come
from it, ought to determine the use of it. To show
you what effects one may expect from force, of what
usefulness it is to bring men to embrace the truth, be
pleased to read what you yourself have writ : "I
cannot but remark, say you, that these methods (viz.
depriving men of estates, corporal punishment, starving
and tormenting them in prisons, and in the end even
taking away their lives, to make them Christians) are
so very improper in respect to the design of them, that
they usually produce the quite contrary effect. For
whereas all the use which force can have for the ad-
vancing true religion and the salvation of souls, is (as
has already been showed) by disposing men to submit
to instruction, and to give a fair hearing to the reasons
which are offered for the enlightening their minds, and
discovering the truth to them ; these cruelties have the
misfortune to be commonly looked upon as so just a
prejudice against any religion that uses them, as makes
it needless to look any farther into it: and to tempt
nun to reject it, as both false and detestable, without
ever vouchsafing to consider the rational grounds and
motives of it. This effect they seldom fail to work
Upon the sufferers of them. And as to the spectators,
ii' they be not beforehand well instructed in those
grounds and motives, they will be much tempted, like*
', not only to entertain the same opinion of such a

A Second Letter concerning Toleration, 71

religion, but withal to judge much more favourably of
that of the sufferers; who, they will be apt to think,
would not expose themselves to such extremities, which
they might avoid by compliance, if they were not tho-
roughly satisfied of the justice of their cause. " Here
then you allow that taking away men's estates, or liberty,
and corporal punishments, are apt to drive away both
sufferers and spectators from the religion that makes use
of them, rather than to it. And so these you renounce.
Now, if you give up punishments of a man, in his person,
liberty, and estate, I think we need not stand with you,
for any other punishments that may be made use of.
But, by what follows, it seems you shelter yourself under
the name of severities. For moderate punishments, as
you call them in another place, you think may be ser-
viceable ; indirectly, and at a distance serviceable, to
bring men to the truth. And I say, any sort of punish-
ments disproportioned to the offence, or where there
is no fault at all, will always be severity, unjustifiable
severity, and will be thought so by the sufferers and
bystanders ; and so will usually produce the effects you
have mentioned, contrary to the design they are used for.
Not to profess the national faith, whilst one believes it
not to be true ; not to enter into church communion
with the magistrate as long as one judges the doctrine
there professed to be erroneous, or the worship not such
as God has either prescribed or will accept ; this you
allow, and all the world with you must allow, not to be
a fault. But yet you would have men punished for not
being of the national religion ; that is, as you yourself
confess, for no fault at all. Whether this be not severity,
nay so open and avowed injustice, that it will give men
a just prejudice against the religion that uses it, and
produce all those ill effects you there mention, I leave
you to consider. So that the name of severities, in
opposition to the moderate punishments you speak for,
can do you no service at all. For where there is no
fault, there can be no moderate punishment: all punish-
ment is immoderate, where there is no fault to be pu-
nished. But of your moderate punishment we shall have

72 A Seco?id Letter concerning Toleration.

occasion to speak more in another place. It suffices
here to have shown, that whatever punishments you
use, they are as likely to drive men from the reli-
gion that uses them, as to bring them to the truth;
and much more likely, as we shall see before we have
done : and so by your own confession they are not to
be used.

One thing in this passage of the author, it seems,
appears absurd to you; that he should say, " That to
take away men's lives, to make them Christians, was but
an ill way of expressing a design of their salvation."
I grant there is great absurdity somewhere in the case.
But it is in the practice of those who, persecuting men
under a pretence of bringing them to salvation, suffer
the temper of their good-will to betray itself, in taking
away their lives. And whatever absurdities there be
in this way of proceeding, there is none in the author's
way of expressing it ; as you would more plainly have
seen, if you had looked into the Latin original, where
the words are, " Vita denique ipsa privant, ut fideles,
ut salvi riant;" which, though more literally, might
be thus rendered, " To bring them to the faith and
to salvation ;" yet the translator is not to be blamed,
if he chose to express the sense of the author in words
that very livelily represented the extreme absurdity
they are guilty of, who, under pretence of zeal for
the salvation of souls, proceed to the taking away their
lives. An example whereof we have in a neighbour-
ing country, where the prince declares he will have
all his dissenting subjects saved, and pursuant there-
unto has taken away the lives of many of them. For
thither at last persecution must come ; as I fear, not-
withstanding your talk of moderate punishments, you
yourself intimate in these words: " Not that I think
the sword is to be used in this business (as I have
sufficiently declared already), but because all coactive
power resolves at last into the sword; since all (I do not
say, that will not be reformed in this matter by lesser
penalties, but) that refuse to submit to lesser penal-
ties, must at last fall under the stroke of it." In which

A Second Letter concerning Toleration. 73

words, if you mean any tiling to the business in hand,
you seem to have a reserve for greater punishments,
when lesser are not sufficient to bring men to be con-
vinced. But let that pass.

You say, " If force be used, not instead of reason
and arguments, that is, not to convince by its own
proper efficacy, which it cannot do," &c. I think those
who make laws, and use force, to bring men to church-
conformity in religion, seek only the compliance, but
concern themselves not for the conviction of those they
punish ; and so never use force to convince. For, pray
tell me, when any dissenter conforms, and enters into
the church-communion, is he ever examined to see
whether he does it upon reason, and conviction, and
such grounds as would become a Christian concerned
for religion ? If persecution, as is pretended, were for
the salvation of men's souls, this would be done ; and
men not driven to take the sacrament to keep their
places, or to obtain licences to sell ale, for so low have
these holy things been prostituted ; who perhaps knew
nothing of its institution, and considered no other use
of it but the securing some poor secular advantage,
which without taking of it they should have lost. So
that this exception of yours, of the " use of force, in-
stead of arguments, to convince men," I think is need-
less ; those who use it, not being, that ever I heard,
concerned that men should be convinced.

But you go on in telling us your way of using force,
" only to bring men to consider those reasons and ar-
guments, which are proper and sufficient to convince
them ; but which, without being forced, they would
not consider." And, say you, " who can deny but
that, indirectly and at a distance, it does some service,
towards bringing men to embrace that truth, which
either through negligence they would never acquaint
themselves with, or through prejudice they would re-
ject and condemn unheard?" Whether this way of
punishment is like to increase, or remove prejudice, we
have already seen. And what that truth is, which you
can positively say any man, " without being forced by
punishment, would through carelessness never acquaint

74 A Second Letter concerning Toleration,

o

himself with," I desire you to name. Some are called
at the third, some at the ninth, and some at the eleventh
hour. And whenever they are called, they embrace
all the truth necessary to salvation. But these slips
may be forgiven, amongst so many gross and palpable
mistakes, as appear to me all through your discourse.
For example : you tell us that " force used to bring
men to consider, does, indirectly, and at a distance,
some service." Here now you walk in the dark, and
endeavour to cover yourself with obscurity, by omitting
two necessary parts. As, first, who must use this force :
which, though you tell us not here, yet by other parts
of your treatise it is plain you mean the magistrate.
And, secondly, you omit to say upon whom it must be
used, who it is must be punished : and those, if you
say any thing to your purpose, must be dissenters from
the national religion, those who come not into church-
communion with the magistrate. And then your pro-
position, in fair plain terms, will stand thus : * If the
magistrate punish dissenters, only to bring them to
consider those reasons and arguments which are proper
to convince them ; who can deny but that, indirectly
and at a distance, it may do service, &c. towards bring-
ing men to embrace that truth which otherwise they
would never be acquainted with ?" &c. In which pro-
position, 1. There is something impracticable. 2. Some-
thing unjust. And, 3. Whatever efficacy there is in
force, your way applied, to bring men to consider and
be convinced, it makes against you.

1. It is impracticable to punish dissenters, as dis-
senters, only to make them consider. For if you punish
them as dissenters, as certainly you do, if you punish
them alone, and them all without exception, you pu-
nish them for not being of the national religion. And
to punish a man for not being of the national religion,
is not to punish him only to make him consider; un-
less not to be of the national religion, and not to con-

...

rider, be the same thing. Hut you will say, the design
is only to make dissenters consider; and therefore they
may be punished only to make them consider. To this
I reply; it is impossible you should punish one with a

A Second Letter concerning Toleration. 75

design only to make him consider, whom you punish
for something else besides want of consideration ; or if
you punish him whether he consider or no ; as you do,
if you lay penalties on dissenters in general. If you
should make a law to punish all stammerers ; could any
one believe you, if you said it was designed only to
make them leave swearing? Would not every one see
it was impossible that punishment should be only against
swearing, when all stammerers were under the penalty?
Such a proposal as this is, in itself, at first sight mon-
strously absurd. But you must thank yourself for it.
For to lay penalties upon stammerers, only to make
them not swear, is not more absurd and impossible than
it is to lay penalties upon dissenters only to make them
consider.

2. To punish men out of the communion of the na-
tional church, to make them consider, is unjust. They
are punished, because out of the national church: and
they are out of the national church, because they are
not yet convinced. Their standing out therefore in this
state, whilst they are not convinced, not satisfied in their
minds, is no fault ; and therefore cannot justly be pu-
nished. But your method is, " Punish them, to make
them consider such reasons and arguments as are pro-
per to convince them." Which is just such justice, as
it would be for the magistrate to punish you for not
being a Cartesian, " only to bring you to consider such
reasons and arguments as are proper and sufficient to
convince you :" when it is possible, 1. That you, be-
ing satisfied of the truth of your own opinion in philo-
sophy, did not judge it worth while to consider that
of Des Cartes. 2. It is possible you are not able to
consider and examine all the proofs and grounds upon
which he endeavours to establish his philosophy. 3. Pos-
sibly you have examined, and can find no reasons and
arguments proper and sufficient to convince you.

3. Whatever indirect efficacy there be in force, ap-
plied by the magistrate your way, it makes against you.
" Force used by the magistrate to bring men to con-
sider those reasons and arguments, which are proper

76 A Second Letter concerning Toleration.

c

and sufficient to convince them, but which without
being forced they would not consider ; may, say you,
be serviceable, indirectly and at a distance, to make
men embrace the truth which must save them." And
thus, say I, it may be serviceable to bring men to re-
ceive and embrace falsehood, which will destroy them.
So that force and punishment, by your own confession,
not being able directly, by its proper efficacy, to do
men any good, in reference to their future estate ;
though it be sure directly to do them harm, in reference
to their present condition here ; and indirectly, and in
your way of applying it, being proper to do at least as
much harm as good; I desire to know what the useful-
ness is which so much recommends it, even to a degree
that you pretend it needful and necessary. Had you
some new untried chymical preparation, that wras as
proper to kill as to save an infirm man, of whose life I
hope you would not be more tender than of a weak
brother's soul ; would you give it your child, or try it
upon your friend, or recommend it to the world for its
rare usefulness ? I deal very favourably with you, when
I say as proper to kill as to save. For force, in your
indirect way, of the magistrate's " applying to make
men consider those arguments that otherwise they
would not ; to make them lend an ear to those who
tell them they have mistaken their way, and offer to
show them the right ;" I say, in this way, force is much
more proper, and likely, to make men receive and em-
brace error than the truth.

1. Because men out of the right way are as apt, I
think I may say, apter to use force, than others. For
truth, I mean the truth of the Gospel, which is that
of the true religion, is mild, and gentle, and meek, and
apter to use prayers and entreaties, than force, to gain
a hearing.

2. Because the magistrates of the world, or the civil
sovereigns, as you think it more proper to call them,
being few of them in the right way; not one often,
take which side you will, perhaps you will grant not
one of an hundred, being of the true religion; it is

A Second Letter concerning Toleration. 77

likely your indirect way of using of force would do an
hundred, or at least ten times as much harm as good ;
especially if you consider, that as the magistrate will
certainly use it to force men to hearken to the proper
ministers of his religion, let it be what it will : so you
having set no time, nor bounds, to this consideration
of arguments and reasons, short of being convinced ;
you, under another pretence, put into the magistrate's
hands as much power to force men to his religion, as
any the openest persecutors can pretend to. For what
difference, I beseech you, between punishing you to
bring you to mass, and punishing you to consider those
reasons and arguments which are proper and sufficient
to convince you that you ought to go to mass ? For till
you are brought to consider reasons and arguments pro-
per and sufficient to convince you, that is, till you are
convinced, you are punished on. If you reply, you
meant reasons and arguments proper and sufficient to
convince them of the truth. I answer, if you meant
so, why did you not say so ? But if you had, it would
in this case do you little service. For the mass, in
France, is as much supposed the truth, as the liturgy
here. And your way of applying force will as much
promote popery in France, as protestantism in England.
And so you see how serviceable it is to make men re-
ceive and embrace the truth that must save them.

However you tell us, in the same page, that "if force
so applied, as is above-mentioned, may in such sort as
has been said, i. e. indirectly and at a distance, be ser-
viceable to bring men to receive and embrace truth,
you think it sufficient to show the usefulness of it in re-
ligion :" where I shall observe, 1. That this usefulness
amounts to no more but this, that it is not impossible
but that it may be useful. And such an usefulness one
cannot deny to auricular confession, doing of penance,
going of a pilgrimage to some saint, and what not. Yet
our church does not think fit to use them : though it
cannot be denied, but they may have some of your in-
direct and at a distance usefulness; that is, perhaps
may do some service indirectly and by accident.

73 A Second Letter concerning Toleration.

o

2. Force, your way applied, as it may be useful, so
also it may be useless. For, 1. Where the law punishes
dissenters, without telling them it is to make them con-
sider, they may through ignorance and oversight neglect
to do it, and so your force proves useless. 2. Some dis-
senters 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. 3. God has not directed it:
and therefore we have no reason to expect he should
make it successful.

3. It may be hurtful : nay, it is likely to prove more
hurtful than useful. 1. Because to punish men for that,
which it is visible cannot be knowrn whether they have
performed or no, is so palpable an injustice, that it is
likelier to give them an aversion to the persons and re-
ligion that uses it than to bring them to it. 2. Because
the greatest part of mankind, being notable to discern
betwixt truth and falsehood, that depend upon long and
many proofs, and remote consequences; nor having abi-
lity 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 in-
formation and instruction of men appointed to it by the
magistrate, or those of his religion, to be led into false-
hood and error, than they are likely this way to be
brought to embrace the truth that must save them ; by
how much the national religions of the world are, be-
yond comparison, more of them false or erroneous, than
such as have God for their author, and truth for their
standard. And that seeking and examining, without
the special grace of God, will not secure even knowing
and learned men from error; we have a famous in-
stance in the two Reynolds's, botli scholars and bro-
thers, but one a protest ant, the other a papist, who,
upon the exchange of papers between them, were both
turned; but so that neither of them, with all the ar-
guments he could use, could bring his brother back to
the religion which he himself had found reason to em-

A Second Letter concerning Toleration. 79

b

brace. Here was ability to examine and judge, beyond
the ordinary rate of most men. Yet one of these brothers
was so caught by the sophistry and skill of the other,
that he was brought into error, from which he could
never again be extricated. This we must unavoidably
conclude ; unless we can think, that wherein they dif-
fered they were both in the right; or that truth can
be an argument to support a falsehood ; both which are
impossible. And now, I pray, which of these two bro-
thers would you have punished, to make him bethink
himself, and bring him back to the truth? For it is
certain some ill-grounded cause of assent alienated one
of them from it. If you will examine your principles,
you will find that according to your rule, the papist
must be punished in England, and the protestant in
Italy. So that, in effect, by your rule, passion, humour,
prejudice, lust, impressions of education, admiration of
persons, worldly respect, and the like incompetent mo-
tives, must always be supposed on that side on which
the magistrate is not.

I have taken the pains here, in a short recapitulation,
to give you the view of the usefulness of force, your way
applied, which you make such a noise with, and lay so
much stress on. Whereby I doubt not but it is visible,
that its usefulness and uselessness laid in the balance
against each other, the pretended usefulness is so far
from outweighing, that it can neither encourage nor
excuse the using of punishments ; which are not lawful
to be used in our case without strong probability of suc-
cess. But when to its uselessness mischief is added, and
it is evident that more, much more, harm may be ex-
pected from it than good, your own argument returns
upon you. For if it be reasonable to use it, because it
may be serviceable to promote true religion, and the
salvation of souls ; it is much more reasonable to let it
alone, if it may be more serviceable to the promoting
falsehood, and the perdition of souls. And therefore
you will do well hereafter not to build so much on the
usefulness of force, applied your way, your indirect
and at a distance usefulness, which amounts but to the
shadow and possibility of usefulness, but with an over-

80 A Second Letter concerning Toleration.

balancing weight of mischief and harm annexed to it.
For upon a just estimate, this indirect, and at a distance,
usefulness, can directly go for nothing ; or rather less
than nothing.

But suppose force, applied your way, were as useful
for the promoting true religion, as I suppose I have
showed it to be the contrary; it does not from hence
follow that it is lawful and may be used. It may be
very useful in a parish that has no teacher, or as bad as
none, that a layman who wanted not abilities for it,
for such we may suppose to be, should sometimes preach
to them the doctrine of the Gospel, and stir them up to
the duties of a good life. And yet this, (which can-
not be denied, may be at least "indirectly, and at a
distance, serviceable towards the promoting true re-
ligion, and the salvation of souls,") you will not, I
imagine, allow, for this usefulness, to be lawful : and
that, because he has not commission and authority to do
it. The same might be said of the administration of the
sacraments, and any other function of the priestly of-
fice. This is just our case. Granting force, as you
say, indirectly and at a distance, useful to the salvation
of men's souls ; yet it does not therefore follow that it
is lawful for the magistrate to use it : because, as the
author says, the magistrate has no commission or au-
thority to do so. For however you have put it thus,
as you have framed the author's argument, " force is
utterly of no use for the promoting of true religion,
and the salvation of souls ; and therefore nobody can
have any right to use any force or compulsion for the
bringing men to the true religion ;" yet the author
does not, in those pages you quote, make the latter
of these propositions an inference barely from the
former ; but makes use of it as a truth proved by se-
veral arguments he had before brought to that purpose.
For though it be a good argument; it is not useful,
therefore not fit to be used ; yet this will not be good
logic; it is useful, therefore any one has a right to use
it. For if the usefulness makes it lawful, it makes it
lawful in any hands that can so apply it; and so private
men may use it.

A Second Letter concerning Toleration. 81

©

" Who can deny," say yon, " but that force, indirectly
and at a distance, may do some service towards the
bringing men to embrace that truth, which otherwise
they would never acquaint themselves with ?" If this
be good arguing in you, for the usefulness of force to-
wards the saving of men's souls, give me leave to argue
after the same fashion. 1. I will suppose, which you
will not deny me, that as there are many who take up
their religion upon wrong grounds, to the endangering
of their souls ; so there are many that abandon them-
selves to the heat of their lusts, to the endangering of
their souls. 2. I will suppose, that as force applied
your way is apt to make the inconsiderate consider, so
force applied another way is apt to make the lascivious
chaste. The argument then, in your form, will stand
thus : " Who can deny but that force, indirectly and
at a distance, may, by castration, do some service to-
wards bringing men to embrace that chastity, which
otherwise they would never acquit themselves with."
Thus, you see, " castration may, indirectly and at a
distance, be serviceable towards the salvation of men's
souls." But will you say, from such an usefulness as
this, because it may, indirectly and at a distance, con-
duce to the saving of any of his subjects' souls, that
therefore the magistrate has a right to do it, and may
by force make his subjects eunuchs for the kingdom of
heaven ? It is not for the magistrate, or any body else,
upon an imagination of its usefulness, to make use of
any other means for the salvation of men's souls than
what the author and finisher of our faith hath directed.
You may be mistaken in what you think useful. Dives
thought, and so perhaps should you and I too, if not
better informed by the Scriptures, that it would be use-
ful to rouse and awaken men if one should come to
them from the dead. But he was mistaken. And we
are told, that if men will not hearken to Moses and the
prophets, the means appointed ; neither will the strange-
ness nor terror of one coming from the dead persuade
them. If what we are apt to think useful were thence
to be concluded so, we should, I fear, be obliged to be-
lieve the miracles pretended to by the church of Rome.

VOL. VI. g

82 A Second Letter concerning Toleration.

B

For miracles, we know, were once useful for the pro-
moting true religion, and the salvation of souls; which
is more than you say for your political punishments :
but yet we must conclude that God thinks them not
useful now ; unless we will say, that which without im-
piety cannot be said, that the wise and benign Disposer
and Governor of all things does not now use all useful
means for promoting his own honour in the world, and
the gopd of souls. I think this consequence will hold,
as well as what you draw in near the same words,

Let us not therefore be more wise than our Maker,
in that stupendous and supernatural work of our salva-
tion. The Scripture, that reveals it to us, contains all
that we can know, or do, in order to it : and where
that is silent, it is in us presumption to direct. When
you can show any commission in Scripture, for the use
of force to compel men to hear, any more than to em-
brace, the doctrine of others that differ from them, we
shall have reason to submit to it, and the magistrate
have some ground to set up this new way of persecution.
But till then, it will be n't for us to obey that precept of
the Gospel, which bids us " take heed what we hear,"
Mark iv. 24. So that hearing is not always so useful as
you suppose. If it had, we should never have had so
direct a caution against it. It is not any imaginary
usefulness, you can suppose, which can make that a
punishable crime, which the magistrate was never au-
thorized to meddle with. " Go and teach all nations,"
was a commission of our Saviour's: but there was not
added to it, punish those that will not hear and con-
sider what you say. No, but " if they will not receive
you, shake off the dust of your feet;" leave them, and
apply yourselves to some others. And St. Paul knew
no other means to make Often hear, but the preaching
of the Gospel ; as will appear to any one who will read
Romans x. 14, &c. " Faith comet h by hearing, and
hearing by the word of God."

You go on, and in lavour of your beloved force you
tell us that it is not only useful hut needful. And here,

after having at huge, in the four following pages, set
out the negligence <>r aversion, or other hnulerances

A Second Letter concerning Toleration. S3

o

that keep men from examining, with that application
and freedom of judgment they should, the grounds upon
which they take up and persist in their religion ; you
come to conclude force necessary. Your words are :
" If men are generally averse to a due consideration of
things, where they are most concerned to use it ; if
they usually take up their religion without examining
it as they ought, and then grow so opinionative and
so stiff in their prejudice, that neither the gentlest
admonitions, nor the most earnest entreaties, shall ever
prevail with them afterwards to do it ; what means
is there left, besides the grace of God, to reduce those
of them that are gone into a wrong way, but to lay
thorns and briars in it? That since they are deaf to all
persuasions, the uneasiness they meet with may at least
put them to a stand, and incline them to lend an ear to
those who tell them they have mistaken their way, and
offer to show them the right." What means is there
left, say you, but force? What to do? " To reduce
men, who are out of it, into the right way." So you
tell us here. And to that, I say, there is other means
besides force ; that which was appointed and made use
of from the beginning, the preaching of the Gospel.

" But, say you, to make them hear, to make them
consider, to make them examine, there is no other
means but punishment ; and therefore it is necessary. "

I answer, 1. What if God, for reasons best known to
himself, would not have men compelled to hear ; but
thought the good tidings of salvation, and the pro-
posals of life and death, means and inducements enough
to make them hear, and consider, now as well as here-
tofore? Then your means, your punishments, are not
necessary. What if God would have men left to their
freedom in this point, if they will hear, or if they will
forbear, will you constrain them ? Thus we are sure he
did with his own people : and this when they were in
captivity, Ezek. xi. 5, 7. And it is very like were ill-
treated for being of a different religion from the na-
tional, and so were punished as dissenters. Yet then
God expected not that those punishments should force

g 2

84 A Second Letter concerning Toleration.

b

them to hearken more than at other times : as appears
by Ezek. iii. 11. And this also is the method of the
Gospel. " We are ambassadors for Christ; as if God
did beseech you in Christ's stead," says St. Paul, 2 Cor.
v. 20. If God thought it necessary to have men punished
to make them give ear, he could have called magistrates
to be spreaders and ministers of the Gospel, as well as
poor fishermen, or Paul a persecutor ; who yet wanted
not power to punish where punishment was necessary,
as is evident in Ananias and Sapphira, and the in-
cestuous Corinthian.

2. What if God, foreseeing this force would be in the
hands of men as passionate, humoursome, as liable to
prejudice and error as the rest of their brethren, did
not think it a proper means to bring men into the right
way?

3. What if there be other means? Then yours ceases
to be necessary, upon the account that there is no means
left. For you yourself allow, " That the grace of God
is another means.,, And 1 suppose you will not deny
it to be both a proper and sufficient means ; and, which
is more, the only means ; such means as can work by
itself, and without which all the force in the world can
do nothing. God alone can open the ear that it may
hear, and open the heart that it may understand: and
this he does in his own good time, and to whom he is
graciously pleased ; but not according to the will and
fancy of man, when he thinks fit, by punishments, to
compel his brethren. If God has pronounced against
any person or people, what he did against the Jews,
(Isa. vi. 10) " Make the heart of this people fat, and
make their ears heavy, and shut their eves ; lest they
see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and under-
stand with their heart, and convert, and be healed ;"
will all the force you can use be a means to make them
hear and understand, and be4 converted ?

But, sir, to return to your argument; you see " no
other means lefl (taking the world as we now find it)
to make men thoroughly and impartially examine a

religion, which they embraced upon such inducements

A 'Second Letter concerning Toleration. 85

as ought to have no sway at all in the matter, and with
little or no examination of the proper grounds of it."
And thence you conclude the use of force, by the ma-
gistrates upon dissenters, necessary. And, I say, I see
no other means left, (taking the world as we now find
it, wherein the magistrates never lay penalties, for
matters of religion, upon those of their own church,
nor is it to be expected they ever should ;) " to make
men" of the national church, any where, " thoroughly
and impartially examine a religion, which they em-
braced upon such inducements as ought to have no
sway at all in the matter, and therefore with little or
no examination of the proper grounds of it." And
therefore I conclude the use of force by dissenters
upon conformists necessary. I appeal to the world,
whether this be not as just and natural a conclusion as
yours* Though, if you will have my opinion, I think
the more genuine consequence is, that force, to make
men examine matters of religion, is not necessary at all.
But you may take which of these consequences you
please. Both of them, I am sure, you cannot avoid. It
is not for you and me, out of an imagination that they
may be useful, or are necessary, to prescribe means in
the great and mysterious work of salvation, other than
what God himself has directed. God has appointed
force as useful or necessarv, and therefore it is to be
used; is away of arguing, becoming the ignorance and
humility of poor creatures. But I think force useful or
necessary, and therefore it is to be used ; has, methinks,
a little too much presumption in it. You ask, " What
means else is there left?" None, say I, to be used by
man, but what God himself has directed in the Scrip-
tures, wherein are contained all the means and methods
of salvation. " Faith is the gift of God." And we are
not to use any other means to procure this gift to any
one, but what God himself has prescribed. If he has
there appointed that any should be forced " to hear
those who tell them they have mistaken their way,
and offer to show them the right ;" and that they
should be punished by the magistrate if they did not;
it will be past doubt, it is to be made use of. But till

86 A Secoiid Letter concerning Toleration.

that can be done, it will be in vain to say what other
means is there left. If all the means God has ap-
pointed, to make men hear and consider, be " exhorta-
tion in season and out of season/' &c. together with
prayer for them, and the example of meekness and a
good life ; this is all ought to be done, " Whether they
will hear, or whether they will forbear."

By these means the Gospel at first made itself to be
heard through a great part of the world; and in a
crooked and perverse generation, led away by lusts,
humours, and prejudice, as well as this you complain
of, prevailed with men to hear and embrace the truth,
and take care of their own souls; without the assistance
of any such force of the magistrate, which you now think
needful. 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 scholastic 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. They are
not politic discourses which are the means of right in-
formation in the foundations of religion. For with
such, sometimes venting anti-monarchical principles,
sometimes again preaching up nothing but absolute
monarchy and passive obedience, as the one or other have
been in vogue, and the way to preferment ; have our
churches rung in their turns, so loudly, that reasons and
arguments proper and sufficient to convince men of the
truth in the controverted points of religion, and to di-
rect them in the right way to salvation, were scarce any
where to be heard. But how many, do you think, by
friendly and Christian debates with them at their houses,
and by the gentle methods of the Gospel made use of in
private conversation, might have been brought into the
church ; who, by railing from the pulpit, ill and un-
friendly treatment out of It, and other neglects and mis-
carriages of those who claimed to be their teachers,

A Second Letter concerning Toleration. 87

have been driven from hearing- them ? Paint the defects
and miscarriages frequent on this side, as well as you
have done those on the other, and then do you, with all
the world, consider whether those whom you so hand-
somely declaim against, for being misled by " edu-
cation, passion, humour, prejudice, obstinacy,0 &c. do
deserve all the punishment. Perhaps it will be an-
swered: if there be so much toil in it, that particular
persons must be applied to, who then will be a mi-
nister ? And what if a layman should reply : if there
be so much toil in it, that doubts must be cleared, pre-
judices removed, foundations examined, &c. who then
will be a protestant ? the excuse will be as good here-
after for the one as for the other.

This new method of yours, which you say " nobody
can deny but that indirectly, and at a distance, it does
some service towards bringing men to embrace the
truth, " was never yet thought on by the most re-
fined persecutors. Though indeed it is not altogether
unlike the plea made use of to excuse the late barbarous
usage of the protestants in France, designed to extirpate
the reformed religion there, from being a persecution
for religion. The French king requires all his subjects
to come to mass : those who do not, are punished with
a witness. For what ? Not for their religion, say the
pleaders for that discipline, but for disobeying the king's
Jaws. So by your rule, the dissenters, for thither you
would, and thither you must come, if you mean any
thing, must be punished. For what ? Not for their re-
ligion, say you ; not for " following the light of their
own reason ; not for obeying the dictates of their own
consciences." That you think not fit. For what
then are they to be punished ? " To make them," say
you, " examine the religion they have embraced, and
the religion they have rejected." So that they are
punished, not for having offended against a law : for
there is no law of the land that requires them to exa-
mine. And which now is the fairer plea, pray judge.
You ought, indeed, to have the credit of this new in-
vention. All other law-makers have constantly taken
this method, that where any thing was to be amended,

S8 A Second Letter concerning Toleration.

e

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 pu-
nishment, but correction, has made so plain, that the
subtilest and most refined law-makers have not got
out of this course ; nor have the most ignorant and bar-
barous nations missed it. But vou 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." But that this new sort
of discipline may have all fair play, let us inquire first,
who it is you would have be punished. In the place
above cited, they are " those who are got into a wrong
way, and are deaf to all persuasions." If these are the
men to be punished, let a law be made against them :
you have my consent; and that is the proper course to
have offenders punished. For you do not, I hope, in-
tend to punish any fault by a law, which vou do not
name in the law; nor make a law against any fault vou
would not have punished. And now, if vou are sin-
cere, and in earnest, and are, as a (air man should he,
lor what your words plainly signify, and nothing else;

A Second Letter concerning Toleration. S<)

o

what will such a law serve for ? Men in the wrong way
are to be punished : but who are in the wrong way is
the question. You have no more reason to determine
it against one who differs from you, than he has to
conclude against you, who differ from him : no, not
though you have the magistrate and the national church
on your side. For, if to differ from them be to be in the
wrong way, you, who are in the right way in England,
will be in the wrong way in France. Every one here
must be judge for himself; and your law will reach no-
body till you have convinced him he is in the wrong
way. And then there will be no need of punishment
to make him consider ; unless you will affirm again,
what you have denied, and have men punished for
embracing the religion they believe to be true, when it
differs from yours or the public.

Besides being in the wrong way, those whom you
would have punished must be such as are deaf to all
persuasions. But any such, I suppose, you will hardly
find, who hearken to nobody, not to those of their own
way. If you mean by deaf to all persuasions, all per-
suasions of a contrary party, or of a different church,
such, I suppose, you may abundantly find in your own
church, as well as elsewhere ; and I presume to them
you are so charitable, that you would not have them
punished for not lending an ear to seducers. For con-
stancy in the truth, and perseverance in the faith, is, I
hope, rather to be encouraged, than by any penalties
checked in the orthodox. And your church, doubt-
less, as well as all others, is orthodox to itself in all its
tenets. If you mean by all persuasion, all your per-
suasion, or all persuasion of those of your communion ;
you do but beg the question, and suppose you have a
right to punish those who differ from, and will not
comply with you.

Your next words are, " When men fly from the means
of a right information, and will not so much as con-
sider how reasonable it is thoroughly and impartially
to examine a religion which they embraced upon such
inducements as ought to have no sway at all in the
matter; and therefore with little or no examination

90 A Second Letter concerning Toleration.

of the proper grounds of it ; what human method can
be used to bring them to act like men, in an affair
of such consequence, and to make a wiser and more
rational choice, but that of laying such penalties upon
them, as may balance the weight of those prejudices
which inclined them to prefer a false way before the
true ; and recover them to so much sobriety and reflec-
tion as seriously to put the question to themselves,
whether it be really worth the while to undergo such
inconveniencies, for adhering to a religion, which, for
any thing they know, may be false, or for rejecting
another (if that be the case), which, for any thing they
know, may be true, till they have brought it to the bar
of reason, and given it a fair trial there ?" Here you
again bring in such as prefer a false way before a true :
to which having answered already, I shall here say no
more, but that, since our church will not allow those to
be in a false way who are out of the church of Rome,
because the church of Rome, which pretends infalli-
bility, declares hers to be the only true way; certainly
no one of our church, nor any other, which claims not
infallibility, can require any one to take the testimony
of any church, as a sufficient proof of the truth of her
own doctrine. So that true and false, as it commonly
happens, when we suppose them for ourselves, or our
party, in effect, signify just nothing, or nothing to
the purpose ; unless we can think that true or false in
England, which will not be so at Rome, or Geneva :
and vice versa. As for the rest of the description of
those on whom you are here laying penalties; I beseech
you consider whether it will not belong to any of your
church, let it be what it will. Consider, I say, if there
be none in your church " who have embraced her reli-
gion upon such inducements as ought to have no sway
at all in the matter, and therefore with little or no
examination of the proper grounds of it ; who have not
been inclined by prejudices; who do not adhere to a
religion, which, lor any thing they know, may be false,
ami who have rejected another which, for any thing
they know, may be true." If you have any such in
your communion, and it will be an admirable, though

A Second Letter concerning Toleration. 01

I fear but a little, flock that has none such in it ; con-
sider well what you have clone. You have prepared
rods for them, for which I imagine they will con you
no thanks. For to make any tolerable sense of what you
here propose, it must be understood that you would
have men of all religions punished, to make them con-
sider " whether it be really worth the while to undergo
such inconveniencies for adhering to a religion which
for any thing they know may be false." If you hope
to avoid that, by what you have said of true and false;
and pretend that the supposed preference of the true
way in your church ought to preserve its members from
your punishment ; you manifestly trifle. For every
church's testimony, that it has chosen the true way,
must be taken for itself; and then none will be liable ;
and your new invention of punishment is come to no-
thing: or else the differing churches' testimonies must
be taken one for another; and then they will be all out
of the true way, and your church need penalties as well
as the rest. So that, upon your principles, they must
all or none be punished. Choose which you please :
one of them, I think, you cannot escape.

What you say in the next words : " Where instruc-
tion is stiffly refused, and all admonitions and per-
suasions prove vain and ineffectual ;" differs nothing,
but in the way of expressing, from deaf to all per-
suasions : and so that is answered already.

In another place, you give us another description of
those you think ought to be punished, in these words :
" Those who refuse to embrace the doctrine, and submit
to the spiritual government of the proper ministers of
religion, who by special designation are appointed to
exhort, admonish, reprove," &c Here then, those to
be punished, " are such who refuse to embrace the
doctrine, and submit to the government of the proper
ministers of religion. 9> Whereby we are as much still
at uncertainty as we were before, who those are, wrho
by your scheme and laws suitable to it are to be pu-
nished. Since every church has, as it thinks, its proper
ministers of religion. And if you mean those that refuse
to embrace the doctrine, and submit to the government

9C2 A Second Letter concerning Toleration.

B

of the ministers of another church ; then all men will
be guilty, and must be punished ; even those of your
church as well as others. If you mean those who
refuse, &c. the ministers of their own church, very few
will incur your penalties. But if, by these proper mi-
nisters of religion, the ministers of some particular
church are intended, why do you not name it? Why
are you so reserved in a matter wherein, if you speak
not out, all the rest that you say will be to no pur-
pose ? Are men to be punished for refusing to embrace
the doctrine, and submit to the government, of the
proper ministers of the church of Geneva? For this
time, since you have declared nothing to the contrary,
let me suppose you of that church; and then, I am
sure, that is it that you would name. For of whatever
church you are, if you think the ministers of any one
church ought to be hearkened to, and obeyed, it must
be those of your own. There are persons to be pu-
nished, you say. This you contend for all through your
book ; and lay so much stress on it, that you make the
preservation and propagation of religion, and the sal-
vation of souls, to depend on it ; and yet you describe
them by so general and equivocal marks, that, unless
it be upon suppositions which nobody will grant you,
I dare say, neither you nor any body else will be able
to find one guilty. Pray find me, if you can, a man
whom you can judicially prove (for he that is to be
punished by law must be fairly tried) is in a wrong
way, in respect of his faith ; I mean, " who is deaf to
all persuasions, who flies from all means of a right
information, who refuses to embrace the doctrine, and
submit to the government of the spiritual pastors/1
And when you have done that, I think I may allow
you what power you please to punish him, without
any prejudice to the toleration the author of the letter
proposes.

Hut why, I pray, all this boggling, all this loose
talking, as if you knew not what you meaut, or durst
not, speak it out? Would you be for punishing some-
body, you know not whom? I do not think so ill of

you. Lei nu- then speak out for you. The evidence

A Second Letter concerning Toleration. 93

b

of the argument has convinced you that men ought not
to be persecuted for their religion; that the severities
in use amongst Christians cannot be defended; that
the magistrate has not authority to compel any one to
his religion. This you are forced to yield. But you
would fain retain some power in the magistrate's hands
to punish dissenters, upon a new pretence; viz. not for
having embraced the doctrine and worship they believe
to be true and right, but for not having well considered
their own and the magistrate's religion. To show you
that I do not speak wholly without book, give me
leave to mind you of one passage of yours. The words
are, " Penalties to put them upon a serious and im-
partial examination of the controversy between the
magistrates and them." Though these words be not
intended to tell us who you would have punished, yet
it may be plainly inferred from them. And they more
clearly point out whom you aim at than all the fore-
going places, where you seem to (and should) describe
them. For they are such as between whom and the
magistrate there is a controversy; that is, in short, who
differ from the magistrate in religion. And now indeed
you have given us a note by which these you wrould have
punished may be made known. We have, with much
ado, found out at last whom it is we may presume you
would have punished. Which in other cases is usually
not very difficult ; because there the faults to be mended
easily design the persons to be corrected. But yours is
a new method, and unlike all that ever went before it.

In the next place; let us see for what you would have
them punished. You tell us, and it will easily be granted
you, that not to examine and weigh impartially, and
without prejudice or passion, all which, for shortness'
sake, we will express by this one word consider, the
religion one embraces or refuses, is a fault very common,
and very prejudicial to true religion, and the salvation
of men's souls. But penalties and punishments are very
necessary, say you, to remedy this evil.

Let us see now how you apply this remedy. There-
fore, say you, let all dissenters be punished. Why?
Have no dissenters considered of religion ? Or have all

94* A Second Letter concerning Toleration.

conformists considered ? That you yourself will not say.
Your project, therefore, is just as reasonable, as if a
lethargy growing epidemical in England, you should
propose to have a law made to blister and scarify and
shave the heads of all who wear gowns : though it be
certain that neither all who wear gowns are lethargic,
nor all who are lethargic wear gowns :

Dii te Damasippe deaeque

Verum ob consilium donent tonsore.

For there could not be certainly a more learned advice,
than that one man should be pulled by the ears, because
another is asleep. This, when you have considered of
it again, for I find, according to your principle, all men
have now and then need to be jogged, you will, I guess,
be convinced is not, like a fair physician, to apply a
remedy to a disease ; but, like an enraged enemy, to
vent one's spleen upon a party. Common sense, as
well as common justice, requires, that the remedies of
laws and penalties should be directed against the evil
that is to be removed, wherever it be found. And if
the punishment you think so necessary be, as you pre-
tend, to cure the mischief you complain of, you must
let it pursue and fall on the guilty, and those only, in
what company soever they are ; and not, as you here
propose, and is the highest injustice, punish the in-
nocent considering dissenter with the guilty; and, on
the other side, let the inconsiderate guilty conformist
escape with the innocent. For one may rationally
presume that the national church has some, nay more
in proportion, of those who little consider or concern
themselves about religion, than any congregation of
dissenters. For conscience, or the care of their souls,
being once laid aside, interest of course leads men into
that society where the protection and countenance of
the government, and hopes of preferment, bid fairest to
their remaining desires. So that if careless, negligent,
inconsiderate men in matters of religion, who without

being forced would not consider, are to be roused into
;i care of their souls, ami a search alter truth, by pu-
nishments, the national religion, in all countries, will

A Second Letter concerning Toleration. 95

©

certainly have a right to the greatest share of those
punishments ; at least, not to be wholly exempt from
them.

This is that which the author of the letter, as I re-
member, complains of; and that justly, viz. " That
the pretended care of men's souls always expresses
itself, in those who would have force any way made
use of to that end, in very unequal methods; some
persons being to be treated with severity, whilst others
guilty of the same faults are not to be so much as
touched.'' Though you are got pretty well out of the
deep mud, and renounce punishments directly for reli-
gion, yet you stick still in this part of the mire, whilst
you would have dissenters punished to make them
consider, but would not have any thing done to con-
formists, though ever so negligent in this point of con-
sidering. The author's letter pleased me, because it is
equal to all mankind, is direct, and will, I think, hold
everywhere; which I take to be a good mark of truth.
For I shall always suspect that neither to comport with
the truth of religion nor the design of the Gospel, which
is suited to only some one country, or party. What is
true and good in England, will be true and good at
Rome too, in China, or Geneva. But whether your
great and only method for the propagating of truth, by
bringing the inconsiderate by punishments to consider,
would, according to your way of applying your punish-
ments only to dissenters from the national religion, be
of use in those countries, or any where but where you
suppose the magistrate to be in the right, judge you.
Pray, sir, consider a little, whether prejudice has not
some share in your way of arguing. For this is your
position : " Men are generally negligent in examining S
the grounds of their religion." This I grant. But
could there be a more wild and incoherent consequence
drawn from it, than this : " therefore dissenters must
be punished?"

But that being laid aside, let us now see to what end
they must be punished. Sometimes it is, " To bring
them to consider those reasons and arguments which
are proper and sufficient to convince them." Of what?

96 A Second Letter concerning Toleration,

That it is not easy to set Grantham steeple upon Paul's
church ? Whatever it be you would have them con-
vinced of, you are not willing to tell us. And so it
may be any thing. Sometimes it is, " To incline
them to lend an ear to those who tell them they have
mistaken their way, and offer to show them the right:"
which is, to lend an ear to all who differ from them in
religion, as well crafty seducers, as others. Whether
this be for the procuring the salvation of their souls,
the end for which you say this force is to be used,
judge you. But this I am sure ; whoever will lend an
ear to all who will tell them they are out of the way,
will not have much time for any other business.

Sometimes it is, " To recover men to so much so-
briety and reflection, as seriously to put the question
to themselves, whether it be really worth their while
to undergo such inconveniencies, for adhering to a
religion which, for any thing they know, may be false;
or for rejecting another (if that be the case) which,
for aught they know, may be true, till they have
brought it to the bar of reason, and given it a fair
trial there." Which, in short, amounts to thus much,
viz. "to make them examine whether their religion be
true, and so worth the holding, under those penalties
that are annexed to it." Dissenters are indebted to
you for your great care of their souls. But what, I
beseech you, shall become of those of the national
church, every where, which make far the greater part
of mankind, who have no such punishments to make
them consider ; who have not this only remedy pro-
vided for them, but are left in that deplorable condition
you mention, " of being suffered quietly, and without
molestation, to take no care at all of their souls, or in
doing of it to follow their own prejudices, humours,
or some crafty seducers?" Need not those of the na-
tional church, as well as others, "bring their religion
to the bar of reason, and gave it a lair trial there?"
And if they need to do so, as they must, if all national
religions cannot be supposed true; they will always
need that which, you say, is the only means to make
them do so. So that if you are sine, as yon tell ns,

. / Second Letter concerning Toleration. 97

a

that there is need of your method ; I am sure there is
as much need of it in national churches as any other.
And so, for aught I can see, you must either punish
them, or let others alone ; unless you think it reason-
able that the far greater part of mankind should con-
stantly be without that sovereign and only remedy,
which they stand in need of equally with other people.

Sometimes the end for which men must be punished
is, " to dispose them to submit to instruction, and to
c;ive a fair hearing to the reasons offered for the en-
lightening their minds, and discovering the truth to
them." If their own words may be taken for it,
there are as few dissenters as conformists, in any coun-
try, who will not profess they have done, and do this.
And if their own words may not be taken, who, I pray,
must be judge ? You and your magistrates ? If so, then
it is plain you punish them, not to dispose them to sub-
mit to instruction, but to your instruction ; not to dispose
them to give a fair hearing to reasons offered for the
enlightening their minds, but to give an obedient hear-
ing to your reasons. If you mean this ; it had been
fairer and shorter to have spoken out plainly, than thus
in fair words, of indefinite signification, to say that
which amounts to nothing. lor what sense is it, to
punish a man " to dispose him to submit to instruction,
and give a fair hearing to reasons offered for enlight-
ening his mind, and discovering truth to him," who
goes two or three times a week several miles on purpose
to do it, and that with the hazard of his liberty or
purse? unless you mean your instructions, your rea-
sons, your truth : which brings us but back to what
you have disclaimed, plain persecution for differing in
religion.

Sometimes this is to be done, " to prevail with men to
weigh matters of religion carefully and impartially."
Discountenance and punishment put into one scale,
with impunity and hopes of preferment put into the
other, is as sure a way to make a man weigh impartially,
as it would be for a prince to bribe and threaten a judge
to make him judge uprightly.

VOL. VI. H

98 A Second Letter concerning Toleration,

Sometimes it is, " To make men bethink themselves,
and put it out of the power of any foolish humour, or
unreasonable prejudice, to alienate them from truth and
their own happiness." Add but this, to put it out
of the power of any humour or prejudice of their own,
or other men's ; and I grant the end is good, if you can
find the means to procure it. But why it should not
be put out of the power of other men's humour or pre-
judice, as well as their own, wants, and will always want,
a reason to prove. Would it not, I beseech you, to an
indifferent bystander, appear humour, or prejudice, or
something as bad, to see men, who profess a religion
revealed from heaven, and which they own contains all
in it necessary to salvation, exclude men from their
communion, and persecute them with the penalties of
the civil law, for not joining in the use of ceremonies
which are nowhere to be found in that revealed religion?
Would it not appear humour, or prejudice, or some such
thing, to a sober impartial heathen, to see Christians
exclude and persecute one of the same faith, for things
which they themselves confess to be indifferent, and
not worth the contending for? " Prejudice, humour,
passion, lusts, impressions of education, reverence and
admiration of persons, worldly respects, love of their
own choice, and the like," to which you justly impute
many men's taking up, and persisting in their religion,
are indeed good words ; and so, on the other side, are
these following ; u truth, the right way, enlightening
reason, sound judgment ;" but they signify nothing at
all to your purpose, till you can evidently and unques-
tionably show the world that the latter, viz. " truth and
the right way,*' &c. are always, and in all countries, to
be found only in the national church ; and the former,
viz. " passion and prejudice," &c. only amongst the
dissenters. But to go on :

Sometimes it is, u to bring men to take such care ;i
they ought of their salvation." What care is such as
men ought to take, whilst they are out of your church,
will be hard for you to tell me. But JOU endeavour to
explain yourself in the following words: "that they

A Secojul Letter concerning Toleration, 9fj

may not blindly leave it to the choice neither of any
other person, nor yet of their own lusts and passions, to
prescribe to them what faith or what worship they shall
embrace." You do well to make use of punishment to
shut passion out of the choice : because you know fear of
suffering is no passion. But let that pass. You would
have men punished, " to bring them to take such care of
their salvation, that they may not blindly leave it to the
choice of any other person to prescribe to them." Are
you sincere ? Are you in earnest ? Tell me then truly :
did the magistrate or national church, any where, or
yours in particular, ever punish any man, to bring him
to have this care, wdiich, you say, he ought to take of his
salvation ? Did you ever punish any man, that he might
not blindly leave it to the choice of his parish-priest, or
bishop, or the convocation, what faith or worship he
should embrace ? It will be suspected care of a party, or
any thing else rather than care of the salvation of men's
souls ; if, having found out so useful, so necessary a re-
medy, the only method there is room left for, you will
apply it but partially, and make trial of it only on those
whom you have truly least kindness for. This will,
unavoidably, give one reason to imagine, you do not
think so well of your remedy as you pretend, who are so
sparing of it to your friends ; but are very free of it to
strangers, who in other things are used very much like
enemies. — But your remedy is like the helleboraster,
that grew in the woman's garden for the cure of worms
in her neighbour's children : for truly it wrought too
roughly to give it to any of her own. Methinks your
charity, in your present persecution, is much what as
prudent, as justifiable, as that good woman's. I hope
I have done you no injury, that I here suppose you of
the church of England. If I have, I beg your pardon. —
It is no offence of malice, I assure you : for I suppose no
worse of you than I confess of myself.

Sometimes this punishment that you contend for, is
" to brine; men to act according to reason and sound
judgment."

" Tcrtius c ccelo cecidit Cato.';

H 2

100 A Second Letter concerning Toleration.

b

This is reformation indeed. If you can help us to
it, you will deserve statues to be erected to you, as to
the restorer of decayed religion. But if all men have
not reason and sound judgment, will punishment put it
into them ? Besides, concerning this matter, mankind
is so divided, that he acts according to reason and sound
judgment at Augsburg, who would be judged to do the
quite contrary at Edinburgh. Will punishment make
men know what is reason and sound judgment? If it
will not, it is impossible it should make them act ac-
cording to it. Reason and sound judgment are the
elixir itself, the universal remedy : and you may as
reasonably punish men to bring them to have the phi-
losopher's stone, as to bring them to act according to
reason and sound judgment.

Sometimes it is, " To put men upon a serious and
impartial examination of the controversy between the
magistrate and them, which is the wTay for them to come
to the knowledge of the truth." But what if the truth
be on neither side, as I am apt to imagine you will think
it is not, where neither the magistrate nor the dissenter
is either of them of your church ; how will the " exa-
mining the controversy between the magistrate and
him be the way to come to the knowledge of the
truth ?" Suppose the controversy between a Lutheran
and a papist; or, if you please, between a presbyterian
magistrate and a quaker subject. — -Will the examining
the controversy between the magistrate and the dissent-
ing subject, in this case, bring him to the knowledge of
the truth? If you say yes, then you grant one of these
to have the truth on his side; for the examining the
controversy between a presbyterian and a quaker,
leaves the controversy either of them has with the
church of England, or any other church, untouched.
And so one, at least, of those being already come to the
knowledge of the truth, ought not to be put under your
discipline of punishment, which is only to bring him to
the truth. If you say no, and that the examining the
controversy between the magistrate and the dissenter,
in this case, will not bring him to the knowledge of the

A Second Letter concerning Toleration. 101

B

truth ; you confess your rule to be false, and your me-
thod to no purpose.

To conclude, your system is, in short, this : You
would have all men, laying aside prejudice, humour,
passion, &c. examine the grounds of their religion, and
search for the truth. This, I confess, is heartily to be
wished. The means that you propose to make men
do this, is that dissenters should be punished to make
them do so. It is as if you had said, Men generally
are guilty of a fault ; therefore let one sect, who
have the ill luck to be of an opinion different from
the magistrate, be punished. This at first sight shocks
any who has the least spark of sense, reason, or justice.
But having spoken of this already, and concluding that
upon second thoughts you yourself will be ashamed
of it, let us consider it put so as to be consistent with
common sense, and with all the advantage it can bear ;
and then let us see what you can make of it : " Men
are negligent in examining the religions they embrace,
refuse, or persist in ; therefore it is fit they should be
punished to make them do it." This is a consequence,
indeed, which may, without defiance to common sense,
be drawn from it. This is the use, the only use, which
you think punishment can indirectly, and at a distance,
have, in matters of religion. You would have men by
punishments driven to examine. What? Religion.
To what end? To bring them to the knowledge of the
truth. But I answer,

1. Every one has not the ability to do this.

2. Every one has not the opportunity to do it.
Would you have every poor protestant, for example,

in the Palatinate, examine thoroughly whether the pope
be infallible, or head of the church ; whether there be
a purgatory ; whether saints are to be prayed to, or the
dead prayed for ; whether the Scripture be the only rule
of faith ; whether there be no salvation out of the
church ; and whether there be no church without bi-
shops ; and an hundred other questions in controversy
between the papists and those protestants ; and when he
had mastered these, go on to fortify himself against the

102 A Second Letter concerning Toleration.

o

opinions and objections of other churches lie differs
from ? This, which is no small task, must be done, be-
fore a man can have brought his religion to the bar of
reason, and given it a fair trial there. And if you will
punish men till this be done, the countryman must leave
off ploughing and sowing, and betake himself to the study
of Greek and Latin ; and the artisan must sell his tools,
to buy fathers and schoolmen, and leave his family to
starve. If something less than this will satisfy you, pray
tell me what is enough. Have they considered and exa-
mined enough, if they are satisfied themselves where the
truth lies ? If this be the limits of their examination, you
will find few to punish ; unless you will punish them to
make them do what they have done already : for, how-
ever he came by his religion, there is scarce any one to
be found who does not own himself satisfied that he is
in the right. Or else, must they be punished to make
them consider and examine till thev embrace that which
you choose for truth ? If this be so, what do you but in
effect choose for them, when yet you would have men
punished, " to bring them to such a care of their souls,
that no other person might choose for them ?" If it be
truth in general, you would have them by punishments
driven to seek ; that is to offer matter of dispute, and
not a rule of discipline ; for to punish any one to make
him seek till he find truth, without a judge of truth, is
to punish for you know not what ; and is all one as if you
should wThip a scholar to make him find out the square
root of a number you do not know. I wonder not
therefore that you could not resolve with yourself what
degree of severity you would have used, nor how long
continued ; when you dare not speak out directly whom
you would have punished, and are far from being clear
to what end they should be under penalties.

Consonant to this uncertainty, of whom, or what to
be punished, you tell us, " that there is no question of
the success of this method. Force will certainly do,
if duly proportioned to the design of it."

What, I pray, is the design of it ? I challenge you,
or any man living, out of what you have said in your

A Second Letter concerning Toleration. 103

c^

book, to tell me directly what it is. In all other pu-
nishments that ever I heard of yet, till now that you
have taught the world a new method, the design of
them has been to cure the crime they are denounced
against, and so I think it ought to be here. What I
beseech you is the crime here? Dissenting? That
you say not any where is a fault. Besides you tell us,
" that the magistrate hath not authority to compel any
one to his religion :" and that you do t( not require
that men should have no rule but the religion of the
country." And the power you ascribe to the ma-
gistrate is given him to bring men, " not to his own,
but to the true religion." If dissenting be not the fault,
is it that a man does not examine his own religion, and
the grounds of it? Is that the crime your punishments
are designed to cure ? Neither that dare you say ; lest
you displease more than you satisfy with your new
discipline. And then again, as I said before, you must
tell us how far you would have them examine, before
you punish them for not doing it. And I imagine, if
that were all we required of you, it would be long
enough before you would trouble us with a law that
should prescribe to every one how far he was to exa-
mine matters of religion ; wherein if he failed and came
short, he was to be punished ; if he performed, and
went in his examination to the bounds set by the law,
he was acquitted and free. Sir, when you consider it
again, you will perhaps think this a case reserved to the
great day, when the secrets of all hearts shall be laid
open ; for I imagine it is beyond the power or judg-
ment of man, in that variety of circumstances, in re-
spect of parts, tempers, opportunities, helps, &c. men
are in, in this world, to determine what is every one's
duty in this great business of search, inquiry, examina-
tion ; or to know when any one has done it. That which
makes me believe you will be of this mind is, that
where you undertake for the success of this method, if
rightly used, it is with a limitation, upon such as are
not altogether incurable. So that when your remedy is
prepared, according to art, which art is yet unknown j

104 A Second Letter concerning Toleration.

o

and rightly applied, and given in a due dose, all which
are secrets ; it will then infallibly cure. Whom? All
that are not incurable by it. And so will a pippin posset,
eating fish in Lent, or a presbyterian lecture, certainly
cure all that arc not incurable by them ; for I am sure
you do not mean it will cure all, but those who are
absolutely incurable ; because your yourself allow one
means left of cure, when yours will not do, viz. the
grace of God. Your words are, "what means is there
left (except the grace of God) to reduce them, but lay
thorns a=id briars in their way." And here also, in the
place we were considering, you tell us, " the incurable
are to be left to God." Whereby, if you mean they are
to be left to those means he has ordained for men's
conversion and salvation, yours must never be made
use of: for he indeed has prescribed preaching and
hearing of his word ; but as for those who will not hear,
I do not find any where that he has commanded they
should be compelled or beaten to it.

There is a third thine* that you are as tender and
reserved in, as either naming the criminals to be pu-
nished, or positively telling us the end for which they
should be punished : and that is with what sort of penal-
ties, what degree of punishment, they shoukVbe forced.
You are indeed so gracious to them, that you renounce
the severities and penalties hitherto made use of. You
tell us, they should be but moderate penalties. But if
we ask you what are moderate penalties, you confess
you cannot tell us. So that by moderate here you yet
mean nothing. You tell us, " the outward force to be
applied should be duly tempered." But what that due
temper is, you do not or cannot say ; and so in effect
it signifies just nothing. Yet if in this you are not
plain and direct, all the rest of your design will signify
nothing; for it being to have some men, and to some
end, punished; yet if it cannot be found what punish-
ment is to be used, it is, notwithstanding all you have
said, utterly useless. You tell us modestly, that " to de-
termine precisely the just measure of the- punishment
wilt require some consideration." 1ft he faults werepre-

A Second Letter concerning Toleration. 105

cisely determined, and could be proved, it would re-
quire no more consideration to determine the measure
of the punishment, in this, than it would in any other
case, where those were known. But where the fault
is undefined, and the guilt not to be proved, as I sup-
pose it will be found in this present business of exa-
mining ; it will without doubt require consideration to
proportion the force to the design. Just so much con-
sideration as it will require to fit a coat to the moon,
or proportion a shoe to the feet of those who inhabit
her ; for to proportion a punishment to a fault that you
do not name, and so we in charity ought to think you
do not yet know ; and a fault that when you have named
it, will be impossible to be proved who are or are not
guilty of it ; will I suppose require as much considera-
tion, as to fit a shoe to feet whose size and shape are not
known.

However, you offer some measures whereby to regu-
late your punishments ; which, when they are looked
into, will be found to be just as good as none ; they
being impossible to be any rule in the case. The first
is " so much force, or such penalties as are ordinarily
sufficient to prevail with men of common discretion,
and not desperately perverse and obstinate, to weigh
matters of religion carefully and impartially, and with-
out which ordinarily they will not do this/' Where it
is to be observed :

1. That who are these men of common discretion is
as hard to know, as to know what is a fit degree of pu-
nishment in the case ; and so you do but regulate one
uncertainty by another. Some men will be apt to
think, that he who will not weigh matters of religion,
which are of infinite concernment to him, without pu-
nishment, cannot in reason be thought a man of com-
mon discretion. Many women, of common discretion
enough to manage the ordinary affairs of their families,
are not able to read a page in an ordinary author, or
to understand and give an account what it means,
when read to them. Many men, of common discretion
in their callings, are not able to judge when an argu-
ment is conclusive or no ; much less to trace it through

1 06 A Second Letter concerning Toleration.

a long train of consequences. What penalties shall be
sufficient to prevail with such, who upon examination,
I fear, will not be found to make the least part of man-
kind, to examine and weigh matters of religion care-
fully and impartially ? The law allows all to have
common discretion, for whom it has not provided guar-
dians or bedlam ; so that, in effect, your men of com-
mon discretion are all men, not judged ideots or mad-
men : and penalties sufficient to prevail with all men
of common discretion, are penalties sufficient to prevail
with all men, but ideots and madmen. Which what a
measure it is to regulate penalties by, let all men of
common discretion judge.

2. You may be pleased to consider, that all men of
the same degree of discretion are not apt to be moved
by the same degree of penalties. Some are of a more
yielding, some of a more stiff temper ; and what is suf-
ficient to prevail on one, is not half enough to move
the other ; though both men of common discretion :
so that common discretion will be here of no use to de-
termine the measure of punishment : especially when
in the same clause you except men desperately perverse
and obstinate, who are as hard to be known, as what
you seek, viz. the just proportions of punishments ne-
cessary to prevail with men to consider, examine, and
weigh matters of religion ; wherein, if a man tells you
he has considered, he has weighed, he has examined,
and so goes on in his former course ; it is impossible for
you ever to know whether he has done his duty, or
whether he be desperately perverse and obstinate ; so
that this exception signifies just nothing.

There are many things, in your use of force and pe-
nalties, different from any I ever met with elsewhere. —
One of them, this clause of yours concerning the mea-
sure of punishments, now under consideration, offers
me: wherein you proportion your punishments only to
the yielding and corrigible, not to the perverse and ob-
stinate ; contrary to the common discretion which has
hitherto made laws in other eases, which levels the pu-
nishments against refractor) offenders, and never spares
them because they are obstinate. This, however, I will

A Second Letter concerning Toleration, 107

not blame, as an oversight in you. Your new method,
which aims at such impracticable and inconsistent things
as laws cannot bear, nor penalties be useful to, forced
you to it. The uselessness, absurdity, and unreason-
ableness of great seventies, you had acknowledged in
the foregoing paragraphs. Dissenters you would have
brought to consider by moderate penalties. They lie
under them ; but whether they have considered or no,
(for that you cannot tell) they still continue dissenters.
What is to be done now ? Why, the incurable are to be
left to God, as you tell us, p. 12. Your punishments
were not meant to prevail on the desperately perverse
and obstinate, as you tell us here; and so whatever be the
success, your punishments are however justified.

You have given us in another place something like
another boundary to your moderate penalties : but when
examined, it proves just like the rest, trifling only, in
good words, so put together as to have no direct mean-
ing ; an art very much in use amongst some sort of
learned men. The words are these : " such penalties
as may not tempt persons who have any concern for
their eternal salvation, (and those who have none
ought not to be considered) to renounce a religion
which they believe to be true, or profess one which
they do not believe to be so." If by any concern, you
mean a true concern for their eternal salvation, by
this rule you may make your punishments as great as
you please ; and all the severities you have disclaimed
may be brought in play again : for none of those will
be able to make a man, " who is truly concerned for
his eternal salvation, renounce a religion he believes
to be true, or profess one he does not believe to be
so." If by those who have any concern, you mean
such who have some faint wishes for happiness here-
after, and would be glad to have things go well with
them in the other world, but will venture nothing in
this world for it ; these the moderatest punishments you
can imagine will make change their religion. If by
any concern, you mean whatever may be between these
two; the degrees are so infinite, that to proportion

10S A Second Letter concerning Toleration,

o

your punishments by that, is to have no measure of
them at all.

One thing I cannot but take notice of in this pass-
age, before I leave it : and that is, that you say here,
" those who have no concern for their salvation, de-
serve not to be considered." In other parts of your
letter, you pretend to have compassion on the careless,
and provide remedies for them : but here, of a sudden,
your charity fails you ; and you give them up to eter-
nal perdition, without the least regard, the least pity,
and say they deserve not to be considered. Our Sa-
viour's rule was, " the sick and not the whole need a phy-
sician." Your rule here is, those that are careless, are
not to be considered, but are to be left to themselves.
This wTould seem strange, if one did not observe what
drew you to it. You perceived that if the magistrate
was to use no punishments but such as would make no-
body change their religion, he was to use none at all :
for the careless would be brought to the national church,
with any slight punishments ; and when they are once
there, you are, it seems, satisfied, and look no farther
after them. So that by your own measures, " if the
careless, and those who have no concern for their eter-
nal salvation," are to be regarded and taken care of;
if the salvation of their souls is to be promoted, there
is to be no punishment used at all ; and therefore you
leave them out, as not to be considered.

There remains yet one thing to be inquired into, con-
cerning the measure of the punishments, and that is the
length of their duration. Moderate punishments that
are continued, that men find no end of, know no way
out of, sit heavy, and become immoderately uneasy.
Dissenters you would have punished, to make them
consider. Your penalties have had the effect on them
you intended; they have made them consider; and
they have done their utmost, in considering. What now
must, be done with them? They must be punished on ;
for they- are still dissenters. II it. were just, if you had
reason at first topunish adissenter, to make him consider,
when you did not know but thai he had considered al-

A Second Letter cancer rung Toleration. 10{)

ready; it is as just, and you have as much reason to
punish him on, even when he has performed what your
punishments were designed for, when lie has considered,
but yet remains a dissenter. For I may justly suppose,
and you must grant, that a man may remain a dissenter,
after all the consideration your moderate penalties can
bring him to ; when we sec greater punishments, even
those severities you disown, as too great, are not
able to make men consider so far as to be convinced,
and brought over to the national church.

If your punishments may not be inflicted on men,
to make them consider, who have or may have consi-
dered already, for aught you know ; then dissenters are
never to be once punished, no more than any other
sort of men. If dissenters are to be punished, to make
them consider, whether they have considered or no ;
then their punishments, though they do consider, must
never cease, as long as they are dissenters ; which whe-
ther it be to punish them only to bring them to consi-
der, let all men judge. This I am sure ; punishments,
in your method, must either never begin upon dissent-
ers, or never cease. And so, pretend moderation as
you please, the punishments which your method re-
quires must be either very immoderate, or none at all.

And now, you having yielded to our author, and that
upon very good reasons which you yourself urge, and
which I shall set down in your own words, " that to
prosecute men with fire and sword, or to deprive them
of their estates, to maim them with corporal punish-
ments, to starve and torture them in noisome prisons,
and in the end even to take away their lives, to make
them Christians, is but an ill way of expressing men's
desire of the salvation of those whom they treat in this
manner. And that it will be very difficult to persuade
men of sense, that he who with dry eyes and satisfac-
tion of mind can deliver his brother to the executioner,
to be burnt alive, does sincerely and heartily concern
himself to save that brother from the flames of hell in
the world to come. And that these methods are so
very improper, in respect to the design of them, that
they usually produce the quite contrary effect. For

110 A Second Letter concerning Toleration,

whereas all the use which force can have for the ad-
vancing true religion, and the salvation of souls, is (as
has already been showed) by disposing men to submit
to instruction, and to give a fair hearing to the reasons
which are offered, for the enlightening their minds,
and discovering the truth to them ; these cruelties
have the misfortune to be commonly looked upon as
so just a prejudice against any religion that uses them,
as makes it needless to look any farther into it ; and to
tempt men to reject it, as both false and detestable,
without ever vouchsafing to consider the rational
grounds and motives of it. This effect they seldom
fail to work upon the sufferers of them ; and as to the
spectators, if they be not beforehand well instructed
in those grounds and motives, they will be much tempted
likewise, not only to entertain the same opinion of such
a religion, but withal to judge much more favourably
of that of the sufferers ;, who, they will be apt to think,
would not expose themselves to such extremities, which
they might avoid by compliance, if they were not tho-
roughly satisfied of the justice of their cause." And
upon these reasons you conclude, " that these severities
are utterly unapt and improper for the bringing men
to embrace that truth which must save them." Again,

vou having acknowledged, that the authority of the

- • • 1 • ii-

magistrate is not an authority to compel any one to Ins

religion." And again, " that the rigour of laws and
force of penalties are not capable to convince and change
men's minds." And yet farther, " that you do not re-
quire that men should have no rule but the religion of
the court ; or that they should be put under a necessity
to quit the light of their own reason, and oppose the
dictates of their own consciences, and blindly resign
up themselves to the will of their governors 5 but that
the power you ascribe to the magistrate, is given him
to bring men not to his own, but to the true religion."
i,w you having, 1 ranted this, whereby you di-

rectly condemn and abolish all laws that have been
made here, or any where else, thai ever I heard of, to
Compel nun to conformity; 1 think the author, and

who soever els< an most lor liberty of conscien<

A Second Letter concerning Toleration. Ill

might be content with the toleration you allow, by con-
demning the laws about religion, now in force ; and
are testified, until you had made your new method con-
sistent and practicable, by telling the world plainly and
directly,

1. Who are to be punished.

2. For what.

3. With what punishments.

4. How long.

5. What advantage to true religion it would be, if
magistrates every where did so punish.

6. And lastly, whence the magistrate had commis-
sion to do so.

When you have done this plainly and intelligibly,
without keeping in the uncertainty of general expres-
sions, and without supposing all along your church in
the right, and your religion the true ; which can no
more be allowed to you in this case, whatever your
church or religion be, than it can be to a papist or a
Lutheran, a presbyterian or anana baptist ; nay, no more
to you, than it can be allowed to a Jew or a Mahometan ;
when, I say, you have, by settling these points, framed
the parts of your new engine, set it together, and showed
that it will work, without doing more harm than good
in the world ; I think then men may be content to sub-
mit to it. But imagining; this, and an engine to show
the perpetual motion, will be found out together, I
think toleration in a very good state, notwithstanding
your answer ; wherein you have said so much for it,
and for aught I see nothing against it ; unless an im-
practicable chimera be, in your opinion, something
mightily to be apprehended.

We have now seen and examined the main of your
treatise ; and therefore I think I might here end, with-
out going any farther. But, that you may not think
yourself, or any of your arguments neglected, I will go
over the remainder, and give you my thoughts on every
thing I shall meet with in it, that seems to need any
answer. In one place you argue against the author
thus : " if then the author's fourth proposition, " as you

llc2 A Second Letter concerning Toleration.

call it, viz. That force is of no use for promoting true
religion and the salvation of souls, " be not true (as
perhaps by this time it appears it is not) then the last
proposition, which is built upon it, must fall with it:"
which last proposition is this, viz. " that nobody can
have any right to use any outward force or compulsion
to bring men to the true religion, and so to salvation. "
If this proposition were built, as you allege, upon that
which you call his fourth, then indeed if the fourth fell,
this built upon it would fall with it. But that not
being the author's proposition, as I have showed, nor this
built wholly on it, but on other reasons, as I have already
proved, and any one may see in several parts of his
letter, particularly p. 50, 51, what you allege falls of
itself.

The business of the next paragraph is to prove, That
if " force be useful, then somebody must certainly have
a right to use it." The first argument you go about
to prove it by is this, " That usefulness is as good an
argument to prove there is somewhere a right to use it,
as uselessness is to prove nobody has such a right."
If you consider the things of whose usefulness or use-
lessness we are speaking, you will perhaps be of another
mind. It is punishment, or force used in punishin
Now all punishment is some evil, some inconvenience,
some suffering ; by taking away or abridging some good
thing, which he who is punished has otherwise a right
to. Now to justify the bringing any such evil upon any
man, two things are requisite. First, That he who does
it has commission and power so to do. Secondly, That it
be directly useful for the procuring some greater good.
Whatever punishment one man uses to another, with-
out these two conditions, whatever he may pretend,
proves an injury and injustice, and so of right ought to
nave been let alone. And therefore, though usefuhu
which is one of the conditions that makes punishments
just, when ii is away, may hinder punishments from
being lawful in any body's hands j yet usefulness, when
present, being but one of those conditions, cannot gii
the other, which is a commission to punish; without

A Second Letter concerning Toleration. 1 1 3

which also punishment is unlawful. From whence it
follows, That though useless punishment be unlawful
from any hand, yet useful punishment from every hand
is not lawful. A man may have the stone, and it may
be useful, more than indirectly, and at a distance use-
ful, to him to be cut ; but yet this usefulness will not
justify the most skilful surgeon in the world, by force
to make him endure the pain and hazard of cutting ;
because he has no commission, no right, without the
patient's own consent, to do so. Nor is it a good argu-
ment, cutting will be useful to him, therefore there is
a right somewhere to cut him, whether he will or no.
Much less will there be an argument for any right, if
there be only a possibility that it may prove useful
indirectly and by accident.

Your other argument is this : If force or punishment
be of necessary use, " then it must be acknowledged,
that there is a right somewhere to use it ; unless we
will say (what without impiety cannot be said) that
the wise and benign Disposer and Governor of all things
has not furnished mankind with competent means for
the promoting his own honour in the world, and the
good of souls." If your way of arguing be true, it
is demonstration, that force is not of necessary use.
For I argue thus, in your form : We must acknowledge
force not to be of necessary use ; " unless we will say
(what without impiety cannot be said) that the wise
Disposer and Governor of all things did not, for above
three hundred years after Christ, furnish his church
with competent means for promoting his own honour
in the world, and the good of souls." It is for you
to consider whether these arguments be conclusive or
no. This I am sure, the one is as conclusive as the
other. But if your supposed usefulness places a right
somewhere to use it, pray tell me in whose hands it
places it in Turkey, Persia, or China, or any country
where Christians of different churches live under a
heathen or Mahometan sovereign ? And if you cannot
tell me in whose hands it places it there, as I believe you
will find it pretty hard to do ; there are then, it seems,
some places where, upon your supposition of the neces-

VOL. VI. i

114 A Second Letter concerning Toleration.

B

sary usefulness of force, u the wise and benign Governor
and Disposer of all things has not furnished men with
competent means for promoting his own honour and
the good of souls ;" unless you will grant, that the
" wise and benign Disposer and Governor of all things
hath, for the promoting of his honour and the good
of souls, placed a power in Mahometan or heathen
princes to punish Christians, to bring them to consider
reasons and arguments proper to convince them."
But this is the advantage of so fine an invention, as
that of force doing some service indirectly and at a di-
stance ; which usefulness, if we may believe you, places
a right in Mahometan or pagan princes' hands, to use
force upon Christians ; for fear lest mankind in those
countries should be unfurnished with means for the pro-
moting God's honour and the good of souls. For thus
you argue : " if there be so great use of force, then
there is a right somewhere to use it. And if there be
such a right somewhere, where should it be but in the
civil sovereign ?" Who can deny now, but that you
have taken care, great care, for the promoting of truth
and the Christian religion ? But yet it is as hard for me,
I confess, and I believe for others, to conceive how you
should think to do any service to truth and the Christian
religion, by putting a right into Mahometans' or hea-
thens' hands to punish Christians ; as it was for you to
conceive how the author should think " to do any
service to the truth, and the Christian religion," by
exempting the professors of it from punishment every
where, since there are more pagan, Mahometan, and
erroneous princes in the world, than orthodox; truth,
and the Christian religion, taking the world as we rind
it, is sure to be more punished and suppressed, than
error and falsehood.

The author having endeavoured to show that no-
body at all, of any rank or condition, had a power to
punish, torment, or use any man ill, for matters of re-
ligion ; you tell us " you do not. yet understand, why
clergymen are not as capable of such power as other
men." I do not remember 1 hat the author any where, by
excepting ecclesiastics more than others, gave you any

A Second Letter concerning Toleration. 115

occasion to show your concern in this point. Had he
foreseen that this would have touched you so nearly,
and that you set your heart so much upon the clergy's
power of punishing ; it is like he would have told you,
he thought ecclesiastics as capable of it as any men 5
and that if forwardness and diligence in the exercise of
such power may recommend any to it, clergymen in
the opinion of the world stand fairest for it. However,
you do well to put in your claim for them, though the
author excludes them no more than their neighbours.
Nay, they must be allowed the pretence of the fairest
title. For I never read of any severities that were to
bring men to Christ, but those of the law of Moses ;
which is therefore called a pedagogue, (Gal. iii. 24.)
And the next verse tells us, that " after that faith is
come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." But yet
if we are still to be driven to Christ by a rod, I shall not
envy them the pleasure of wielding it : only I desire
them, when they have got the scourge into their hands,
to remember our Saviour, and follow his example, who
never used it but once ; and that they would, like him,
employ it only to drive vile and scandalous traffickers
for the things of this world out of their church, rather
than to drive whoever they can into it. Whether the
latter be not a proper method to make their church
what our Saviour there pronounced of the temple, they
who use it were best look. For, in matters of religion,
none are so easy to be driven as those who have nothing
of religion at all ; and next to them, the vicious, the
ignorant, the worldling, and the hypocrite ; who care
for no more of religion but the name, nor no more of
any church but its prosperity and power ; and who, not
unlike those described by our Saviour, (Luke xx. 47)
for a show come to, or cry up the prayers of the church,
" that they may devour widows, and other helpless
people's houses." I say not this of the serious professors
of any church, who are in earnest in matters of re-
ligion. Such I value, who conscientiously, and out of a
sincere persuasion, embrace any religion, though differ-
ent from mine, and in a way I think mistaken. But
nobody can have reason to think otherwise than what

1 2

116 A Second Letter concerning Toleration.

I have said, of those who are wrought upon to be of
any church by secular hopes and fears. Those truly
place trade above all other considerations, and mer-
chandize with religion itself, who regulate their choice
by worldly profit and loss.

You endeavour to prove, against the author, that
civil society is not instituted only for civil ends, i. e.
the procuring, preserving, and advancing men's civil
interests : your words are : " I must say that our
author does but beg the question, when he affirms that
the commonwealth is constituted only for the procuring,
preserving, and advancing of the civil interests of
the members of it. That commonwealths are insti-
tuted for these ends, no man will deny. But if there
be any other ends besides these, attainable by the
civil society and government, there is no reason to
affirm, that these are the only ends for which they
are designed. Doubtless commonwealths are insti-
tuted for the attaining of all the benefits which poli-
tical government can yield. And therefore, if the
spiritual and eternal interests of men may any way
be procured or advanced by political government,
the procuring and advancing those interests must in
all reason be reckoned among the ends of civil so-
cieties, and so, consequently, fall within the compass
of the magistrate's jurisdiction. " I have set down
your words at large, to let the reader see, that you of
all men had the least reason to tell the author, he does
but beg the question ; unless you mean to justify your-
self by the pretence of his example. You argue thus :

II If there be any other ends attainable by civil society,
then civil interests are not the only ends for which
commonwealths are instituted." And how do you
prove there be other ends? Why thus : "Doubtless
commonwealths are instituted for the attaining of all
the benefits which political government can yield."
Which is as clear a demonstration, as doubtless can
make it to be. The question is, whether civil society
be instituted only for civil ends? You say, no; and
your proof is, because doubt less it is instituted for other
ends. If I now say, doubtless this is a good argument;

A Second Letter concerning Toleration. 117

is not every one bound without more ado to admit it
for such? If not, doubtless you are in danger to be
thought to beg the question.

But notwithstanding you say here, that the author
begs the question ; in the following page you tell us,
" That the author offers three considerations which seem
to him abundantly to demonstrate, that the civil power
neither can, nor aught, in any manner to be extended
to the salvation of souls." He does not then beg the
question. For the question being, " Whether civil in-
terest be the only end of civil society," he gives this
reason for the negative, " That civil power has nothing
to do with the salvation of souls ;" and offers three con-
siderations for the proof of it. For it will always be a
good consequence, that, if the civil power has nothing
to do with the salvation of souls, " then civil interest
is the only end of civil society." And the reason of it
is plain ; because a man having no other interest, but
either in this world or the world to come ; if the end
of civil society reach not to a man's interest in the
other world, all which is comprehended in the salvation
of his soul, it is plain that the sole end of civil society
is civil interest, under which the author comprehends
the good things of this world.

And now let us examine the truth of your main po-
sition, viz. " That civil society is instituted for the at-
taining all the benefits that it may any way yield."
Which, if true, then this position must be true, viz.
" That all societies whatsoever are instituted for the at-
taining all the benefits that they may any way yield ;"
there being nothing peculiar to civil society in the case,
why that society should be instituted for the attaining
all the benefits it can any way yield, and other societies
not. By which argument it will follow, that all socie-
ties are instituted for one and the same end : i. e. " for
the attaining all the benefits that they can any way
yield." By which account there will be no difference
between church and state ; a commonwealth and an
army ; or between a family, and the East India Com-
pany ; all which have hitherto been thought distinct
sorts of societies, instituted for different ends. If your

118 A Second Letter concerning Toleration.

hypothesis hold good, one of the ends of the family must
be to preach the Gospel, and administer the sacraments ;
and one business of an army to teach languages, and
propagate religion ; because these are benefits some way
or other attainable by those societies : unless you take
want of commission and authority to be a sufficient im-
pediment : and that will be so too in other cases.

It is a benefit to have true knowledge and philosophy
embraced and assented to, in any civil society or go-
vernment. But will you say, therefore, that it is a
benefit to the society, or one of the ends of government,
that all who are not peripatetics should be punished, to
make men find out the truth, and profess it. This in-
deed might be thought a fit way to make some men
embrace the peripatetic philosophy, but not a proper
way to find the truth. For perhaps the peripatetic phi-
losophy may not be true ; perhaps a great many may
have not time nor parts to study it ; perhaps a great
many who have studied it, cannot be convinced of the
truth of it : and therefore it cannot be a benefit to the
commonwealth, nor one of the ends of it, that these
members of the society should be disturbed and dis-
eased to no purpose, when they are guilty of no fault.
For just the same reason, it cannot be a benefit to civil
society, that men should be punished in Denmark, for
not being Lutherans ; in Geneva, for not being Calvin-
ists ; and in Vienna, fornot being papists ; as a means
to make them find out the true religion. For so, upon
your grounds, men must be treated in those places, as
well as in England, for not being of the church of Eng-
land. And then I beseech you, consider the great be-
nefit will accrue to men in society by this method ; and
I suppose it will be a hard thing for you to prove,
that ever civil governments were instituted to punish
men for not being of this or that sect in religion; how-
ever by accident, indirectly and at a distance, it may
be an occasion to one perhaps of a thousand, or an hun-
dred, to study that controversy, which is all you expect
from it. [f it be a benefit, pray tell me what benefit
it is. A civil bene fit it cannot be. For men's civil
interests are disturbed, injured, and impaired by it.

A Second I xtter concerning Toleration. 119

And what spiritual benefit that can be to any multitude
of men, to be punished for dissenting from a false or
erroneous profession, I would have you find out: un-
less it be a spiritual benefit to be in danger to be driven
into a wrong way. For if in all differing sects, all but
one is in the wrong, it is a hundred to one but that
from which one dissents, and is punished for dissenting
from, is the wrong.

I grant it is past doubt, that the nature of man is so
covetous of good, that no one would have excluded
from any action he does, or from any institution he is
concerned in, any manner of good or benefit that it
might any way yield. And if this be your meaning, it
will not be denied you. But then you speak very im-
properly, or rather very mistakenly, if you call such be-
nefits as may any way, u e. indirectly, and at a distance,
or by accident, be attained by civil or any other soci-
ety, the ends for which it is instituted. Nothing can " in
reason be reckoned amongst the ends of any society/'
but what may in reason be supposed to be designed by
those who enter into it. Now nobody can in reason
suppose, that any one entered into civil society for the
procuring, securing, or advancing the salvation of his
soul ; when he, for that end, needed not the force of
civil society. " The procuring, therefore, securing,
and advancing the spiritual and eternal interest of
men, cannot in reason be reckoned amongst the ends
of civil societies ;" though perhaps it might so fall out,
that in some particular instance, some man's spiritual
interest might be advanced by your or any other way
of applying civil force. A nobleman, whose chapel is
decayed or fallen, may make use of his dining-room
for praying and preaching. Yet whatever benefit were
attainable by this use of the room, nobody can in rea-
son reckon this among the ends for which it was built ;
no more than the accidental breeding of some bird in
any part of it, though it were a benefit it yielded, could
in reason be reckoned among the ends of building the
house.

But, say you, " doubtless commonwealths are insti-
tuted for the attaining of all the benefits which political

120 A Second Letter concerning Toleration.

s

government can yield ; and therefore if the spiritual and
eternal interests of men may any way be procured or
advanced by political government, the procuring and
advancing those interests, must in all reason be rec-
koned amongst the ends of civil society, and so conse-
quently fall within the compass of the magistrate's
jurisdiction/' Upon the same grounds, I thus reason :
Doubtless churches are instituted for the attaining of
all the benefits which ecclesiastical government can
yield : and therefore, if the temporal and secular in-
terests of men may any way be procured or advanced
by ecclesiastical polity, the procuring and advancing
those interests must in all reason be reckoned among
the ends of religious societies, and so consequently fall
within the compass of churchmen's jurisdiction. The
church of Rome has openly made its advantage of " se-
cular interests to be procured or advanced, indirectly,
and at a distance, and in ordine ad spiritualia ;" all
which ways, if I mistake not English, are comprehended
under your " any way." But I do not remember that
any of the reformed churches have hitherto directly
professed it. But there is a time for all things. And
if the commonwealth once invades the spiritual ends of
the church, by meddling with the salvation of souls,
which she has always been so tender of, who can deny
that the church should have liberty to make herself
some amends by reprisals?

But, sir, however you and I may argue from wrong
suppositions, yet unless the apostle, Eph. iv. where he
reckons up the church-officers which Christ hath insti-
tuted in his church, had told us they were for some
other ends than " for the perfecting of the saints, for
the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body
of Christ ;" the advancing of their secular interests
will scarce be allowed to be their business, or within
the compass of their jurisdiction. Nor till it can be
shown that civil society is instituted for spiritual ends,
or that the magistrate has commission to interpose his
authority* or use force in matters of religion ; your
supposition " of spiritual benefits indirectly and at a
distance attainable" by political government, will never

A Second Letter concerning Toleration. 121

prove the advancing of those interests by force to be
the magistrate's business, "and to fall within the com-
pass of his jurisdiction. " And till then the force of
the arguments which the author has brought against
it, in the 12th and following pages of his letter, will
hold good.

Commonwealths, or civil societies and governments,
if you will believe the judicious Mr. Hooker, are, as
St. Peter calls them, (1 Pet. ii. 13) cc^^jirlyy} y.lla-i$, the
contrivance and institution of man ; and he shows there
for what end; viz. " for the punishment of evil-doers,
and the praise of them that do well." I do not find
any where, that it is for the punishment of those who
are not in church-communion with the magistrate, to
make them study controversies in religion, or hearken
to those who will tell them " they have mistaken their
way, and offer to show them the right one." You
must show them such a commission, if you say it is from
God. And in all societies instituted by man, the ends
of them can be no other than what the institutors ap-
pointed ; which I am sure could not be their spiritual
and eternal interest. For they could not stipulate about
these one with another, nor submit this interest to the
power of the society, or any sovereign they should set
over it. There are nations in the West Indies, which
have no other end of their society but their mutual de-
fence against their common enemies. In these, their
captain, or prince, is sovereign-commander in time of
war ; but in time of peace, neither he nor any body else
has any authority over any of the society. You cannot
deny but other, even temporal ends, are attainable by
these commonwealths, if they had been otherwise in-
stituted and appointed to these ends. But all your
saying, " doubtless commonwealths are instituted for
the attaining of all the benefits which they can yield,"
will not give authority to any one or more, in such a
society, by political government or force, to procure
directly or indirectly other benefits than that for which
it was instituted : and therefore there it falls not within
the compass of those princes' jurisdiction to punish any
one of the society for injuring another ; because he has

122 A Second Letter concerning; Toleration.

O

no commission so to do ; whatever reason you may think
there is, that that should be reckoned amongst the ends
of their society.

But to conclude : your argument has that defect in it
which turns it upon yourself. And that is, that the
procuring and advancing the spiritual and eternal in-
terests of souls, your way, is not a benefit to the society:
and so upon your own supposition, "the procuring and
advancing the spiritual interest of souls, any way, can-
not be one of the ends of civil society ;" unless the
procuring and advancing the spiritual interest of souls,
in a way proper to do more harm than good towards
the salvation of souls, be to be accounted such a benefit
as to be one of the ends of civil societies. For that
yours is such a way, I have proved already. So that
were it hard to prove that political government, whose
only instrument is force, could no way by force, how-
ever applied, more advance than hinder the spiritual
and eternal interest of men ; yet having proved it
against your particular new way of applying force, I
have sufficiently vindicated the author's doctrine from
any thing you have said against it. Which is enough
for my present purpose.

Your next page tells us, that this reasoning of the
author, viz. " that the power of the magistrate cannot
be extended to the salvation of souls, because the
care of souls is not committed to the magistrate, is
proving the thing by itself." As if you should say,
when I tell you that you could not extend your power
to meddle with the money of a young gentleman you
travelled with as tutor, because the care of his money
was not committed to you, were proving the thing by
itself. For it is not necessary that you should have the
power of his money ; it may be intrusted to a steward
who travels with him ; or it may be left to himself. If
you have it, it is but a delegated power. And, in all
delegated powers, I thought this a fair proof: you have
it not, or cannot use it, which is what the author means
here by extended to, because it is not committed to you.
In the summing up of this argument, (p. '20) the
author says, " nobody therefore, in line, neither com-

A Second Letter concerning Toleration. 123

monwealths, &c. hath any title to invade the civil
rights and worldly goods of another, upon pretence
of religion." Which is an exposition of what he means
in the beginning of the argument, by " the magistrate's
power cannot be extended to the salvation of souls. "
So that if we take these last cited words equivalent to
those in the former place, his proof will stand thus,
" the magistrate has no title to invade the civil rights
or worldly goods of any one upon pretence of religion ;
because the care of souls is not committed to him."
This is the same in the author's sense with the former.
And whether either this, or that, be a proving the same
thing by itself, we must leave to others to judge.

You quote the author's argument, which he brings
to prove that the care of souls is not committed to the
magistrate in these words ; " it is not committed to
him by God, because it appears not that God has ever
given any such authority to one man over another,
as to compel any one to his religion.5' This, when
first I read it, I confess I thought a good argument.
But you say, " this is quite beside the business ;" and
the reason you give is, " for the authority of the ma-
gistrate is not an authority to compel any to his re-
ligion, but only an authority to procure all his subjects
the means of discovering the way of salvation, and
to procure withal, as much as in him lies, that none
remain ignorant of it," &c. I fear, sir, you forget
yoursef. The author was not writing against your
new hypothesis before it was known in the world.
He may be excused if he had not the gift of prophecy,
to argue against a notion which was not yet started.
He had in view only the laws hitherto made, and the
punishments in matters of religion in use in the world.
The penalties, as I take it, are lain on men for being
of different ways of religion. Which, what is it other,
but to compel them to relinquish their own, and to
conform themselves to that from which they differ ? If
this be not to compel them to the magistrate's religion,
pray tell us what is ? This must be necessarily so un-
derstood 5 unless it can be supposed that the law intends

124 A Second Letter concerning Toleration.

not to have that done, which with penalties it com-
mands to be done ; or that punishments are not com-
pulsion, not that compulsion the author complains of.
The law says, " do this and live ;" embrace this doc-
trine, conform to this way of worship, and be at ease,
and free ; or else be fined, imprisoned, banished, burned.
If you can show among the laws that have been made
in England concerning religion, and I think I may
say any where else, any one that punishes men " for
not having impartially examined the religion they
have embraced or refused," I think I may yield you
the cause. Law-makers have been generally wiser than
to make laws that could not be executed : and there-
fore their laws were against non-conformists, which
could be known ; and not for impartial examination,
which could not. It was not then besides the author's
business to bring an argument against the persecutions
here in fashion. He did not know that any one, who
was so free as to acknowledge that " the magistrate
has not authority to compel any one to his religion,"
and thereby at once, as you have done, give up all the
laws now in force against dissenters, had yet rods in
store for them, and by a new trick would bring them
under the lash of the law, when the old pretences were
too much exploded to serve any longer. Have you
never heard of such a thing as the religion established
by law ? Which is, it seems, the lawful religion of a
country, and to be complied with as such. There being
such things, such notions yet in the world, it was not
quite besides the author's business to allege, that " God
never gave such authority to one man over another,
as to compel any one to his religion." I will grant,
if you please, " religion established bylaw" is a pretty
odd way of speaking in the mouth of a Christian ; and
yet it is much in fashion: as if the magistrate's au-
thority could add any force or sanction to any religion,
whether true 01 false. I am glad to find you have so
far considered the magistrate's authority, that you agree
with the author, that "he hath none to compel men
to his religion." Much less can he, by any establish-

A Second Letter concerning Toleration. \c25

©

merit of law, add any tiling to the truth or validity of
his own, or any religion whatsoever.

It remains now to examine whether the author's ar-
gument will not hold good, even against punishments
in your way ; " for if the magistrate's authority be, as
you here say, only to procure all his subjects, (mark
what you say, all his subjects) the means of discovering
the way of salvation, and to procure withal, as much
as in him lies, that none remain ignorant of it, or refuse
to embrace it, either for want of using those means,
or by reason of any such prejudices as may render
them ineffectual." If this "be the magistrate's busi-
ness, in reference to all his subjects, I desire you, or
any man else, to tell me how this can be done by the
application of force only to a part of them ; unless
you will still vainly suppose ignorance, negligence,
or prejudice, only amongst that part which any where
differs from the magistrate. If those of the magi-
strate^ church may be ignorant of the way of salva-
tion ; if it be possible there may be amongst them those
" who refuse to embrace it, either for want of using
those means, or by reason of any such prejudices as
may render them ineffectual :" what, in this case,,
becomes of the magistrate's authority to procure all his
subjects the means of discovering the way of salvation ?
Must these of his subjects be neglected, and left with-
out the means he has authority to procure them? Or
must he use force upon them too? And then, pray, show
me how this can be done. Shall the magistrate punish
those of his own religion, " to procure them the means
of discovering the way of salvation, and to procure,
as much as in him lies, that they remain not ignorant
of it, or refuse not to embrace it?" These' are such
contradictions in practice, this is such condemnation
of a man's own religion, as no one can expect from
the magistrate; and I dare say you desire not of him.
And yet this is that he must do, " if his authority be
to procure all his subjects the means of discovering
the way to salvation." And if it be so needful, as
you say it is, that he should use it, I am sure force can-

126 A Second Letter concerning Toleration.

not do that till it be applied wider, and punishment be
laid upon more than you would have it ; for "if the
magistrate be by force to procure, as much as in him
lies, that none remain ignorant of the way of salva-
tion ;" must he not punish all those who are ignorant
of the way of salvation ? And pray tell me how this
is any way practicable, but by supposing none in the
national church ignorant, and all out of it ignorant
of the wTay of salvation. Which, what is it, but to
punish men barely for not being of the magistrate's re-
ligion ; the very thing you deny he has authority to do ?
So that the magistrate having, by your own confession,
no authority thus to use force ; and it being otherwise
impracticable " for the procuring all his subjects the
means of discovering the way of salvation ;" there is
an end of force. And so force being laid aside, either as
unlawful, or impracticable, the author's argument holds
good against force, even in your way of applying it.

But if you say, as you do in the foregoing page, that
the magistrate has authority "to lay such penalties upon
those who refuse to embrace the doctrine of the pro-
per ministers of religion, and to submit to their spi-
ritual government, as to make them bethink them-
selves so as not to be alienated from the truth : (for,
as for foolish humour, and uncharitable prejudice,"
&c. which are but words of course that opposite par-
ties give one another, as marks of dislike and presump-
tion, I omit them, as signifying nothing to the ques-
tion ; being such as will with the same reason be re-
torted by the other side ); against that also the author's
argument holds, that the magistrate has no such au-
thority. 1. Because God never gave the magistrate
an authority to be judge of truth for another man in
matters of religion: and so he cannot be judge whether
any man be alienated from the truth or no. l2. Because
the magistrate had never authority given him "to lay
any penalties on those who refuse to embrace the doe-
trine of 1 lie proper ministers of his religion, or of any
other, or to submit to their spiritual government,"
more than on any other men.

A Second Letter concerning Toleration. 127

To the author's argument, that the magistrate can-
not receive sucli authority from the people ; because no
man lias power to leave it to the choice of any other
man to choose a religion for him ; you give this plea-
sant answer : " As the power of the magistrate, in re-
ference to religion, is ordained for the bringing men
to take such care as they ought of their salvation,
that they may not blindly leave it to the choice, nei-
ther of any other person, nor yet of their own lusts
and passions, to prescribe to them what faith or wor-
ship they shall embrace : so if we suppose this power
to be vested in the magistrate by the consent of the
people ; this will not import their abandoning the
care of their salvation, but rather the contrary. For
if men, in choosing their religion, are so generally
subject, as has been showed, when left wholly to
themselves, to be so much swayed by prejudice and
passion, as either not at all, or not sufficient to re-
gard the reasons and motives which ought alone to
determine their choice ; then it is every man's true
interest, not to be left wholly to himself in this mat-
ter ; but that care should be taken, that, in an affair
of so vast concernment to him, he may be brought,
even against his own inclination, if it cannot be done
otherwise, (which is ordinarily the case) to act ac-
cording to reason and sound judgment. And then
what better course can men take to provide for this,
than by vesting the power I have described in him
who bears the sword ?" — Wherein I beseech you con-
sider, 1. Whether it be not pleasant, that you say —
" the power of the magistrate is ordained to bring men
to take such care;" and thence infer, " Then it is
every one's interest to vest such power in the magi-
strate?" For if it be the power of the magistrate, it
is his. And what need the people vest it in him, un-
less there be need, and it be the best course they can
take, to vest a power in the magistrate, which he has
already ? 2. Another pleasant thing you here say is,
" That the powrer of the magistrate is to bring men to
such a care of their salvation, that they may not
blindly leave it to the choice of any person, or their

128 A Second Letter concerning Toleration.

own lusts, or passions, to prescribe to them what faith
or worship they shall embrace; and yet that it is their
best course to vest a power in the magistrate," liable
to the same lusts and passions as themselves, to choose
for them. For if they vest a power in the magistrate
to punish them, when they dissent from his religion ;
" to bring them to act, even against their own inclina-
tion, according to their reason and sound judgment ;"
which is, as you explain yourself in another place, to
bring them to consider reasons and arguments proper
and sufficient to convince them : how far is this from
leaving it to the choice of another man to prescribe to
them what faith or worship they shall embrace ? Espe-
cially if we consider that you think it a strange thing,
that the author would have the care of every man's soul
left to himself alone. So that this care being vested
" in the magistrate with a power to punish men to
make them consider reasons and arguments proper
and sufficient to convince them" of the truth of his
religion ; the choice is evidently in the magistrate, as
much as it can be in the power of one man to choose
for another what religion he shall be of; which consists
only in a power of compelling him by punishments to
embrace it.

I do neither you nor the magistrate injury, when I
say that the power you give the magistrate of " punish-
ing men, to make them consider reasons and argu-
ments proper and sufficient to convince them," is to
convince them of the truth of his religion, and to bring
them to it. For men will never, in his opinion, "act
according to reason and sound judgment," which is
the thing you here say men should be brought to by the
magistrate, even against their " own inclination," till
they embrace his religion. And if you have the brow
of an honest man, you will not say the magistrate will
ever punish you "to bring you to consider any other
reasons and arguments, but such as are proper to
convince you" of the truth of his religion, and to
bring yon to that Thus you shift forwards and back-
wards. You say "the magistrate has no power to pu-
nish men, to compel them to his religion,1' but only

A Second Letter concerning Toleration. \c2\)

to "compel them to consider reasons and arguments
proper to convince them" of the truth of his religion,
which is all one as to say, nobody has power to choose
your way for you to Jerusalem ; but yet the lord of
the manor has power to punish you, " to bring you to
consider reasons and arguments proper and sufficient
to convince you." Of what? That the way he goes
in, is the right, and so to make you join in company,
and go along with him. So that, in effect, what is all
your going about, but to come at last to the same
place again ; and put a power into the magistrate's
hands, under another pretence, to compel men to his
religion ? which use of force the author has suf-
ficiently overthrown, and you yourself have quitted.
But I am tired to follow you so often round the same
circle.

You speak of it here as the most deplorable condi-
tion imaginable, that " men should be left to them-
selves, and not be forced to consider and examine the
grounds of their religion, and search impartially and
diligently after the truth." This you make the great
miscarriage of mankind. And for this you seem soli-
citous, all through your treatise, to find out a remedy;
and there is scarce a leaf wherein you do not offer
yours. But what if, after all now, you should be
found to prevaricate? " Men have contrived to them-
selves," say you, " a great variety of religions:" it is
granted. " They seek not the truth in this matter with
that application of mind, and that freedom of judg-
ment which is requisite :" it is confessed. " All the
false religions now on foot in the world have taken
their rise from the slight and partial consideration,
which men have contented themselves with, in search-
ing after the true ; and men take them up, and persist
in them, for want of due examination :" be it so.
" There is need of a remedy for this, and I have found
one whose success cannot be questioned :" very wrell.
What is it ? Let us hear it. u Why, dissenters must
be punished." Can any body that hears you say so,
believe vou in earnest ; and that want of examination
is the thins vou would have amended, when want of

VOL. VI. K

130 A Second Letter concerning Toleration.

examination is not the thing you would have punished?
If want of examination be the fault, want of examina-
tion must be punished ; if you are, as you pretend,
fully satisfied, that punishment is the proper and only
means to remedy it. But if, in all your treatise, you
can show me one place, where you say that the ig-
norant, the careless, the inconsiderate, the negligent
in examining thoroughly the truth of their own and
others' religion, &c. are to be punished ; I will allow
your remedy for a good one. But you have not said
any thing like this : and which is more, I tell you
beforehand, you dare not say it. And whilst you do
not, the world has reason to judge, that however want
of examination be a general fault, which you with great
vehemency have exaggerated ; yet you use it only for
a pretence to punish dissenters ; and either distrust
your remedy, that it will not cure this evil, or else care
not to have it generally cured. This evidently appears
from your whole management of the argument. And
he that reads your treatise with attention will be more
confirmed in this opinion, when he shall find that you,
who are so earnest to have men punished to bring them
to consider and examine, that so they may discover the
way to salvation, have not said one word of consider-
ing, searching, and hearkening to the Scripture ; which
had been as cjood a rule for a Christian to have sent
them to, " as to reasons and arguments proper to con-
vince them " of you know not what ; " as to the in-
struction and government of the proper ministers of
religion, " which who they are, men are yet far from
being agreed ; " or as to the information of those, who
tell them they have mistaken their way, and offer to
show them the right ; and to the like uncertain and
dangerous guides; which were not those that our
Saviour and the apostles sent men to, but to the Scrip-
tures." " Search the Scriptures, for in them you think
you have eternal life/1 says our Saviour to the unbe-
lieving persecuting Jews, (John v. 39) j and it is the
Scriptures which, St. Paul says, u are able to make wise
unto salvation," (2 Tim. iii. \5.)

'Talk no more, therefore, if you have any care of'

A Second Letter concerning Toleration. 131

your reputation, how much " it is every man's interest
not to be left to himself, without molestation, with-
out punishment in matters of religion." Talk not of
" bringing men to embrace the truth that must save
them, by putting them upon examination." Talk no
more "of force and punishment, as the only way left
to bring men to examine." It is evident you mean
nothing less. For, though want of examination be the
only fault you complain of, and punishment be in your
opinion the only way to bring men to it ; and this the
whole design of your book ; yet you have not once
proposed in it, that those, who do not impartially exa-
mine, should be forced to it. And that you may not
think I talk at random, when I say you dare not;
I will, if you please, give you some reasons for my
saying so.

1. Because, if you propose that all should be pu-
nished, who are ignorant, who have not used " such
consideration as is apt and proper to manifest the
truth ; but to have been determined in the choice of
their religion by impressions of education, admiration
of persons, worldly respects, prejudices, and the like
incompetent motives ; and have taken up their reli-
gion, without examining it as they ought ;" you will
propose to have several of your own church, be it
what it will, punished; which would be a proposi-
tion too apt to offend too many of it, for you to ven-
ture on. For whatever need there be of reformation,
every one will not thank you for proposing such an
one as must begin at, or at least reach to, the house of
God.

2. Because, if you should propose that all those who
are ignorant, careless, and negligent in examining,
should be punished, you would have little to say in this
question of toleration. For if the laws of the state
were made, as they ought to be, equal to all the sub-
jects, without distinction of men of different professions
in religion ; and the faults to be amended by punish-
ments were impartially punished, in all who are guilty
of them ; this would immediately produce a perfect to-
leration, or show the uselessness of force in matters of

o

132 A Second Letter concerning Toleration.

religion. If therefore you think it so necessary, as you
say, for the " promoting of true religion, and the sal-
vation of souls, that men should be punished to make
them examine ;" do but find a way to apply force to
all that have not thoroughly and impartially examined,
and you have my consent. For though force be not
the proper means of promoting religion ; yet there is
no better way to show the uselessness of it, than the ap-
plying it equally to miscarriages, in whomsoever found ;
and not to distinct parties or persuasions of men, for
the reformation of them alone, when others are equally
faulty.

3. Because, without being for as large a toleration as
the author proposes, you cannot be truly and sincerely
for a free and impartial examination. For whoever exa-
mines, must have the liberty to judge, and follow his
judgment ; or else you put him upon examination to
no purpose. And whether that will not as well lead
men from, as to your church, is so much a venture,
that, by your way of writing, it is evident enough you
are loth to hazard it ; and if you are of the national
church, it is plain your brethren will not bear with you
in the allowance of such a liberty. You must therefore
either change your method; and if the want of examina-
tion be that great and dangerous fault you would have
corrected, you must equally punish all that are equally
guilty of any neglect in this matter, and then take your
only means, your beloved force, and make the best of
it ; or else you must put off your mask, and confess that
you design not your punishments to bring men to exa-
mination, but to conformity. For the fallacy you have
used is too gross to pass upon this age.

What follows to p. 26, J think I have considered suf-
ficiently already. But there you have found out some-
thing worth notice. In this page, out of abundant
kindness, when the dissenters have their heads, without
any cause, broken, you provide them a plaistcr. For,
say you, " if upon such examination of the matter,'*
(/. c. brought to it by the magistrate's punishment)
" they chance to find, that the truth does not lie on the
magistrate's side; they have Grained thus much how-

A Second Letter concerning Toleration, 13 '3

ever, even by the magistrate's misapplying his power,
that they know better than they did before, where
the truth does lie." Which is as true as if you
should say, upon examination I find such a one is out
of the way to York ; therefore I know better than I
did before, that I am in the right. For neither of you
may be in the right. This were true indeed, if there
were but two ways in all ; a right and a wrong. But
where there be an hundred ways, and but one right ;
your knowing upon examination, that that which I
take is wrong, makes you not know any thing better
than before that yours is the right. But if that be the
best reason you have for it, it is ninety-eight to one still
against you, that you are in the wrong. Besides, he
that has been punished may have examined before, and
then you are sure he gains nothing. However, you think
you do well to encourage the magistrate in punishing,
and comfort the man who has suffered unjustly by
showing what he shall gain by it. Whereas, on the con-
trary, in a discourse of this nature, where the bounds
of right and wrong are inquired into, and should be
established, the magistrate was to be showed the bounds
of his authority, and warned of the injury he did when
he misapplies his power, and punished any man who
deserved it not ; and not be soothed into injustice, by
consideration of gain that might thence accrue to the
sufferer. " Shall we do evil that good may come of it ?"
There are a sort of people who are very wary of touch-
ing upon the magistrate's duty, and tender of showing
the bounds of his power, and the injustice and ill con-
sequences of his misapplying it; at least, so long as it
is misapplied in favour of them, and their party. I know
not whether you are of their number. But this I am
sure, you have the misfortune here to fall into their
mistake. The magistrate, you confess, may in this case
misapply his power ; and instead of representing to him
the injustice of it, and the account he must give to his
sovereign, one day, of this great trust put into his hands,
for the equal protection of all his subjects : you pretend
advantages which the sufferer may receive from it : and

134 A Second Letter concerning Toleration.

6

so, instead of disheartening from, you give encourage-
ment to, the mischief: which, upon your principle,
joined to the natural thirst in man after arbitrary power,
may be carried to all manner of exorbitancy, with some
pretence of right.

For thus stands your system : " If force, i. e. pu-
nishment, may be any way useful for the promoting
the salvation of souls, there is a right somewhere to use
it. And this right," say you, " is in the magistrate :"
who then, upon your grounds, may quickly find rea-
son, where it suits his inclination, or serves his turn,
to punish men directly to bring them to his religion.
For if he may use force because it " may be, indirectly
and at a distance, any way useful towards the sal-
vation of men's souls," towards the procuring any de-
gree of glory ; why may he not, by the same rule, use
it where it may be useful, at least indirectly and at a
distance, towards the procuring a greater degree of
glory? For St. Paul assures us, " that the afflictions of
this life work for us a far more exceeding weight of
glory." So that why should they not be punished,
if in the wrong, to bring them into the right way ; if
in the right, to make them by their sufferings " gainers
of a far more exceeding weight of glory ?" But what-
ever you say " of punishment being lawful, because,
indirectly and at a distance, it may be useful ;" I sup-
pose, upon cooler thoughts, you will be apt to suspect
that, however sufferings may promote the salvation of
those who make a good use of them, and so set men
surer in the right way, or higher in a state of glory;
yet those who make men unduly suffer, will have the
heavier account, and greater weight of guilt upon them,
to sink them deeper in the pit of perdition; and that
therefore they should be warned to take care of so using
their power. Because whoever be gainers by it, they
themselves will, without repentance and amendment,
be sure to be losers. But by granting that the magi-
strate misapplies his power, when he punishes those who
have the right on their side, whether it be to bring
them to his own religion, or whether it be " to bring

A Second Letter concerning Toleration. 135

them to consider reasons and arguments proper to con-
vince them," you grant all that the author contends
for. All that he endeavours, is to show the bounds
of civil power ; and that in punishing others for reli-
gion, the magistrate misapplies the force he has in his
hands, and so goes beyond right, beyond the limits of
his power. For I do not think the author of the letter
so vain, I am sure for my part I am not, as to hope by
arguments, though ever so clear, to reform presently
all the abuses in this matter ; especially whilst men of
art, and religion, endeavour so industriously to palliate
and disguise, what truth, yet, sometimes, unawares
forces from them.

Do not think I make a wrong use of your saying,
" the magistrate misapplies his power/' when I say
you therein grant all that the author contends for. For
if the magistrate misapplies, or makes wrong use of his
power, when he punishes in matters of religion any one
who is in the right, though it be but to make him con-
sider, as you grant he does ; he also misapplies, or
makes wrong use of his power, when he punishes any
one whomsoever in matters of religion, to make him
consider. For every one is here judge for himself,
what is right ; and in matters of faith, and religious
worship, another cannot judge for him. So that to
punish any one in matters of religion, though it be but
to make him consider, is by your own confession be-
yond the magistrate's power. And that punishing in
matters of religion is beyond the magistrate's power
is what the author contends for.

You tell us in the following words, " all the hurt
that comes to them by it, is only the suffering some
tolerable inconveniencies, for their following the light
of their own reason, and the dictates of their own con-
sciences > which certainly is no such mischief to man-
kind, as to make it more eligible, that there should be
no such power vested in the magistrate, but the care of
every man's soul should be left to himself alone (as
this author demands it should be ;) that is, that every
man should be suffered, quietly, and without the least

13() A Second Letter concerning Toleration.

molestation, either to take no care at all of his soul, if
he be so pleased ; or, in doing it, to follow his own
groundless prejudices, or unaccountable humour, or
any crafty seducer, whom he may think fit to take for
his guide." Why should not the care of every man's
soul be left to himself, rather than the magistrate? Is
the magistrate like to be more concerned for it? Is the
magistrate like to take more care of it? Is the magi-
strate commonly more careful of his own, than other
men are of theirs ? Will you say the magistrate is less
exposed, in matters of religion, to prejudices, humours,
and crafty seducers, than other men ? If you cannot
lay your hand upon your heart, and say all this, what
then will be got by the change? And " why may not
the care of every man's soul be left to himself?" Espe-
cially, if a man be in so much danger to miss the truth,
14 who is suffered quietly, and without the least mo-
lestation, either to take no care of his soul, if he be
so pleased, or to follow his own prejudices," &c. For
if want of molestation be the dangerous state, wherein
men are likeliest to miss the right way ; it must be
confessed, that, of all men, the magistrate is most in
danger to be in the wrong, and so the unfittest, if you
take the care of men's souls from themselves, of all
men, to be intrusted with it. For he never meets with
that great and only antidote of yours against error,
which you here call molestation. He never has the
benefit of your sovereign remedy, punishment, to make
him consider ; which you think so necessary, that you
look on it as a most dangerous state for men to be
without it; and therefore tell us, "it is every man's
true interest, not to be left wholly to himself in matters
of religion."

Thus, sir, I have gone through your whole treatise,
and, as I think, have omitted nothing in it material.
If I have, I doubt not but I shall hear of it. And
HOW I refer it to yourself, as well as to the judgment
of the world, whether the author of the letter, in say-
ing nobody hath a right, or you, in saying the magi*

rate hath a light, to use force in matters of religion,

A Second Letter concerning Toleration. 137

has most reason. In the mean time, I leave this request
with you : that if ever you write again, about " the
means of bringing souls to salvation," which certainly
is the best design any one can employ his pen in, you
would take care not to prejudice so good a cause, by
ordering it so, as to make it look as if you writ for a
party.

I am, Sir,

Your most humble servant,

Philanthropic.

May 27, 1690.

THIRD LETTER

FOB

TOLERATION

THIRD LETTER

FOR

TOLERATION.

TO THE AUTHOR OF THE THIRD LETTER CONCERNING

TOLERATION *.

CHAPTER I.

Sir,
The business which your Letter concerning Tole-
ration found me engaged in, has taken up so much
of the time my health would allow me ever since,
that I doubt whether I should now at all have troubled
you or the world with an answer, had not some of my
friends, sufficiently satisfied of the weakness of your

* The reader may be pleased to take notice, that

L. I. Stands for the Letter concerning Toleration.

A. For the Argument of the Letter concerning Toleration briefly con-
sidered and answered.

L. II. The Second Letter concerning Toleration.

P. The pages of the Third Letter concerning Toleration.

142 A Third Letter for Toleration.

arguments, with repeated instances, persuaded me it
might be of use to truth, in a point of so great moment,
to clear it from those fallacies which might perhaps
puzzle some unwary readers ; and therefore prevailed
on me to show the wrong grounds and mistaken reason-
ings you make use of to support your new way of per-
secution. Pardon me, sir, that I use that name, which
you are so much offended at: for if punishment be pu-
nishment, though it come short of the discipline of fire
and faggot, it is as certain that punishment for religion
is truly persecution, though it be only such punishment
as you in your clemency think fit to call " moderate
and convenient penalties." But however you please
to call them, I doubt not but to let you see, that if you
will be true to your own principles, and stand to what
you have said, you must carry your " some degrees of
force," as you phrase it, to all those degrees which in
words you declare against.

You have indeed in this last letter of yours altered
the question ; for, p. 26, you tell me the question be-
tween us is, " whether the magistrate hath any right to
use force to bring men to the true religion ?'' Whereas
you yourself own the question to be, " whether the ma-
gistrate has a right to use force in matters of religion ?"
Whether this alteration be at ail to the advantage of
truth, or your cause, we shall see. But hence you
take occasion all along to lay a load on me for charging
you with the absurdities of a power in the magistrates
to punish men, to bring them to their religion ; whereas
you here tell us they have a right to use force " only to
bring men to the true." But whether I were more to
blame to suppose you to talk coherently and mean
sense, or you in expressing yourself so doubtfully and
uncertainly, where you were concerned to be plain and
direct, I shall leave to our readers to judge; only here
in the beginning, 1 shall endeavour to clear myself of
that imputation, 1 so often meet with, of charging on
you consequences you do not own, and arguing against
an opinion that is not yours, in those places, where I
show how little advantage it would be to truth, or the

A Third Letter for Toleration. 143

salvation of men's souls, that all magistrates should
have a right to use force to bring men to embrace their
religion. This I shall do by proving, that if upon your
grounds the magistrate, as you pretend, be obliged to
use force to bring men to the true religion, it will ne-
cessarily follow, that every magistrate, who believes
his religion to be true, is obliged to use force to bring
men to his.

You tell us, " that by the law of nature the magi-
strate is invested with coactive power, and obliged to
use it for all the good purposes which it might serve,
and for which it should be found needful, even for
the restraining of false and corrupt religion : and that
it is the magistrate's duty, to which he is commis-
sioned by the law of nature, but the Scripture does
not properly give it him."

I suppose you will grant me, that any thing laid
upon the magistrate as a duty, is some way or other
practicable. Now the magistrate being obliged to use
force in matters of religion, but yet so as to bring men
only to the true religion, he will not be in any capa-
city to perform this part of his duty, unless the reli-
gion he is thus to promote, be what he can certainly
know, or else what it is sufficient for him to believe,
to be the true : either his knowledge or his opinion
must point out that religion to him, which he is by
force to promote ; or else he may promiscuously and
indifferently promote any religion, and punish men
at a venture, to bring them from that they are in to
any other. This last I think nobody has been so wild
as to say.

If therefore it must be either his knowledge or his
persuasion that must guide the magistrate herein, and
keep him within the bounds of his duty; if the magi-
strates of the world cannot know, certainly know, the
true religion to be the true religion, but it be of a
nature to exercise their faith ; (for where vision, know-
ledge, and certainty is, there faith is done away,) then
that which gives them the last determination herein
must be their own belief, their own persuasion.

144 A Third Letter for Toleration.

To you and me the Christian religion is the true, and
that is built, to mention no other articles of it, on this,
that Jesus Christ was put to death at Jerusalem, and
rose again from the dead. Now do you or I know this?
I do not ask with what assurance we believe it, for that
in the highest degree not being knowledge, is not what
we now inquire after. Can any magistrate demonstrate
to himself, and if he can to himself, he does ill not to
do it to others, not only all the articles of his church,
but the fundamental ones of the Christian religion ? For
whatever is not capable of demonstration, as such re-
mote matters of fact are not, is not, unless it be self-evi-
dent, capable to produce knowledge, how wrell grounded
and great soever the assurance of faith may be where-
with it is received ; but faith it is still, and not know-
ledge ; persuasion, and not certainty. This is the highest
the nature of the thing will permit us to go in matters
of revealed religion, which are therefore called matters
of faith : a persuasion of our own minds, short of know-
ledge, is the last result that determines us in such truths.
It is all God requires in the Gospel for men to be saved :
and it would be strange if there were more required of
the magistrate for the direction of another in the way
to salvation, than is required of him for his own sal-
vation. Knowledge then, properly so called, not being
to be had of the truths necessary to salvation, the ma-
gistrate must be content with faith and persuasion for
the rule of that truth he will recommend and enforce
upon others ; as well as of that whereon he will venture
his own eternal condition. If therefore it be the magi-
strate's duty to use force to bring men to the true re-
ligion, it can be only to that religion which he believes
to be true : so that if force be at all to be used by the
magistrate in matters of religion, it can only be for the
promoting that religion which he only believes to be
true, or none at all. I grant that a strong assurance of
any truth settled upon prevalent and well-grounded ar-
guments of probability, is often called knowledge in
popular ways of talking: but being here to distinguish
between knowledge and belief, to what degrees of con-

A Third letter for Toleration. 145

fklence soever raised, their boundaries must be kept,
and their names not confounded. I know not whet
greater pledge a man can give of a full persuasion of the
truth of any thing, than his venturing his soul upon it,
as he does, who sincerely embraces any religion, and
receives it for true. But to what degree soever of as-
surance his faith may rise, it still comes short of know-
ledge. Nor can any one now, I think, arrive to greater
evidence of the truth of the Christian religion than
the first converts in the time of our Saviour and the
apostles had ; of whom yet nothing more was required
but to believe.

But supposing all the truths of the Christian religion
necessary to salvation could be so known to the magi-
strate, that, in his use of force for the bringing men to
embrace these, he could be guided by infallible cer-
tainty ; yet I fear this would not serve your turn, nor
authorize the magistrate to use force to bring men in
England, or any where else, into the communion of
the national church, in which ceremonies of human in-
stitution were imposed, which could not be known, nor,
being confessed things in their own nature indifferent,
so much as thought necessary to salvation.

But of this I shall have occasion to speak in another
place ; all the use I make of it here, is to show, that the
cross in baptism, kneeling at the sacrament, and such-
like tilings, being impossible to be known necessary to
salvation, a certain knowledge of the truth of the ar-
ticles of faith of any church could not authorize the
magistrate to compel men to embrace the communion
of that church, wherein any thing were made necessary
to communion, which he did not know was necessary
to salvation.

By what has been already said, I suppose it is evi-
dent, that if the magistrate be to use force only for pro-
moting the true religion, he can have no other guide
but his own persuasion of what is the true religion, and
must be led by that in his use of force, or else not use
it at all in matters of religion. If you take the latter
of these consequences, you and I are agreed : if the

VOL. VI. L

146 A Third Letter for Toleration.

former, you must allow all magistrates, of whatsoever
religion, the use of force to bring men to theirs, and so
be involved in all those ill consequences which you can-
not it seems admit, and hope to decline by your useless
distinction of force to be used, not for any, but for the
true religion.

" It is the duty, you say, of the magistrate to use
force for promoting the true religion." And in se-
veral places you tell us, he is obliged to it. Persuade
magistrates in general of this, and then tell me how any
magistrate shall be restrained from the use of force, for
the promoting what he thinks to be the true? For he
being persuaded that it is his duty to use force to pro-
mote the true religion, and being also persuaded his is
the true religion, what shall stop his hand ? Must he
forbear the use of force till he be got beyond believing,
into a certain knowledge that all he requires men to
embrace is necessary to salvation ? If that be it you will,
stand to, you have my consent, and I think there will
be no need of any other toleration. But if the believing
his religion to be the true, be sufficient for the ma-
gistrate to use force for the promoting of it, will it be
so only to the magistrates of the religion that you pro-
fess ? and must all other magistrates sit still, and not
do their duty till they have your permission? If it be
your magistrate's duty to use force for the promoting
the religion he believes to be the true, it will be every
magistrate's duty to use force for the promoting what he
believes to be the true, and he sins if he does not re-
ceive and promote it as if it were true. If you will not
take this upon my word, yet I desire you to doit upon
the strong reason of a very judicious and reverend
prelate [Dr. John Sharp, archbishop of York,] of the
present church of England. In a discourse concerning
conscience, printed in quarto, 1687, p. 18, you will
find these following words, and much more to this
purpose : u Where a m;m is mistaken in his judgment,
even in thai it is always a sin to act against it.

Though we should take that for a duty which is
really a sin, yet bo long as we are thus persuaded, it

A Third Letter for Toleration. \\q

will be highly criminal in us to act in contradiction
to this persuasion : and the reason of this is evident,
because by so doing we wilfully act against the best
light which at present we have for direction of our
actions. So that when all is done, the immediate
guide of our actions can be nothing but our consci-
ence, our judgment, and persuasion. If a man, for
instance, should of a Jew become a Christian, whilst
yet in his heart he believed that the Messiah is not yet
come, and that our Lord Jesus was an impostor : or
if a papist should renounce the communion of the
Roman church, and join with ours, whilst yet he is
persuaded that the Roman church is the only catho-
lic church, and that our reformed churches are here-
tical or schismatical ; though now there is none of
us that will deny that the men in both these cases
have made a good change, as having changed a false
religion for a true one, yet for all that I dare say we
should all agree they were both of them great villains
for making that change; because they made it not
upon honest principles, and in pursuance of their
judgment, but in direct contradiction to both." So
that it being the magistrate's duty to use force to bring
men to the true religion, and he being persuaded his is
the true, I suppose you will no longer question but that
lie is as much obliged to use force to bring men to it,
as if it were the true ; and then, sir, I hope you have
too much respect for magistrates not to allow them to
believe the religions to be true which they profess. —
These things put together, I desire you to consider
whether if magistrates are obliged to use force to bring
men to the true religion, every magistrate is not obliged
to use force to bring men to that religion he believes
to be true ?

This being so, I hope I have not argued so wholly
beside the purpose, as you all through your letter ac-
cuse me, for charging on your doctrine all the ill con-
sequences, all the prejudice it would be to the true
religion, that magistrates should have power to use force
to bring men to their religions : and I presume you will
think yourself concerned to give to all these places in

L 2

148 A Third Letter for Toleration.

the first and second letter concerning toleration, which
show the inconveniencies and absurdities of such an use
of force, some other answer than that "you are for
punishing only such as reject the true religion. That
it is plain the force you speak of is not force, my way
applied, i. e. applied to the promoting the true
religion only, but to the promoting all the national
religions in the world." And again, to my arguing
that force your way applied, if it can propagate any
religion, it is likelier to be the false than the true,because
few of the magistrates of the world are in the right way ;
you reply, " this would have been to the purpose, if
' you* had asserted that every magistrate may use force
' your' indirect way (or any wTay) to bring men to his
own religion whatever that be. But if 'you' as-
serted no such thing, (as no man you think but an
atheist will assert it) then this is quite beside the bu-
siness." This is the great strength of your answer,
and your refuge almost in every page. So that I will
presume it reasonable to expect that you should clearly
and directly answer what I have here said, or else find
some other answer than what you have done to the
second letter concerning toleration ; however acute
you are in your way, in several places, on this occasion,
as p. 11, 12, for my answer to which I shall refer you
to another place.

To my argument against force, from the magistrate's
being as liable to error as the rest of mankind, you
answer, That I " might have considered that this ar-
gument concerns none but those who assert that every
magistrate has a right to use force to promote his own
religion, whatever it be, which 'you1 think no
man that has any religion will assert." I suppose
\ on may think now this answer will scarce serve, and
you must assert either no magistrate to have right to
promote his religion by Potce, or else be involved in tbe
condemnation you pass on those who assert it of all
magistrates. And here 1 think, as to the decision of
the question betwixt us I might leave this matter: but
there being m your letter a great many other gross
mistakes, wrong suppositions, and fallacious arguings,

A Third Letter for Toleration, 14!)

which in those general and plausible terms you have
made use of in several places, as best served your turn,
may possibly have imposed on yourself, as well as they
are fitted to do so on others, and therefore will deserve
to have some notice taken of them ; I shall give my-
self the trouble of examining your letter a little
farther.

To my saying, " It is not for the magistrate, upon
an imagination of its usefulness, to make use of any
other means than what the Author and Finisher of our
faith had directed;" you reply, " which, how true
soever, is not, I think, very much to the purpose;
for if the magistrate does only assist that ministry
which our Lord has appointed, by using so much of
his coactive power for the furthering their service as
common experience discovers to be useful and ne-
cessary for that end ; there is no manner of ground
to say, that, upon an imagination of its usefulness,
he makes use of any other means for the salvation of
men's souls than what the Author and Finisher of our
faith has directed. It is true indeed the Author and
Finisher of our faith has given the magistrate no new
power or commission, nor was there any need that he
should, (if himself had had any temporal power to
give:) for he found him already, even by the law of
nature, the minister of God to the people for good,
and bearing the sword not in vain, i, e. invested with
coactive power, and obliged to use it for all the good
purposes which it might serve, and for which it
should be found needful ; even for the restraining of
false and corrupt religion ; as Job long before (per-
haps before any part of the Scriptures were written)
acknowledged, when he said, that the worshipping
the sun or the moon was an iniquity to be punished
by the judge. But though our Saviour has given the
magistrates no new power, yet being King of kings,
he expects and requires that they should submit them-
selves to his sceptre, and use the power which always
belonged to them for his service, and for the ad-
vancing his spiritual kingdom in the world. And
even that charity which our great Master so earnestly

150 A Third Letter for Toleration.

recommends, and so strictly requires of all his dis-
ciples, as it obliges all men to seek and promote the
good of others, as well as their own, especially their
spiritual and eternal good, by such means as their se-
veral places and relations enable them to use ; so does
it especially oblige the magistrate to do it as a magi-
strate, ?. e. by that power which enables him to do it
above the rate of other men.

" So far therefore is the Christian magistrate, when
he gives his helping hand to the furtherance of the
Gospel, by laying convenient penalties upon such as
reject it, or any part of it, from using any other means
for the salvation of men's souls than what the Author
and Finisher of our faith lias directed, that he does no
more than his duty to God, to his Redeemer, and to
his subjects, requires of him."

The sum of your reply amounts to this, that by the
law of nature the magistrate may make use of his co-
active power where it is useful and necessary for the good
of the people. If it be from the law of nature, it must
be to all magistrates equally : and then I ask, whether
this good they are to promote without any new power
or commission from our Saviour, be what they think to
be so, or what they certainly know to be so. If it be
what they think to be so, then all magistrates may use
force to bring men to their religion : and what good this
is like to be to men, or of what use to the true religion,
we have elsewhere considered. If it be only that good
which they certainly ki ow to be so, they will be very
ill enabled to do what you require of them, which you
here tell us is to assist that ministry which our Lord has
appointed. Which of the magistrates of your time did
\ on know to have so well studied the controversies about
ordination and church-government, to be so well versed
in church-history and succession, that you can under-
take that he certainly knew which was the ministry
which our Lord had appointed, cither that of Koine,
or that of Sw< den ; whether the episcopacy in one part
of this island, or the presbytery in another, were the
ministry, which our Lord had appointed? II you say,
being firmly persuaded of it be sufficient to authorize

A Third Letter for Toleration, 151

the magistrate to use force; you, with the atheists, as
you call them, who do so, give the people up in every
country to the coactive force of the magistrate to be
employed for the assisting the ministers of his religion :
and king Louis of good right comes in with his dra-
goons; for it is not much doubted that he as strongly
believed his popish priests and Jesuits to be the mini-
stry which our Lord appointed, as either king Charles
or king James the Second believed that of the church
of England to be so. And of what use such an exer-
cise of the coactive power of all magistrates is to the
people, or to the true religion , you are concerned to
show. But it is, you know, but to tell me I only
trifle, and this is all answered.

What in other places you tell us is to make men
"hear, consider, study, embrace, and bring men to the
true religion," you here do very well to tell us is to
assist the ministry: and to that, it is true, "common
experience discovers the magistrate's coactive force
to be useful and necessary, viz. to those who taking
the reward, but not over-busying themselves in the care
of souls, find it for their ease, that the magistrate's
coactive power should supply their want of pastoral
care, and be made use of to bring those into an outward
conformity to the national church, whom either for
want of ability they cannot, or want of due and friendly
application, joined with an exemplary life, they never
so much as endeavoured to prevail on heartily to em-
brace it. That there maybe such neglects in the best
constituted national church in the world, the complaints
of a very knowing bishop of our church, [Dr. Gilbert
Burnet, bishop of Salisbury] in a late discourse of the
pastoral care, is too plain an evidence.

Without so great an authority I should scarce have
ventured, though it lay just in my way, to have taken
notice of what is so visible, that it is in every one's
mouth ; for fear you should have told me again, " I
made myself an occasion to show my good-will to-
ward the clergy;" for you will not, I suppose, sus-
pect that eminent prelate to have any ill-will to
them.

152 A Third Letter for Toleration.

If this were not so, that some were negligent, I ima-
gine the preachers of the true religion, which lies, as
you tell us, so obvious and exposed, as to be easily
distinguished from the false, would need or desire no
other assistance from the magistrate's coactive power
but what should be directed against the irregularity of
men's lives ; their lusts being that alone, as you tell
us, that makes force necessary to assist the true reli-
gion ; which, were it not for our depraved nature,
would by its light and reasonableness have the advan-
tage against all false religions.

You tell us too, that the magistrate may impose creeds
and ceremonies ; indeed, you say sound creeds, and
decent ceremonies, but that helps not your cause; for
who must be judge of that sound, and that decent? If
the imposer, then those words signify nothing at all,
but that the magistrate may impose those creeds and
ceremonies which he thinks sound and decent, which is
in effect such as he thinks fit. Indeed, you telling us a
little above, in the same page, that it is " a vice not to
worship God in ways prescribed by those to whom
God has left the ordering of such matters ;" you
seem to make other judges of what is sound and decent,
and the magistrate but the executor of their decrees,
with the assistance of his coactive power. A pretty
foundation to establish creeds and ceremonies on, that
God has left the ordering of them to those who cannot
order them ! But still the same difficulty returns ; for,
after they have prescribed, must the magistrate judge
them to be sound and decent, or must he impose them,
though he judge them not sound or decent ? If he must
judge them so himself, we are but where we were: if
he must impose them when prescribed, though he judge
them not sound nor decent, it is a pretty sort of drudg-
ery is put on the magistrate. And how far is this short
of implicit faith? But if he must not judge what i>
sound and decent, lie must; judge at least who are those
to whom God has left the ordering of such matters;
and then the king of France is ready again with his
dragoons for the sound doctrine and decent ceremonies

of his prescribe!^ in the council of Trent ; and that upon

A Third Letter for Toleration. 153

this ground, with as good right as any other has lor the
prescriptions of any others. Do not mistake me again,
sir ; I do not say, he judges as right ; but I do say, that
whilst he judges the council of Trent, or the clergy of
Home, to be those to whom God has left the ordering
of those matters, he has as much right to follow their
decrees, as any other to follow the judgment of any
other set of mortal men whom he believes to be so.

But whoever is to be judge of what is sound or
decent in the case, I ask,

Of what use and necessity is it to impose creeds and
ceremonies ? For that use and necessity is all the com-
mission you can find the magistrate hath to use his co-
active power to impose them.

1. Of what use and necessity is it among Christians,
that own the Scripture to be the word of God and rule
of faith, to make and impose a creed ? What commission
for this hath the magistrate from the law of nature ?
God hath given a revelation that contains in it all things
necessary to salvation, and of this his people are all
persuaded. What necessity now is there ? How does
their good require it, that the magistrate should single
out, as he thinks fit, any number of those truths as more
necessary to salvation than the rest, if God himself has
not done it ?

2. But next, are these creeds in the words of the Scrip-
ture, or not ? If they are, they are certainly sound, as
containing nothing but truth in them : and so they were
before, as they lay in the Scripture. But thus though
they contain nothing but sound truths, yet they may be
imperfect, and so unsound rules of faith, since they
may require more or less than God requires to be be-
lieved as necessary to salvation. For what greater ne-
cessity, I pray, is there that a man should believe that
Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate, than that he was
born at Bethlehem of Judah? Both are certainly true,
and no Christian doubts of either : but how comes one
to be made an article of faith, and imposed by the ma-
gistrate as necessary to salvation, (for otherwise there
can be no necessity of imposition) and the other not ?

154 A Third Letter for Toleration.

Do not mistake me here, as if I would lay by that
summary of the Christian religion which is contained in
that which is called the Apostles' Creed ; which though
nobody, who examines the matter, will have reason to
conclude of the apostles' compiling, yet is certainly of
reverend antiquity, and ought still to be preserved in
the church. I mention it not to argue against it, but
against your imposition ; and to show that even that
creed, though of that antiquity, though it contain in
it all the credenda necessary to salvation, cannot yet
upon your principles be imposed by the coercive power
of the magistrate, who, even by the commission you
have found out for him, can use his force for nothing
but what is absolutely necessary to salvation.

But if the creed to be imposed be not in the words
of divine revelation ; then it is in plainer, more clear
and intelligible expressions, or not : If no plainer,
what necessity of changing those which men inspired
by the Holy Ghost made use of? If you say, they are
plainer ; then they explain and determine the sense of
some obscure and dubious places of Scripture ; which
explication not being of divine revelation, though sound
to one man, may be unsound to another, and cannot be
imposed as truths necessary to salvation. Besides that,
this destroys what you tell us of the obviousness of all
truths necessary to salvation.

And as to rites and ceremonies, are there any neces-
sary to salvation, which Christ has not instituted? If
not, how can the magistrate impose them ? What com-
mission has he, from the care he ought to have for the
salvation of men's souls, to use his coactive force for
the establishment of any new ones which our Lord and
Saviour, with due reverence be it spoken, had forgot-
ten ? lie instituted two rites in his church ; can any one
add any new one to them? Christ commanded simply
to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost; but the signing the cross, how came that
necessary? " Human authority, which is necessary to
assist the truth against the corruption of nature, " has

made it so. But it is a " decent/ ceremony. I ask,

A Third Letter for Toleration. 15/>

is it so decent that the administration of baptism, sim-
ply, as our Saviour instituted, would be indecent with-
out it ? If not, then there is no reason to impose it for
decency's sake ; for there can be no reason to alter or
add any thing to the institution of Christ, or introduce
any ceremony or circumstance into religion for decency,
where the action would be decent without it. The com-
mand to " do all things decently, and in order," gave
no authority to add to Christ's institution any new ce-
remony ; it only prescribed the manner how, what was
necessary to be done in the congregation, should be there
done, viz. after such a manner, that if it were omitted,
there would appear some indecency, whereof the con-
gregation or collective body was to be judge, for to
them that rule was given : And if that rule go beyond
what I have said, and gives power to men to introduce
into religious worship whatever they shall think decent,
and impose the use of it ; I do not see how the greatest
part of the infinite ceremonies of the church of Rome
could be complained of, or refused, if introduced into
another church, and there imposed by the magistrate.
But if such a power were given to the magistrate, that
whatever he thought a decent ceremony he might de
novo impose, he would need some express commission
from God in Scripture, since the commission you say he
has from the law of nature, will never give him a power
to institute new ceremonies in the Christian religion,
which, be they decent or what they will, can never be
necessary to salvation.

The Gospel was to be preached in their assemblies ;
the rule then was, that the habit, gesture, voice, lan-
guage, &c. of the preacher, for these were necessary
circumstances of the action, should have nothing ridi-
culous or indecent in it. The praises of God were to
be sung ; it must be then in such postures and tunes as
became the solemnity of that action. And so a convert
was to be baptized ; Christ instituted the essential part
of that action, which was washing with water in the
name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost : in which
care was also to be had, that in the doing this nothing

156 A Third Letter for Toleration.

should be omitted that preserved a decency in all the
circumstances of the action. But nobody will say, that,
if the cross were omitted, upon that account there would
be any thing indecent in baptism.

What is to be done in the assemblies of Christians
for the salvation of souls, is sufficiently prescribed in
Scripture : but since the circumstances of the actions
were so various, and might in several countries and
ages have different appearances, as that appears decent
in one country which is quite contrary in another ; con-
cerning them there could be no other rule given than
what is, viz. " decently, in order, and to edification ;"
and in avoiding indecencies, and not adding any new
ceremonies, how decent soever, this rule consists.

I judge no man in the use of the cross in baptism.
The imposition of that, or any other ceremony not in-
stituted by Christ himself, is what I argue against, and
say, is more than you upon your principles can make
good.

Common sense has satisfied all mankind, that it is
above their reach to determine what things, in their
own nature indifferent, were fit to be made use of in
religion, and would be acceptable to the superior beings
in their worship, and therefore they have every where
thought it necessary to derive that knowledge from the
immediate will and dictates of the gods themselves, and
have taught that their forms of religion and outward
modes of worship wrere founded upon revelation : no-
body daring to do so absurd and insolent a thing as to
take upon him to presume with himself, or to prescribe
to others by his own authority, which should in these
indifferent and mean things be worthy of the Deity,
and make an acceptable part of his worship. Indeed,
they all agreed in the duties of natural religion, and we
find them by common consent owning that piety and
virtue, clean hands, and a pure heart, not polluted with
the breaches of the law of nature, was the best worship
of the gods. Reason discovered to them that a good
life was the most acceptable thing to the Deity; this
the common light of nature put past doubt. But for

A Third I ,e Iter for Toleration. 157

their ceremonies and outward performances, for them
they appeal always to a rule received from the imme-
diate direction of the superior powers themselves, where
they made use of, and had need of revelation. A plain
confession of mankind that in these things we have nei-
ther knowledge to discern, nor authority to prescribe :
that men cannot by their own skill find out what is fit,
or by their own power make any thing worthy to be a
part of religious worship. It is not for them to invent
or impose ceremonies that shall recommend men to the
Deity. It was so obvious and visible, that it became
men to have leave from God himself, before they dared
to offer to the Divine Majesty any of these trifling,
mean, and to him useless things, as a grateful and valua-
ble part of his worship ; that nobody any where, amongst
the various and strange religions they led men into, bid
such open defiance to common sense, and the reason of
all mankind, as to presume to do it without vouching
the appointment of God himself. Plato, who of all the
heathens seems to have had the most serious thoughts
about religion, says that the magistrate, or whoever has
any sense, will never introduce of his own head any
new rites into his religion : for which he gives this
convincing reason ; for, says he, " he must know it is
impossible for human nature to know any thing cer-
tainly concerning these matters." Epinom. post
medium. It cannot therefore but be matter of asto-
nishment, that any who call themselves Christians, who
have so sure and so full a revelation, which declares
all the counsel of God concerning the way of attaining
eternal salvation ; should dare by their own authority to
add any thing to what is therein prescribed, and impose
it on others as a necessary part of religious worship,
without the observance of which human inventions
men shall not be permitted the public worship of God.
If those rites and ceremonies prescribed to the Jews by
God himself, and delivered at the same time and by the
same hand to the Jews that the moral law was ; were
called beggarly elements under the Gospel, and laid by
as useless and burthensome ; what shall we call those
rites which have no other foundation but the will and

158 A Third Letter for Toleration.

authority of men, and of men very often who have not
much thought of the purity of religion, and practised
it less ?

Because you think your argument for the magistrate's
right to use force has not had its due consideration, I
shall here set it down in your own words, as it stands,
and endeavour to give you satisfaction to it. You say
there, <c If such a degree of outward force as has been
mentioned be of great and even necessary use, for the
advancing those ends, (as, taking the world as we find
it, I think it appears to be) then it must be acknow-
ledged that there is a right somewhere to use it for the
advancing those ends, unless we will say (what without
impiety cannot be said) that the wise and benign Dis-
poser and Governor of all things has not furnished
mankind with competent means for the promoting his
own honour in the world, and the good of souls. And
if there be such a right somewmere, where should it
be, but where the power of compelling resides ? That
is principally, and in reference to the public, in the
civil sovereign." Which words, if they have any argu-
ment in them, it in short stands thus : Force is useful
and necessary: The good and wise God, who without
impiety cannot be supposed not to have furnished men
with competent means for their salvation, has therefore
given a right to some men to use it, and those men are
the civil sovereigns.

To make this argument of any use to your purpose,
you must speak a little more distinctly ; lor here you,
according to your laudable and safe way of writing, are
wrapped up m the uncertainty of general terms, and
must tell us, besides the end for which it is useful and
necessary, to whom it is useful and necessary. Is it
useful and necessary to all men? That you will not say,
lor many are brought to embrace the true religion by
baie preaching, without any force. Is it then necessary
to all those, and those only, who, as you tell us, " re-
ject the tin/ religion tendered with sufficient evidence,
or at least so far manifested to them, as to oblige them
to receive it, and to lea\e them without excuse if they
do not?" To all therefore who rejecting the true

A Third Letter for Toleration. 159

religion so tendered, are without excuse, your moderate
force is useful and necessary. l$ut is it to all those
competent, i. e. suflicient means? That, it is evident
in matter of fact, it is not; for, after all, many stand
out. It is like you will say, which is all you have
to say, that those are such, to whom, having resisted
this last means, moderate force, God always refuseth
his grace to, without which no means is efficacious.
So that your competent, at last, are only such means as
are the utmost that God has appointed, and will have
used, and which, when men resist, they are without ex-
cuse, and shall never after have the assistance of his
grace to bring them to that truth they have resisted,
and so be as the apostle, 2 Tim. iii. 8, calls such,
" men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the
faith." If then it shall be, that the day of grace shall
be over to all those who reject the truth manifested to
them with such evidence as leaves them without ex-
cuse, and that bare preaching and exhortation shall be
according to the good pleasure of the benign Disposer
of all things enough, when neglected, "to make their
hearts fat, their ears heavy, and shut their eyes, that
they should not perceive nor understand, nor be con-
verted, that God should heal them ;" I say, if this
should be the case, then your force, whatever you ima-
gine of it, will neither be competent, useful, nor ne-
cessary. So that it will rest upon you to prove that
your moderate degrees of force are those means of grace
which God will have, as necessary to salvation, tried
upon every one before he will pass that sentence in
Isaiah, " Make his heart fat," &c. and that your degree
of moderate force is that beyond which God will have
no other or more powerful means used, but that those
whom that works not upon shall be left reprobate con-
cerning the faith. And till you have proved this, you
will in vain pretend your moderate force, whatever you
might think of it, if you had the ordering of that mat-
ter in the place of God, to be useful, necessary, and
competent means. For if preaching, exhortation, in-
struction, &c. as seems by the whole current of the
Scripture (and it appears not that Isaiah in the place

160 A Third Letter for Toleration.

above-cited made their hearts fat with any thing but
his words) be that means, which when rejected to such
a degree as he sees fit, God will punish with a repro-
bate mind, and that there be no other means of grace
to come after ; you must confess, that whatever good
opinion you have of your moderate force after this
sentence is passed, it can do no good, have no efficacy,
neither directly nor indirectly and at a distance, towards
the bringing men to the truth.

If your moderate force be not that precise utmost
means of grace, which, when ineffectual, God will not
afford his grace to any other, then your moderate force
is not the competent means you talk of. This there-
fore you must prove, that preaching alone is not, but
that your moderate force joined to it is that means of
grace, which, when neglected or resisted, God will assist
no other means with his grace to bring men into the
obedience of the truth ; and this, let me tell you, vou
must prove by revelation. For it is impossible to know,
but by revelation, the just measures of God's long-suf-
fering, and what those means are, which, when men's
corruptions have rendered ineffectual, his Spirit shall no
longer strive with them, nor his grace assist any other
means for their conversion or salvation. When you
have done this, there will be some ground for you to
talk of your moderate force, as the means which God's
wisdom and goodness are engaged to furnish men with ;
but to speak of it, as you do now, as if it were that
both necessary and competent means, that it would be
an imputation to the wisdom and goodness of God if
men were not furnished with it, when it is evident, thai
the greatest part of mankind have always been destitute
of it, will 1 fear be not easily cleared from that impiety
you mention; for though the magistrate had the right
to use it, yet wherever that moderate force was not
made use of, there men were not furnished with yoiir
competent means of salvation.

It is necessary, for the vindication of God's justice

and goodness, that those who miscarry should do so by
their own fault, that their destruction should be from
themselves, and they be left inexcusable : but pray how

A Third Letter for Toleration, 1()1

will you show us, that it is necessary, that any who have
resisted the truth, tendered to them only by preaching,
should be saved, any more than it is necessary that
those who have resisted the truth, when moderate force
has been joined to the same preaching, should be saved ?
They are inexcusable one as well as the other ; and
thereby have incurred the wrath of God, under which
he may justly leave the one as well as the other ; and
therefore he cannot be said not to have been furnished
with competent means of salvation, who, having rejected
the truth preached to him, has never any penalties laid
on him by the magistrate to make him consider the
truths he before rejected.

All the stress of your hypothesis for the necessity of
force, lies on this, That the majority of mankind are
not prevailed on by preaching, and therefore the good-
ness and wisdom of God are obliged to furnish them
some more effectual means, as you think. But who j
told you that the majority of mankind should ever be S
brought into the strait way and narrow gate? Or that,
force in your moderate degree was the necessary and\
competent, i. e. the just fit means to do it, neither over
nor under, but that that only, and nothing but that,
could do it ? If, to vindicate his wisdom and goodness,
God must furnish mankind with other means, as long
as the majority, yet un wrought upon, shall give any
forward demander occasion to ask, " What other means
is there left ?" he must also, after your moderate pe-
nalties have left the greater part of mankind unpre vailed
on, be bound to furnish mankind with higher degrees
of force upon this man's demand : and those degrees
of force proving ineffectual to the majority to make
them truly and sincerely Christians ; God must be
bound to furnish the world again with a new supply of
miracles upon the demand of another wise controller,
who having set his heart upon miracles, as you have
yours on force, will demand, what other means is
there left but miracles ? For it is like this last gentle-
man would take it very much amiss of you, if you
should not allow this to be a good and unquestionable
way of arguing ; or if you should deny that, after the

vol. vi, M

KV2 A Third Letter for Toleration.

utmost force had been used, miracles might not do
some service at least, indirectly and at a distance, to-
wards the bringing men to embrace the truth. And
if you cannot prove that miracles may not thus do
some service, he will conclude just as you do, that the
cause is his.

Let us try your method a little farther. Suppose
that when neither the gentlest admonitions, nor the
most earnest entreaties will prevail, something else is
to be done, as the onlv means left. What is it must be
done ? What is this necessary competent means that
you tell us of? " It is to lay briars and thorns in their
way." This therefore being supposed necessary, you
say, " there must somewhere be a right to use it." Let
it be so. Suppose I tell you that right is in God, who
certainly has a power to lay briars and thorns in the way
of those who are got into a wrong one, whenever he has
graciously pleased that other means besides instructions
and admonitions should be used to reduce them. And
we may as well expect that those thorns and briars laid
in their way by God's providence, without telling them
for what end, should work upon them as effectually,
though indirectly and at a distance, as those laid in
their way by the magistrate, without telling them for
what end. God alone knows where it is necessary,
and on whom it will be useful, which no man being
capable of knowing, no man, though he has coercive
power in his hand, can be supposed to be authorized
to use it by the commission he has to do good, on
whomsoever you shall judge it to be of great and even
necessary use : no more than your judging it to be of
great and even necessary use would authorize any one,
who liad got one of the incision-knives of the hospital
in his hand, to cut those for the stone with it, whom
be could not know needed cutting, or that cutting
would do them any good, when the master oi' the ho-
spital had given him no express order to use his in-
cision-knife in that operation ; nor was it. known toany
but the master, who needed, and on whom it would be
useful ; noi would he fail to use it himself wherever he
bund it necessary.

A Third Letter for Toleration. 1(53

Be force of as great and necessary use as you please ;
let it be so the competent means for the promoting the
honour of God in the world, and the good of souls, that
the right to use it must necessarily be somewhere.
This right cannot possibly be, where you would have
it, in the civil sovereigns, and that for the very reason
you give, viz. because it must be where the power of
compelling resides. For since civil sovereigns cannot
compel themselves, nor can the compelling power of
one civil sovereign reach another civil sovereign ; it
will not in the hands of the civil sovereigns reach the
most considerable part of mankind, and those who,
both for their own and their subjects' good, have most
need of it. Besides, if it go along with the power of
compelling, it must be in the hands of all civil sove-
reigns alike : which, by this, as well as several other
reasons I have given, being unavoidable to be so, this
right will be so far from useful, that whatever efficacy
force has, it will be employed to the doing more harm
than good ; since the greatest part of civil sovereigns
being of false religions, force will be employed for the
promoting of those.

But let us grant what you can never prove, that
though all civil sovereigns have compelling power, yet
only those of the true religion have a right to use force
in matters of religion : your own argument of mankind
being unfurnished, which is impiety to say, with com-
petent means for the promoting the honour of God
and the good of souls, still presses you. For the com-
pelling power of each civil sovereign not reaching be-
yond his own dominions, the right of using force in the
hands only of the orthodox civil sovereigns leaves the
rest, which is the far greater part of the world, desti-
tute of this your necessary and competent means for
promoting the honour of God in the world, and the
good of souls.

Sir, I return you my thanks for having given me this
occasion to take a review of your argument, which you
told me I had mistaken ; which I hope I now have not,
and have answered to your satisfaction.

m 2

i()l- A Third Letter for Toleration.

I confess I mistook when I said that cutting, being
judged useful, could not authorize even a skilful sur-
geon to cut a man without any further commission ; for
it should have been thus : that though a man has the
instruments in his hand, and force enough to cut with,
and cutting be judged by you of great and even neces-
sary use in the stone ; yet this, without any further
commission, will not authorize any one to use his
strength and knife in cutting, who knowrs not who has
the stone, nor has any light or measures to judge to
whom cutting may be necessary or useful.

But let us see what you say in answer to my instance :
1. " That the stone does not always kill, though it be
not cured ; but men do often live to a great age with
it, and die at last of other distempers. But aversion
to the true religion is certainly and inevitably mortal
to the soul, if not cured, and so of absolute necessity
to be cured." Is it of absolute necessitv to be cured
in all ? If so, will you not here again think it requisite
that the wise and benign Disposer and Governor of all
things should furnish competent means for what is of
absolute necessity ? For will it not be impiety to say,
that God has so left mankind unfurnished of competent,
L e. sufficient means for what is absolutely necessary ?
For it is plain in your account men have not been fur-
nished with sufficient means for what is of absolute ne-
cessity to be cured in all, if in any of them it be left
uncured. For as you allow none to be sufficient evi-
dence, but what certainly gains assent ; so by the same
rule you cannot call that sufficient means, which does
not work the cure. It is in vain to say, the means were
sufficient, had it not been for their own fault, when that
fault of theirs is the very thing to be cured. You go
on : " and yet if we should suppose the stone as cer-
tainly destructive of this temporal life, as that aver-
sion is of men's eternal salvation : even so the neces-
sity of curing it would be as iniieh less than the ne-
ity of curing that aversion, as this temporal life
falls short in value of thai which is eternal." This
is built upon a supposition, that the necessity of the

A Third Letter for Toleration. i6.>

means is increased by the value of the end, which being
in this case the salvation of men's souls, that is of infi-
nite concernment to them, you conclude salvation ab-
solutely necessary : which makes you say that aversion,
&c. being inevitably mortal to the soul, is of absolute
necessity to be cured. Nothing is of absolute necessity
but God : whatsoever else can be said to be of necessity,
is so only relatively in respect to something else ; and
therefore nothing can indefinitely thus be said to be of
absolute necessity, where the thing it relates to is not
absolutely necessary. We may say, wisdom and power
in God are absolutely necessary, because God himself
is absolutely necessary : but we cannot crudely say, the
curing in men their aversion to the true religion is ab-
solutely necessary, because it is not absolutely neces-
sary that men should be saved. But this is very proper
and true to be said, that curing this aversion is abso-
lutely necessary in all that shall be saved. But I fear
that would not serve your turn, though it be certain
that your absolute necessity in this case reaches no far-
ther than this, that to be cured of this aversion is ab-
solutely necessary to salvation, and salvation is absolutely
necessary to happiness ; but neither of them, nor the
happiness itself of any man, can be said to be absolutely
necessary.

This mistake makes you say, that supposing " the
stone certainly destructive of this temporal life, yet
the necessity of curing it would be as much less than
the necessity of curing that aversion, as this temporal
life falls short in value of that which is eternal.,, Which
is quite otherwise : for if the stone will certainly kill a
man without cutting, it is as absolutely necessary to cut
a man for the stone for the saving of his life, as it is to
cure the aversion for the saving of his soul. Nay, if
you have but eggs to fry, fire is as absolutely necessary
as either of the other, though the value of the end be
in these cases infinitely different ; for in one of them
you lose only your dinner, in the other your life, and
in the other your soul. But yet, in these cases, fire,
cutting, and curing that aversion, are each of them

166 A Third Letter for Toleration.

absolutely andequally necessary to their respective ends,
because those ends cannot be attained without them.

You say farther, " Cutting for the stone is not always
necessary in order to the cure : but the penalties you
speak of are altogether necessary (without extraordinary
grace) to cure that pernicious and otherwise un tract-
able aversion." Let it be so ; but do the surgeons
know who has this stone, this aversion, so that it will
certainly destroy him, unless he be cut? Will you un-
dertake to tell when the aversion is such in any man,
that it is incurable by preaching, exhortation, and en-
treaty, if his spiritual physician will be instant with him
in season, and out of season ; but certainly curable, if
moderate force be made use of? till you are sure of
the former of these, you can never say your moderate
force is necessary : till you are sure of the latter, you
can never say, it is competent means. What you will
determine concerning extraordinary grace, and when
God bestows that, I leave you to consider, and speak
clearly of it at your leisure.

You add, that even where " cutting for the stone is
necessary, it is withal hazardous by my confession. But
your penalties can no way endanger or hurt the soul,
but by the fault of him that undergoes them." If the
magistrate use force to bring men to the true religion,
he must judge which is the true religion ; and he can
judge no other to be it but that which he believes to
be the true religion, which is his own religion. But
for the magistrate to use force to bring men to his own
religion has so much danger in it to men's souls, that
by your own confession, none but an atheist will say that
magistrates may use force to bring men to their own

religion.

This I suppose is enough to make good all that I
aimed at in my instance of cutting for the stone, which
was, that though it were judged useful, and I add now
necessary, to cut men for the stone, yet that was not
enough to authorize a surgeon to cut a man, but he
must have, besides that general one of doing good, some
more special commission ; and that which I there men-

A Third Letter for Toleration. 107

tioned, was the patient's consent. But you tell me,
" That though, as things now stand, no surgeon has
any right to cut his calculous patient without his con-
sent; yet if the magistrate should by a public law ap-
point and authorize a competent number of the most
skilful in that art to visit such as labour under that
disease, and to cut those (whether they consent or not)
whose lives they unanimously judge it impossible to
save otherwise : you are apt to think I would find it
hard to prove that in so doing he exceeded the bounds
of his power : and you are sure it would be as hard to
prove that those artists would have no right in that
case to cut such persons.'* Show such a law from the
great Governor of the universe, and I shall yield that
your surgeons shall go to work as fast as you please.
But where is the public law ? " Where is the compe-
tent number of magistrates skilful in the art, who must
unanimously judge of the disease and its danger ?"
You can show nothing of all this, yet you are so liberal
of this sort of cure, that one cannot take you for less
than cutting Morecraft himself. But, sir, if there were
a competent number of skilful and impartial men, who
were to use the incision-knife on all in whom they found
this stone of aversion to the true religion ; what do you
think, would they find no work in your hospital?

Aversion to the true religion you say is of absolute
necessity to be cured : what I beseech you is that true
religion ? that of the church of England ? For that you
own to be the only true religion ; and, whatever you
say, you cannot upon your principles name any other
national religion in the world that you will own to be
the true. It being then of absolute necessity that men's
aversion to the national religion of England should be
cured : has all mankind, in whom it has been absolutely
necessary to be cured, been furnished with competent
and necessary means for the cure of this aversion ?

In the next place, what is your necessary and suffi-
cient means for this cure that is of absolute necessity ?
and that is moderate penalties made use of by the ma-
gistrate, where the national is the true religion, and
sufficient means are provided for all men's instruction

168 A Third Letter for Toleration.

in the true religion. And here again I ask, have all
men to whom this cure is of absolute necessity been
furnished with this necessary means ?

Thirdly, How is your necessary remedy to be ap-
plied ? And that is in a way wherein it cannot work the
cure, though wre should suppose the true religion the
national every where, and all the magistrates in the
world zealous for it. To this true religion, say you, men
have a natural and great aversion of absolute necessity
to be cured, and the only cure for it is force your way
applied, i. e. penalties must be laid upon all that dissent
from the national religion, till they conform. Why
are men averse to the true ? Because it crosses the
profits and pleasures of this life ; and for the same rea-
son they have an aversion to penalties : these, therefore,
if they be opposed one to another, and penalties be so
laid that men must quit their lusts, and heartily em-
brace the true religion, or else endure the penalties,
there may be some efficacy in force towards bringing
men to the true religion : but if there be no opposition
between an outward profession of the true religion, and
men's lusts ; penalties laid on men till they outwardly
conform are not a remedy laid to the disease. Punish-
ments so applied have no opposition to men's lusts,
nor from thence can be expected any cure. Men must
be driven from their aversion to the true religion by
penalties they have a greater aversion to. This is all
the operation of force. But if by getting into the com-
munion of the national church they can avoid the pe-
nalties, and yet retain their natural corruption and
aversion to the true religion, what remedy is there to
the disease by penalties so applied? You would, you
say, have men made uneasy. This no doubt will work
on men, and make them endeavour to get out of this
uneasy state as soon as they can. But it will always
be by that way wherein they can he most easy; for it
is the uneasiness alone they fly from, and therefore they
will not exchange one uneasiness for another; not for
a greater, nor an equal, nor any at all, if they can help
it. If therefore it be so uneasy for men to mortify their
Inst, ;|S you tell us, which the true religion requires of

A Third Letter for Toleration. 16(J

ihem, it' they embrace it in earnest; but which out-
ward conformity to the true religion, or any national
church* does not require ; what need or use is there
of force applied so, that it meets not at all with men's
lusts, or aversion to the true religion, but leaves them
the liberty of a quiet enjoyment of them, free from force
and penalties in a legal and approved conformity ? Is a
man negligent of his soul, and will not be brought to
consider ? obstinate, and will not embrace the truth ?
is he careless, and will not be at the pains to examine
matters of religion ? corrupt, and will not part with his
lusts, which are dearer to him than his first-born ? It is
but owning the national profession, and he may be so
still : if he conform, the magistrate has done punishing,
he is a son of the church, and need not consider any
thing farther for fear of penalties ; they are removed,
and all is well. So that at last there neither being an
absolute necessity that aversion to the true religion
should in all men be cured : nor the magistrate being
a competent judge who have this stone of aversion, or
who have it to that degree as to need force to cure it,
or in whom it is curable, were force a proper remedy,
as it is not : nor having any commission to use it, not-
withstanding what you have answered : it is still not
only as, but more reasonable for the magistrate, upon
pretence of its usefulness or necessity, to cut any one
for the stone without his own consent, than to use
force your way to cure him of aversion to the true
religion.

To my question, in whose hands this right, we were
a little above speaking of, was in Turkey, Persia, or
China? you tell me, " you answer roundly and plainly,
" in the hands of the sovereign, to use convenient pe-
nalties for the promoting the true religion." I will
not trouble you here with a question you will meet with
elsewhere, who in these countries must be judge of the
true religion ? But I will ask, whether you or any wise
man would have put a right of using force into a Ma-
hommedan or pagan prince's hand, for the promoting
of Christianity ? Which of my pagans or Mahommedans
would have done otherwise ?

170 A Third Letter for Toleration.

But God, you say, has done it, and you make it
good by telling me in the following words, " If this
startle me, then you must tell me farther, that you
look upon the supreme power to be the same all the
world over, in what hands soever it is placed, and this
right to be contained in it : and if those that have it
do not use it as they ought, but instead of promoting
true religion by proper penalties, set themselves to en-
force Mohammedism or paganism, or any other false
religion : all that can, or that needs be said to the mat-
ter, is, that God will one day call them to an account
for the neglect of their duty, for the dishonour they do
to him, and for the souls that perish by their fault.?
Your taking this right to be a part of the supreme
power of all civil sovereigns, which is the thing in ques-
tion, is not, as I take it, proving it to be so. But let
us take it sojbr once, what then is your answer ? " God
will one day call those sovereigns to an account for the
neglect oi' their duty." The question is not, what
God will do with the sovereigns who have neglected
their duty ; but how mankind is furnished with your
competent means of promoting God's honour in the
world, and the good of souls in countries where the
sovereign is of a wrong religion ? For there, how clearly
soever the right of using it be in the sovereign, yet
as long as he uses not force to bring his subjects to
the true religion, they are destitute of your competent
means. For I imagine you do not make the right to
use that force, but the actual application of it by penal
laws, to be your useful and necessary means. For if
you think the bare having that right be enough, if that
be your sufficient means without the actual use of
force, we readily allow it you. And, as I tell you else-
where, I see not then what need you had of miracles
" to supply the want of the magistrates' assistance till
Christianity was supported and encouraged by the laws
of the empire:" for, by your own rule, the magistrates
of the world, during the three first centuries after
the publishing the Christian religion, had the same
right, it* that had been enough, that they have now in
Turkey, Persia, or China. That this is all that can be

A Third Letter for Toleration. 171

said in this matter, I easily grant you ; but that it is all
that needs be said to make good your doctrine, I must
beg your pardon.

In the same sentence wherein you tell me, I should
have added necessity to usefulness, I call it necessary
usefulness, which I imagine is not much different. But
that with the following words wherein my argument
lay, had the ill luck to be overseen; but if you please
to take mv argument, as I have now again laid it before
you, it will serve my turn.

In your next paragraph you tell me, that what is said
by me is with the same ingenuity I have used in other
places : my words in that place are these : " The au-
thor having endeavoured to show that nobody at all,
of any rank or condition, had any power to punish,
torment, or use any man ill for matters of religion :
you tell us, you do not yet understand why clergy-
men are not as capable of such power as other men ;"
which words of mine containing in them nothing but
true matter of fact, give you no reason to tax my in-
genuity : nor will what you allege make it otherwise
than such power ; for if the power you there speak of
were externally coactive power, is not that the same
power the author was speaking of, made use of to those
ends he mentions of tormenting and punishing ? And
do not you own that those who have that power ought
to punish those who offend in rejecting the true reli-
gion ? As to the remaining part of that paragraph, I
shall leave the reader to judge whether I sought any
occasion so much as to name the clergy ; or whether the
itching of your fingers to be handling the rod guided
not your pen to what was nothing to the purpose: for
the author has not said any thing so much as tending to
exclude the clergy from secular employments, but only,
if you will take your own report of it, that no ecclesias-
tical officer, as such, has any externally coactive power ;
whereupon you cry out, that "you do not yet under-
stand why ecclesiastics or clergymen are not as capa-
ble of such power as other men." Had you stood
to be constable of your parish, or of the hundred, you
might have had cause to vindicate thus your capacity,

17 2 A Third Letter for Toleration.

if orders had been objected to you ; or if your aim be
at a justice of the peace, or lord chief justice of Eng-
land, much more. However you must be allowed to
be a man of forecast, in clearing the way to secular
power, if you know yourself, or any of your friends
desirous of it : otherwise, I confess you have reason to
be on this occasion a little out of humour, as you are, for
bringing this matter in question so wholly out of season.
Nor will, I fear, the ill-fitted excuse you bring give
yourself, or one who consults the places in both yours
and the author's letter, a much better opinion of it.
However I cannot but thank you for your wonted in-
genuity, in saying, that "it seems I wanted an occasion
to show my good- will to the clergy, and so I made
myself one." And to find more work for the excel-
lent gift you have this way, I desire you to read over
that paragraph of mine again, and tell me whether you
can find any thing said in it not true ? Any advice in it
that you yourself would disown ? any thing that any
worthyclergyman that adorns his function is concerned
in ? And when you have set it down in my words, the
world shall be judge, whether I have showed any ill-
will to the clergy. Till then I may take the liberty to
own, that I am more a friend to them and their calling
than those amongst them who show their forwardness
to leave the word of God to serve other employments.
The office of a minister of the Gospel requires so the
whole man, that the very looking alter their poor was,
by the joint voice of the twelve apostles, called " leav-
ing the word of God, and serving of tables." Acts
iv. 2. But if you think no men's faults can be spoken
of without ill-will, you will make a very ill preacher :
or if you think this to be so only in speaking of mis-
takes in any of the clergy, there must be in your opi-
nion something peculiar in their case, that makes it so
much a fault to mention any of theirs; which I must
be pardoned for, since I was not aware of it: and there
will want but a little cool reflection to convince you,
that had not the present church of England a greater
number in proportion than possibly any other age of
the church ever had, of those who by their pious lives

A Third Letter for Toleration. 173

and labours in their ministry adorn their profession ;
such busy men as cannot be content to be divines with-
out being laymen too, would so little keep up the
reputation which ought to distinguish the clergy, or
preserve the esteem due to a holy, u e. a separate
order ; that nobody can show greater good-will to them
than by taking all occasions to put a stop to any for-
wardness to be meddling out of their calling. This, I
suppose, made a learned prelate of our church, out of
kindness to the clergy, mind them of their stipulation
and duty in a late treatise, and tell them that "the
pastoral care is to be a man's entire business, and to
possess both his thoughts and his time." Disc, of
Past. Care, p. 121.

To your saying, " That the magistrate may lay pe-
nalties upon those who refuse to embrace the doctrine
of the proper ministers of religion, or are alienated from
the truth :" I answered, " God never gave the ma-
gistrate an authority to be judge of truth for another
man." This you grant ; but withal say, " That if
the magistrate knows the truth, though he has no au-
thority to judge of truth for another man; yet he
may be judge whether other men be alienated from
the truth or no ; and so may have authority to lay
some penalties upon those whom he sees to be so, to
bring them to judge more sincerely for themselves."
For example, the doctrine of the proper ministers of
religion is, that the three creeds, Nice, Athanasius's,
and that commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought
to be thoroughly received and believed : as also that the
Old and New Testament contain all things necessary
to salvation. The one of these doctrines a papist subject
embraces not ; and a Socinian the other. What now is
the magistrate by your commission to do ? He is to lay
penalties upon them, and continue them: How long?
Only till they conform, i. e. till they profess they em-
brace these doctrines for true. In which case he does
not judge of the truth for other men: he only judges
that other men are alienated from the truth. Do you
not now admire your own subtilty and acuteness? I

174 A Third Letter J or Toleration.

that cannot comprehend this, tell you my dull sense in
the case. He that thinks another man in an error,
judges him, as you phrase it, alienated from the truth,
and then judges of truth and falsehood only for himself.
But if he lays any penalty upon others, which they are
to lie under till they embrace for a truth what he judges
to be so, he is then so far a judge of truth for those
others. This is what I think to judge of truth for an-
other means : if you will tell me what else it signifies,
I am ready to learn.

"You grant," you say, "God never gave the magistrate
any authority to be judge of truth for another man :"
and then add, " But how does it follow from thence that
he cannot be judge, whether any man be alienated
from the truth or no ?" And I ask you, who ever said
any such thing did follow from thence ? That which
I say, and which you ought to disprove, is, that who-
ever punishes others for not being of the religion he
judges to be true, judges of truth for others. But you
prove that a man may be judge of truth, without hav-
ing authority to judge of it for other men, or to pre-
scribe to them what they shall believe, which you might
have spared, till you meet with somebody that denies
it. But yet your proof of it is worth remembering :
"rectum, " say you, "est index sui et obliqui. And cer-
tainly whoever does but know the truth may easily
judge whether other men be alienated from it or no."
But though "rectum be index sui et obliqui ;" yet a
man may be ignorant of that which is the right, and
may take error for truth. The truth of religion, when
known, shows what contradicts it is false : but yet that
truth may be unknown to the magistrate, as well as to
any other man. But you conclude, I know not upon
what ground, as if the magistrate could not miss it, or
were surer to find it than other men. I suppose you are
thus favourable only to the magistrate of your own pro-
fession, as no doubt in civility a papist or a presbvto-
rian would be to those of his. And then inter : IW And

therefore if the magistrate knows the truth, though

hi' has no authority to judge of truth lor other men.

A Third Letter for Toleration. 1^5

yet he may judge whether other men be alienated
from the truth or no." Without doubt! who denies
it him ? It is a privilege that he and all men have, that
when they know the truth, or believe the truth, or
have embraced an error for truth, they may judge whe-
ther other men are alienated from it or no, if those
other men own their opinions in that matter.

You go on with your inference, " and so may have
authority to lay some penalties upon those whom he
sees to be so." Now, sir, you go a little too fast.
This he cannot do without making himself judge of
truth for them : the magistrate, or anyone, may judge
as much as he pleases of men's opinions and errors ; he
in that judges only for himself: but as soon as he uses
force to bring them from their own to his opinion, he
makes himself judge of truth for them; let it be to
bring them to judge more sincerely for themselves, as
you here call it, or under what pretence or colour so-
ever, for that wThat you say is but a pretence, the very
expression discovers. Fordoes any one ever judge in-
sincerely for himself, that he needs penalties to make
him judge more sincerely for himself? A man may
judge wrong for himself, and may be known or thought
to do so : but who can either know or suppose another
is not sincere in the judgment he makes for himself, or,
which is the same thing, that any one knowingly puts
a mixture of falsehood into the judgment he makes ? for
as speaking insincerely is to speak otherwise than one
thinks, let what he says be true or false ; so judging in-
sincerely must be to judge otherwise than one thinks,
which I imagine is not very feasible. But how impro-
per soever it be to talk of judging insincerely for one's
self, it was better for you in that place to say, penalties
were to bring men to judge more sincerely, rather than
to say, more rightly, or more truly: for had you said,
the magistrate might use penalties to bring men to judge
more truly, that very word had plainly discovered, that
he made himself a judge of truth for them. You there-
fore wisely chose to say what might best cover this con-
tradiction to yourself, whether it were sense or no;

176 A Third Letter for Toleration.

which perhaps, whilst it sounded well, every one would
not stand to examine.

One thing give me leave here to observe to you, which
is, that when you speak of the entertainment subjects
are to give to truth, L e. the true religion, you call it
believing ; but this in the magistrate you call knowing.
Now let me ask you, whether any magistrate, who laid
penalties on any who dissented from what he judged the
true religion, or, as you call it here, were alienated
from the truth ; was or could be determined in his judg-
ing of that truth by any assurance greater than believ-
ing? When you have resolved that, you will then see
to what purpose is all you have said here concerning
the magistrate's knowing the truth ; which at last
amounting to no more than the assurance wherewith a
man certainly believes and receives a thing for true, will
put every magistrate under the same, if there be any
obligation to use force, whilst he believes his own reli-
gion. Besides, if a magistrate knows his religion to
be true, he is to use means not to make his people be-
lieve, but know it also ; knowledge of them, if that be
the way of entertaining the truths of religion, being as
necessary to the subjects as the magistrate. I never
heard yet of a master of mathematics, who had the
care of informing of others in those truths, who ever
went about to make any one believe one of Euclid's
propositions.

The pleasantness of your answer, notwithstanding
what you say, doth remain still the same : for you mak-
ing, as is to be seen, "the power of the magistrate is
ordained for the bringing men to take such care as
they ought of their salvation," the reason why it is
every man's interest to vest this power in the magi-
strate must suppose this power so ordained before the
people vested it | or else it could not be an argument
for their vesting it in the magistrate, For if you had
not here buih upon your fundamental supposition, that
this power of the magistrate is ordained by God to that
end, the proper and intelligible \v;iv of expressing your
meaning had not been to say as you do : " As the power

A Third Letter for Toleration. 177

of the magistrate is ordained for bringing, &c. so if
we suppose this power vested in the magistrate by the
people:" in which way of speaking, this power of the
magistrate is evidently supposed already ordained. But
a clear way of making your meaning understood had
been to say, That for the people to ordain such a
power of the magistrate, or to vest such a power in
the magistrate, which is the same thing, was their true
interest : but whether it were your meaning or your
expression that was guilty of the absurdity, I shall leave
it with the reader.

As to the other pleasant thing of your answer, it will
still appear by barely reciting it : the pleasant thing I
charge on you is, that you say, That " the power of the
magistrate is to bring men to such a care of their salva-
tion, that they may not blindly leave it to the choice
of any person, or their own lusts or passions, to pre-
scribe to them what faith or worship they shall em-
brace ;" and yet that it is their best course " to vest a
power in the magistrate," liable to the same lusts and
passions as themselves, to choose for them. To this
you answer, by asking, where it is that you say that it
is the people's best course to vest a power in the ma-
gistrate to choose for them ? That you tell me I do not
pretend to show. If you had given yourself the pains
to have gone on to the end of the paragraph, or will be
pleased to read it as I have here again set it down for
your perusal, you will find that I at least pretended to
show it. My words are these : " If they vest a power
in the magistrate to punish them when they dissent
from his religion, to bring them to act even against
their own inclination, according to reason and sound
judgment," which is, as you explain yourself in another
place, " to bring them to consider reasons and argu-
ments proper and sufficient to convince them ; how far
is this from leaving it to the choice of another man to
prescribe to them what faith or worship they shall
embrace?" Thus far you cite my words; to which
let me join the remaining part of the paragraph, to
let you see that I pretended to show that the course

VOL. VI. N

178 A Third Letter for Toleration.

you proposed to the people, as best for them, was to
vest a power in the magistrate to choose for them. My
words, which follow those where you left off, are these :
" Especially if we consider, that you think it a strange
thing, that the author would have the care of every
man's soul left to himself alone. So that this care
being vested in the magistrate, with a power to punish
men to make them consider reasons and arguments
proper and sufficient to convince them of the truth of
his religion ; the choice is evidently in the magistrate,
as much as it can be in the power of one man to choose
for another what religion he shall be of; which consists
only in a power of compelling him by punishments to
embrace it." But all this, you tell me, "is just no-
thing to the purpose." Why, I beseech you ? " Be-
cause you speak not of the magistrate's religion, but
of the true religion, and that proposed with sufficient
evidence."

The case in short is this : men are apt to be misled
by their passions, lusts, and other men, in the choice
of their religion. For this great evil you propose a
remedy, which is, that men (for you must remember
you are here speaking of the people putting this power
into the magistrate's hand) should choose some of their
fellow-men, arid give them a power by force to guard
them, that they might not be alienated from the truth
by their own passions, lusts, or by other men. So it
was in the first scheme ; or, as you have it now, to
punish them, whenever they rejected the true religion,
and that proposed with sufficient evidence of the truth
of it. A pretty remedy, and manifestly effectual at
first sight ; that because men were all promiscuously
apt to be misled in their judgment} or choice of their
religion, by passion, lust, and other men, therefore they
should choose some amongst themselves, who might,
they and their successors, men made just like them-
selves, punish them that rejected the true religion.

" IF the blind lead the blind, both shall fail into the
ditch," says our Saviour. If men, apt to be misled by
their passions and lusts, will guard themselves from

A Third Letter for Toleration. 179

falling into error by punishments laid on them by
men as apt to be misled by passions and lusts as them-
selves, how are they safer from falling into error? Now
hear the infallible remedy for this inconvenience, and
admire : the men to whom they have given this power
must not use it till they find those who gave it them in
an error. A friend, to whom I showed this expedient,
answered, This is none : for why is not a man as fit
to judge for himself when he is in an error, as another
to judge for him, who is as liable to error himself? I
answered, This power, however, in the other can do
him no harm, but may, indirectly and at a distance, do
him good; because the magistrate, who has this power
to punish him, must never use it but when he is in the
right, and he that is punished is in the wrong. But,
said my friend, who shall be judge whether he be in the
right or no? For men in an error think themselves in
the right, and that as confidently as those who are most
so. To which I replied, Nobody must be judge; but
the magistrate may know when he is in the right. And
so may the subject too, said my friend, as well as the
magistrate, and therefore it was as good still to be free
from a punishment, that gives a man no more security
from error than he had without it. Besides, said he,
who must be judge whether the magistrate knows or
no ? For he may mistake, and think it to be knowledge
and certainty, when it is but opinion and belief. It is
no matter for that, in this scheme, replied I ; the ma-
gistrate, we are told, may know which is the true reli-
gion, and he must not use force but to bring men to
the true religion; and if he does, God will one day
call him to an account for it, and so all is safe. As safe
as beating the air can make a thing, replied my friend;
for if believing, being assured, confidently being per-
suaded that they know that the religion they profess is
true, or any thing else short of true knowledge, will
serve the turn, all magistrates will have this power
alike, and so men will be well guarded, or recovered
from false religions, by putting it into the magistrate's
hand to punish them when they have alienated them-
selves from it.

N ^

180 A Third Letter for Toleration.

If the magistrate be not to punish men but when he
knows, u e. is infallibly certain (for so is a man in
what he knows), that his national religion is all true,
and knows also, that it has been proposed to those he
punishes with sufficient evidence of the truth of it : it
would have been as good this power had never been
given him, since he will never be in a condition to
exercise it : and at best it was given him to no purpose,
since those who gave it him were one with another as
little indisposed to consider impartially, examine dili-
gently, study, find, and infallibly know the truth, as
he. But, said he at parting, to talk thus of the magi-
strate's punishing men that reject the true religion,
without telling us who those magistrates are, who have
a power to judge which is the true religion, is to put
this power in all magistrates' hands alike, or none; for
to say he only is to be judge which is the true religion
who is of it, is but to begin the round of inquiries again,
which can at last end nowhere but in every one's sup-
posing his own to be it. But, said he, if you will con-
tinue to talk on thus, there is nothing more to be
done with you, but to pity or laugh at you ; and so he
left me.

I assure you, sir, I urged this part of your hypo-
thesis with all the advantage I thought your answer
afforded me ; and if I have erred in it, or there be any
way to get out of the strait (if force must in your way
be used) either of the magistrate's punishing men for
rejecting the true religion, without judging which is
the true religion ; or else that the magistrate should
judge which is the true religion; which way ever of the
two you shall determine it, I see not what advantage it
can be to the people, to keep them from choosing
amiss, that this power of punishing them shall be put
into the magistrate's hands.

And then, if the magistrate must judge which is
the true religion ; as how he should, without judging,
punish any one who rejects it, is hard to find ; and
punish men who reject it until they embrace it, let it
be to make them consider, or what you please, he does,
I think, choose their religion for them. And if you have

A Third Letter for Toleration. 181

not the dexterity to choose the national religion where-
ever you are, I doubt not but that you would think so
too if you were in France, though there were none
but moderate penalties laid on you, to bring you, even
against your own inclination, to act according to what
they there call reason and sound judgment.

That paragraph and mine, to which it is an answer,
run thus :

L. II. p. 128.— L. III. p. 67. " But it seems

" I do neither you you have not done with this yet :

nor the magistrate for you say, ' you do neither me

injury when I say nor the magistrate injury, when

that the power you say that the power I give the

you give the ma- magistrate, of punishing men to

gistrate of pu- make them consider reasons and

nishing men to arguments proper and sufficient to

make them consi- convince them, is to convince them

der reasons and of the truth of his religion, what-

arguments proper ever that be, and to bring them to

and sufficient to it/ Which seems a little strange

convince them, is and pleasant too. But thus you

to convince them prove it : * For men will never, in

of the truth of his opinion, act according to reason

his religion, and and sound judgment, till they em-

to bring them to brace his religion. And if you

it. For men will have the brow of an honest man,

never, in his opi- you will not say the magistrate

nion, act accord- will ever punish you, to bring you

ing to reason and to consider any other reasons and

sound judgment, arguments but such as are proper

which is the thing to convince you of the truth of

you here say men his religion, and to bring you to

should be brought that. Which (besides the pleasant

to by the magis- talk of such reasons and argu-

trate, even against ments as are proper and sufficient

their own inclina- to convince men of the truth of the

tion, till they em- magistrate's religion,' though it

brace his religion, be a false one) is just as much as

And if you have to say, It is so, because in the

182

A Third Letter for Toleration.

the brow of an
honest man, you
will not say the
magistrate will
ever punish you,
to bring you to
consider any other
reasons and argu-
ments, but such
as are proper to
convince you of
the truth of his
religion, and to
bring you to that.
Thus you shift for-
wards and back-
wards. You say,
the magistrate has
no power to pu-
nish men to com-
pel them to his
religion; but only
to compel them
to consider rea-
sons and argu-
ments proper to
convince them of
the truth of his
religion; which is
all one as to say,
nobody has power
to choose your
way for you to Je-
rusalem ; but yet
the lord of the
manor has power
to punish you, to
bring you to con-
sider reasons and
arguments proper

magistrate's opinion it is so; and
because it is not to be expected
that he will act against his opi-
nion. As if the magistrate's opi-
nion could change the nature of
things, and turn a power to pro-
mote the true religion into a power
to promote a false one. No, sir,
the magistrate's opinion has no
such virtue. It may indeed keep
him from exercising the power he
has to promote the true religion ;
and it may lead him to abuse the
pretence of it to the promoting a
false one : but it can neither de-
stroy that power, nor make it any
thing but what it is. And there-
fore, whatever the magistrate's
opinion be, his power was given
him (as the apostles' power was to
them) for edification only, not for
destruction : and it may always be
said of him (what St. Paul said of
himself) that he can do nothing
against the truth, but for the truth.
And therefore, if the magistrate
punishes me to bring me to a false
religion, it is not his opinion that
will excuse him, when he comes
to answer for it to his Judge. For
certainly men are as accountable
for their opinions (those of them,
I mean, which influence their
practice) as they are for their ac-
tions.

" Here is, therefore, no shifting
forwards and backwards, as you
pretend ; nor any circle, but in
your own imagination. For though
it be true that I say, 4 the magi-

A Third Letter for Toleration.

183

strate has no power to punish men,
to compel them to his religion/
yet I nowhere say, nor will it
follow from any thing I do say,"
1 That he has power to compel them
to consider reasons and arguments
proper to convince them of the
truth of his religion/ But I do
not much wonder that you endea-
vour to put this upon me.' For I
think by this time it is pretty plain,
that otherwise you would have but
little to say : and it is an art very
much in use amongst some sort of
learned men, wThen they cannot
confute what an adversary does
say, to make him say what he does
not ; that they may have some-
thing which they can confute."

and sufficient to
convince you. Of
what? that the
way he goes in is
the right, and so
to make you join
in company, and
go along with him.
So that, in effect,
what is all your
going about, but
to come at last
to the same place
again ; and put a
power into the ma-
gistrate's hands,
under another pre-
tence, to compel
men to his reli-
gion? which use of
force the author
has sufficientlv
overthrown, and
you yourself have
quitted. But I
am tired to follow
you so often round
the same circle."

The beginning of this answer is part of the old song
of triumph. "What! reasons and arguments proper
and sufficient to convince men of the truth of false-
hood ?" Yes, sir, the magistrate may use force to
make men consider those reasons and arguments, which
he thinks proper and sufficient to convince men of the
truth of his religion, though his religion be a false one.
And this is as possible for him to do, as for a man as
learned as yourself to write a book, and use such argu-
ments as he thinks proper and sufficient to convince

184. A Third Letter for Toleration.

men of the truth of his opinion, though it be a false-
hood.

As to the remaining part of your answer, the question
is not, whether the " magistrate's opinion can change
the nature of things, or the power he has, or excuse
him to his Judge for misusing of it ?* But this, that
since all magistrates, in your opinion, have commis-
sion, and are obliged to promote the true religion by
force, and they can be guided in the discharge of this
duty by nothing but their own opinion of the true reli-
gion, what advantage can this be to the true religion,
what benefit to their subjects, or whether it amounts
to any more than a commission to every magistrate
to use force for the promoting his own religion ? To
this question, therefore, you will do well to apply your
answer, which a man of less skill than you will be scarce
able to do.

You tell us indeed, that " whatever the magistrate's
opinion be, his power was given him (as the apostles'
power was to them) for edification only, and not for
destruction." But if the apostles' power had been given
them for one end, and St. Paul, St. Peter, and nine
other of the twelve had nothing to guide them but their
own opinion, which led them to another end ; I ask
you whether the edification of the church could have
been carried on as it was ?

You tell us farther, that u it may always be said of
the magistrate (what St. Paul said of himself) that he
can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth/'
Witness the king of France. If you say this in the same
sense that St. Paul said it of himself, who, in all things
requisite for edification, had the immediate direction
and guidance of the unerring Spirit of God, and so was
infallible, we need not go to Rome for an infallible
guide ; every country has one in their magistrate. If you
apply these words to the magistrate in another sense
than what St. Paul spoke them in of himself, sober men
will be apt to think you have a great care to insinuate
into others a high veneration lor the magistrate; but

A 'Third Letter for Toleration. 185

that you yourself have no over-great reverence for the
Scripture, which you thus use \ nor for truth, which you
thus defend,

To deny the magistrate to have a power to compel
men to his religion; but yet to say the magistrate has a
power, and is bound to punish men to make them con-
sider, till they cease to reject the true religion ; of which
true religion he must be judge, or else nothing can be
done in discharge of this his duty ; is so like going
round about to come to the same place, that it will al-
ways be a circle in mine and other people's imagination,
and not only there, but in your hypothesis.

All that you say turns upon the truth or falsehood of
this proposition : " That whoever punishes any one in
matters of religion to make him consider, takes upon
him to be judge for another what is right in matters
of religion." This you think plainly involves a con-
tradiction ; and so it would, if these general terms had
in your use of them their ordinary and usual meaning.
But, sir, be but pleased to take along with you, that
whoever punishes any man your way in matters of re-
ligion, to make him consider, as you use the word con-
sider, takes upon him to be judge for another wThat is
right in matters of religion : and you will find it so
far from a contradiction, that it is a plain truth. For
your way of punishing is a peculiar way, and is this :
that the magistrate, where the national religion is the
true religion, should punish those who dissent from it,
to make them consider as they ought, u e. till they cease
to reject, or, in other words, till they conform to it.
If therefore he punishes none but those who dissent
from, and punishes them till they conform to that
which he judges the true religion, does he not take on
him to judge for them what is the true religion ?

It is true indeed what you say, there is no other rea-
son to punish another to make him consider, but that
he should judge for himself: and this will always hold
true amongst those who, when they speak of consider-
ing, mean considering, and nothing else. But then
these things will follow from thence: 1. That in in-

186 A Third Letter for Toleration.

flicting of penalties to make men consider, the magi-
strate of a country, where the national religion is false,
no more misapplies his power, than he whose religion is
true,; for one has as much right to punish the negligent
to make them consider, study, and examine matters of
religion, as the other. 2. If the magistrate punishes
men in matters of religion, truly to make them con-
sider, he will punish all that do not consider, whether
conformists or non-conformists. 3. If the magistrate
punishes in matters of religion to make men consider,
it is, as you say, " to make men judge for themselves :
for there is no use of considering, but in order to
judging." But then when a man has judged for him-
self, the penalties for not considering are to be taken
off: for else your saying " that a man is punished to
make him consider, that he may judge for himself,"
is plain mockery. So that either you must reform
your scheme, or allow this proposition to be true, viz.
" Whoever punishes any man in matters of religion,
to make him in your sense consider, takes upon him
to judge for another what is right in matters of re-
ligion :" and with it the conclusion, viz. " Therefore
whoever punishes any one in matters of religion, to
make him consider, takes upon him to do what no
man can do, and consequently misapplies his power
of punishing, if he has that power. Which conclusion,
you say, you should readily admit as sufficiently de-
monstrated, if the proposition before-mentioned were
true."

But further, if it could enter into the head of any
law-maker but you to punish men for the omission of,
or to make them perform any internal act of the mind,
such as is consideration ; whoever in matters of reli-
gion would lay an injunction on men to make them
consider, could not do it without judging for them in
matters «of religion ; unless they had no religion at all,
and then they come not within our author's toleration ;
which is a toleration only of men of different religions*
or of different opinions in religion; for supposing you
the magistrate with full power, and, as you imagined,

A Third Letter for Toleration. 187

right of punishing any one in matters of religion, how
could you possibly punish any one to make him consi-
der, without judging for him what is right in matters
of religion? I will suppose myself brought before your
worship, under what character you please, and then I
desire to know what one or more questions you would
ask me, upon my answer to which you could judge me
fit to be punished to make me consider, without taking
upon you to judge for me what is right in matters of
religion? For I conclude from the fashion of my coat,
or the colour of my eyes, you would not judge that I
ought to be punished in matters of religion to make me
consider. If you could, I should allow you not only as
capable, but much more capable of coactive power than
other men.

But since you could not judge me to need punish-
ment in matters of religion, to make me consider, with-
out knowing my thoughts concerning religion, we will
suppose you, being of the church of England, would
examine me in the catechism and liturgy of that church,
which possibly I could neither say nor answer right to.
It is like, upon this, you would judge me fit to be pu-
nished to make me consider. Wherein, it is evident,
you judged for me, that the religion of the church of
England was right ; for without that judgment of yours
you would not have punished me. We will suppose
you to go yet further, and examine me concerning the
Gospel, and truth of the principles of the Christian re-
ligion, and you will find me answer therein not to your
liking : here again no doubt you will punish me to make
me consider ; but is it not because you judge for me,
that the Christian religion is the right ? Go on thus as
far as you will, and, till you find I had no religion at
all, you could not punish me to make me consider,
without taking upon you to judge for me what is right
in matters of religion.

To punish without a fault is injustice ; and to punish
a man without judging him guilty of that fault, is also
injustice ; and to punish a man who has any religion to
make him consider, or, which is the same thing, for

188 A Third Letter for Toleration.

not having sufficiently considered ; is no more nor less
but punishing him for not being of the religion you
think best for him ; that is the fault, and that is the
fault you judge him guilty of, call it considering as you
please : for let him fall into the hands of a magistrate of
whose religion he is, he judgeth him to have considered
sufficiently. From whence it is plain, it is religion is
judged of, and not consideration, or want of considera-
tion. And it is in vain to pretend that he is punished
to make him judge for himself; for he that is of any
religion, has already judged for himself; and if you
punish him after that, under pretence to make him
consider that he may judge for himself; it is plain
you punish him to make him judge otherwise than he
has already judged, and to judge as you have judged
for him.

Your next paragraph complains of my not having
contradicted the following words of yours, which I had
cited out of your A. p. 26, which, that the reader may
judge of, I shall here set down again: "And all the
hurt that comes to them by it, is only the suffering
some tolerable inconveniencies, for their following the
light of their own reason, and the dictates of their
own consciences : which certainly is no such mischief
to mankind, as to make it more eligible that there
should be no such power vested in the magistrate, but
the care of every man's soul should be left to him
alone, (as this author demands it should be :) that is,
that every man should be suffered quietly, and without
the least molestation, either to take no care at all of
his soul, if he be so pleased; or, in doing it, to follow
his own groundless prejudices, or unaccountable hu-
mour, or any crafty seducer, whom he may think fit to
take for his guide." To which I shall here subjoin my
answer and your reply :

L. II. p. 136. L. III. p. 76. "Which words you

" Why should not set down at large; but instead of

the care of every contradicting them, or offering to

man's soul be left show that the mischief spoken of

A Third Letter for Toleration. 189

to himself, rather is such as makes it more eligible,
than the magi- &c. you only demand, * Why should
strate? Is the ma- not the care of every man's soul be
gistrate like to be left to himself, rather than the ma-
more concerned gistrate ? Is the magistrate like to
for it ? Is the ma- be more concerned for it ? Is the
gistrate like to magistrate like to take more care
take more care of of it ?' &c. As if not to leave the
it ? Is the magi- care of every man's soul to himself
strate commonly alone, were, as you express it after-
more careful of wards, to take the care of men's
his own, than o- souls from themselves : or as if to
ther men are of vest a power in the magistrate, to
theirs? Will you procure, as much as in him lies,
say the magistrate (u e. as far as it can be procured
is less exposed, in by convenient penalties) that men
matters of reli- take such care of their souls as they
gion, to preju- ought to do, were to leave the care
dices, humours, of their souls ' to the magistrate
and crafty se- rather than to themselves :' which
ducers, than other no man but yourself will imagine*
men? If you can- I acknowledge as freely as you can
not lay your hand do, that as every man is more con-
on your heart, and cerned than any man else can be,
say all this, what so he is likewise more obliged to
then will be got by take care of his soul ; and that no
the change? And man can by any means be dis-
why may not the charged of the care of his soul;
care of every man's which, when all is done, will never
soul be left to him- be saved but by his own care of it.
self? Especially, But do I contradict any thing of
if a man be in so this, when I say, that the care of
much danger to every man's soul ought not to be
miss the truth, left to himself alone ? Or, that it
• who is suffered is the interest of mankind, that the
quietly, and with- magistrate be intrusted and obliged
out the least mo- to take care, as far as lies in him,
testation, either to that no man neglect his own soul ?
take no care of his I thought, I confess, that every
soul, if he be so man was in some sort charged with

190

A Third Letter for Toleration*

pleased, or to fol-
low his own pre-
judices/ &c. For
if want of molesta-
tion be the danger-
ous state wherein
men are likeliest
to miss the right
way, it must be
confessed, that, of
all men, the magi-
strate is most in
danger to be in
the wrong ; and
so the unfittest, if
you take the care
of men's souls from
themselves, of all
men, to be intrust-
ed with it. For he
never meets with
that great and
only antidote of
yours against er-
ror, which you
here call molesta-
tion. He never has
the benefit of your
sovereign remedy,
punishment, to
make him consi-
der ; which you
think so necessary,
that you look on
it as a most dan-
gerous state for
men to be with-
out it ; and there-
fore tell us, It is
every man's true

the care of his neighbour's souL
But, in your way of reasoning, he
that affirms this, takes away the
care of every man's soul from him-
self, and leaves it to his neighbour
rather than to himself. But if this
be plainly absurd, as every one sees
it is, then so it must be likewise to
say, that he that vests such a power
as we here speak of in the magi-
strate, takes away the care of men's
souls from themselves, and places
it in the magistrate, rather than in
themselves."

" What trifling then is it to say
here, ' If you cannot lay your hand
upon your heart, and say all this,
viz. that the magistrate is like to
be more concerned for other men's
souls than themselves, &c. What
then will be got by the change ?'
For it is plain, here is no such
change as you would insinuate :
but the care of souls, which I assert
to the magistrate, is so far from
discharging any man of the care of
his own soul, or lessening his obli-
gation to it, that it serves to no
other purpose in the world, but to
bring men, who otherwise would
not, to consider and do what the
interest of their souls obliges them
to.

" It is therefore manifest, that
the thing here to be considered
is not, whether the magistrate be
1 like to be more concerned for
other men's souls, or to take more
care of them than themselves :
nor whether he be commonly more

A Third Letter for Toleration. 1Q1

interest, not to be careful of his own soul than other
left wholly to him- men are of theirs: nor whether he
self in matters of be less exposed, in matters of re-
religion. " ligion, to prejudices, humours, and

crafty seducers, than other men :
nor yet, whether he be not more in danger to be in the
wrong than other men, in regard that he never meets
with that great and only antidote of mine (as you call
it) against error, which I here call molestation/ But
the point upon which this matter turns is only this,
whether the salvation of souls be not better provided
for, if the magistrate be obliged to procure, as much as
in him lies, that every man take such care as he ought
of his soul, than if he be not so obliged, but the care of
every man's soul be left to himself alone ? which cer-
tainly any man of common sense may easily determine.
For as you will not, I suppose, deny but God has more
amply provided for the salvation of your own soul, by
obliging your neighbour, as well as yourself, to take
care of it ; though it is possible your neighbour may
not be more concerned for it than yourself; or may
not be more careful of his own soul than you are of
yours ; or may be no less exposed, in matters of re-
ligion, to prejudices, &c. than you are ; because if you
are yourself wanting to your own soul, it is more likely
that you will be brought to take care of it, if your
neighbour be obliged to admonish and exhort you to
it, than if he be not ; though it may fall out that he
will not do what he is obliged to do in that case. So
I think it cannot be denied, but the salvation of all
men's souls is better provided for, if besides the obli-
gation which every man has to take care of his own
soul (and that which every man's neighbour has like-
wise to do it) the magistrate also be intrusted and ob-
liged to see that no man neglect his soul; than it would
be, if every man were left to himself in this matter :
because though we should admit that the magistrate is
not like to be, or is not ordinarily more concerned for
other men's souls than they themselves are, &c. it is
nevertheless undeniably true still, that whoever neglects

192 A Third Letter for Toleration*

his soul, is more likely to be brought to take care of it,
if the magistrate be obliged to do what lies in him to
bring him to do it, than if he be not. Which is enough
to show, that it is every man's true interest, that the
care of his soul should not be left to himself alone, but
that the magistrate should be so far intrusted with it
as I contend that he is."

Your complaint of my not having formally contra-
dicted the words above cited out of A. p. <26, looking
as if there were some weighty argument in them : I
must inform my reader, that they are subjoined to those,
wherein you recommend the use of force in matters of
religion, by the gain those that are punished shall make
by it, though it be misapplied by the magistrate to
bring them to a wrong religion. So that these words
of yours, " all the hurt that comes to them by it," is
all the hurt that comes to men by a misapplication of
the magistrate's power, who being of a false religion,
he uses force to bring men to it. And then your pro-
position stands thus, " That the suffering what you call
tolerable inconveniencies for their following the light
of their own reasons, and the dictates of their own
consciences, is no such mischief to mankind as to
make it more eligible, that there should be no power
vested in the magistrate" to use force to bring men
to the true religion, though the magistrates misapply
this power, L e. use it to bring men to their own reli-
gion when false.

This is the sum of what you say, if it has any co-
herent meaning in it : for it being to show the usefulness
of such a power vested in the magistrate, under the mis-
carriages and misapplications it is in common practice
observed to be liable to, can have no other sense. But
I having proved, that if such a power be by the law of
nature vested in the magistrate, every magistrate is ob-
liged to use k for the promoting of his religion as far
as lie believes it to be true, shall not much trouble
myself, if like a man of art you should use your skill to
give it another sense : for BUCh is your natural talent, or

A Third Teller for Toleration. 193

great caution, that you love to speak indefinitely, and,
as seldom as may be, leave yourself accountable for any
propositions of a clear, determined sense; but under
words of doubtful, but seeming plausible signification,
conceal a meaning, which plainly expressed would, at
first sight, appear to contradict your own positions, or
common sense : instances whereof, more than one, we
have here in this sentence of yours. For, 1. The words
tolerable inconveniencies carry a very fair show of some
very slight matter; and yet, when we come to examine
them, may comprehend any of those severities lately
used in France ; for these tolerable inconveniencies are
the same you in this very page and elsewhere call con-
venient penalties. Convenient for what ? In this very
place they must be such as may keep men "from fol-
lowing their own groundless prejudices, unaccountable
humours, and crafty seducers." And you tell us, the
magistrate may require men " under convenient pe-
nalties to forsake their false religions, and embrace the
true." Who now must be judge, in these cases, what
are convenient penalties ? Common sense will tell us,
the magistrate that uses them : but besides, we have
your word for it, that the magistrate's prudence and
experience enable him to judge best what penalties do
agree with your rule of moderation, which, as I have
shown, is no rule at all. So that at last your tolerable
inconveniencies are such as the magistrate shall judge
convenient to oppose to men's prejudices, humours, and
to seducers ; such as he shall think convenient to bring
men from their false religions, or to punish their reject-
ing the true : which, whether they will not reach men's
estates and liberties, or go as far as any the king of
France has used, is more than you can be security for.
2. Another set of good words we have here, which at
first hearing are apt to engage men's concern, as if too
much could not be done to recover men from so pe-
rilous a state as they seem to describe ; and those are
" men following their own groundless prejudices, un-
accountable humours, or crafty seducers." Are not
these expressions to set forth a deplorable condition,
VOL. vi. o

194 A Third Letter for Toleration.

and to move pity in all that hear them ? Enough to
make the inattentive reader ready to cry out, Help for
the Lord's sake ! do any thing rather than suffer such
poor, prejudiced, seduced people to be eternally lost!
Where he that examines what persons these words can
in your scheme describe, will find they are only such
as any where dissent from those articles of faith, and
ceremonies of outward worship, which the magistrate,
or at least you his director, approve of; for whilst you
talk thus of the true religion in general, and that so
general, that you cannot allow yourself to descend so
near to particulars, as to recommend the searching and
study of the Scriptures to find it ; and that the power
in the magistrate's hands to use force is to bring men
to the true religion ; I ask, whether you do not think
either he or you must be judge which is the true re-
ligion, before he can exercise that power? and then
he must use his force upon all those who dissent from
it, who are then the prejudiced, humorsome, and se-
duced, you here speak of. Unless this be so, and the
magistrate be judge, I ask, who shall resolve which is
the prejudiced person, the prince with his politics, or
he that suffers for his religion ? Which the more dan-
gerous seducer, Louis XIV. with his dragoons, or Mr.
Claud with his sermons ? It will be no small difficulty
to find out the persons who are guilty of following
groundless prejudices, unaccountable humours, or
crafty seducers, unless in those places where you shall
be graciously pleased to decide the question ; and out
of the plenitude of your power and infallibility to de-
clare which of the civil sovereigns now in being do,
and which do not, espouse the one only true religion ;
and then we shall certainly know that those who dis-
sent from the religion of those magistrates, are these
prejudiced, humorsome, seduced persons.

But truly, as you put it here, you leave the matter
very perplexed, w hen you defend the eligibleness erf
vesting a power in the magistrate's hands, to remedy
by penalties men's following their own groundless pre-
judices, unaccountable humours, and crafty seducers;

A Third Letter for Toleration. 195

when in the same sentence you suppose the magistrate,
who is vested with this power, may inflict those penal-
ties on men, "for their following the light of their own
reason, and the dictates of their own consciences ;"
which when you have considered, perhaps you will not
think my answer so wholly beside the matter, though
it showed you but that one absurdity, without a formal
contradiction to so loose and undetermined a proposi-
tion, that it required more pains to unravel the sense of
what was covered under deceitful expressions, than the
weight of the matter contained in them was worth.

For besides what is already said to it : how is it pos-
sible for any one, who had the greatest mind in the
world to contradiction, to deny it to be more eligible
that such a power should be vested in the magistrate,
till he knows to whom you affirm it to be more eligible ?
Is it more eligible to those who suffer by it, for follow-
ing the light of their own reason, and the dictates of
their own consciences ? for these you know are gainers
by it, for they know better than they did before where
the truth does lie. Is it more eligible to those who
have no other thoughts of religion, but to be of that
of their country without any farther examination? Or
is it more eligible to those who think it their duty to
examine matters of religion, and to follow that which
upon examination appears to them the truth ? The
former of these two make, I think, the greater part of
mankind, though the latter be the better advised: but
upon what grounds it should be more eligible to either
of them, that the magistrate should, than that he should
not, have a power vested in him, to use force to bring
men to the true religion, when it cannot be employed
but to bring men to that which he thinks the true, i. e.
to his own religion, is not easy to guess. Or is it more
eligible to the priests and ministers of national religions
every where, that the magistrate should be vested with
this powrer? who being sure to be orthodox, will have
right to claim the assistance of the magistrate's power
to bring those whom their arguments cannot prevail on
to embrace their true religion, and to worship God in
decent ways prescribed by those to whom God has left

o 2

196 A Third Letter for Toleration.

the ordering of such matters. Or, last of all, is it more
eligible to all mankind ? And are the magistrates of the
world so careful or so lucky in the choice of their reli-
gion, that it would be an advantage to mankind, that
they should have a right to do what in them lies, f. e.
to use all the force they have, if they think convenient,
to bring men to the religion they think true ? When
you have told us to which of these, or what other, it is
more eligible; I suppose the reader will, without my
contradicting it, see how little truth there is in it, or
how little to your purpose.

If you will pardon me for not having contradicted
that passage of yours we have been considering, I will
endeavour to make you amends in what you say in
reply to my answer to it, and tell you, that, notwith-
standing all you say to the contrary, such a power as
you would have to be vested in the magistrate, takes
away the care of men's souls from themselves, and
places it in the magistrate, rather than in themselves;
for if, when men have examined, and upon examination
embrace what appears to them the true religion, the
magistrate has a right to treat them as misled by pre-
judice, humour, or seducers ; if he may use what force,
and inflict what punishments, he shall think convenient
till they conform to the religion the magistrate judges
the true ; I think you will scarce deny, but that the
care of their souls is by such a power placed rather in
the magistrate than in themselves, and taken as much
from them as by force and authority it can be. This,
whatever you pretend, is the power which your system
places in the magistrate. Nor can he upon your prin-
ciples exercise it otherwise, as I imagine I have showed.

You speak here, as if this power, which you won hi
have to be vested in the magistrate, did not at all dis-
charge, but assist the care every one has or ought to
have of his own soul. I grant, were the power you
would place in the magistrate such as every man has to
take care of his neighbour's soul, which is to express
itself only by Counsel, arguments, and persuasion, it
left him still the i\cv liberty of judging for himself;
and so the care of his soul remained still in his own

A Third letter for Toleration. 197

hands. But if men be persuaded, that the wise and
good God lias vested a power in the magistrate, to be
so far judge for them, what is the true religion, as to
punish them for rejecting the religion which the ma-
gistrate thinks the true, when offered with such evi-
dence as he judges sufficient to convince them ; and
to punish them on till they consider so as to embrace
it ; what remains, but that they render themselves to
the care and conduct of a guide^that God in his good-
ness has appointed them, who having authority and
commission from God to be judge for them which is
the true religion, and what are arguments proper and
sufficient to convince any one of it ; and he himself
being convinced of it ; why should they be so foolish
as to suffer punishments in opposition to a power
which is in the right, and they ought to submit to?
To what purpose should they, under the weight of
penalties, waste time and pains in examining, since
whatever they should judge upon examination, the
magistrate judging the arguments and reasons he offers
for the truth of his religion proper and sufficient to
convince them, they must still lie under the punish-
ment the magistrate shall think convenient till they do
comply ?

Besides, when they are thus punished by their ma-
gistrate for not conforming, what need they examine ?
since you tell them, " It is not strictly necessary to
salvation, that all that are of the true religion should
understand the grounds of it." The magistrate, being
of the one only true religion, knows it to be so; and
he knows that that religion was tendered to them with
sufficient evidence, and therefore is obliged to punish
them for rejecting it. This is that which men must
upon your scheme suppose ; for it is what you your-
selfmust suppose, before the magistrate can exercise
that power you contend to be vested in him, as is evi-
dent to any one who will put your system together,
and particularly weigh what you say.

When, therefore, men are put into such a state as
this, that the magistrate may judge what is the true
religion, the magistrate may judge what is sufficient

198 A Third Letter for Toleration.

evidence of its truth ; the magistrate may be judge to
whom it is tendered with sufficient evidence, and punish
them that reject it so proposed with such penalties as
he also shall judge convenient; and all this by God's
appointment, and an authority received from the wise
and benign Governor of all things ; I ask, whether the
care of men's souls is not taken out of their own hands,
and put into the magistrate's ? Whether in such a state
they can or will think there is any need, or that it is to
any purpose for them to examine? And whether this
be a cure for the natural aversion that is in men to con-
sider and weigh matters of religion ; and the way to
force, or so much as encourage them to examine ?

But, say you, "the salvation of all men's souls is
better provided for, if, besides the obligation that every
man has to take care of his own soul, the magistrate
also be intrusted and obliged to see that no man neglect
his own soul, than it would be if every man were left
to himself in that matter." Whatever ground another
may have to say this, you can have none : you who
give so good reason why conformists, though ever so
ignorant and negligent in examining matters of re-
ligion, cannot yet be punished to make them consider,
must acknowledge that " all men's salvation is not
the better provided for by a power vested in the ma-
gistrate," which cannot reach the far greatest part of
men, which are every where the conformists to the
national religion. You that plead so well for the ma-
gistrate's not examining whether those that conform
do it upon reason and conviction, but say it is ordi-
narily presumable they do so ; wherein, I beseech you,
do you put this care of men's salvation that is placed
in the magistrate? even in bringing them to outward
conformity to the national religion, and there leaving
them. And arc the souls of all mankind the better
provided for, if the magistrates of the world are vested
with a power to use force to bring men to an outward
profession of what they think the true religion, with-
out any other care of their salvation ? For thither, and
no farther, reaches their use of force in your way of
applying it.

A Third Letter for Toleration. 199

Give me leave therefore to trifle with you once
again, and to desire you to lay your hand upon your
heart, and tell me what mankind shall gain by the
change ? For I hope by this time it is not so much a
paradox to you, that if the magistrate be commissioned
by God to take care of men's souls in your way, it
takes away the care of men's souls from themselves in
all those who have need of this assistance of the ma-
gistrate, t. e. all those who neglect to consider, and are
averse to examination.

One thing more give me leave to observe to you, and
that is, that taking care of men's souls, or taking care
that they neglect not their souls, and laying penalties
on them to bring them in outward profession to the
national religion, are two very different things ; though
in this place and elsewhere you confound them, and
would have penal laws, requiring church-conformity,
pass under the name of care of men's souls ; for that
is the utmost your way of applying force does or can
reach to ; and what care is therein taken of men's
souls, may be seen by the lives and knowledge ob-
servable in not a few conformists. This is not said to
lay any blame on conformity, but to show how impro-
perly you speak, when you call penal laws made to pro-
mote conformity, and force used to bring men to it, a
care of men's souls ; when even the exactest observers
and most zealous advancers of conformity may be as
irreligious, ignorant, and vicious, as any other men.

In the first treatise we heard not a syllable of any
other use or end of force in matters of religion, but
only to make men consider. But in your second, be-
ing forced to own bare-faced the punishing of men for
their religion, you call it " a vice to reject the true
faith, and to refuse to worship God in decent ways
prescribed by those to whom God has left the ordering
it;" and tell us, that " it is a fault which may justly
be punished by the magistrate, not to be of the na-
tional religion, where the true is the national religion."
To make this doctrine of persecution seem limited,
and go down the better, to your telling us it must be

200 A Third Letter for Toleration.

only where the national religion is the true, and that
the penalties must be moderate and convenient, — both
which limitations having no other judge but the ma-
gistrate, as I have showed elsewhere, are no limitations
at all, — you in words add a third, that in effect signifies
just as much as the other two ; and that is, " If there
be sufficient means of instruction provided for all for
instructing them in the truth of it ;" of which provision
the magistrate also being to be judge, your limitations
leave him as free to punish all dissenters from his own
religion as any persecutor can wish : for what he will
think sufficient means of instruction, it will be hard for
you to say.

In the mean time, as far as may be gathered from
what you say in another place, we will examine what
you think sufficient provision for instructing men, which
you have expressed in these words: " For if the ma-
gistrate provides sufficiently for the instruction of all
his subjects in the true religion, and then requires
them all, under convenient penalties, to hearken to the
teachers and ministers of it, and to profess and exer-
cise it with one accord under their direction in public
assemblies." — That which stumbles one at the first
view of this your method of instruction is, that you
leave it uncertain whether dissenters must first be in-
structed, and then profess ; or else first profess, and
then be instructed in the national religion. This you
will do well to be a little more clear in the next time ;
for your mentioning no instruction but in public as-
semblies, and perhaps meaning it for a country where
there is little other pains taken with dissenters but the
confutation and condemnation of them in assemblies,
where they are not ; they must cease to be dissenters
before they can partake of this sufficient means of in-
struction.

And now for those who do with one accord put them-
selves under the direction of the ministers of the na-
tional, and hearken to these teachers of the true reli-
gion: I ask whether one-half of those whereof most of
the assemblies are made up do or can, so ignorant as

A Third Letter for Toleration. 201

they are, understand what they hear from the pulpit ?
And then whether if a man did understand, what in
many assemblies ordinarily is delivered once a week there
for his instruction, he might not yet at threescore years
end be ignorant of the grounds and principles of the
Christian religion? Your having so often in your letter
mentioned sufficient provision of instruction, has forced
these two short questions from me. But I forbear to
tell you what I have heard very sober people, even of
the church of England, say upon this occasion : for
you have warned me already, that it shall be interpreted
to be a quarrel to the clergy in general, if any thing
shall be taken notice of in any of them worthy to be
mended. I leave it to those whose profession it is to
judge, whether divinity be a science wherein men may
be instructed by an harangue or two once a week, upon
any subject at a venture, which has no coherence with
that which preceded or that which is to follow ; and
this made to people that are ignorant of the first prin-
ciples of it, and are not capable of understanding such
discourses. I am sure he that should think this a
sufficient means of instructing people in any other
science, would at the end of seven or twenty years find
them very little advanced in it ; and, bating perhaps
some terms and phrases belonging to it, as far from all
true and useful knowledge of it as when they first be-
gan. Whether it be so in matters of religion, those
who have the opportunity to observe must judge ; and
if it appear that amongst those of the national church
there be very many so ignorant, that there is nothing
more frequent than for the ministers themselves to
complain of it; it is manifest from those of the national
church, whatever may be concluded from dissenters,
that the means of instruction provided by the law are
not sufficient ; unless that be sufficient means of in-
struction, which men of sufficient capacity for other
things may live under many years, and yet know very
little by. If you say it is for want of consideration,
must not your remedy of force be used to bring them
to it? Or how will the magistrate answer for it, if he

202 A Third Letter for Toleration.

use force to make dissenters consider, and let those of
his own church perish for want of it?

This being all one can well understand by your suf-
ficient means of instruction, as you there explain it, I
do not see but men, who have no aversion to be in-
structed, may yet fail of it, notwithstanding such a pro-
vision. Perhaps, by " exercising the true religion with
one accord, under the direction of the ministers of it
in public assemblies," you mean something farther ;
but that not being an ordinary phrase, will need your
explication to make it understood.

CHAPTER II.

Of the Magistrate's Commission to use Force in Matters

of Religion.

Though in the foregoing chapter, on examining
your doctrine concerning the magistrates who may or
who may not use force in matters of religion, we have
in several places happened to take notice of the com-
mission whereby you authorize magistrates to act, yet
we shall in this chapter more particularly consider that
commission. You tell us, " to use force in matters of
religion, is a duty of the magistrate as old as the law
of nature, in which the magistrate's commission lies:
for the Scripture does not properly give it him, but
supposes it." And more at large you give us an ac-
count of the magistrate's commission in these words:
" It is true, indeed, the Author and Finisher of our
faith lias given the magistrate no new power or com-
mission : nor was there any need that he should (if
himself had any temporal power to give) : for he found
him already, even by the law of nature, the minister

A Third Letter for Toleration. 203

of God to the people for good, and bearing the sword
not in vain, i. e. invested with coactive power, and
obliged to use it for all the good purposes which it
might serve, and for which it should be found needful,
even for the restraining of false and corrupt religion :
as Job long before (perhaps before any of the Scrip-
tures were written) acknowledged, when he said, chap,
xxxi. 26, 27, 28, that the worshipping the sun or the
moon was an iniquity to be punished by the judge.
But though our Saviour has given the magistrates no
new power, yet being King of kings, he expects and re-
quires that they should submit themselves to his sceptre,
and use the power which always belonged to them for
his service, and for the advancing his spiritual kingdom
in the world. And even that charity which our great
Master so earnestly recommends, and so strictly re-
quires of all his disciples, as it obliges all men to seek
and promote the good of others, as well as their own,
especially their spiritual and eternal good, by such
means as their several places and relations enable them
to use ; so does it especially oblige the magistrate to
do it as a magistrate, 1. e. by that power which enables
him to do it above the rate of other men.

" So far, therefore, is the Christian magistrate, when
he gives his helping hand to the furtherance of the
Gospel, by laying convenient penalties upon such as
reject it, or any part of it, from using any other means
for the salvation of men's souls than what the Author
and Finisher of our faith has directed, that he does no
more than his duty to God, to his Redeemer, and to
his subjects, requires of him."

" Christ/' you say, " has given no new power or com-
mission to the magistrate :" and for this you give se-
veral reasons. 1 . " There was no need that he should."
Yet it seems strange that the Christian magistrates alone
should have an exercise of coactive power in matters
of religion, and yet our Saviour should say nothing of
it, but leave them to that commission which was com-
mon to them with all other magistrates. The Christian
religion, in cases of less moment, is not wanting in its

204. A Third Letter fur Toleration.

rules ; and I know not whether you will not charge the
New Testament with a great defect, if that law alone
which teaches the only true religion, that law which all
magistrates, who are of the true religion, receive and
embrace, should say nothing at all of so necessary and
important a duty to those who alone are in a capacity
to discharge it, but leave them only to that general
law of nature, which others, who are not qualified to use
this force, have in common with them.

This at least seems needful, if a new commission does
not, that the Christian magistrates should have been in-
structed what degree of force they should use, and been
limited to your moderate penalties; since for above
these twelve hundred years, though they have readily
enough found out your commission to use force, they
never found out your moderate use of it, which is that
alone which you assure us is useful and necessary.

2. You say, " If our Saviour had any temporal power
to give ;" whereby you seem to give this as a reason
why he gave not the civil magistrate power to use force
in matters of religion, that he had it not to give. You
tell us in the same paragraph, that " he is the King of
kings ;" and he tells us himself, " That all power is
given unto him in heaven and in earth/' Matth. xxviii.
18. So that he could have given what power, to whom,
and to what purpose he had pleased : and concerning
this there needs no if.

3. " For he found him already, by the law of nature,
invested with coactive power, and obliged to use it for
all the good purposes which it might serve, and for
which it should be found needful?' He found also
fathers, husbands, masters, invested with their distinct
powers by the same law, and under the same obligation;
and yet he thought it needful to prescribe to them in
the use of those powers. But there was no need he
should do so to the civil magistrates in the use of their
power in matters of religion ; because, though lathers,
husbands, masters, were liable to excess in the use of
theirs, vet; Christian magistrates were not, as appears
by their having always kept to those moderate mea-

A Third Letter for Toleration. 205

sures, which you assure us to be the only necessary
and useful.

And what at last is their commission? " Even that
of charity, which obliges all men to seek and promote
the good of others, especially their spiritual and eter-
nal good, by such means as their several places and
relations enable them to use, especially magistrates as
magistrates." This duty of charity is well discharged
by the magistrate as magistrate, is it not ? in bringing
men to an outward profession of any, even of the true
religion, and leaving them there? But, sir, I ask you
who must be judge what is for the spiritual and eternal
good of his subjects, the magistrate himself or no? If
not he himself, who for him? Or can it be done with-
out any one's judging at all? If he, the magistrate, must
judge every where himself what is for the spiritual and
eternal good of his subjects, — as I see no help for it, if
the magistrate be every where by the law of nature
obliged to promote their spiritual and eternal good, — is
not the true religion like to find great advantage in the
world by the use of force in the magistrate's hands?
And is not this a plain demonstration that God has, by
the law of nature, given commission to the magistrate
to use force for the promoting the true religion, since,
as it is evident, the execution of such a commission
will do so much more harm than good?

To show that your indirect and at a distance useful-
ness, with a general necessity of force, authorizes the
civil power in the use of it, you use the following words,
" That force does some service towards the making of
scholars and artists, I suppose you will easily grant.
Give me leave, therefore, to ask, how it does it? I
suppose you will say, not by its direct and proper
efficacy (for force is no more capable to work learning
or arts, than the belief of the true religion in men, by
its direct and proper efficacy), but by prevailing upon
those who are designed for scholars or artists to re-
ceive instruction, and to apply themselves to the use
of those means and helps which are proper to make
them what they are designed to be : that is, it does it
indirectly and at a distance. Well, then, if all the

206 . A Third Letter for Toleration.

usefulness of the force towards the bringing scholars
or apprentices to the learning or skill they are de-
signed to attain be only an indirect and at a distance
usefulness, I pray what is it that warrants and au-
thorizes schoolmasters, tutors, or masters, to use force
upon their scholars or apprentices to bring them to
learning, or the skill of their arts and trade, if such an
indirect and at a distance usefulness of force, together
with that necessity of it which experience discovers,
will not do it? I believe you will acknowledge that
even such an usefulness, together with that necessity,
will serve the turn in these cases. But then I would
fain know, why the same kind of usefulness, joined
with the like necessity, will not as well do it in the
case before us ? I confess I see no reason why it should
not ; nor do I believe you can assign any. You ask
here, what authorizes schoolmasters or masters to use
force on their scholars and apprentices, if such an in-
direct and at a distance usefulness, together with
necessity, does not do it ?" I answer, neither your
indirect and at a distance usefulness, nor the necessity
you suppose of it. For I do not think you will say,
that any schoolmaster has a power to teach, much less
to use force on any one's child, without the consent and
authority of the father: but a father, you will say, has
a power to use force to correct his child to bring him to
learning or skill in that trade he is designed to ; and to
this the father is authorized by the usefulness and ne-
cessity of force. This I deny, that the mere supposed
usefulness and necessity of force authorize the father to
use it; for then, whenever he judged it useful and ne-
cessary for his son, to prevail with him to apply him-
self to any trade, he might use force upon him to that
purpose; which I think neither you nor any body else
will say a father has a right to do, on his idle and per-
haps married son, at thirty or forty years old.

There is, then, something else in the case ; and what-
ever it be that authorizes the father to use force upon
his child, to make him a prolicient in it, authorizes
him also to choose that trade, art, or science he would
have him a prolicient in : lor the father can no longer

A Third Letter for Toleration, 207

use force upon his son, to make him attain any art or
trade, than he can prescribe to him the art or trade he
is to attain. Put your parallel now if you please : The
father by the usefulness and necessity of force is autho-
rized to use it upon his child, to make him attain any
art or science ; therefore the magistrate is authorized to
use force to bring men to the true religion, because it
is useful and necessary. Thus far you have used it, and
you think it does well. But let us go on with the pa-
rallel : this usefulness and necessity of force authorizes
the father to use it, to make his son apply himself to
the use of the means and helps which are proper to make
him what he is designed to be, no longer than it au-
thorizes the father to design what his son shall be, and
to choose for him the art or trade he shall be of: and so
the usefulness and necessityyou suppose in force to bring
men to any church, cannot authorize the magistrate to
use force any farther than he has a right to choose for
any one what church or religion he shall be of. So
that if you will stick to this argument, and allow the
parallel between a magistrate and a father, and the
right they have to use force for the instructing of their
subjects in religion, and children in arts, you must
either allow the magistrate to have power to choose
what religion his subjects shall be of, which you have
denied, or else that he has no power to use force to
make them use means to be of it.

A father being intrusted with the care and provision
for his child, is as well bound in duty, as fitted by na-
tural love and tenderness, to supply the defects of his
tender age. When it is born, the child cannot move
itself for the ease and help of natural necessities; the
parents' hands must supply that inability, and feed,
cleanse, and swaddle it. Age having given more strength,
and the exercise of the limbs, the parents are discharged
from the trouble of putting meat into the mouth of the
child, clothing or unclothing, or carrying him in their
arms. The same duty and affection which required
such kind of helps to the infant, make them extend
their thoughts to other cares for him when he is grown
a little bigger : it is not only a present support, but a

208 A Third Letter for Toleration.

future comfortable subsistence begins to be thought on :
to this some art or science is necessary; but the child's
ignorance and want of prospect makes him unable to
choose. And hence the father has a power to choose
for him, that the flexible and docile part of life may
not be squandered away, and the time of instruction and
improvement be lost for want of direction. The trade
or art being chosen by the father, it is the exercise and
industry of the child must acquire it to himself: but
industry usually wanting in children the spur which rea-
son and foresight gives to the endeavours of grown men,
the father's rod and correction is fain to supply that
want, to make him apply himself to the use of those
means and helps which are proper to make him what
he is designed to be. But when the child is once come
to the state of manhood, and to be the possessor and
free disposer of his goods and estate, he is then dis-
charged from this discipline of his parents, and they
have no longer any right to choose any art, science, or
course of life for him, or by force to make him apply
himself to the use of those means which are proper to
make him be what he designs to be. Thus the want of
knowledge to choose a fit calling, and want of know-
ledge of the necessity of pains and industry to attain skill
in it, puts a power into the parents' hands to use force
where it is necessary to procure the application and di-
ligence of their children, in that which their parents
have thought fit to set them to: but it gives this power
to the parents only, and to no other, whilst they live ;
and if they die whilst their children need it, to their sub-
stitutes ; and there it is safely placed : for since their
want of knowledge, during their nonage, makes then)
want direction, — and want of reason often makes them
need punishment and force to excite their endeavours,
and keep t hem intent to the use of those means that lead
to the end they are directed to, — the tenderness and lore
of parents will engage them to use it only for their good,
and generally to quit it too, when by the title of man-
hood they come to be above the direction and discipline
of children. But how does this prove that the magi-
strate has any right to force men to apply themselves to

A Third Letter for Toleration. 209

the use of those means and helps which arc proper to
make them of any religion, more than it proves that the
magistrate lias a right to choose for them what religion
they shall be of?

To your question therefore, " what is it that war-
rants and authorizes schoolmasters, tutors, and masters
to use force upon their scholars or apprentices ?" I
answer, a commission from the father or mother, or
those who supply their places ; for without that no in-
direct or at a distance usefulness, or supposed necessity,
could authorize them.

But then you will ask, Is it not this usefulness and
necessity that gives this power to the father and mother?
I grant it. " I would fain know then," say you, " why
the same usefulness, joined with the like necessity,
will not as well do in the case before us ?" And I,
sir, will as readily tell you : because the understanding
of the parents is to supply the want of it in the mi-
nority of their children ; and therefore they have a right
not only to use force to make their children apply them-
selves to the means of acquiring any art or trade, but to
choose also the trade or calling they shall be of. But
when, being come out of the state of minority, they are
supposed of years of discretion to choose what they will
design themselves to be, they are also at liberty to judge
what application and industry they will use for the at-
taining of it ; and then how negligent soever they are
in the use of the means, how averse soever to instruction
or application, they are past the correction of a school-
master, and their parents can no longer choose or de-
sign for them what they shall be, nor " use force to
prevail with them to apply themselves to the use of
those means and helps which are proper to make them
what they are designed to be." He that imagines a
father or tutor may send his son to school at thirty or
forty years old, and order him to be whipped there,
or that any indirect and at a distance usefulness will
authorize him to be so used, will be thought fitter to be
sent thither himself, and there to receive due correction.

When you have considered, it is otherwise in the case
of the magistrate using force your way in matters of re-

VOL. vi. r

210 A Third Letter for Toleration.

ligion ; that there his understanding is not to supply the
defect of understanding in his subjects, and that only
for a time; that he cannot choose for any of his sub-
jects what religion he shall be of, as you yourself con-
fess; and that this power of the magistrate, if it be, as
is claimed by you, over men of all ages, parts, and en-
dowments ; you will perhaps " see some reason why it
should not do in the case before us, as well as in that
of schoolmasters and tutors, though you believe I
cannot assign any.'' But, sir, will your indirect and
at a distance usefulness, together with your supposed
necessity, authorize the master of the shoemakers' com-
pany to take any one who comes in his hands, and
punish him for not being of the shoemakers' company,
and not coming to their guild, when he, who has a
right to choose of what trade and company he will be,
thinks it not his interest to be a shoemaker? Nor can
he or any body else imagine that this force, this punish-
ment, is used to make him a good shoemaker, when
it is seen and avowed that the punishments cease, and
they are free from it who enter themselves of the com-
pany, whether they are really shoemakers, or in earnest
apply themselves to be so or no. How much it differs
from this, that the magistrate should punish men for
not being of his church, who choose not to be of it,
and when they are once entered into the communion of
it are punished no more, though they are as ignorant,
unskilful, and unpractised in the religion of it as be-
fore : how much, I say, this differs from the case I pro-
posed, I leave you to consider. For after all your pre-
tences of using force for the salvation of souls, and con-
sequently to make men really Christians, you are fain to
allow, and you give reasons for it, that force is used
only to those who are out of your church : but whoever
are once in it, are free from force, whether they be
really Christians, and apply themselves to those things
which are for the salvation of their souls, or no.

A i lo what you say, that whether they choose it or
no, they ought to choose it; for your magistrate's re-
ligion is the true religion, that is the question between
you and them: but be that as {[ will, if force be to be

A Third Letter Jbr Tok ration. 211

used in the case, I have proved that be the magistrate's
religion true or false, lie, whilst he believes it to be true,
is under an obligation to use force, as if it were true.

But since you think your instance of children so weighty
and pressing, give me leave to return you your question :
I ask you then, are not parents as much authorized to
teach their children their religion as they are to teach
them their trade, when they have designed them to it?
May they not as lawfully correct them to make them
learn their catechism or the principles of their religion,
as they may to make them learn Clenard's grammar ?
Or may they not use force to make them go to mass,
or whatever they believe to be the worship of the
true religion, as to go to school, or to learn any art or
trade ? If they may, as I think you will not deny, un-
less you will say that none but orthodox parents may
teach their children any religion : if they may, I say
then, pray tell me a reason, if your arguments from the
discipline of children be good, why the magistrate may
not use force to bring men to his religion, as well as
parents may use force to instruct children, and bring
them up in theirs ? When you have considered this,
you will perhaps find some difference between the state
of children and grown men, betwixt those under tute-
lage, and those who are free and at their own disposal ;
and be inclined to think that those reasons which sub-
ject children in their nonage to the use of force, may
not, nor do concern men at years of discretion.

You tell us farther, " that commonwealths are in-
stituted for the attaining of all the benefits which
political government can yield : and therefore if the
spiritual and eternal interests of men may any way be
procured or advanced by political government, the
procuring and advancing those interests must in all
reason be received amongst the ends of civil society,
and so consequently fall within the compass of the
magistrate's jurisdiction." Concerning the extent of
the magistrate's jurisdiction, and the ends of civil so- .
ciety, whether the author or you have begged the
question, which is the chief business of your 56th and
two or three following rnm'es, I shall leaveit to the readers

p 2

212 A Third Letter for Toleration.

to judge, and bring the matter, if you please, to a
shorter issue. The question is, whether the magistrate
has any power to interpose force in matters of religion,
or for the salvation of souls? The argument against it
is, that civil societies are not constituted for that end,
and the magistrate cannot use force for ends for which
the commonwealth was not constituted.

The end of a commonwealth constituted can be sup-
posed no other than what men in the constitution of,
and entering into it, proposed ; and that could be no-
thing but protection from such injuries from other men,
which they desiring to avoid, nothing but force could
prevent or remedy ; all things but this being as wrell
attainable by men living in neighbourhood without the
bounds of a commonwealth, they could propose to them-
selves no other thing but this in quitting their natural
liberty, and putting themselves under the umpirage of
a civil sovereign, who therefore had the force of all the
members of the commonwealth put into his hands to
make his decrees to this end be obeyed. Now since no
man or society of men can, by their opinions in re-
ligion or ways of worship, do any man who differed
from them any injury, which he could not avoid or
redress if he desired it, without the help of force ; the
punishing any opinion in religion or ways of worship
by the force given the magistrate, could not be intended
by those who constituted or entered into the common-
wealth ; and so could be no end of it, but quite the
contrary. For force from a stronger hand, to bring a
man to a religion which another thinks the true, being
an injury which in the state of nature everyone would
avoid; protection from such injury is one of the ends
of a commonwealth, and so every man has a right to
toleration.

If you will say that commonwealths are not voluntary
societies constituted by men, and by men freely entered
into, I shall desire you to prove it.

In the mean time allowing it you for good, that
commonwealths are constituted by God for ends which
he has appointed, without the consent and contrivance
of men: If you say that one of those ends is the pro-

A Third Letter for Toleration, 213

pagation of the true religion, and the salvation of men's
souls ; I shall desire you to show me any such end ex-
pressly appointed hy God in revelation ; which since,
as you confess, you cannot do, you have recourse to the
general law of nature; and what is that? The law of
reason, whereby every one is commissioned to do good.
And the propagating the true religion for the salvation
of men's souls being doing good, you say, the civil
sovereigns are commissioned and required by that law
to use their force for those ends. But since by this law
all civil sovereigns are commissioned and obliged alike
to use their coactive power for the propagating the
true religion, and the salvation of souls ; and it is not
possible for them to execute such a commission, or
obey that law, but by using force to bring men to that
religion which they judge the true ; by which use of
force much more harm than good would be done to-
wards the propagating the true religion in the world, as I
have showed elsewhere : therefore no such commission,
whose execution would do more harm than good, more
hinder than promote the end for which it is supposed
given, can be a commission from God by the law of
nature. And this I suppose may satisfy you about the
end of civil societies or commonwealths, and answer
what you say concerning the ends attainable by them.

But that you may not think the great position of
yours, which is so often ushered in with doubtless, for
which you imagine you have sufficient warrant in a mis-
applied school-maxim, is past over too slightly, and is
not sufficiently answered, I shall give you that farther
satisfaction.

You say, " civil societies are instituted for the at-
taining all the benefits which civil society or political
government can yield;" and the reason you give
for it, " because it has hitherto been universally ac-
knowledged that no power is given in vain ;" and
therefore " if I except any of those benefits, I shall be
obliged to admit that the power of attaining them
was given in vain." And if I do admit it, no harm
will follow in human affairs : or if I may borrow an ele-
gant expression of yours out of the foregoing leaf, " the

214 A Third Letter for Toleration,

fortune of Europe does not turn upon it." In the
voluntary institution and bestowing of power, there is
no absurdity or inconvenience at all, that power, suf-
ficient for several ends, should be limited by those that
give the power only to one or some part of them. The
power which a general commanding a potent army has,
may be enough to take more towns than one from the
enemy ; or to suppress a domestic sedition ; and yet the
power of attaining those benefits, which is in his hand,
will not authorize him to employ the force of the army
therein, if he be commissioned only to besiege and take
one certain place. So it is in a commonwealth. The
power that is in the civil sovereign is the force of all
the subjects of the commonwealth, which, supposing it
sufficient for other ends than the preserving the mem-
bers of the commonwealth in peace from injury and
violence ; yet if those who gave him that power limited
the application of it to that sole end, no opinion of any
other benefits attainable by it can authorize him to use
it otherwise.

Our Saviour tells us expressly, that " all power was
given him in heaven and earth," Matt, xxviii. 11.
By which power I imagine you will not say, that the
° spiritual and eternal interest" of those men whom you
think need the help of political force, and of all other
men too, could not any way be procured or advanced ;
and yet if you will hear him in another place, you will
find this power, wdiich, being all power, could certainly
have wrought on all men, limited to a certain number :
he says, " thou hast given him, [/. e. thy Son] power
over all flesh, that he should £nve eternal lite to as
many as thou hast given him," John xvii. 2. Whether
your universally acknowledged maxim of logic be true
enough to authorize you to say that any part of this
power was given him in vain, and to enable you to
draw consequences from it, you were best see.

Hut were your maxim so true that it proved that
since it might " indirectly and at a distance" do some
towafds the " procuring or advancing the spi-
ritual interest" of some lew subjects ofacommonwealth,
therefore force was to be employed to that end: yet

?

A Third Letter for Toleration. 215

that will scarce make good this doctrine of yours :
" doubtless, commonwealths are instituted for the at-
taining all those benefits which political government
can yield ; therefore if the spiritual and eternal inter-
ests of men may any way be procured or advanced by
political government, the procuring and advancing
those interests must in all reason be reckoned among
the ends of civil societies, and so consequently fall
within the compass of the magistrate's jurisdiction."
For granting it true that " commonwealths are insti-
tuted for the attaining all those benefits which poli-
tical government can yield," it does not follow "that
the procuring and advancing the spiritual and eter-
nal interest" of some few members of the common-
wealth by an application of power, which indirectly and
at a distance, or by accident, may do some service that
way, whilst at the same time it prejudices a far greater
number in their civil interests ; can with reason be
reckoned among the ends of civil society.

" That commonwealths are instituted for those ends,
viz. for the procuring, preserving, and advancing
men's civil interests, you say, No man will deny."
To sacrifice therefore these civil interests of a great
number of people, which are the allowed ends of the
commonwealths, to the uncertain expectation of some
service to be done indirectly and at a distance to a far
less number, as experience has always showed those
really converted to the true religion by force to be, if any
at all ; cannot be one of the ends of the commonwealth.
Though the advancing of the spiritual and eternal in-
terest be of infinite advantage to the persons who receive
that benefit, yet if it can be thought a benefit to the
commonwealth when it is procured them with the di-
minishing or destroying the civil interests of great num-
bers of their fellow-citizens ; then the ravaging of an
enemy, the plague, or a famine, may be said to bring
a benefit to the commonwealth : for either of these may
indirectly and at a distance do some service towards the
advancing or procuring the spiritual and eternal in-
terest of some of those who suffer in it*

21 6 A Third Letter for Toleration.

In the two latter paragraphs you except against my
want of exactness, in setting down your opinion I am
arguing against. Had it been any way to take off the
force of what you say, or that the reader could have
been misled by my words in any part of the question I
was arguing against, you had had reason to complain :
if not, you had done better to have entertained the
reader with a clearer answer to my argument, than
spent your ink and his time needlessly, to show such
niceness.

My argument is as good against your tenet in your
own wrords, as in mine which you except against : your
words are "doubtless commonwealths are instituted
for the attaining all the benefits which political go-
vernment can yield; and therefore if the spiritual and
eternal interest of men may any way be procured or
advanced by political government, the procuring and
advancing those interests must in all reason be rec-
koned amongst the ends of civil societies."

To which I answered, that if this be so, " Then this
position must be true, viz. That all societies whatso-
ever are instituted for the attaining all the benefits
that they may any way yield ; there being nothing
peculiar to civil society in the case, why that society
should be instituted for the attaining all the benefits
it can any way yield, and other societies not. By
which argument it will follow, that all societies are
instituted for one and the same end, i. e. for the at-
taining all the benefits that they can any way yield.
By whkh account there will be no difference between
church and state, a commonwealth and an army, or
between a family and the East India Company; all
which have hitherto been thought distinct sorts of
societies, instituted for different ends. It' your hy-
pothesis hold good, one of the ends of the family
must be to preach the Gospel, and administer the sa-
craments ; and our business of an army to teach lan-
guages, and propagate religion; because these are
benefits some way or other attianable by those socie-
ties: unless you take want of commission and authority

A Third Letter for Toleration. 217

to be a sufficient impediment : and that will be so in
other cases." To which you reply, " Nor will it follow
from hence, that all societies are instituted for one and
the same end, (as you imagine it will) unless you sup-
pose all societies enabled by the power they are endued
with to attain the same end, which I believe no man
hitherto did ever affirm. And therefore, notwithstand-
ing this position, there may be still as great a difference
as you please between church and state, a common-
wealth and an army, or between a family and the East
India Company : which several societies, as they are
instituted for different ends, so are they likewise fur-
nished with different powers proportionate to their
respective ends." In which the reason you give to
destroy my inference, I am to thank you for, if you un-
derstood the force of it, it being the very same I bring
to show that my inference from your way of arguing is
good. I say, that from your way of reasoning about
the ends of government, " It would follow that all
societies were instituted for one and the same end ; un-
less you take want of commission and authority to be
a sufficient impediment." And you tell me here it will
not follow, " unless I suppose all societies enabled, by
the power they are endued with, to attain the same
end ;" which in other words is, unless I suppose all who
have in their hands the force of any society to have all
of them the same commission.

The natural force of all the members of any society,
or of those who by the society can be procured to assist
it, is in one sense called the power of that society. This
power or force is generally put into some one or few
persons' hands with direction and authority how to use
it ; and this in another sense is called also the power of
the society : and this is the power you here speak of,
and in these following words, viz. " Several societies,
as they are instituted for different ends ; so likewise are
they furnished with different powers proportionate to
their respective ends." The power therefore of any
society in this sense, is nothing but the authority and
direction given to those that have the management of

218 A Third Letter for Toleration.

the force or natural power of the society, how and to
what ends to use it, by which commission the ends of
societies are known and distinguished. So that all
societies wherein those who are intrusted with the ma-
nagement of the force or natural power of the society,
have commission and authority to use the force or na-
tural power of the society to attain the same benefits,
are instituted for the same end. And therefore, if in
all societies those who have the management of the
force or natural power of the society, are commissioned
or authorized to use that force to attain all the benefits
attainable by it, all societies are instituted to the same
end : and so what I said will still be true, viz. " That
a family and an army, a commonwealth and a church,
have all the same end. And if your hypothesis hold
good, one of the ends of a family must be to preach
the Gospel, and administer the sacraments ; and one
business of an army to teach languages, and propagate
religion, because these are benefits some way or other
attainable by those societies ; unless you take want of
commission and authority to be a sufficient impediment :
and that will be so too in other cases." To which you
have said nothing but what does confirm it, which you
will a little better see, when you have considered that
any benefit attainable by force or natural power of a
society, does not prove the society to be instituted for
that end ; till you also show, that those to whom the
management of the force of the society is intrusted, are
commissioned to use it to that end.

And therefore to your next paragraph I shall think
it answer enough to print here, side by side with it,
that paragraph of mine to which you intended it as an
answer.

L. II. p. 118. " It is a benefit L. III. p. 5S.

to have true knowledge and phi- To your next para-

losophy embraced and assented graph, alter what

to, in any civil society or go- has already been

vernment. But will you say, said, I think it may

therefore, that it is a benefit to suilicu to say as ibl-

A Third Letter for Toleration. 219

the society, or one of the ends lows. Though per-
of government, that all who are haps the peripatetic
not peripatetics should be pu- philosophy may not
nished, to make men find out be true, (and perhaps
the truth, and profess it? This it is no great matter
indeed might be thought a fit if it be not) yet the
way to make some men embrace true religion is un-
the peripatetic philosophy, but doubtedly true. And
not a proper way to find the though perhaps a
truth. For perhaps the peripa- great many have not
tetic philosophy may not be time nor parts to
true ; perhaps a great many have study that philoso-
not time nor parts to study it ; phy, (and perhaps it
perhaps a great many who have maybe no great mat-
studied it, cannot be convinced ter neither if they
of the truth of it : and therefore have not) yet all that
it cannot be a benefit to the com- have the true reli-
monwealth, nor one of the ends gion duly tendered
of it, that these members of the them, have time, and
society should be disturbed and all, but idiots and
diseased to no purpose, when madmen, have parts
they are guilty of no fault. For likewise to study it,
just the same reason, it cannot as much as it is ne-
be a benefit to civil society, that cessary for them to
men should be punished in Den- study it. And though
mark for not being Lutherans, perhaps agreat many
in Geneva for not being Calvin- who have studied
ists, and in Vienna for not being that philosophy can-
papists, as a means to make them not be convinced of
find out the true religion. For the truth of it, (which
so, upon your grounds, men must perhaps is no great
be treated in those places, as well wonder) yet no man
as in England, for not being of ever studied the true
the church of England. And religion with such
then, I beseech you, consider the care and diligence as
great benefit will accrue to he might and ought
men in society by this method ; to use, and with an
and I suppose it will be a hard honest mind, but he
thing for you to prove, That ever was convinced of the
civil governments were instituted truth of it. And that

220 A Third Letter for Toleration*

to punish men for not being of those who cannot
this or that sect in religion ; otherwise be brought
however by accident, indirectly to do this, shall be a
and at a distance, it may be an little disturbed and
occasion to one perhaps of a diseased to bring
thousand,or an hundred, to study them to it, I take to
that controversy, which is all you be the interest, not
expect from it. If it be a benefit, only of those parti-
pray tell me what benefit it is. cular persons who by
A civil benefit it cannot be. this means may be
For men's civil interests are dis- brought into the way
turbed, injured, and impaired of salvation, but of
by it. And what spiritual benefit the commonwealth
that can be to any multitude of likewise, upon these
men, to be punished for dissent- two accounts,
ing from a false or erroneous pro- 1. Because the true
fession, I would have you find religion, which this
out ; unless it be a spiritual bene- method propagates,
fit to be in danger to be driven makes good men;
into a wrong way. For if in all and good men are
differing sects one is in the always the best sub-
wrong, it is an hundred to one jects, or members of
but that from which any one the commonwealth ;
dissents, and is punished for dis- not only as they do
senting from, is the wrong." more sincerely and

zealously promote
the public good than other men ; but likewise in regard
of the favour of God, which they often procure to the
societies of which they are members. And,

2. Because this care in any commonwealth, of God's
honour and men's salvation, entitles it to his special
protection and blessing. So that where this method is
used, it proves both a spiritual and a civil benefit to the
commonwealth.

You tell us, " the true religion is undoubtedly true."
If you had told us too, who is undoubtedly judge of it,

you had put all past doubt : but till you will be pleased
to determine that, it would be undoubtedly true, that
the king of Denmark is as undoubtedly judge of it at

A Third Letter for Toleration. 221

Copenhagen, and the emperor at Vienna, as the king
of England in this island : I do not say they judge as
right, but they are by as much right judges, and there-
fore have as much right to punish those who dissent from
Lutheranism and popery in those countries, as any other
civil magistrate has to punish any dissenters from the
national religion any where else. And who can deny
but these briars and thorns laid in their way by the penal
laws of those countries, may do some service indirectly
and at a distance, to bring men there severely and im-
partially to examine matters of religion, and so to em-
brace the truth that must save them, which the bare
outward profession of any religion in the world will not
do?

" This true religion, which is undoubtedly true, you
tell us too, never any body studied with such care and
diligence as he might and ought to use, and with an
honest mind, but he was convinced of the truth of it."

If you will resolve it in your short circular way, and
tell me such diligence as one ought to use is such dili-
gence as brings one to be convinced, it is a question too
easy to be asked. If I should desire to know plainly
what is to be understood by it, it would be a question
too hard for you to answer, and therefore I shall not
trouble you with demanding what this diligence, which
a man may and ought to use, is ; nor what you mean
by an honest mind. I only ask you, whether force, your
way applied, be able to produce them ? that so the com-
monwealth may have the benefits you propose from
men's being convinced of, and consequently embra-
cing, the true religion, which you say nobody can miss,
who is brought to that diligence, and that honest
mind.

The benefits to the commonwealth are, 1. " That
the true religion that this method propagates makes
good men, and good men are always the best subjects,
and often procure the favour of God to the society
they are members of." Being forward enough to grant
that nothing contributes so much to the benefit of
a society, as that it be made up of good men, I began

222 A Third Letter for Toleration.

presently to give into your method, which promises so
sure a way to make men so study the true religion,
that they cannot miss the being convinced of the truth
of it, and so hardly avoid being really of the true reli-
gion, and consequently good men. But, that I might
not mistake in a thing of that consequence, I began to
look about in those countries where force has been made
use of to propagate what you allowed to be the true
religion, and found complaints of as great a scarcity of
good men there, as in other places. A friend whom I
discoursed on this point said, It might possibly be that
the world had not yet had the benefit of your method :
because law-makers had not yet been able to find that
just temper of penalties on which your propagation of
the true religion was built ; and that therefore it was
great pity you had not yet discovered this great secret,
but it was to be hoped you would. Another, who stood
by, said he did not see how your method could make
men it wrought on, and brought to conformity, better
than others, unless corrupt nature with impunity were
like to produce better men in one outward profession
than in another. To which I replied, That we did not
look on conformists through a due medium ; for if we
did, with you, allow it presumable that all who con-
formed did it upon conviction, there could be no just
complaint of the scarcity of good men : and so we got
over that difficulty.

The second benefit you say your use of force brings
to the commonwealth is, " That this care in any com-
monwealth, of God's honour and men's salvation, en-
titles it to his special protection and blessing." — Then
certainly all commonwealths, that have any regard to
the protection and blessing of God, will not neglect to
entitle themselves to it, by using of force to promote
that religion they believe to be true. But I beseech you
what care is this of the honour of God and men's salva-
tion you speak of? Is if, as you have owned it, a care by
penalties to make men outwardly conform, and without
any farther care or inquiry to presume that they do it
upon conviction, and with a sincere embracing of, and

A Third Letter for Toleration. CM3

obedience to the truth ? But if the honour of God, and
men's salvation, consists not in an outward conformity
to any religion, but in something farther ; what bless-
ing they may expect whose care goes so far, and then
presume the rest, which is the hardest part, and there-
fore least to be presumed, the prophet Jeremiah, chap,
xlviii. 10, will tell you, who says, " Cursed be he that
docs the work of the Lord negligently :" which those
who think it is the magistrate's business to use force
to bring men heartily to embrace the truth that must
save them, were best seriously to consider.

Your next paragraph containing nothing but positions
of yours, which you suppose elsewhere proved, and I
elsewhere examined, it is not fit the reader should be
troubled any farther about them.

I once knew a gentleman, who having cracked him-
self with an ungovernable ambition, could never after-
wards hear the place he aimed at mentioned without
showing marks of his distemper. I know not what the
matter is, that when there comes in your way but the
mention of secular power in your or ecclesiastics' hands,
you cannot contain yourself: we have instances of it in
other parts of your letter ; and here again you fall into
a fit, which since it produces rather marks of your breed-
ing, than arguments for your cause, I shall leave them
as they are to the reader, if you can make them go
down with him for reasons from a grave man, or for
a sober answer to what I say in that and the following
paragraph.

Much-what of the same size is your ingenious reply
to what I say in the next paragraph, viz. " That com-
monwealths, or civil societies and governments, if
you will believe the judicious Mr. Hooker, are, as
St. Peter calls them, 1 Pet. ii. 13, avfywrivynims, the
contrivance and institution of man." To which you
smartly reply, for your choler was up, " it is well for
St. Peter that he had the judicious Mr. Hooker on his
side." And it would have been well for you too to have
seen that Mr. Hooker's authority was made use of not
to confirm the authority of St. Peter, but to confirm

Q21 A Third Letter for Toleration.

that sense I gave of St. Peter's words, which is not so
clear in our translation, but that there are those who,
as I doubt not but you know, do not allow of it. But
this being said when passion it seems rather employed
your wit than your judgment, though nothing to the
purpose, may yet perhaps indirectly and at a distance
do some service.

And now, sir, if you can but imagine that men in
the corrupt state of nature might be authorized and
required by reason, the law of nature, to avoid the in-
conveniencies of that state, and to that purpose to put
the power of governing them into some one or more
men's hands, in such forms, and under such agreements
as they should think fit ; (which governors so set over
them for a good end by their own choice, though they
received all their power from those, who by the law of
nature had a power to confer it on them, may very fitly
be called powers ordained of God, being chosen and
appointed by those who had authority from God so to
do : for he that receives commission, limited according
to the discretion of him that gives it, from another who
had authority from his prince so to do, may truly be
said, so far as his commission reaches, to be appointed
or ordained by the prince himself;) it may serve as an
answer to your two next paragraphs, and to show that
there is no opposition or difficulty in all that St. Peter,
St. Paul, or the judicious Mr. Hooker says ; nor any
thing, in what either of them says, to your purpose.
Arid though it be true, those powers that are, are or-
dained of God; yet it may nevertheless be true, that
the power any one has, and the ends for which he has
it, may be by the contrivance and appointment of
men.

To my saying, " the ends of commonwealths ap-
pointed by the institutors of them, could not be their
Spiritual and eternal interest, because they could not
stipulate about those one with another, nor submit
this interest to the power of the society, or any
sovereign they should set over them." You reply,
"very true, sir; but they can submit to be punished in

A Third Letter for Toleration. 225

their temporal interest, if they despise or neglect those
greater interests." How they can submit to be pu-
nished by any men in their temporal interest, for that
which they cannot submit to be judged by any man,
when you can show, I shall admire your politics. Be-
sides, if the compact about matters of religion be, that
those should be punished in their temporal, who neglect
or despise their eternal interest; who, I beseech you,
is by this agreement rather to be punished, a sober
dissenter, who appears concerned for religion and his
salvation, or an irreligious, profane, or debauched con-
formist ? By such as despise or neglect those greater
interests, you here mean only dissenters from the na-
tional religion : for those only you punish, though you
represent them under such a description as belongs not
peculiarly to them ; but that matters not, so long as it
best suits your occasion.

In your next paragraph you wonder at my news from
the West Indies ; I suppose because you found it not in
your books of Europe or Asia. But, whatever you may
think, I assure you all the world is not Mile-end. But
that you may be no more surprised with news, let me
ask you, whether it be not possible that men, to whom
the rivers and woods afforded the spontaneous provi-
sions of life, and so, with no private possessions of land
had no enlarged desires after riches or power; should
live together in society, make one people of one lan-
guage under one chieftain, who shall have no other
power but to command them in time of common war
against their common enemies, without any muni-
cipal laws, judges, or any person with superiority esta-
blished amongst them, but ended all their private dif-
ferences, if any arose, by the extemporary determina-
tion of their neighbours, or of arbitrators chosen by
the parties; I ask you, whether in such a common-
wealth the chieftain, who was the only man of autho-
rity amongst thern, had any power to use the force of
the commonwealth to any other end but the defence of
it against an enemy, though other benefits were attain-
able bv it ?

VOL. VI. Q

226 A Third Letter for Toleration.

The paragraph of mine to which you mean your next
for an answer, shall answer for itself.

L. II. p. V23. " You quote the L. III. p. 63. As

author's argument, which he brings to your next para-

to prove that the care of souls is graph, I think I

not committed to the magistrate, might now wholly

in these words: ' It is not com- pass it over. I shall

mitted to him by God, because it only tell you, that

appears not that God has ever as I have often

given any such authority to one heard, so I hope

man over another, as to compel I shall always hear

any one to his religion.' This, of " religion esta-

when first I read it, I confess I blished by law."

thought a good argument. But For though the

you say, ' this is quite beside the magistrate's au-

business;' and the reason you give thority can "add

is, 'for the authority of the magi- no force or sanc-

strate is not authority to compel tion to any reli-

any one to his religion, but only gion, whether true

an authority to procure all his sub- or false, nor any

jects the means of discovering the thing to the truth

way of salvation, and to procure or validity of his

withal, as much as in him lies, that own, or any reli-

none remain ignorant of it,' &c. I gion whatsoever;"

fear, sir, you forget yourself. The yet I think it

author was not writing against may do much to-

your new hypothesis before it was ward the uphold-

known in the world. He may be ing and preserving

excused, if he had not the gift of the true religion

prophecy, to argue against a no- within his juris-

tion which was not yet started, diction ; and in

He had in view only the laws that respect may

hitherto made, and the punish- properly enough

merits, in matters of religion, in be said to esta-

tn the world. The penalties, blish it.
M I take it, are laid on men for
being of different ways of religion: which, what is it
other but to compel them to relinquish their own, and

I') conform themselves to that from which they differ?

A Third Letter for Toleration. %TJ

If this be not to compel them to the magistrate's reli-
gion, pray tell us what is? This must be necessarily
so understood ; unless it can be supposed that the law
intends not to have that done, which with penalties it
commands to be done ; or that punishments are not
compulsion, not that compulsion the author complains
of. The law says, Do this, and live ; embrace this
doctrine, conform to this way of worship, and be at
ease and free ; or else be fined, imprisoned, banished,
burned. If you can show among the laws that have
been made in England concerning religion (and 1 think
I may say any where else), any one that punishes men
' for not having impartially examined the religion they
have embraced or refused,' I think I may yield you the
cause. Law-makers have been generally wiser than to
make laws that could not be executed : and therefore
their laws were against non-conformists, which could
be known ; and not for impartial examination, which
could not. It was not, then, beside the author's business
to bring an argument against the persecutions here in
fashion. He did not know that any one, who was so
free as to acknowledge that the magistrate has not an
authority to compel any one to his religion, and thereby
at once, as you have done, give up all the laws now in
force against the dissenters ; had yet rods in store for
them, and by a new trick would bring them under the
lash of the law, when the old pretences were too much
exploded to serve any longer. Have you never heard
of such a thing as the religion established by law ?
which is, it seems, the lawful religion of a country,
and to be complied with as such. There being such
things, such notions yet in the world, it was not quite
beside the author's business to allege, that God never
gave such authority to one man over another as to
compel any one to his religion. I will grant, if you
please, religion established by law is a pretty odd way
of speaking in the mouth of a Christian, and yet it is
much in fashion; as if the magistrate's authority could
add any force or sanction to any religion, whether true
or false. I am glad to find vou have so far considered

q2

*> J Third Let: I knUUk

the mag n author: itfa the

author, that he hath none to compel men to hi- _:on.
ch less he, I s : , add

any thing to the truth or validity of his own, or any
religion whatsoever."

is all the ansa
paragraph o: tint

saj, you musl g me lei

:ie mag s - authority much

le upholdii _ i he true i

thin his jurisdiction; roah
the upholding and , _ . and

in that respect, if iish

it. For I thiuk I not mind you fa g in, that

List unavoidably depend upon his opinion .iall

be establ shed for true,

And thus you have my the ghts concern _

:ouchingthe magis
a to use foi tog :her

- me incident pi anawc ch 1 1.

taken no ne in mv wav.

1APTER III.
Who <n~e to be punished by your Scheme.

who would not hi . Mai

excluci m the civil _ ilth,

because oft religion; irdry

b^ * It tor I

s*on» * ordir d pro-

-, eit!
m when _ st ■ > '"

rePv I confess I th ^ * men n ight

A Third Letter for Toteration. 229

quietly enough among us, and enjoy the protection of
the government against all violence and injuries, with-
out Being endenizened, or made members of the com-
monwealth ; which alone can entitle them to the civil
rights and privileges of it. But as to Jews, Maho-
metans, and pagans, if any of them do not care to live
among us, unless they may be admitted to the rights
and privileges of the commonwealth ; the refusing
them that favour is not, I suppose, to be looked upon
as driving them from us, or excluding them from the
ordinary and probable means of conversion ; but as a
just and necessary caution in a Christian common-
wealth, in respect to the members of it; who, if such
as profess Judaism, or Mahometanism, or paganism,
were permitted to enjoy the same rights with them,
would be much the more in danger to be seduced by
them ; seeing they would lose no worldly advantage by
such a change of their religion : whereas, if they could
not turn to any of those religions, without forfeiting
the civil rights of the commonwealth by doing it, it is
likely they would consider well before they did it, what
ground there was to expect that they should get any
thing by the exchange, which would countervail the
loss they should sustain by it." I thought protection
and impunity of men, not offending in civil things,
might have been accounted the civil rights of the com-
monwealth, which the author meant : but you, to make
it seem more, add the word privileges. Let it be so.
Live amongst you then Jews, Mahometans, and pagans
may; but endenizened they must not be. But why?
Are there not those who are members of your common-
wealth, who do not embrace the truth that must save
them, any more than they? What think you of Soci-
nians, papists, anabaptists, quakers, presbyterians? If
they do not reject the truth necessary to salvation, why
do you punish them? Or if some that are in the way
to perdition may be members of the commonwealth,
why must these be excluded upon the account of reli-
gion ? For I think there is no great odds, as to saving
of souls, which is the only end for which they are
punished, amongst those religions, each whereof will

230 A Third Letter for Toleration.

make those who are of it miss salvation. Only if
there be any fear of seducing those who are of the
national church, the danger is most from that religion
which comes nearest to it, and most resembles it.
However, this you think " but a just and necessary
caution in a Christian commonwealth, in respect of
the members of it." I suppose, for you love to speak
doubtfullv, these members of a Christian commonwealth
you take such care of, are members also of the national
church, whose religion is the true ; and therefore you
call them, in the next paragraph, subjects of Christ's
kingdom, to whom he has a special regard. For dis-
senters, who are punished to be made good Christians,
to whom force is used " to bring them to the true reli-
gion, and to the communion of the church of God," it
is plain are not in your opinion good Christians, or
of the true religion ; unless you punish them to make
them what they are already. The dissenters, therefore,
who are already perverted, and reject the truth that
must save them, you are not, I suppose, so careful of,
lest they should be seduced. Those who have already
the plague, need not be guarded from infection: nor can
you fear that men so desperately perverse, that penalties
and punishments, joined to the light and strength of
the truth, have not been able to bring from the opi-
nions they have espoused into the communion of the
church, should be seduced to Judaism, Mahometanism,
or paganism, neither of which has the advantage of truth
or interest to prevail by. It is therefore those of the
national church, as I conclude also from the close of
this paragraph, where you speak of God's own peculiar
people, whom you think would be much the more in
danger to be seduced by them, if they were endenizened,
since they would lose no worldly advantage by such a
change of their religion, i.e. by quitting the national
church, to turn Jews, Mahometans, or pagans.

Tin's shows, whatever you say of the Sufficient means
of instruction provided by the law, howwell you think
the members of the national church are instructed in
the true religion. It shows also, whatever you say of
its being presumable that they embrace it upon coil-

A Third Letter for Toleration. 231

viction, how much you are satisfied that the members
of the national church are convinced of the truth of the
religion they profess, or rather herd with ; since you
think them in great danger to change it for Judaism,
Mahometanism,or paganism itself upon equal terms, and
because they shall lose no worldly advantage by such
a change. But if the forfeiting the civil rights of the
commonwealth be the proper remedy to keep men in
the communion of the church, why is it used to keep
men from Judaism or paganism, and not from fanati-
cism ? Upon this account why might not Jews, pagans,
and Mahometans be admitted to the rights of the com-
mon wealth, as far as papists, independents, and quakers?
But you distribute to every one according to your good
pleasure ; and doubtless are fully justified by these fol-
lowing words : " And whether this be not a reasonable
and necessary caution, any man may judge, who does
but consider within how few ages after the flood, super-
stition and idolatry prevailed over the world, and how
apt even God's own peculiar people were to receive
that mortal infection, notwithstanding all that he did
to keep them from it."

What the state of religion was in the first ages after
the flood, is so imperfectly known now, that, as I have
showed you in another place, you can make little ad-
vantage to your cause from thence. And since it was
the same corruption then, which, as you own, with-
draws men now from the true religion, and hinders it
from prevailing by its own light, without the assistance
of force; and it is the same corruption that keeps dis-
senters, as well as Jews, Mahometans, and pagans, from
embracing of the truth : why different degrees of pu-
nishments should be used to them, till there be found in
them different degrees of obstinacy, would need some
better reason. Why this common pravity of human
nature should make Judaism, Mahometanism, or pa-
ganism more catching than any sort of non-conformity,
which hinders men from embracing the true religion ;
so that Jews, Mahometans, and pagans must, for fear of
infecting others, be shut out from the commonwealth,
when others are not, I would fain know ? Whatever it

232 A Third Letter for Toleration.

was that so disposed the Jews to idolatry before the
captivity, sure it is, they firmly resisted it, and refused
to change, not only where they might have done it on
equal terms, but have had great advantage to boot ; and
therefore it is possible that there is something in this
matter, which neither you nor I do fully comprehend,
and may with a becoming humility sit down and confess,
that in this, as well as other parts of his providence,
God's ways are past finding out. But of this we may
be certain, from this instance of the Jews, that it is not
reasonable to conclude, that because they were once
inclined to idolatry, that therefore they, or any other
people, are in danger to turn pagans, whenever they
shall lose no worldly advantage by such a change. But
if we may oppose nearer and known instances to more
remote and uncertain, look into the world, and tell me,
since Jesus Christ brought life and immortality to light
through the Gospel, where the Christian religion meet-
ing Judaism, Mahometanism, or paganism upon equal
terms, lost so plainly by it, that you have reason to
suspect the members of a Christian commonwealth
would be in danger to be seduced to either of them, if
they should lose no worldly advantage by such a change
of their religion, rather than likely to increase among
them? Till you can find, then, some better reason for
excluding Jews, &c. from the rights of the common-
wealth, you must give us leave to look on this as a bare
pretence. Besides, I think you are under a mistake,
which shows your pretence against admitting Jews, Ma-
hometans, and pagans to the civil rights of the common-
wealth, is ill grounded ; for what law, I pray, is there in
England, that they who turn to any of those religions
forfeit the civil rights of the commonwealth by doing
it? Such a law I desire you to show me; and if you
cannot, all this pretence is out of doers, and men of
your church, since on that account they would lose no
worldly advantage by the change, are in as much danger
to he seduced, whether Jews, Mahometans, and pagans

ar i endenizened or no.

Hut thai you may not be thought too gracious, you
tell us, "That as to pagans particularly, you are so far

A Third Letter for Toleration. 233

from thinking that they ought not to be excluded from
the civil rights of the commonwealth, because of their
religion, that you cannot see how their religion can be
suffered by any commonwealth that knows and worships
the only true God, if they would be thought to retain
any jealousy for his honour, or even for that of human
nature." Thus then you order the matter ; Jews and
Mahometans may be permitted to live in a Christian
commonwealth with the exercise of their religion, but
not be endenizened : pagans may also be permitted to
live there, but not to have the exercise of their religion,
nor be endenizened.

This, according to the best of my apprehension, is the
sense of your words; for the clearness of your thoughts,
or your cause, does not always suffer you to speak
plainly and directly ; as here, having been speaking a
whole page before what usage the persons of Jews, Ma-
hometans, and pagans were to have, you on a sudden
tell us their religion is not to be suffered, but say not
what must be done with their persons. For do you think
it reasonable that men, wrho have any religion, should
live amongst you without the exercise of that religion,
in order to their conversion ? which is no other but to
make them downright irreligious, and render the very
notion of a Deity insignificant, and of no influence to
them, in order to their conversion. It being less dan- (
gerous to religion in general to have men ignorant of a /
Deity, and so without any religion, than to have them
acknowledge a superior Being, but yet to teach or al-
low them to neglect or refuse worshipping him in that
way that they believe he requires, to render them ac-
ceptable to him : it being a great deal less fault (and
that which we were every one of us once guilty of) to
be ignorant of him, than, acknowledging a God, not to
pay him the honour which we think due to him. I do
not see therefore how those who retain any jealousy for
the honour of God can permit men to live amongst
them in order to their conversion, and require of them
not to honour God, according to the best of their know-
ledge : unless you think it a preparation to your true
religion, to require men sensibly and knowingly to af-

234 A Third Letter for Toleration.

front the Deity ; and to persuade them that the religion
you would bring them to can allow men to make bold
with the sense they have of him, and to refuse him the
honour which in their consciences they are persuaded
is due to him, and which must to them and every body
else appear inconsistent with all religion. Since there-
fore to admit their persons without the exercise of their
religion cannot be reasonable, nor conducing to their
conversion ; if the exercise of their religion, as you
say, be not to be suffered amongst us till they are con-
verted, I do not see how their persons can be suffered
amongst us, if that exception must be added, till they
are converted ; and whether then they are not excluded
from the ordinary means of conversion, I leave you to
consider.

I wonder this necessity had not made you think on
another way of their having the ordinary means of con-
version, without their living amongst us, that way by
which in the beginning of Christianity it was brought to
the heathen world by the travels and preaching of the
apostles. But the successors of the apostles are not, it
seems, successors to this part of the commission, Go
and teach all nations. And indeed it is one thini* to
be an ambassador from God to people that are already
converted, and have provided good benefices ; another
to be an ambassador from Heaven in a country where you
have neither the countenance of the magistrate, nor the
devout obedience of the people. And who sees not
how one is bound to be zealous for the propagating of
the true religion, and the convincing, converting, and
saving of souls in a country where it is established by
law? who can doubt but that there those who talk so
much of it are in earnest? Though yet some men will
hardly forbear doubting, that those men, however they
pray for it, are not much concerned for the conversion
of pagans, who will neither go to them to instruct
them, nor sutler them to come to us for the means of
conversion.

It is true what you say, " what pagans call religion
is abomination to the Almighty. " But if that requires
any thing from those who retain any jealousy for the

A Third Letter for Toleration. 0,35

honour of God, it is something more than barely about
the place where those abominations shall be committed.
The true concern for the honour of God is not, that
idolatry should be shut out of England, but that it
should be lessened every where, and by the light and
preaching of the Gospel be banished out of the world.
If pagans and idolaters are, as you say, the "greatest
dishonour conceivable to God Almighty,'' they are as
much so on the other side of Tweed, or the sea, as on
this ; for he from his throne equally beholds all the
dwellers upon earth. Those therefore who are truly
jealous for the honour of God, will not, upon the ac-
count of his honour, be concerned for their being in
this or that place, while there are idolaters in the world ;
but that the number of those who are such a dishonour
to him, should every day be as much as possible dimi-
nished, and they be brought to give him his due tribute
of honour and praise in a right way of worship. It is
in this that a jealousy, which is in earnest for God's
honour, truly shows itself, in wishing and endeavouring
to abate the abomination, and drive idolatry out of the
world ; not in driving idolaters out of any one country,
or sending them away to places and company, where
they shall find more encouragement to it. It is a strange
jealousy for the honour of God, that looks not beyond
such a mountain or river as divides a Christian and
pagan country. Wherever idolatry is committed, there
God's honour is concerned ; and thither men's jealousy
for his honour, if it be sincere indeed, will extend, and
be in pain to lessen and take away the provocation. But
the place God is provoked and dishonoured in, which
is a narrow consideration in respect of the Lord of all
the earth, will no otherwise employ their zeal, who are
in earnest, than as it may more or less conduce to their
conversion of the offenders.

But if your jealousy for the honour of God engages
you so far against men's committing idolatry in certain
places, that you think those ought to be excluded from
the rights of the commonwealth, and not to be suffered
to be denizens, who, according to that place in the Ro-
mans brought by you, are " without excuse, because

236 A Third Letter for Toleration.

when they knew God, they glorified him not as God,
but became vain in their imagination, and changed
the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made
like to corruptible man." I shall only change some of
the words in the text you cite of Isaiah, " I have baked
part thereof on the coals, and eaten it, and shall I make
the residue thereof a God? shall I fall down to that
which comes of a plant?" and so leave them with you
to consider whether your jealousy in earnest carries
you so far as you talk of; and whether when you have
looked about you, you are still of the mind, that those
who do such things shall be disfranchised and sent
away, and the exercise of no such religion be any
where permitted amongst us ? for those things are no
less an abomination to God under a Christian than
a pagan name. One word more I have to say to your
jealousy for the honour of God, that if it be any thing
more than in talk, it will set itself no less earnestly
against other abominations, and the practisers of them,
than against that of idolatry.

As to that in Job xxxi. 26, 27, 28, where he says
" idolatry is to be punished by the judge ;" this place
alone, were there no other, is sufficient to confirm their
opinion, who conclude that book writ by a Jew. And
how little the punishing of idolatry in that common-
wealth concerns our present case, I refer you for in-
formation to the author's letter. But how does your
jealousy for the honour of God carry you to an ex-
clusion of the pagan religion from amongst you, but
yet admit of the Jewish and Mahometan? Or is not
the honour of God concerned in their denying our
Saviour ?

W we are to look upon Job to have been writ before
the time of Moses, as the author would have it, p. 38,
and so by a stranger to the commonwealth of Israel; it
is plain the general apostasy he lays so much stress on,
was not spread so far, but that there was a government
by his own confession established out of Judea, free
from, nay zealous against idolatry : and why there
might not be many more as well as this, which we hear
of but by chance, it will concern him to show.

A Third Letter for Toleration. 237

You go on, " But as to the converting Jews, Maho-
metans, and pagans to Christianity, I fear there will
be no great progress made in it, till Christians come
to a better agreement and union among themselves.
I am sure our Saviour prayed that all that should be-
lieve in him might be one in the Father and 11™,"
(/. e. I suppose in that holy religion which he taught
them from the Father) that the world might believe
that the Father had sent him : " and therefore when
he comes to make inquisition, why no more Jews, Ma-
hometans, and pagans have been converted to his re-
ligion ; I very much fear, that a great part of the blame
will be found to lie upon the authors and promoters of
sects and divisions among the professors of it : which
therefore, I think, all that are guilty, and all that would
not be guilty, ought well to consider."

I easily grant that " our Saviour prayed that all
might be one in that holy religion which he taught
them," and in that very prayer teaches what that re-
ligion is, " This is life eternal, that they might know
thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou
hast sent." John xvii. 8. But must it be expected,
that therefore they should all be of one mind in things
not necessary to salvation ? for whatever unity it was
our Saviour prayed for here, it is certain the apostles
themselves did not all of them agree in every thing :
but even the chief of them have had differences
amongst them in matters of religion, as appears, Gal.
ii. 11.

An agreement in truths necessary to salvation, and
the maintaining of charity and brotherly kindness with
the diversity of opinions in other things, is that which
will very well consist with Christian unity, and is all
possibly to be had in this world, in such an incurable
weakness and difference of men's understandings. This
probably would contribute more to the conversion of
Jews, Mahometans, and pagans, if there were proposed
to them and others, for their admittance into the church,
only the plain simple truths of the Gospel necessary to
salvation, than all the fruitless puclder and talk about
uniting Christians in matters of less moment, accord-

£38 A Third Letter for Toleration.

ing to the draught and prescription of a certain set of
men any where.

" What blame will lie on the authors and promoters
of sects and divisions," and, let me add, animosities
amongst Christians, " when Christ comes to make in-
quisition why no more Jews, Mahometans, and pagans
were converted, they who are concerned ought certainly
well to consider." And to abate in great measure this
mischief for the future, they who talk so much of sects
and divisions, would do well to consider too, whether
those are not most authors and promoters of sects and
divisions, who impose creeds, and ceremonies, and
articles of men's making ; and make things not ne-
cessary to salvation, the necessary terms of communion,
excluding and driving from them such as out of con-
science and persuasion cannot assent and submit to
them ; and treating them as if they were utter aliens
from the church of God, and such as were deservedly
shut out as unfit to be members of it : who narrow
Christianity within bounds of their own making, which
the Gospel knows nothing of; and often, for things by
themselves confessed indifferent, thrust men out of their
communion, and then punish them for not being of it.

Who sees not, but the bond of unity might be pre-
served, in the different persuasions of men, concerning
things not necessary to salvation, if they were not made
necessary to church communion? What two thinking
men of the church of England are there, who differ not
one from the other in several material points of reli-
gion, who nevertheless are members of the same church,
and in unity one with another? Make but one of those
points the Shibboleth of a party, and erect it into an
article of the national church, and they are presently
divided ; and he of the two, whose judgment happens
not to agree with national orthodoxy, is immediately
cut off from communion. Who I beseech you is it in
this case that makes the seel ? Is it not those who con-
tract the church of Christ within limits of their own
contrivance? who, by articles and eeremonies of their
own forming, separate from their communion all that
have not persuasions which just jump with their model?

A Third Letter for Toleration. 239

It is frivolous here to pretend authority. No man
has or can have authority to shut any one out of the
church of Christ, f6r that for which Christ himself will
not shut him out of heaven. Whosoever does so, is
truly the author and promoter of schism and division,
sets up a sect, and tears in pieces the church of Christ,
of which every one who believes, and practises what is
necessary to salvation, is a part and member; and can-
not, without the guilt of schism, be separated from, or
kept out of its external communion. In this " lording
it over the heritage of God,' 1 Pet. v. 2, 3, and thus
overseeing by imposition on the unwilling, and not con-
senting, (which seems to be the meaning of St. Peter)
most of the lasting sects which so mangle Christianity
had their original, and continue to have their support:
and were it not for these established sects under the
specious names of national churches, which, by their
contracted and arbitrary limits of communion, justify
against themselves the separation and like narrowness
of others; the difference of opinions which do not so
much begin to be, as to appear and be owned under
toleration, would either make no sect nor division ; or
else, if they were so extravagant as to be opposite to
wrhat is necessary to salvation, and so necessitate a se-
paration ; the clear light of the Gospel, joined with a
strict discipline of manners, would quickly chase them
out of the world. But whilst needless impositions and
moot points in divinity are established by the penal laws
of kingdoms, and the specious pretences of authority;
what hope is there, that there should be such an union
amongst Christians any where, as might invite a rational
Turk or infidel to embrace a religion, whereof he is told
they have a revelation from God, which yet in some
places he is not suffered to read, and in no place shall
he be permitted to understand for himself, or to follow
according to the best of his understanding, when it shall
at all thwart (though in things confessed not necessary
to salvation) any of those select points of doctrine, dis-
cipline, or outward worship, whereof the national church
has been pleased to make up its articles, polity, and
ceremonies ? And I ask, what a sober sensible heathen

240 A Third Letter for Toleration.

must think of the divisions amongst Christians not
owing to toleration, if he should find in an island, where
Christianity seems to be in its greatest purity, the south
and north parts establishing churches upon the differ-
ences of only whether fewer or more, thus and thus
chosen, should govern ; though the revelation they both
pretend to be their rule, say nothing directly one way
or the other : each contending with so much eagerness,
that they deny each other to be churches of Christ, that
is, in effect, to be true Christians? To which, if one
should add t ran substantiation, consubstantiation, real
presence, articles and distinctions set up by men with-
out authority from Scripture ; and other less differences,
which good Christians may dissent about without en-
dangering their salvation, established by law in the se-
veral parts of Christendom : I ask, whether the magi-
strates' interposing in matters of religion, and establish-
ing national churches by the force and penalties of
civil laws, with their distinct (and at home reputed
necessary) confessions and ceremonies, do not by law
and power authorize and perpetuate sects among Chri-
stians, to the great prejudice of Christianity, and scan-
dal to infidels, more than any thing that can arise from
a mutual toleration, with charity and a good life ?

Those who have so much in their mouths, " the
authors of sects and divisions," with so little advantage
to their cause, I shall desire to consider, whether na-
tional churches, established as now they are, are not as
much sects and divisions in Christianity, as smaller col-
lections, under the name of distinct churches, are in
respect of the national? Only with this difference, that
these subdivisions and discountenanced sects, wanting
power to enforce their p< culiar doctrines and discipline,
usually live more friendly like: Christians, and seem only
to demand Christian liberty; whereby there is less ap-
pearance of unchristian division among them ; v. Ik
those national sects, being backed bj tl power,

which they m ver fail to 1,1 - , at leiu

tence ol authority over their brethren, usual lv breathe
out I] 1, to the :.

proach, e id dishonour of the Christian 1 <).

A Third Letter Jbr Toleration. 241

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 pre-
sently, taking it in your sense, not mine, that the ma-
gistrate 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, per-
haps 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, con-
cubinage, simple fornication, or marrying within de-
grees 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

24*2 A Third Letter for Toleration.

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 careless-
ness, 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, when-
ever they are called, they embrace all the truths neces-
sary 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 them-
selves with those truths that must save them, without
force," which is therefore necessary, and may, indi-
rectly 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 some-
thing of impracticable. To which you reply, that you

cd tlie 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

A Third heller for Toleration. 249

whether that opinion which I charged on you by that
mistake, when you tell us, " that not examining is in-
deed 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 sup-
pose not to be of the national church, and not to con-
sider, 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 ma-
gistrate. So, then, with you it is practicable and allow-
able, in making laws, for the legislator to lay punish-
ments 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 penal-
ties, 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-

r <2

244 A Third Letter for Toleration.

tained, for some among the dissenters may have con-
sidered, is what other law-makers look on as imprac-
ticable, or at least unjust. But to this you answer, in
your usual way of circle, That " if" 1 " 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 pro-
posed 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 ar-
guments 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 con-
tinue 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 re-
member, in the first draught of your scheme, which wTe
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 iv! en who are of a different religion from
the true, which has been tendered them with suf-
ficient 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 com-
pleted ; and whither that will carry you it is easy to
see.

But pray, sir, are there no conformists that so reject
the true ion ? 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 c ai nest, in the use of force, is to make
men der, understand, and be of the true religion;

Wl (Cting the true religion, tendered with

Sufficient evidence, is the crime which bund Jide you
would have punished ; and, till you do this, all that you
may say concerning punishing men "to make them
consider as they ought, i<> make them receive the true

A Third Letter for Toleration. 245

religion, to make them embrace the truth that must
save them," kc. will, with all sober, judicious, and un-
biassed 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 dis-
senters, have yet no penalties laid upon them.

You talk much " of considering and not considering
as one ought; of embracing and rejecting the true re-
ligion," 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 argu-
ment, 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

246 A Third Letter for Toleration.

be spoke out, and called by its right name : but, whe-
ther you like it or no, persecution and persecution
of dissenters are names that belong to it as it stands
now.

And now I think I may leave you your question,
wherein you ask, " But cannot dissenters be punished
for not being of the national religion, as the fault, and
yet only to make them consider, as the end for which
they are punished ?" to be answered by yourself, or to
be used again, where you think there is any need of
so nice a distinction, as between the fault for which
men are punished by laws, and the end for which they
are punished. For to me I confess it is hard to find any
other immediate end of punishment in the intention of
human laws but the amendment of the fault punished ;
though it may be subordinate to other and remoter
ends. If the law be only to punish non-conformity,
one may truly say, to cure that fault, or to produce
conformity, is the end of that law; and there is no-
thing else immediately aimed at by that law but con-
formity ; and whatever else it tends to as an end must
be only as a consequence of conformity, whether it be
edification, increase of charity, or saving of souls, or
whatever else may be thought a consequence of con-
formity. So that in a law, which with penalties re-
quires conformity, and nothing else, one cannot say,
properly I think, that consideration is the end of that
law ; unless consideration be a consequence of con-
formity, to which conformity is subordinate, and does
naturally conduce, or else is necessary to it.

To my arguing that it is unjust as well as impracti-
cable, you reply, " Where the national church is the
true church of God, to which all men ought to join
themselves, and sufficient evidence is offered to con-
vince men that it is so: there it is a fault to be out
of the national church, because it is a fault not to be
Convinced that the national church is that true church
oi God. And therefore since there men's not being
so convinced can only he imputed to their not con-
sidering as they ought the evidence which is offered
to for hem, it cannot be unjust to punish them

A Third Letter for Toleration. 247

to make them so to consider it." Pray tell me, which
is a man's duty, to be of the national church first; or
to be convinced first that its religion is true, and then
to be of it? If it be his duty to be convinced first,
why then do you punish him for not being of it, when
it is his duty to be convinced of the truth of its re-
ligion before it is his duty to be of it? If you say it
is his duty to be of it first, why then is not force used
to him afterwards, though he be still ignorant and un-
convinced ? But you answer, " It is his fault not to
be convinced." What, every one's fault every where ?
No, you limit it to places where " sufficient evidence
is offered to convince men that the national church is
the true church of God." To which pray let me add,
the national church is so the true church of God, that
nobody out of its communion can embrace the truth
that must save him, or be in the way to salvation. For
if a man may be in the way to salvation out of the
national church, he is enough in the true church, and
needs no force to bring him into any other : for when
a man is in the way to salvation, there is no necessity
of force to bring him into any church of any denomi-
nation in order to his salvation, So that not to be of
the national church, though true, will not be a fault
which the magistrate has a right to punish, until suf-
ficient evidence is offered to prove that a man cannot
be saved out of it. Now since you tell us that by
sufficient evidence you mean such as will certainly win
assent, when you have offered such evidence to con-
vince men that the national church, any where, is so
the true church that men cannot be saved out of its
communion, I think I may allow them to be so faulty
as to deserve what punishment you shall think fit. If
you hope to mend the matter by the following words,
where you say, that where such " evidence is offered,
there men's not being convinced can only be imputed
to men's not considering as they ought," they will not
help you. For " to consider as they ought" being,
by your own interpretation, " to consider so as not to
reject ;" then your answer amounts to just thus much,
" That it is a fault not to be convinced that the national

248 A Third Letter for Toleration.

church is the true church of God, where sufficient
evidence is offered to convince men that it is so. Suf-
ficient evidence is such as will certainly gain assent
with those who consider as they ought, u e, who con-
sider so as not to reject, or to be moved heartily to
embrace," which I think is to be convinced. Who
can have the heart now to deny any of this? Can
there be any thing surer, than that men's not being
convinced, is to be imputed to them if they are not
convinced, where such evidence is offered to them as
does convince them ? And to punish all such you have
my free consent.

Whether all you say have any thing more in it than
this, I appeal to my readers : and should willingly do
it to you, did not I fear that the jumbling of those
good and plausible words in your head, " of sufficient
evidence," " consider as one ought," &c. might a little
jargogle your thoughts, and lead you hoodwinked the
round of your own beaten circle. This is a danger
those are much exposed to who accustom themselves
to relative and doubtful terms, and so put together,
that, though asunder they signify something, yet,
when their meaning comes to be cast up as they are
placed, it amounts to just nothing.

You go on, " What justice it would be for the ma-
gistrate to punish one for not being a Cartesian, it will
be time enough to consider when I have proved it to
be as necessary for men to be Cartesians, as it is to be
Christians, or members of God's church." This will
be a much better answer to what I said, when you have
proved that to be a Christian, or a member of God's
church, it is necessary for a dissenter to be of the
church of England. If it be not justice to punish a
man for not being a Cartesian, because it is not as ne-
cessary to be a Cartesian as to be a Christian ; I fear
the same argument will hold against punishing a man
for DOt using the cross in baptism, or not kneeling at
the Lord's Supper; and it will lie on you to prove that
it is as necessary to use the cross in baptism, or kneel-
ing at the Lord 8 Supper, as it is to be a Christian : for
if they are not as necessary as it is to be a Christian,

A Third Letter for Toleration. 24(j

you cannot, by your own rule, without injustice, punish
men for not conforming to a church wherein they are
made an indispensable part of conformity ; and by this
rule it will be injustice to punish any man for not
being of that church wherein any thing is required
not necessary to salvation ; for that, I think, is the
necessity of being a Christian.

To show the unreasonableness of punishing dissenters
to make them examine, I said, " that so they were pu-
nished for not having offended against a law ; for there
is no law of the land that requires them to examine."
Your reply is, that " you think the contrary is plain
enough : for where the laws provide sufficient means
of instruction in the true religion, and then require all
men to embrace that religion ; you think the most na-
tural construction of those lawrs is, that they require
men to embrace it upon instruction and conviction, as
it cannot be expected they should do without examin-
ing the grounds upon which it stands." Your answer
were very true, if they could not embrace without ex-
amining and conviction. But since there is a shorter
way to embracing, which costs no more pains than
walking as far as the church, your answer no more
proves that the law requires examining, than if a man
at Harwich being subpoenaed to appear in Westminster-
Hall next term, you should say the subpoena required
him to come by sea, because there was sufficient means
provided for his passage in the ordinary boat that by
appointment goes constantly from Harwich to London:
but he, taking it to be more for his ease and despatch,
goes the shorter way by land, and finds that having
made his appearance in court as was required, the law
is satisfied, and there is no inquiry made what way he
came thither.

If therefore men can embrace so as to satisfy the law
without examining, and it be true that they so " fly
from the means of right information, are so negligent
in, and averse to examining," that there is need of
penalties to make them do it, as you tell us at large ;
how is it a natural construction of those laws, that they
require men to examine, which having provided suf-

"250 A Third Letter for Tolerat M.

ficient means of instruction, require men only to con-
form, without saying any thing of examining? especially
when the cause assigned by you of men's neglecting to
examine, is not want of " means of instruction, but
want of penalties to overbalance their aversion" to the
using those means ; which you yourself confess, where
you say, " 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 penalties to bring them to
hear and receive instruction :" and therefore perhaps
the remainder of that paragraph, when you have con-
sidered it again, will not appear so impertinent a de-
clamation as you are pleased to think it : for it charged
your method, as it then stood, of punishing men for not
considering and examining, with these absurdities, that
it punished men for not doing that which the law did
not require of them, nor declare the neglect of to be a
fault ; contrary to the ends of all laws, contrary to the
common sense of mankind, and the practice of all law-
makers ; who always first declared the fault, and then
denounced penalties against those who after a time
set should be found guilty of it. It charged your
method, that it allows not impunity to the innocent,
but punishes whole tribes together, the innocent with
the guilty; and that the thing designed in the law was
not mentioned in it, but left to the people, whose
fault was want of consideration, to be by consideration
found out.

To avoid these absurdities, you have reformed your
scheme, and now in your reply own, with the frankest
persecutors, that you punish men downright for their
religion, and that to be a dissenter from the true re-
ligion is a fault to be punished by the magistrate. This
indeed is plain dealing, and clears your method from
these absurdities as long as you keep to it : but where-
ever you tell us, that your laws are to make men hear, to
make men consider, to make men examine ; whilst the
laws themselves say nothing of hearing, considering,
and examining; there you are still chargeable with all
these absurdities: nor will the distinction, which with-
out any difference you would set up, between the

A Third Letter for Toleration. 251

fault for which men were to be punished, and the end
for which they are to be punished, do you any service
herein, as I have showed you in another place.

To what I said, L. II. from p. 88 to p. 95, concerning
those who by your scheme are to be punished, you
having thought fit not to answer any thing, I shall here
again offer it to your consideration :

" Let us inquire, first, Who it is you would have be
punished. In the place above cited, they are those
who are got into a wrong way, and are deaf to all per-
suasions. If these are the men to be punished, let a
law be made against them : you have my consent ; and
that is the proper course to have offenders punished.
For you do not, I hope, intend to punish any fault by
a law, which you do not name in the law ; nor make a
law against any fault you would not have punished.
And now, if you are sincere, and in earnest, and are,
as a fair man should be, for what your words plainly
signify, and nothing else ; wThat will such a law serve
for ? Men in the wrong way are to be punished : but
who are in the wrong way is the question. You have
no more reason to determine it against one who differs
from you, than he has to conclude against you, who
differ from him : no, not though you have the ma-
gistrate and the national church on your side. For if
to differ from them be to be in the wrong way, you,
who are in the right way in England, will be in the
wrong way in France. Every one here must be judge
for himself; and your law will reach nobody, till you
have convinced him he is in the wrong way : and then
there will be no need of punishment to make him con-
sider ; unless you will affirm again what you have de-
nied, and have men punished for embracing the re-
ligion they believe to be true, when it differs from
yours or the public.

" Besides being in the wrong way, those whom you
would have punished must be such as are deaf to all
persuasions. But any such, I suppose, you will hardly
find, who hearken to nobody, not to those of their own
way. If you mean by deaf to all persuasions, all per-

252 A Third Letter for Toleration.

suasions of a contrary party, or of a different church ;
such, I suppose, you may abundantly find in your own
church, as well as elsewhere ; and I presume to them
you are so charitable, that you would not have them
punished for not lending on ear to seducers. For con-
stancy in the truth, and perseverance in the faith, is,
I hope, rather to be encouraged, than by any penalties
checked in the orthodox. And your church, doubt-
less, as well as all others, is orthodox to itself in all its
tenets. If you mean by all persuasion, all your per-
suasion, or all persuasion of those of your communion,
you do but beg the question, and suppose you have a
right to punish those who differ from, and will not
comply with you.

" Your next words are, — ' When men fly from the
means of a right information, and will not so much as
consider how reasonable it is thoroughly and impar-
tially to examine a religion, which they embraced upon
such inducements as ought to have no sway at all in
the matter, and therefore with little or no examination
of the proper grounds of it; what human method can
be used to bring them to act like men, in an affair of
such consequence, and to make a wiser and more ra-
tional choice, but that of laying such penalties upon
them, as may balance the weight of those prejudices
which inclined them to prefer a false way before the
true, and recover them to so much sobriety and re-
flection, as seriously to put the question to themselves,
Whether it be really worth the while to undergo such
inconveniencies for adhering to a religion, which, for
any thing they know, may be false, or for rejecting
another (if that be the case) which, for any thing they
know, may be true, till they have brought it to the bar
of reason, and given it a fair trial there?' — Here you
again bring in such as prefer a false way before a true :
to which having answered already, I shall here say no
more, but that, since our church will not allow those
to be in a false way who are out of the church of Koine,
because the church of Rome, which pretends infalli-
bility, declares hers to be the only true way ; certainly

A Third Letter for Toleration. 253

no one of our church, nor any other, which claims
not infallibility, can require any one to take the testi-
mony of any church, as a sufficient proof of the truth
of her own doctrine. So that true and false, as it
commonly happens, when we suppose them for our-
selves, or our party, in effect signify just nothing, or
nothing to the purpose ; unless we can think that true
or false in England, which will not be so at Rome or
Geneva ; and vice vertd. As for the rest of the de-
scription of those, on whom you are here laying penal-
ties ; I beseech you consider whether it will not belong
to any of your church, let it be what it will. Con-
sider, I say, if there be none in your church c who have
embraced her religion upon such inducements as ought
to have no sway at all in the matter, and therefore
with little or no examination of the proper grounds of
it; who have not been inclined by prejudices; who
do not adhere to a religion, which, for any thing they
know, may be false ; and who have rejected another,
which, for any thing they know, may be true.' If you
have any such in your communion, and it will be an
admirable, though I fear but a little flock, that has
none such in it, consider well what you have done.
You have prepared rods for them, for which I imagine
they will con you no thanks. For to make any to-
lerable sense of what you here propose, it must be un-
derstood that you would have men of all religions
punished, to make them consider ' whether it be really
worth the while to undergo such inconveniencies for
adhering to a religion, which, for any thing they know,
may be false.' If you hope to avoid that, by what you
have said of true and false ; and pretend that the sup-
posed preference of the true way in your church ought
to preserve its members from your punishment ; you
manifestly trifle. For every church's testimony, that
it has chosen in the true way, must be taken for itself;
and then none will be liable ; and your new invention
of punishment is come to nothing: or else the differ-
ing churches' testimonies must be taken one for an-
other ; and then they will be all out of the true way,

&54 A Third Letter for Toleration,

and your church need penalties as well as the rest.
So that, upon your principles, they must all or none be
punished. Choose which you please; one of them, I
think, you cannot escape.

" What you say in the next words: * Where instruc-
tion, if stiffly refused, and all admonitions and per-
suasions prove vain and ineffectual;' differs nothing, but
in the way of expressing, from deaf to all persuasions;
and so that is answered already.

" In another place, you give us another description
of those you think ought to be punished, in these
words: c Those who refuse to embrace the doctrine, and
submit to the spiritual government of the proper mi-
nisters of religion, who by special designation are
appointed to exhort, admonish, reprove,' &c. Here,
then, those to be punished, care such who refuse to em-
brace the doctrine, and submit to the government of
the proper ministers of religion.' Whereby we are as
much still at uncertainty as we were before, who those
are who, by your scheme, and laws suitable to it, are
to be punished ; since every church has, as it thinks,
its proper ministers of religion ; and if you mean
those that refuse to embrace the doctrine, and submit
to the government of the ministers of another church,
then all men will be guilty, and must be punished,
even those of your own church as well as others. If
you mean those who refuse, &c. the ministers of their
own church, very few will incur your penalties ; but
if by these proper ministers of religion the ministers
of some particular church are intended, why do you
not name it? Why are you so reserved in a matter,
win rein, if you speak not out, all the rest that you say
will be to no purpose? Are men to be punished for
refusing to embrace the doctrine, and submit to the
government of the proper ministers of the church of
Geneva? For this time, since you have declared
nothing to the contrary, let me suppose you of that
church, and then, I am sure, that is it that you would
name: for of whatever church you are, if you think
the ministers of any one church ought to be hearkened

A Third Letter for Toleration. 055

to and obeyed, it must be those of your own. There
are persons to be punished, you say. This you contend
for all through your book, and lay so much stress on
it, that you make the preservation and propagation of
religion, and the salvation of souls, to depend on it ;
and yet you describe them by so general and equivocal
marks, that, unless it be upon suppositions which no-
body will grant you, I dare say neither you nor any
body else will be able to find one guilty. Pray find
me, if you can, a man whom you can judicially prove
(for he that is to be punished by law must be fairly
tried) is in a wrong way, in respect of his faith ; I
mean, ' who is deaf to all persuasions, who flies from all
means of a right information, who refuses to embrace
the doctrine, and submit to the government of the
spiritual pastors/ And, when you have done that, I
think 1 may allow you what power you please to punish
him, without any prejudice to the toleration the author
of the letter proposes.

" But why, I pray, all this boggling, all this loose
talking, as if you knew not what you meant, or durst
not speak it out ? Would you be for punishing some-
body, you know not whom ? I do not think so ill of
you. Let me then speak out for you. The evidence
of the argument has convinced you that men ought
not to be persecuted for their religion ; that the se-
verities in use amongst Christians cannot be defended ;
that the magistrate has not authority to compel any
one to his religion. This you are forced to yield. But
you would fain retain some power in the magistrate's
hands to punish dissenters, upon a new pretence, viz.
not for having embraced the doctrine and worship
they believe to be true and right, but for not having
well considered their own and the magistrate's religion.
To show you that I do not speak wholly without book,
give me leave to mind you of one passage of yours :
the words are, ' Penalties to put them upon a serious
and impartial examination of the controversy between
the magistrates and them.' Though these words be
not intended to tell us who you would have punished,

&56 A Third Letter for Toleration.

yet it may be plainly inferred from them. And they
more clearly point out whom you aim at than all the
foregoing places, where you seem to, and should, de-
scribe them. For they are such as between whom and
the magistrate there is a controversy ; that is, in short,
who differ from the magistrate in religion. And now,
indeed, you have given us a note by which these you
would have punished may be known. We have, with
much ado, found out at last whom it is we may presume
you would have punished. Which in other cases is
usually not very difficult, because there the faults to
be amended easily design the persons to be corrected.
But yours is a new method, and unlike all that ever
went before it.

" In the next place, let us see for what you would
have them punished. You tell us, and it will easily
be granted you, that not to examine and weigh im-
partially, and without prejudice or passion, all which,
for shortness* sake, we will express by this one word
consider, the religion one embraces or refuses, is a
fault very common, and very prejudicial to true re-
ligion, and the salvation of men's souls. But penalties
and punishments are very necessary, say you, to re-
medy this evil.

" Let us see now how you apply this remedy. There-
fore, say you, let all dissenters be punished. Why?
Have no dissenters considered of religion? Or have all
conformists considered ? That you yourself will not
say. Your project, therefore, is just as reasonable as
if a lethargy growing epidemical in England, you
should propose to have a law made to blister and
scarify and shave the heads of all who wear gowns ;
though it be certain that neither all who wear gowns
are lethargic, nor all who are lethargic wear gowns :

" Dil te, I);iin;isi|>pc, Deaeque

Verum ob consilium douent tonsure.

For there could not be certainly a more learned ad-
vice, than that one man should be pulled by the cars,

A Third Letter for Toleration. 257

because another is asleep. This, when you have con-
sidered of it again (for I find, according to your prin-
ciple, all men have now and then need to be jogged),
you will, I guess, be convinced is not like a fair phy-
sician, to apply a remedy to a disease ; but, like an en-
raged enemy, to vent one's spleen upon a party. Com-
mon sense, as well as common justice, requires, that
the remedies of laws and penalties should be directed
against the evil that is to be removed, wherever it be
found. And if the punishment you think so necessary
be, as you pretend, to cure the mischief you complain
of, you must let it pursue, and fall on the guilty, and
those only, in what company soever they are ; and not,
as you here propose, and is the highest injustice, punish
the innocent considering dissenter, with the guilty ;
and on the other side, let the inconsiderate guilty con-
formist escape, with the innocent. For one may ra-
tionally presume that the national church has some,
nay more, in proportion, of those who little conskler
or concern themselves about religion, than any congre-
gation of dissenters. For conscience, or the care of
their souls, being once laid aside ; interest of course,
leads men into that society, where the protection and
countenance of the government, and hopes of prefer-
ment, bid fairest to all their remaining desires. So that
if careless, negligent, inconsiderate men in matters of
religion, who, without being forced, would not consider,
are to be roused into a care of their souls, and a search
after truth, by punishments ; the national religion, in
all countries, will certainly have a right to the greatest
share of those punishments, at least, not to be wholly
exempt from them.

" This is that which the author of the letter, as I
remember, complains of, and that justly, viz. That the
pretended care of men's souls always expresses itself,
in those who would have force any way made use of to
that end, in very unequal methods ; some persons being
to be treated with severity, whilst others guilty of the
same faults, are not to be so much as touched. Though
you are got pretty well out of the deep mud, and

vol. vi. s

258 A Third Letter for Toleration.

renounce punishments directly for religion; yet you
stick still in this part of the mire ; whilst you would
have dissenters punished to make them consider, but
would not have any thing done to conformists, though
ever so negligent in this point of considering. The au-
thor's letter pleased me, because it is equal to all man-
kind, is direct, and will, I think, hold every where ;
which I take to be a good mark of truth. For I shall
always suspect that neither to comport with the truth
of religion, or the design of the Gospel, which is suited
to only some one country or party. What is true and
good in England, will be true and good at Rome too,
in China or Geneva. But whether your great and only
method for the propagating of truth, by bringing the
inconsiderate by punishments to consider, would, ac-
cording to your way of applying your punishments only
to dissenters from the national religion, be of use in
those countries, or any where but where you suppose
the magistrate to be in the right ; judge you. Pray,
sir, consider a little, whether prejudice has not some
share in your way of arguing, for this is your position :
Men are generally negligent in examining the grounds
of their religion. This I grant. But could there be a
more wild and incoherent consequence drawn from it,
than this ; therefore dissenters must be punished ?" —

All this you are pleased to pass over without the
least notice : but perhaps you think you have made me
full satisfaction in your answer to my demand, who are
to be punished? We will here therefore consider that
as it stands, where you tell us, " Those who are to be
punished according to the whole tenour of your answer,
are no other but such, as having sufficient evidence
tendered them of the true religion, do yet reject it:
whether utterly refusing to consider that evidence, or
not considering as they ought, viz. with such care and
diligence as the matter deserves and requires, and with
honest, and unbiassed minds ; and what difficulty there
is in this, you say, you cannot imagine." You pro-
mised you would tell Mie world who they were, plainly
and directly. And though you tell us, you cannot

A Third Letter for Toleration. '259

imagine what difficulty there is in this your account of
who are to be punished, yet there are some things in it,
that make it to my apprehension not very plain and
direct. For first they must be only those who have
the true religion tendered them with sufficient evidence ;
wherein there appears some difficulty to me, who shall
be iud^e what is the true religion : and for that, in
every country it is most probable the magistrate will
be. If you think of any other, pray tell us. Next
there seems some difficulty to know, who shall be judge
what is sufficient evidence. For where a man is to be
punished by law, he must be convicted of being guilty ;
which since in this case he cannot be, unless it be
proved he has had the true religion tendered to him
with sufficient evidence, it is necessary that somebody
there must be judge what is the true religion, and what
is sufficient evidence ; and others to prove it has been
so tendered. If you were to be of the jury, we know
what would be your verdict concerning sufficient evi-
dence, by these words of yours, " To say that a man
who has the true religion proposed to him with sufficient
evidence of its truth, may consider it as he ought, or
do his utmost in considering, and yet not perceive the
truth of it, is neither more nor less than to say that
sufficient evidence is not sufficient : for what does any
man mean by sufficient evidence, but such as will cer-
tainly win assent wherever it is duly considered?" Upon
which his conforming, or not conforming, would with-
out any further questions determine the point. But
whether the rest of the jury could upon this be able
ever to bring in any man guilty, and so liable to punish-
ment, is a question. For if sufficient evidence be only
that which certainly wins assent, wherever a man does
his utmost in considering ; it will be very hard to prove
that a man who rejects the true religion has had it ten-
dered with sufficient evidence, because it will be very
hard to prove he has not done his utmost in considering
it. So that, notwithstanding all you have here said, to
punish any man by your method is not yet so very
practicable.

s 2

260 A Third Letter for Toleration.

But you clear all in your following words, which say,
"there is nothing more evident than that those who reject
the true religion are culpable, and deserve to be pu-
nished.' ' By whom ? By men : that is so far from being
evident, as you talk, that it will require better proofs
than I have yet seen for it. Next you say, " It is
easy enough to know when men reject the true re-
ligion." Yes, when the true religion is known, and
agreed on what shall be taken to be so in judicial pro-
ceedings, which can scarce be till it is agreed who
shall determine what is true religion, and what not.
Suppose a penalty should in the university be laid on
those who rejected the true peripatetic doctrine, could
that law be executed on any one, unless it were agreed
who should be judge what was the true peripatetic
doctrine ? If you say it may be known out of Aristotle's
writings : then I answer, that it would be a more rea-
sonable law to lay the penalty on any one, who rejected
the doctrine contained in the books allowed to be Ari-
stotle's, and printed under his name. You may apply
this to the true religion, and the books of the Scripture,
if you please : though, after all, there must be a judge
agreed on, to determine what doctrines are contained
in either of those writings, before the law can be prac-
ticable.

But you go on to prove, that " it is easy to know
when men reject the true religion : for, say you, that
requires no more than that we know that that religion
was tendered to them with sufficient evidence of the
truth of it. And that it may be tendered to men with
such evidence, and that it may be known when it is so
tendered, these things, you say, you take leave here to
suppose." You suppose then more than can be allowed
you. For that it can be judicially known that the true
religion has been tendered to any one with sufficient evi-
dence, is what I deny, and that for reasons above-men-
tioned, which, were there no other difficulty in it, were
sufficient to show the impracticablcness of your method.
You conclude this paragraph thus, " which is all that
needs be said upon this head to show the consistency

A Third Letter for Toleration. 261

and practicableness of this method : and what do you
any where say against this?" Whether I say any thing
or no against it, I will bring a friend of yours that will
say that dissenters ought to be punished for being out
of the communion of the church of England. I will
ask you now, how it can be proved that such an one
is guilty of rejecting the one only true religion ? Per-
haps it is because he scruples the cross in baptism, or
godfathers and godmothers as they are used, or kneel-
ing at the Lord's Supper ; perhaps it is because he can-
not pronounce all damned that believe not all Atha-
nasius's Creed ; or cannot join with some of those
repetitions in our Common Prayer ; thinking them to
come within the prohibition of our Saviour ; each of
which shuts a man out from the communion of the
church of England, as much as if he denied Jesus
Christ to be the Son of God. Now, sir, I beseech you,
how can it be known, that ever sufficient evidence was
tendered to such a dissenter to prove, that what he re-
jects is a part of that one only true religion, which un-
less he be of, he cannot be saved ? Or indeed how can it
he known, that any dissenter rejects that one only true
religion, when being punished barely for not conform-
ing, he is never asked, what part it is he dissents from
or rejects? And so it may be some of those things
which I imagine will always want sufficient evidence to
prove them to be parts of that only one true religion,
without the hearty embracing whereof no man can be
saved.

262 A Third Letter for Toleration.

CHAPTER IV.

What Degrees of Punishment.

How much soever you have endeavoured to reform
the doctrine of persecution to make it serve your turn,
and give it the colour of care and zeal for the true re-
ligion in the country where alone you are concerned
it should be made use of; yet you have laboured in
vain, and done no more, but given the old engine a
new varnish to set it off the better, and make it look
less frightful :' for, by what has been said in the fore-
going chapters, I think it will appear, that if any ma-
gistrate have power to punish men in matters of religion,
all have ; and that dissenters from the national religion
must be punished every where or no where. The hor-
rid cruelties that in all ages, and of late in our view,
have been committed under the name, and upon the
account of religion, give so just an offence and abhor-
rence to all who have any remains, not only of religion,
but humanity left, that the world is ashamed to own
it. This objection therefore, as much as words or pro-
fessions can do, you have laboured to fence against ;
and to exempt your design from the suspicion of any
severities, you take care in every page almost to let us
hear of moderate force, moderate penalties ; but all in
vain : and I doubt not but when this part too is exa-
mined, it will appear, that as you neither have, nor can
limit the power of punishing to any distinct sort of ma-
gistrates, nor exempt from punishment the dissenters
from any national religion : so neither have, nor can
you, limit the punishment to any degree short of the
highest, if you will use punishments at all in matters of
religion. What you have done in this point besides
giving us good words, I will now examine.

You tell me, " \ have taken a liberty which will need

pardon," because i M You have plainly yielded the

A Third Letter for Toleration. 063

question by owning those greater severities to be im-
proper and unfit." But if I shall make it out, that
those are as proper and fit as your moderate penalties ;
and that if you will use one, you must come to the
other, as will appear from what you yourself say ; what-
ever you may think, I shall not imagine other readers
will conclude I have taken too great liberty, or shall
much need pardon. For if, as you say in the next page,
" authority may reasonably and justly use some degrees
of force where it is needful ;" I say they may also use
any degree of force where it is needful. Now upon
your grounds, fire and sword, tormenting and undoing,
and those other punishments which you condemn, will
be needful, even to torments of the highest severity,
and be as necessary as those moderate penalties which
you will not name. For I ask you, to what purpose do
you use any degrees of force ? Is it to prevail with men
to do something that is in their power, or that is not?
The latter I suppose you will not say, till your love of
force is so increased, that you shall think it necessary
to be made use of to produce impossibilities : if force
then be to be used only to bring men to do what is in
their power, what is the necessity you assign of it ? only
this, as I remember, viz. That " when gentle admoni-
tions and earnest entreaties will not prevail, what other
means is there left but force ?" And I, upon the same
ground, reply : If lesser degrees of force will not pre-
vail, what other means is there left but greater? If the
lowest degree of force be necessary where gentler means
will not prevail, because there is no other means left ;
higher degrees of force are necessary, where lower will
not prevail, for the same reason. Unless you will say
all degrees of force work alike ; and that lower penal-
ties prevail as much on men as greater, and will equally
bring them to do wrhat is in their power. If so, a fillip
on the forehead, or a farthing mulct, may be penalty
enough to bring men to what you propose. But if you
shall laugh at these, as being for their smallness insuf-
ficient, and therefore will think it necessary to increase
them ; I say, wherever experience shows any degree of
force to be insufficient to prevail, there will be still the

264 A Third Letter for Toleration.

same necessity to increase it. For wherever the end
is necessary, and force is the means, the only means
left to procure it, both which you suppose in our case ;
there it will be found always necessary to increase the
degrees of force, where the lower prove ineffectual, as
well till you come to the highest as when you begin
with the lowest. So that in your present case I do not
wonder you use so many shifts, as I shall show by and
by you do, to decline naming the highest degree of
what you call moderate. If any degree be necessary,
you cannot assign any one, condemn it in words as
much as you please, which may not be so, and which
you must not come to the use of. If there be no such
necessity of force as will justify those higher degrees
of it, which are severities you condemn; neither will
it justify the use of your lower degrees.

If, as you tell us, " false religions prevail against the
true, merely by the advantage they have in the cor-
ruption and pravity of human nature left to itself un-
bridled by authority ;" if the not receiving the true
religion be a mark and effect merely of the prevalency
of the corruption of human nature ; may not, nay, must
not the magistrate, if less will not do, use his utmost
force to bring men to the true religion ? his force being
given him to suppress that corruption ; especially since
you give it for a measure of the force to be used, that
it must be " so much, as without which ordinarily they
will not embrace the truth that must save them." What
ordinarily signifies here to make any determinate mea-
sure, is hard to guess ; but signify it what it will, so
much force must be used, as " without which men will
not embrace the truth ;" which, if it signify any thing
intelligible, requires, that where lower degrees will not
do, greater must be used, till you come to what will
ordinarily do ; but what that ordinarily is, no man can
tell. If one man will not be wrought on by as little
force as another, must not greater degrees of force be
used to him? Shall the magistrate who is obliged to do
what lies in him, be excused, for letting him bedamned,
without the use of all the means that were in his power ?
And will i! he sufficient for him to plead, that though

A Third Letter for Toleration. 265

he did not all that lay in him, yet he did what ordinarily
prevailed, or what prevailed on several others ? Force,
if that be the remedy, must be proportioned to the op-
position. If the dose that has frequently wrought on
others, will not purge a man whose life lies on it; must
it not therefore be made sufficient and effectual, be-
cause it will be more than what is called ordinary ? Or
can any one say the physician has done his duty, who
lets his patient in an extraordinary case perish in the
use of only moderate remedies, and pronounces him
incurable, before he has tried the utmost he can with
the powerfullest remedies which are in his reach ?

Having renounced loss of estate, corporal punish-
ments, imprisonment, and such sort of severities, as
unfit to be used in matters of religion ; you ask, " Will
it follow from hence that the magistrate has no right
to use any force at all ?" Yes, it will follow, till you
give some answer to what I say in that place, viz. " That
if you give up punishments of a man in his person, li-
berty, and estate, I think we need not stand with you
for any punishments may be made use of." But this
you pass by without any notice. I doubt not but you
will here think you have a ready answer, by telling me,
you mean only " depriving men of their estates, maim-
ing them with corporal punishments, starving and tor-
menting them in noisome prisons," and other such se-
verities which you have by name excepted ; but lower
penalties may yet be used : for penalties is the word
you carefully use, and disclaim that of punishment, as
if you disowned the thing. I wish you would tell us
too by name what those lower penalties are you would
have used, as well as by name you tell us those se-
verities you disallow. They may not maim a man with
corporal punishments ; may they use any corporal pu-
nishments at all? They may not starve and torment
them in noisome prisons for religion ; that you condemn
as much as I. May they put them in any prison at
all ? They may not deprive men of their estates : I sup-
pose you mean their whole estates : May they take away
half, or a quarter, or an hundredth part ? It is strange

266 A Third Letter for Toleration.

you should be able to name the degrees of severity that
will hinder more than promote the progress of religion,
and cannot name those degrees that will promote rather
than hinder it ; that those who would take their mea-
sures by you, and follow your scheme, might know how
to proceed so, as not to do more harm than good : for
since you are so certain, that there are degrees of pu-
nishments or penalties that will do good, and other de-
grees of them that will do harm ; ought you not to have
told us, what that true degree is, or how it may be
known, without which all your goodly scheme is of no
use ? For allowing all you have said to be as true as you
would have it, no good can be done without showing
the just measure of punishment to be used.

If the degree be too great, it will, you confess, do
harm : can one then not err on the other hand, by using
too little ? If you say so, we are agreed, and I desire no
better toleration. If therefore too great will do harm,
and too little, in your opinion, will do no good ; you
ought to tell us the just mean. This I pressed upon
you ; whereof that the reader may be judge, I shall here
trouble him with the repetition :

tf There is a third thing, that you are as tender and
reserved in, as either naming the criminals to be pu-
nished, or positively telling us the end for which they
should be punished ; and that is, with what sort of penal-
ties, what degree of punishment, they should be forced.
You are indeed so gracious to them, that you renounce
the severities and penalties hitherto made use of. You
tell us, they should be but moderate penalties. But if
we ask you what are moderate penalties, you confess
you cannot tell us : so that by moderate here, you yet
mean nothing. You tell us, the outward force to be ap-
plied, should be duly tempered, But what that due tem-
per is, you do not, or cannot say ; and so, in effect, it
signifies just nothing. Vet if in this you are not plain
and direct, all the restof your design will signify nothing;
For it being to have some men, and to some end pu-
nished ; yet if it cannot be found what punishment is to
be used, it is, notwithstanding all you have said, utterly

A Third Letter for Toleration. 267

useless. You tell us modestly, That to determine
precisely the just measure of the punishment, will re-
quire some consideration. If* the faults were precisely
determined, and could be proved, it would require no
more consideration to determine the measure of the
punishment in this, than it would in any other case,
where those were known. But where the fault is un-
defined, and the guilt not to be proved, as I suppose it
will be found in this present business of examining ; it
will without doubt require consideration to proportion
the force to the design: just so much consideration as
it will require to fit a coat to the moon, or proportion
a shoe to the feet of those who inhabit her. For to
proportion a punishment to a fault that you do not name,
and so we in charity ought to think you do notyetknow,
and a fault that when you have named it, it will be im-
possible to be proved who are or are not guilty of it, will,
I suppose, require as much consideration as to fit a shoe
to feet whose size and shape are not known.

" However, you offer some measures whereby to re-
gulate your punishments ; which, when they are looked
into, will be found to be just as good as none, they
being impossible to be any rule in the case. The first
is, So much force, or such penalties as are ordinarily
sufficient to prevail with men of common discretion,
and not desperately perverse and obstinate, to weigh
matters of religion carefully and impartially, and with-
out which ordinarily they will not do this. Where it is
to be observed :

"First, That who are these men of common discretion,
is as hard to know, as to know what is a fit degree of
punishment in the case ; and so you do but regulate one
uncertainty by another. Some men will be apt to think,
that he who will not weigh matters of religion, which
are of infinite concernment to him, without punish-
ment, cannot in reason be thought a man of com-
mon discretion. Many women of common discretion
enough to manage the ordinary affairs of their families,
are not able to read a page in an ordinary author,
or to understand and give an account what it means,

268 A Third Letter fur Toleration.

when read to them. Many men of common discretion
in their callings are not able to judge when an argu-
ment is conclusive or no ; much less to trace it through
a long train of consequences. What penalties shall be
sufficient to prevail with such, who upon examination,
I fear, will not be found to make the least part of man-
kind, to examine and weigh matters of religion carefully
and impartially ? The law allows all to have common
discretion, for whom it has not provided guardians or
Bedlam. So that, in effect, your men of common dis-
cretion, are all men, not judged idiots or madmen : and
penalties sufficient to prevail with men of common
discretion are penalties sufficient to prevail with all
men but idiots and madmen ; which what a measure it
is to regulate penalties by, let all men of common dis-
cretion judge.

" Secondly, You may be pleased to consider, that
all men of the same degree of discretion are not apt
to be moved by the same degree of penalties. Some
are of a more yielding, some of a more stiff temper ; and
what is sufficient to prevail on one is not half enough
to move the other ; though both men of common dis-
cretion. So that common discretion will be here of
no use to determine the measure of punishment:
especially, when in the same clause you except men
desperately perverse and obstinate ; who are as hard
to be known, as what you seek, viz. the just proportions
of punishments necessary to prevail with men to con-
sider, examine, and weigh matters of religion : wherein
if a man tells you he has considered, he has weighed,
he has examined, and so goes on in his former course,
it is impossible for you ever to know whether he has
done his duty, or whether he be desperately perverse
and obstinate. So that this exception signifies just
nothing.

" There are many things in your use of force and
penalties! different from any I ever met with elsewhere.
One of them, this clause of yours concerning the
measure of punishments, now under consideration,
•Hers me: wherein youf proportion your punishments

A Third Letter for Toleration. 2fi9

only to the yielding and corrigible, not to the perverse
and obstinate ; contrary to the common discretion
which has hitherto made laws in other cases, which le-
vels the punishments against refractory offenders, and
never spares them because they are obstinate. This
however I will not blame as an oversight in you. Your
new method, which aims at such impracticable and in-
consistent things as laws cannot bear, nor penalties be
useful to, forced you to it. The uselessness, absurdity,
and unreasonableness of great severities, you had ac-
knowledged in the foregoing paragraphs ; dissenters
you would have brought to consider by moderate penal-
ties. They lie under them ; but whether they have
considered or no, for that you cannot tell, they still
continue dissenters. What is to be done now? Why,
the incurable are to be left to God, as you tell us.
Your punishments were not meant to prevail on the
desperately perverse and obstinate, as you tell us here.
And so, whatever be the success, your punishments
are however justified."

The fullness of your answer to my question, " With
what punishments?" made you possibly pass by these
two or three pages without making any particular reply
to any thing I said in them : we will therefore examine
that answer of yours, where you tell us, " That having
in your answer declared that you take the severities so
often mentioned (which either destroy men, or make
them miserable) to be utterly unapt and improper (for
reasons there given) to bring men to embrace the truth
that must save them : but just how far within those
bounds that force extends itself, which is really service-
able to that end, you do not presume to determine."
To determine how far moderate force reaches, when it
is necessary to your business that it should be deter-
mined, is not presuming : you might with more reason
have called it presuming to talk of moderate penalties,
and not to be able to determine what you mean by
them ; or to promise, as you do, that you will tell plainly
and directly, with what punishments ; and here to tell
us, you do not presume to determine. But you give a

270 A Third Letter for Toleration.

reason for this modesty of yours, in what follows, where
you tell me, I have not shown any cause why you should.
And yet you may find, in what is above repeated to you,
these words, " If in this you are not plain and direct,
all the rest of your design will signify nothing." But
had I failed in showing any cause why you should ; and
your charity would not enlighten us, unless driven by
my reasons ; I dare say yet, if I have not shown any
cause why you should determine in this point, I can
show a cause why you should not. For I will be an-
swerable to you, that you cannot name any degree of
punishment, which will not be either so great, as to
come among those you condemn, and show what your
moderation, what your aversion to persecution is ; or
else too little to attain those ends for which you propose
it. But whatever you tell me, that I have shown no
cause why you should determine, I thought it might have
passed for a cause why you should determine more
particularly, that, as you will find in those pages, I had
proved that the measures you offer, whereby to reg ulate
your punishments, are just as good as none.

Your measures in your " argument considered," and
which you repeat here again, are in these words : " so
much force, or such penalties as are ordinarily sufficient
to prevail with men of common discretion, and not
desperately perverse, to weigh matters of religion care-
fully and impartially, and without which ordinarily
they will not do this ; so much force, or such penalties
may fitly and Reasonably be used for the promoting
true religion in the world, and the salvation of souls.
And what just exception this is liable to, you do not
understand." Some of the exceptions it is liable to, you
might have seen in what I have here again caused to be
reprinted, if you had thought them worth your notice.
But you go on to tell us here, " that when you speak
of men of common discretion, and not desperately per-
verse and obstinate, you think it is plain enough, that
by common discretion you exclude not idiots only, and
such as we usually call madmen, but likewise the des-
perately perverse and obstinate, who perhaps may well

A Third Letter for Toleration. 271

enough deserve that name, though they be not wont
to be sent to Bedlam."

Whether by this you have at all taken off the diffi-
culty, and shown your measure to be any at all in the
use of force, I leave the reader to judge. I asked, since
great ones are unfit, what degrees of punishment or
force are to be used? You answer, " So much force,
and such penalties as are ordinarily sufficient to prevail
tfith men of ordinary discretion." I tell you it is as hard
to know who those men of common discretion are, as
what degree of punishment you would have used ; un-
less we will take the " determination of the law, which
allows all to have common discretion, for whom it has
not provided guardians or Bedlam :" so that in effect,
your men of common discretion are all men not judged
idiots or madmen. To clear this, you tell us, " when you
speak of men of common discretion, and not desperately
perverse and obstinate, you think it is plain enough, by
common discretion you exclude not idiots only, and
such as are usually called madmen, but likewise the
desperately perverse and obstinate. " It may be you
did, for you best know what you meant in writing : but
if by men of common discretion, you excluded the
desperately perverse and obstinate, let us put what you
meant by the words, men of common discretion, in the
place of those words themselves, and then, according to
your meaning, your rule stands thus: penalties ordinarily
sufficient to prevail with men not desperately perverse
and obstinate, and with men not desperately perverse
and obstinate : so that at last, by men of common
discretion, either you excluded only idiots and madmen ;
or if we must take your word for it, that by them you
excluded likewise the desperately perverse and obsti-
late, and so meant something else ; it is plain, you
meant only a very useless and insignificant tautology.

You go on, and tell us, u If the penalties you speak
of, be intended for the curing men's unreasonable
prejudices and refractoriness against the true religion,
then the reason why the desperately perverse and ob-
stinate are not to be regarded in measuring these

27^ A Third Letter for Toleration.

penalties, is very apparent. For as remedies are not
provided for the incurable, so in the preparing and
tempering them, regard is to be had only to those for
whom they are designed." Which, true or false, is
nothing to the purpose, in a place where you profess to
inform us, what punishments are to be used. We are
inquiring who are the desperately perverse and obstinate,
and not whether they are to be punished or no. You pre-
tend to give us a rule to know what degrees of force are
to be used, and tell us, " it is so much as is ordinarily suf-
ficient to prevail with men of common discretion, and
not desperately perverse and obstinate.,, We again
ask, who are your men of common discretion ? You tell
us, " such as are not madmen or idiots, or desperately
perverse and obstinate." Very well, but who are
those desperately perverse and obstinate, how shall we
know them ? and to this you tell us, " they are not to
be regarded in measuring these penalties." Whereby
certainly we have got a plain measure of your moderate
penalties. No, not yet ; you go on in your next para-
graph to perfect it, where you say, " To prevent a little
cavil, it may be needful to note that there are degrees
of perverseness and obstinacy, and that men may be
perverse and obstinate without being desperately so.5'
So then now we have your measure complete ; and to
determine the just degrees of punishments, and to clear
up the doubt, who are the desperately perverse and
obstinate, we need but be told that "there are degrees
of perverseness and obstinacy ;" and that men may be
perverse and obstinate without being desperately so :
and that therefore "some perverse and obstinate persons
may be thought curable, though such as are desperately
so, cannot." But does all this tell us who are the
desperately perverse and obstinate ? which is the thing
we want to be informed in ; nor till you have told us
that, have you removed the objection.

But if by desperately perverse and obstinate, you will
tell us, you meant those, that are not, wrought upon
by your moderate penalties, as you seem to intimate in
your reason why the desperately perverse and obstinate

A Third Letter fur Toleration, 273

arc not to be regarded in measuring these penalties:
" for," say you, V as remedies are not provided for the
incurable; so in preparing and tempering them, regard
is to be had onlv to those for whom thev are designed//
So that by the desperately perverse and obstinate, you
will perhaps say, it was plain you meant the incurable ;
for you ordinarily sluTt off the doubtfulness of one
place, by appealing to as doubtful an expression in
another. If you say, then, that by desperately per-
verse and obstinate, you mean incurable ; I ask you
again by what incurable? by your lower degrees of
force ? For I hope, where force is proper to work, those
who are not wrought on by lower degrees may yet be
by higher. If you mean so, then your answer will
amount to thus much: moderate penalties are such as
are sufficient to prevail on those who are not desperately
perverse and obstinate. The desperately perverse and
obstinate are those who are incurable, and the incurable
are those on whom moderate penalties are not sufficient
to prevail : whereby at last we have got a sure measure
of what are moderate penalties ; just such an one, as
if having a sovereign universal medicine put into your
hand, which will never fail if you can hit the right
dose, which the inventor tells you must be moderate :
you should ask him what was the moderate quantity it
is to be given in ; and he should answer, in such a
quantity as was ordinarily sufficient to work on common
constitutions, and not desperately perverse and obsti-
nate. And to your asking again, who were of despe-
rately perverse and obstinate constitutions? It should
be answered, those that were incurable. And who were
incurable? Those whom a moderate quantity would not
work on. And thus to your satisfaction, you know the
moderate dose by the desperately perverse and obsti-
nate ; and the desperately perverse and obstinate by
being incurable ; and the incurable by the moderate
dose. For if, as you say, remedies are not provided for
the incurable, and none but moderate penalties are to
be provided, is it not plain that you mean, that all that
will not be wrought on by your moderate penalties are
in your sense incurable?

VOL. vi. x

274* A Third Letter for Toleration.

To ease you, sir, of justifying yourself, and showing
that I have mistaken you, do but tell us positively
what in penalties is the highest degree of moderate ;
who are desperately perverse and obstinate; or who
are incurable ; without this relative and circular way
of defining one by the other ; and I will yield myself
to have mistaken you, as much as you please.

If by incurable you mean such as no penalties, no
punishments, no force is sufficient to work on ; then
your measure of moderate penalties will be this, that
they are such as are sufficient to prevail with men not
incurable, i. e. who cannot be prevailed on by any
punishments, any force whatsoever ; which will be a
measure of moderate punishments, which (whatsoever
you do) some will not be very apt to approve of.

But let us suppose by these marks, since you will
afford us no better, that we can find who are desperately
perverse and obstinate, we are yet as far as ever from
finding the measures of your moderate punishments,
till it can be known what degree of force it is, that is
ordinarily sufficient to prevail with all that are men of
common discretion, and not desperately perverse and
obstinate ; for you are told, that all men of the same
degree of discretion are not apt to be moved with the
same degree of penalties : but to this too you answer
nothing, and so we are still without any rule or means
of knowing how to adjust your punishments, that
being ordinarily sufficient to prevail upon one, the
double whereof is not ordinarily sufficient to prevail
on another.

I tell you in the same place, " that you have given
us in another place something like another boundary
to your moderate penalties: but when examined, it
proves just like the rest, amusing us only with good
words, so put together as to have no direct meaning;
an art very much in use amongst some sort of learned
men : the words are these : * Such penalties as may not
tempt persons who have any concern for their eternal
salvation (and those who have none, ought not to be
considered) to renounce a religion which they believe
to be true, or profess one which they do not believe

A Third Letter for Toleration. 275

to be so/ If by any concern, yon mean such as men
ought to have for their eternal salvation ; by this rule
you may make your punishments as great as you
please ; and all the severities you have disclaimed may
be brought in play again : for none of those will be
able to make a man, who is truly concerned for his
eternal salvation, renounce a religion he believes to be
true, or profess one he does not believe to be so. If by
those who have any concern, you mean such who have
some faint wishes for happiness hereafter, and would
be glad to have things go well with them in the other
world, but will venture nothing in this world for it ;
these the moderatest punishments you can imagine will
make to change their religion. If by any concern, you
mean whatever may be between these two; the degrees
are so infinite, that to proportion your punishments
by that, is to have no measure of them at all." To
which all the reply I can find is only this, " that there
are degrees of carelessness in men of their salvation,
as well as of concern for it. So that such as have
some concern for their salvation, may yet be careless
of it to a great degree. And therefore if those who
have any concern for their salvation, deserve regard
and pity, then so may some careless persons : though
those who have no concern for their salvation deserve
not to be considered, which spoils a little harangue
you give us," p. 382. If you think this to be an
answer to what I said, or that it can satisfy one con-
cerning the way of knowing what degrees of punish-
ment are to be used, pray tell us so. The inquiry is,
" what degrees of punishment will tempt a man, who
has any concern for his eternal salvation, to renounce
a religion he believes to be true ?" And it is answered,
" There are degrees of carelessness in men of their
salvation, as well as concern for it." A happy dis-
covery: what is the use of it? " So that such as have
some concern for their salvation may yet be careless
of it to a great degree." Very true : by this we may
know what degree of force is to be used. No, not a
word of that ; but the inference is, " and therefore, if
those who have any concern for their salvation deserve

t ~

276 A Third Letter for Toleration.

regard and pity, then so may some careless persons ;
though those who have no concern for their salvation
deserve not to be considered. " And by this time we
know what degree of force will make a man, who has
any concern for his salvation, renounce a religion he
believes true, and profess one he does not believe to be
so. This might do well at cross questions : but you are
satisfied wTith what you have done, and what that is,
you tell me in the next words, " which spoils a little
harangue of yours given us," p. 382. The harangue,
I suppose, is contained in these words :

" One thing I cannot but take notice of in this
passage before I leave it : and that is, that you say
here, those who have no concern for their salvation
deserve not to be considered. In other parts of your
letter you pretend to have compassion on the care-
less, and provide remedies for them ; but here of a
sudden your charity fails you, and you give them up
to eternal perdition, without the least regard, the least
pity, and say, they deserve not to be considered. Our
Saviour's rule was, the sick and not the whole need
a physician : your rule here is, those that are careless
are not to be considered, but are to be left to them-
selves. This would seem strange, if one did not observe
what drew you to it. You perceived that if the magi-
strate was to use no punishments, but such as would
make nobody change their religion, he was to use
none at all : for the careless would be brought to the
national church with any slight punishments; and when
they are once there, you are, it seems, satisfied, and
look no farther after them. So that by your own mea-
sures, if the careless, and those who have no concern
for their eternal salvation, are to be regarded and taken
care of, if the salvation of their souis is to be pro-
moted, there are to be no punishments used at all :
and therefore you leave them out, as not to be con-
sidered."

What you have said is so far from spoiling that
harangue, as you are pleased to call it, that vou having
nothing else to say to it, allow what is laid to your
charge in it.

A Third Letter fur Toleration. Q77

You wind up all concerning the measures of your
force in these words : " And as those medicines are
thought safe and advisable, which do ordinarily cure,
though not always (as none do) ; so those penalties or
punishments, which are ordinarily found sufficient (as
well as necessary) for the ends for which they are de-
signed, may fitly and reasonably be used for the com-
passing these ends." Here your ordinarily comes to
your help again ; and here one would think that you
meant such as cure sometimes, not always ; some,
though not all : and in this sense will not the utmost
severities come within your rule ? For can you say, if
punishments are to be used to prevail on any, that the
greater will, where lower fail, prevail on none? At
least, can you be sure of it till they have been tried for
the compassing these ends ? which, as we shall see in
another place, you have assigned various enough. I
shall only take notice of two or three often repeated
by you, and those are to make men hear, to make men
consider, to make men consider as they ought, L e. as
you explain it, to make men consider, so as not to
reject. The greatness of the force, then, according to
this measure, must be sufficient to make men hear,
sufficient to make men consider, and sufficient to make
men embrace the true religion.

And now the magistrate has all your rules about the
measures of punishments to be used, and may con-
fidently and safely go to work to establish it by a law :
for he having these marks to guide him, that they must
be great enough ordinarily to prevail with those who
are not idiots or madmen, nor desperately perverse and
obstinate; great enough ordinarily to prevail with men
to hear, consider, and embrace the true religion, and
yet not so great as might tempt persons, who have any
concern for their eternal salvation, to renounce a reli-
gion which they believe to be true, or profess one which
they do not believe to be so : do you not think you have
sufficiently instructed him in your meaning, and enabled
him to find the just temper of his punishments accord-
ing to your scheme, neither too much nor too little?
But however you may be satisfied with them, I suppose

2/8 A Third Letter for Toleration.

others, when it comes to be put in practice, will by
these measures, which are all I can find in your scheme,
be scarce able to find what are the punishments you
would have used.

In Eutopia there is a medicine called hiera picra,
which it is supposed would cure a troublesome disease
of that country; but it is not to be given, but in the
dose prescribed by the law, and in adjusting the dose
lies all the skill : for, if you give too much, it heightens
the distemper, and spreads the mortal contagion ; and
if too little, it does no good at all. With this difficulty
the law-makers have been perplexed these many ages,
and could not light on the right dose, that would work
the cure, till lately there came an undertaker, who
would show them how they could not mistake. He bid
them then prescribe so much as would ordinarily be
effectual upon all that were not idiots or madmen, or
in whom the humour was not desperately perverse and
obstinate, to produce the end for which it was designed;
but not so much as would make a man in health, who
had any concern for his life, fall into a mortal disease.
These were good words, and he was rewarded for them :
but when by them they came to fix the dose, they could
not tell whether it ought to be a grain, a dram, or an
ounce, or a whole pound, any more than before ; and
so the dose of their hiera picra, notwithstanding this
gentleman's pains, is as uncertain, and that sovereign
remedy as useless as ever it was.

In the next paragraph you tell us, " You do not
see what more can be required to justify the rule here
given." So quick a sight needs no spectacles. " For
[f I demand that it should express what penalties par-
ticularly are such as it says may fitly and reasonably be
used ; this I must give you leave to tell me is a very
unreasonable demand/ It is an unreasonable de-
mand, if your rule be such, that by it I may know,
without any more ado, the particular penalties that are
fit; otherwise it is not unreasonable to demand them
by name, if your marks be not sufficient to know them
by. But let US hear your reason, u For what rule is

there that expresses the particulars that agree with it?"

A Third Letter for Toleration. 279

And it is an admirable rule with which one can find no
particulars that agree ; for I challenge you to instance
in one : " a rule, you say, is intended for a common
measure by which particulars are to be examined,
and therefore must necessarily be general." So ge-
neral, loose, and inconsistent, that no particulars can
be examined by it : for again I challenge you, or any
man living, to measure out any punishment by this
your common measure, and establish it by a law. You
go on : "And those to whom it is given are supposed
to be able to apply it, and to judge of particulars by
it. Nay, it is often seen that they are better able to
do this than those wTho give it : and so it is in the
present case ; the rule hereby laid down is that by which
you suppose governors and law-givers ought to examine
the penalties they use for the promoting the true reli-
gion, and the salvation of souls." Such a rule it ought
to be, I grant, and such an one is desired : but that
yours is such a rule as magistrates can take any mea-
sure by, for the punishments they are to settle by law is
denied, and you are again desired to show. You pro-
ceed : f But certainly no man doubts but their pru-
dence and experience enables them to use and apply it
better than other men, and to judge more exactly what
penalties do agree with it, and what do not ; and there-
fore you think I must excuse you if you do not take
upon you to teach them what it becomes you rather to
learn from them." If we are not to doubt but their
prudence and experience enables magistrates to judge
best what penalties are fit, you have indeed given us
at last a way to know the measure of punishments to
be used : but it is such an one as puts an end to your
distinction of moderate penalties : for no magistrates
that I know, when they once began to use force to
bring men to their religion, ever stopped till they
came to some of those severities you condemn : and if
you pretend to teach them moderation for the future,
with hopes to succeed, you ought to have showed them
the just bounds, beyond which they ought not to go,
in a model so wholly new, and besides all experience.
But if it be to be determined by their prudence and

230 A Third Letter for Toleration.

experience, whatever degrees of force they shall use,
will always be the right.

Law-makers and governors, however beholden to you
for your good opinion of their prudence and experience,
yet have no reason to thank you for your compliment,
by giving such an exercise to their prudence and expe-
rience as to put it upon them to find out the just mea-
sures of punishments, by rules you give them; which
are such, that neither yourself, nor any body else, can
find out any measures by. The other part of your com-
pliment will be suspected not to be so much out of your
abundant respect to law-makers and governors, as out
of the great regard you have to yourself; for you in
vain pretend you forbear to name any particular pu-
nishments, because you will not take upon you to teach
governors and taw-makers ; when you yourself own, in
the same breath, that you are laying down rules by
which they are to proceed in the use of penalties for
promoting religion ; which is little different from teach-
ing : and your whole book is nothing else but about
the magistrate's power and duty. I excuse you, there-
fore, for your own sake, from naming any particular
punishments by your rules : for you have a right to it,
as all men have a right to be excused from doing what
is impossible to be done.

Since, therefore, you grant that those severities you
have named, " are more apt to hinder than promote
true religion ;" and you cannot assign any measures of
punishment, short of those great ones you have con-
demned, which are fit to promote it ; I think it argu-
ment enough to prove against you, that no punishments
are fit ; till you have showed some others, either by
name, or such marks as they may be certainly known
by, which are fit to promote the true religion : and
therefore nothing you have said there, or any where else,
will serve to show that " it is with little reason, as you
tell me, that I say, that if your indirect and at a di-
stance sei viceablcncss may authorize the magistrate to
use force in religion, all the cruelties used by the hea-
thens against Christians, by papists against protectants,
and all the persecuting of Christians one amongst

A Third Letter for Toleration. 281

another, are all justifiable." To which you add, " Not
to take notice at present how oddly it sounds, that
that which authorizes the magistrates to use moderate
penalties to promote the true religion, should justify all
the cruelties that ever were used to promote heathenism
or popery."

As oddly as it sounds to you, it will be evidently true,
as long as that which authorizes one, authorizes all ma-
gistrates of any religion which they believe to be true,
to use force to promote it ; and as long as you cannot
assign any bounds to your moderate punishments, short
of those great ones ; which you therefore are not able
to do, because your principles, whatever your words
deny, will carry you to those degrees of severity, which
in profession you condemn : and this, whatever you do,
I dare say every considering reader besides you will
plainly see. So that this imputation is not so unreason-
able ; since it is evident, that you must either renounce
all punishments whatsoever in religion, or make use of
those you condemn : for in the next page you tell us,
" That all who have sufficient means of instruction
provided for them, may justly be punished for not
being of the national religion, where the true is the
national religion ; because it is a fault in all such not
to be of the national religion." In England then, for
example, not to be of the national religion is a fault,
and a fault to be punished by the magistrate. The
magistrate, to cure this fault, lays, on those who dissent,
a lower degree of penalties, a fine of Id. per month.
This proving insufficient, what is the magistrate to do?
If he be obliged, as you say, to amend this fault by pe-
nalties, and that low one of Id. per month be not suf-
ficient to procure its amendment, is he not to increase
the penalty ? He therefore doubles the fine to 2d. per
month. This too proves ineffectual, and therefore it is
still for the same reason doubled, till it come to Is. 5s.
10/. 100/. 1000/. None of these penalties working,
but yet by being constantly levied, leaving the delin-
quents no longer able to pay; imprisonment and other
corporal punishments follow to enforce an obedience ;
till at last this gradual increase of penalties and force,

282 A Third Letter for Toleration.

each degree whereof wrought on some few, rises to the
highest severities against those who stand out. For the
magistrate, who is obliged to correct this vice, as you
call it, and to do what in him lies to cure this fault,
which opposes their salvation ; and who (if I mistake
not, you tell us) is answerable for all that may follow
from his neglect ; had no reason to raise the fine from
Id. to Q,d. but because the first was ineffectual : and if
that wrere a sufficient reason for raising from the first to
the second degree ; why is it not as sufficient to proceed
from the second to the third, and so gradually on ? I
would fain have any one show me where, and upon what
ground, such a gradual increase of force can stop, till
it come to the utmost extremities. If therefore dissent-
ing from the church of England be a fault to be pu-
nished by the magistrate, I desire you to tell me, where
he shall hold his hand ; to name the sort or degree of
punishment, beyond which he ought not to go in the
use of force, to cure them of that fault, and bring them
to conformity. Till you have done that, you might
have spared that paragraph, where you say, " With
what ingenuity I draw you in to condemn force in
general, only because you acknowledge the ill effects
of prosecuting men with fire and sword, &c. you may
leave every man to j udge." And I leave whom you
will to judge, whether from your own principles it does
not unavoidably follow7, that if you condemn any pe-
nalties, you must condemn all, as I have shown ; if you
will retain any, you must retain all ; you must either
take or leave all together. For, as I have said, and
you deny not, " Where there is no fault, there no pu-
nishment is moderate ;" so I add, Where there is a
fault to be corrected bv the magistrate's force, there no
degree of force, which is ineffectual, and not sufficient
to amend it, can be immoderate ; especially if it be a
fault of great moment in its consequences, as certainly
that must be, which draws after it the loss of men's
eternal happiness.

You will, it is likely, be ready to say here again, (for
a good subterfuge is never to be forsaken) that you ex-
cept the u desperately perverse and obstinate." I de-

A Third Letter for Toleration. 283

sire to know for what reason you except them ? Is it
because they cease to be faulty? Next, I ask you, who
are in your sense the desperately perverse and obstinate?
Those that Is. or 5s. or 51. or 100/. or no fine will work
upon ? Those who can bear loss of estate, but not loss
of liberty ? or loss of liberty and estate, but not corpo-
ral pains and torments ? or all this, but not loss of life ?
For to these degrees do men differently stand out. And
since there are men wrought on by the approaches of
fire and faggot, which other degrees of severity could
not prevail with ; where will you bound your despe-
rately perverse and obstinate ? The king of France,
though you will allow him not to have truth of his
side, yet when he came to dragooning, found few so
desperately perverse and obstinate as not to be wrought
on. And why should truth, which in your opinion
wants force, and nothing but force, to help it, not have
the assistance of those degrees of force, when less will
not do to make it prevail, which are able to bring men
over to false religions, which have no light and strength
of their own to help them ? You will do well therefore
to consider whether your name of severities, in opposi-
tion to the moderate punishments you speak of, has or
can do you any service; whether the distinction between
compelling and coactive power, be of any use or differ-
ence at all. For you deny the magistrate to have power
to compel ; and you contend for his use of his coactive
power; which will then be a good distinction, when
you can find a way to use coactive, or, which is the
same, compelling power, without compulsion. I de-
sire you also to consider, if in matters of religion pu-
nishments are to be employed, because they may be
useful ; whether you can stop at any degree that is in-
effectual to the end which you propose, let that end be
what it will. If it be barely to gain a hearing, as in
some places you seem to say ; I think for that small
punishments will generally prevail, and you do well to
put that and moderate penalties together. If it be to
make men consider, as in other places you speak ; you
cannot tell when you have obtained that end. But if
your end be, which you seem most to insist on, to make

284 A Third Letter for Toleration.

men consider as they ought, i. e. till they embrace ;
there are many on whom all your moderate penalties,
all under those severities you condemn, are too weak
to prevail. So that you must either confess, not con-
sidering so as to " embrace the true religion, i. e. not
considering as one ought," is no fault to be punished
by the coactive force of the magistrate; or else you must
resume those severities which you have renounced ;
choose you whether of the two you please.

Therefore it was not so much at random that I said,
" That thither at last persecution must come." In-
deed, from what you had said of falling under the stroke
of the sword, which was nothing to the purpose ; I
added, " That if by that you meant any thing to the
business in hand, you seem to have a reserve for greater
punishments, when less are not sufficient to bring men
to be convinced." Which hath produced this warm
reply of yours : " And will you ever pretend to con-
science or modesty after this ? For I beseech you, sir,
what words could I have used more express or effectual
to signify, that in my opinion no dissenters from the
true religion ought to be punished with the sword, but
such as choose rather to rebel against the magistrate,
than to submit to lesser penalties ? (For how any should
refuse to submit to those penalties, but by rebelling
against the magistrate, I suppose you will not under-
take to tell me.) It was for this very purpose that I
used those words to prevent cavils ; (as I was then so
simple as to think I might :) and I dare appeal to any
man of common sense and common honesty, whether
they are capable of any other meaning. And yet the
very thing which I so plainly disclaim in them you pre-
tend (without so much as offering to show how) to col-
lect from them. Thither, you say, at last, viz. to the
taking away men's lives for the saving of their souls,
persecution must come : as you fear, notwithstanding
my talk of moderate punishments, I myself intimate in
those words : and if I mean any thing in them to the
business in hand, I seem to have a reserve for greater
punishments, when lesser are not sufficient to bring
men to be convinced. Sir, I should expect fairer deal-

A Third Letter Jbr Toleration. 2S5

ing from one of your pagans or Mahometans. But I
shall only add, that I would never wish that any man
who has undertaken a bad cause should more plainly
confess it than by serving it, as here (and not here only)
you serve yours." Good sir, be not so angry, lest to
observing men you increase the suspicion. One may,
without forfeiture of modesty or conscience, fear what
men's principles threaten, though their words disclaim
it. Non-conformity to the national, when it is the true
religion, as in England, is a fault, a vice, say you, to be
corrected by the coactive power of the magistrate. If
so, and force be the proper remedy, he must increase
it, till it be strong enough to work the cure, and must
not neglect his duty ; for so you make it, when he has
force enough in his hand to make this remedy more
powerful. For wherever force is proper to work on
men, and bring them to a compliance, its not producing
that effect can only be imputed to its being too little :
and if so, whither at last must it come, but to the late
methods of procuring conformity, and as his most Chri-
stian majesty called it, saving of souls, in France, or
severities like them, when more moderate ones cannot
produce it? For to continue inefficacious penalties, in-
sufficient upon trial to master the fault they are applied
to, is unjustifiable cruelty; and that which nobody can
have a right to use, it serving only to disease and harm
people, without amending them : for you tell us, they
should be such penalties as should make them uneasy.
He that should vex and pain a sore you had, with
frequent dressing it with some moderate, painful, but
inefficacious plaster, that promoted not the cure ;
would justly be thought, not only an ignorant, but a
dishonest surgeon. If you are in the surgeon's hands,
and his help is requisite, and the cure that way to be
wrought ; corrosives and fire are the most merciful, as
well as only justifiable way of cure, when the case needs
them. And therefore I hope I may still pretend to mo-
desty and conscience, though I should have thought you
so rational a man, as to be led by your own principles ;
and so honest, charitable, and zealous for the salvation

286 A Third Letter for Toleration.

of men's souls, as not to vex and disease them with in-
efficacious remedies to no purpose, and let them miss
of salvation, for want of more vigorous prosecutions.
For if conformity to the church of England be neces-
sary to salvation ; for else what necessity can you pre-
tend of punishing men at all to bring them to it? it is
cruelty to their souls (if you have authority for any such
means) to use some, and not to use sufficient force to
bring them to conform. And I dare say you are satis-
fied, that the French discipline of dragooning would
have made many in England conformists, whom your
lower penalties will not prevail on to be so.

But to inform you that my apprehensions were not so
wholly out of the way, I beseech you to read here what
you have writ in these words : " For how confidently
soever you tell me here, that it is more than I can say
for my political punishments, that they were ever use-
ful for the promoting true religion ; I appeal to all
observing persons, whether wherever true religion or
sound Christianity has been nationally received and
established by moderate penal laws, it has not always
lost ground by the relaxation of those laws : whether
sects and heresies, (even the wildest and most absurd)
and even Epicurism and atheism, have not continually
thereupon spread themselves; and whether the very
spirit and life of Christianity has not sensibly decayed,
as well as the number of sound professors of it been
daily lessened upon it : not to speak of what at this
time our eyes cannot but see, for fear of giving offence;
though I hope it will be none to any, that have a just
concern for truth and piety, to take notice of the books
and pamphlets which now fly so thick about this king-
dom, manifestly tending to the multiplying of sects
and divisions, and even to 1 he promoting of scepticism
in religion among us." Here you bemoan the decay-
ing state of religion amongst us at present, by reason
of taking oil' the penalties from protcslant dissenters J
and 1 beseech you what penalties were they/ Such
whereby many have been ruined in their fortunes;
Such whereby many have lost their liberties, and some

A Third Letter for Toleration. 287

their lives in prisons ; such as have sent some into ba-
nishment, stripped of all they had. These were the
penal laws by which the national religion was esta-
blished in England ; and these you call moderate : for
you say, " Wherever true religion or sound Christianity
has been nationally received and established by mo-
derate penal laws ;" and I hope you do not here ex-
clude England from having its religion so established
by law, which we so often hear of; or if to serve the
present occasion you should, would you also deny, that
in the following words you speak of the present relaxa-
tion in England? where after your appeal to all ob-
serving people for the dismal consequences, which you
suppose to have every where followed from such re-
laxations, you add these pathetical words, " Not to
speak of what at this time our eyes cannot but see, for
fear of giving offence :" so heavy does the present re-
laxation sit on your mind ; which since it is of penal
laws you call moderate, I shall show you what they are.
In the first year of Queen Elizabeth, there was a pe-
nalty of Is. a Sunday and holiday laid upon every one
who came not to the common prayer then established.
This penalty of Is. a time not prevailing, as was de-
sired, in the twenty-third year of her reign was in-
creased to 20/. a month, and imprisonment for non-
payment within three months after judgment given.
In the twenty-ninth year of Elizabeth, to draw this yet
closer, and make it more forcible, it was enacted, That
whoever upon one conviction did not continue to pay
on the 20/. per month, without any other conviction
or proceedings against him till he submitted and con-
formed, should forfeit all his goods, and two-thirds of
his land for his life. But this being not yet thought
sufficient, it was in the thirty-fifth year of that queen
completed, and the moderate penal laws, upon which
our national religion was established, and whose relaxa-
tion you cannot bear, but from thence date the decay
of the very spirit and life of Christianity, were brought
o perfection. For then going to conventicles, or a
nonth's absence from church, was to be punished with
imprisonment, till the offender conformed ; and if he

288 A Third Letter for Toleration.

conformed not within three months, then he was to ab-
jure the realm, and forfeit all his goods and chattels for
ever, and his lands and tenements during his life : and
if lie would not abjure, or, abjuring, did not depart the
realm within a time prefixed, or returned again, he was
to suffer death as a felon. And thus your moderate
penal laws stood for the established religion, till their
penalties were, in respect of protestant dissenters, lately
taken off. And now let the reader judge whether your
pretence to moderate punishments, or my suspicion of
what a man of your principles might have in store for
dissenters, have more of modesty or conscience in it;
since you openly declare your regret for the taking away
such an establishment, as by the gradual increase of pe-
nalties reached men's estates, liberties, and lives ; and
which you must be presumed to allow and approve of,
till you tell us plainly, where, according to your mea-
sures, those penalties should, or, according to your
principles, they could, have stopped.

You tell us, That where this only true religion, viz.
of the church of England, is received, other religions
ought " to be discouraged in some measure. " A pretty
expression for undoing, imprisonment, banishment ; for
those have been some of the discouragements given to
dissenters here in England. You will again, no doubt,
cry aloud, that you tell me you condemn these as much
as I do. If you heartily condemn them, I wonder you
should say so little to discourage them ; I wonder you
are so silent in representing to the magistrate the un-
lawfulness arid danger of using them, in a discourse
where you are treating of the magistrate's power and
duty in matters of religion ; especially this being the
side on which, as far as we may guess by experience,
their prudence is aptest to err : but your modesty, you
know, leaves all to the magistrate's prudence and ex-
perience on that side, though you over and over again
encourage them not to neglect their duty in the use of
force, to which you set no bounds.

You tell us, " Certainly no man doubts but the
prudence ami experience, of governors and law-givers
enables them to use and apply it," vi.:. your rule lor

A TJiird Letter for Toleration. 289

the measure of punishments, which I have showed to
be no rule at all: " And to judge more exactly what
penalties do agree with it ; and therefore you must
be excused if you do not take upon you to teach
them what it becomes you rather to learn from them."
If your modesty be such, and you then did what be-
came you, you could not but learn from your governors
and law-givers, and so be satisfied till within this year
or two, that those penalties which they measured out
for the establishment of the true religion, though they
reached to men's estates, liberties, and lives, were such
as were fit. But what you have learned of your law-
makers and governors since the relaxation, or what
opinion you have of their experience and prudence
now, is not so easy to say.

Perhaps you will say again, that you have in express
words declared against " fire and sword, loss of estate,
maiming with corporal punishments, starving and
tormenting in noisome prisons ;" and one cannot
either in modesty or conscience disbelieve you : yet in
the same letter you with sorrow and regret speak of the
relaxation of such penalties laid on nonconformity, by
which men have lost their estates, liberties, and lives
too, in noisome prisons, and in this too must we not
believe you ? I dare say, there are very few who read
that passage of yours, so feelingly it is penned, who
want modesty or conscience to believe you therein to
be in earnest ; and the rather, because what drops
from men by chance, when they are not upon their
guard, is always thought the best interpretation of
their thoughts.

You name "loss of estate, of liberty, and torment-
ing, which is corporal punishment, as if you were
against them i* certainly you know what you meant
by these words, when you said, you condemned them ;
was it any degree of loss of liberty or estate, any degree
of corporal punishment that you condemned, or only
the utmost, or some degree between these? unless you
had then some meaning, and unless you please to tell
us, what that meaning was ; where it is, that in your

VOL. vi. u

Q90 A Third Letter for Toleration.

opinion, the magistrate ought to stop; who can believe
you are in earnest? This I think you may and ought
to do for our information in your system, without any
apprehension that governors and law-givers will deem
themselves much taught by you, which your modesty
makes you so cautious of. Whilst you refuse to do this,
and keep yourself under the mask of moderate, con-
venient, and sufficient force and penalties, and other
such-like uncertain and undetermined punishments, I
think a conscientious and sober dissenter might expect
fairer dealing from one of my pagans or Mahometans,
as you please to call them, than from one, who so pro-
fesses moderation, that what degrees of force, what
kind of punishments will satisfy him, he either knows
not, or will not declare. For your moderate and con-
venient may, when you come to interpret them, signify
what punishments you please : for the cure being to be
wrought by force, that will be convenient, which the
stubbornness of the evil requires ; and that moderate,
which is but enough to work the cure. And therefore
I shall return your own compliment : " That I would
never wish that any man who has undertaken a bad
cause, should more plainly confess it than by serving
it, as here (and not here only) you serve yours." I
should beg your pardon for this sort of language, were
it not your own. And what right you have to it, the
skill you show in the management of general and doubt-
ful words and expressions, of uncertain and undeter-
mined signification, will, I doubt not, abundantly con-
vince the reader. An instance we have in the argu-
ment before us ; for I appeal to any sober man, who
shall carefully read what you write, where you pretend
to tell the world plainly and directly what punish-
ments are to be used by your scheme, whether, after
having weighed all you say concerning that matter, he
can tell what a nonconformist is to expect from you,
or find anything but such acutcness and strength as lie
in the uncertainty and reserve of your way of talking;
which whether it be any way suited to your modesty
and conscience, where you have undertaken to tell us

A Third Letter for Toleration. QQl

what the punishments arc, whereby you would have
men brought to embrace the true religion, I leave you
to consider.

If having said, "Whether true religion or sound
Christianity has been nationally received and estab-
lished by moderate penal laws ;" you shall for your
defence of the establishment of the religion in England
by law, say, which is all is left you to say, that though
such severe laws were made, yet it was only by the
execution of moderate penal laws, that it was estab-
lished and supported : but that those severe laws that
touched men's estates, liberties, and lives, were never
put in execution. Why then do you so seriously bemoan
the loss of them? But I advise you not to make use of
that plea, for there are examples in the memory of
hundreds now living, of every one of those laws of
queen Elizabeth being put in execution ; and pray re-
member, if by denying it you require this truth to be
made good, it is you that force the publishing of a
catalogue of men that have lost their estates, liberties,
and lives in prison, which it would be more for the
advantage of the religion established by law, should
be forgotten.

But to conclude this great accusation of yours: if
you were not conscious to yourself of some tendency
that Way, why such an outcry ? Why were modesty and
conscience called in question ? Why was it less fair
dealing than you could have expected from a pagan or
Mahometan, for me to say, if in those words "you
meant any thing to the business in hand, you seemed
to have a reserve for greater punishments ?** Your
business there being to prove, that there was a power
vested in the magistrate to use force in matters of re-
ligion, what could be more beside the business in hand,
than to tell us, as you interpret your meaning here,
that the magistrate had a power to use force against
those who rebelled ; for whoever denied that, whether
dissenters or not dissenters ? where was it questioned
by the author or me, that " whoever rebelled, were to
fall under the stroke of the magistrate's sword ?" And
therefore, without breach of modestv or conscience, I

u2

292 A Third Letter for Toleration.

might say, what I again here repeat, " That if in
those words you meant any thing to the business
in hand, you seemed to have a reserve for greater
punishments. "

One thing more give me leave to add in defence of
my modesty and conscience, or rather to justify myself
from having guessed so wholly beside the matter, if I
should have said, which I did not, " that I feared vou
had a reserve for greater punishments." For I having
brought the instances of Ananias and Sapphira, to show
that the apostles wanted not power to punish, if they
found it necessary to use it ; you infer, that therefore
"punishment may be sometimes necessary. " "What
punishments, I beseech you, for theirs cost them their
lives? He that, as you do, concludes from thence,
that therefore " punishments may be sometimes neces-
sary," will hardly avoid, whatever he says, to con-
clude capital punishments necessary : and when they
are necessary, it is you know the magistrate's duty to
use them. You see how natural it is for men to go
whither their principles lead them, though at first sight
perhaps they thought it too far.

If to avoid this, you now say you meant it of the
punishment of the incestuous Corinthian, whom I also
mentioned in the same place ; I think, supposing your-
self to lie under the imputation of a reserve of greater
punishments, you ought in prudence to have said so
there. Next you know not what punishment it was the
incestuous Corinthian underwent; but it being "for
the destruction of the flesh," it seems to be no very
light one : and if you will take your friend St. Austin s
word for it, as he in the very epistle you quote tells us,
it was a very severe one, making as much difference be-
tween it, and the severities men usually suffer in prison,
ffcfl there is between the cruelty of the devil and that
of the most barbarous jailor : so that if your moderate
punishments will reach to that laid on the incestuous
Corinthian, for the destruction of the flesh, we may
presume them to be what other people call severities.

A Third Letter for Toleration. 293

CHAPTER V.

I I ww long your Punishments are to continue.

The measure of punishments being to be estimated
as well by the length of their duration, as the intense-
ness of their degrees, it is fit we take a view also of
your scheme in this part :

" I told you, that moderate punishments that are
continued, that men find no end of, know no way
out of, sit heavy, and become immoderately uneasy.
Dissenters you would have punished, to make them
consider. Your penalties have had the effect on them
you intended ; they have made them consider ; and
they hae done their utmost in considering. What
now must be done with them ? They must be
punished on, for they are still dissenters. If it were
just, and you had reason at first to punish a dissenter,
to make him consider, when you did not know but
that he had considered already ; it is as just, and you
have as much reason to punish him on, even when he
has performed what your punishment was designed
for, and has considered, but yet remains a dissenter.
For I may justly suppose, and you must grant, that a
man may remain a dissenter after all the consideration
your moderate penalties can bring him to : when we
see great punishments, even those seventies you
disown as too great, are not able to make men con-
sider so far as to be convinced, and brought over to
the national church. If your punishments may not
be inflicted on men, to make them consider, who
have or may have considered already, for aught you
know ; then dissenters are never to be once punished,
no more than any other sort of men. If dissenters
arc to be punished, to make them consider, whether
they have considered or no ; then their punishments,

294 A Third Letter for- Toleration.

though they do consider, must never cease as long as
they are dissenters ; which whether it be to punish
them only to bring them to consider, let all men
judge. This I am sure ; punishments in your me-
thod must either never begin upon dissenters, or
never cease. And so pretend moderation if you
please, the punishments which your method requires,
must be either very immoderate, or none at all."
But to this you say nothing, only for the adjusting of
the length of your punishments, and therein vindicating
the consistency and practicableness of your scheme, you
tell us, " that as long as men reject the true religion
duly proposed to them, so long they offend and de-
serve punishment, and therefore it is but just that so
long they should be left liable to it." You promised
to answer to this question, amongst others, "plainly
and directly." The question is, how long they are
to be punished? And your answer is, "It is but just
that so long they should be liable to punishment."
This extraordinary caution in speaking out, if it were
not very natural to you, would be apt to make one sus-
pect it was accommodated more to some difficulties of
your scheme, than to your promise of answering plainly
and directly ; or possibly you thought it would not agree
to that character of moderation you assume, to own,
that all the penal laws which were lately here in force,
and whose relaxation you bemoan, should be constantly
put in execution. But your moderation in tin's point
comes too late, For as your charity, as you tell us in
the next paragraph, " requires that they be kept subject
to penalties ;" so the watchful charity of others in this
age hath found out ways to encourage informers, and
put it out of the magistrate's moderation to stop the
execution of the law against dissenters, if he should be
inclined to it.

We will therefore take it for granted, that if penal
laws be made concerning religion, (for more zeal
usually animates them than others) they will be put iu
execution : and indeed 1 have heard it argued to be
very absurd to make or continue laws, that are not con-
stantly put in execution. And now to show you how

A Third Letter for Toleration. 295

well your answer consists with other parts of your
scheme, I shall need only to mind you, that if men
must be punished as long as they reject the true religion ;
those who punish them must be judges what is the true
religion. But this objection, with some others, to
which this part of your answer is obnoxious, having
been made to you more at large elsewhere, 1 shall here
omit, and proceed to other parts of your answer.

You begin with your reason for the answer you after-
wards give us in the words I last quoted : your reason
runs thus : "For certainly nothing is more reasonable
than that men should be subject to punishment as long
as they continue to offend. And as long as men reject
the true religion, tendered them with sufficient evidence
of the truth of it, so long it is certain they offend. " It
is certainly very reasonable, that men should be subject
to punishment from those they offend as long as they
continue to offend : but it will not from hence follow,
that those who offend God, are always subject to punish-
ment from men. For if they be, why does not the
magistrate punish envy, hatred, and malice, and all
uncharitableness ? If you answer, because they are not
capable of judicial proofs: I think I may say it is as
easy to prove a man guilty of envy, hatred, or uncharit-
ableness, as it is to prove him guilty of " rejecting the
true religion tendered him with sufficient evidence of
the truth of fit." But if it be his duty to punish all
offences against God ; why does the magistrate never
punish lying, which is an offence against God, and is
an offence capable of being judicially proved? It is
plain therefore that it is not the sense of all mankind,
that it is the magistrate's duty to punish all offences
against God ; and where it is not his duty to use force,
you will grant the magistrate is not to use it in matters
of religion ; because where it is necessary, it is his duty
to use it; but where it is not necessary, you yourself
say, it is not lawful. It would be convenient therefore
for you to reform your proposition from that loose
generality it now is in, and then prove it, before it
can be allowed you to be to your purpose ; though it be

293 A Third Letter for Toleration.

ever so true, that " you know not a greater crime a man
can be guilty of, than rejecting the true religion. "

You go on with your proof, that so long as men
reject the true religion, &c. so long they offend, and
consequently may justly be punished: " Because, say
you, it is impossible for any man innocently to reject
the true religion so tendered to him. For whoever
rejects that religion so tendered does either appre-
hend and perceive the truth of it, or he does not. If
he does, I know not what greater crime any man can
be guilty of. If he does not perceive the truth of it,
there is no account to be given of that, but either
that he shuts his eyes against the evidence which is
offered him, and will not at all consider it ; or that
he does not consider it as he ought, viz. with such
care as is requisite, and with a sincere desire to learn
the truth ; either of which does manifestly involve
him in guilt. To say here that a man who has the
true religion proposed to him, with sufficient evidence
of its truth, may consider it as he ought," or do his
utmost in considering, "and yet not perceive the truth
of it ; is neither more nor less, than to say, that
sufficient evidence is not sufficient evidence. For
what does any man mean by sufficient evidence, but
such as will certainly win assent wherever it is duly
considered ?"

I shall not trouble myself here to examine when
requisite care, duly considered, and such other words,
which bring one back to the same place from whence
one set out, are cast up, whether all this fine reasoning
will amount to any thing but begging what is in the
question ; but shall only tell you, that what you say
here and in other places about sufficient evidence, is
built upon this, that the evidence wherewith a man
proposes the true religion, he may know to be such, as
will not fail to gain the assent or whosoever does what
lies in him in considering it. This is the supposition,
without which all your talk of sufficient evidence will
do you no service, try it where you will. Hut it is a

supposition that is far enough from carrying with it

A Third Letter for Toleration. 297

sufficient evidence to make it be admitted without
proof.

Whatever gains any man's assent, one may be sure
had sufficient evidence in respect of that man: but that
is far enough from proving it evidence sufficient to pre-
vail on another, let him consider it as long and as much
as he can. The tempers of men's minds ; the principles
settled there by time and education, beyond the power
of the man himself to alter them ; the different capaci-
ties of men's understandings, and the strange ideas they
are often filled with ; are so various and uncertain, that
it is impossible to find that evidence, especially in things
of a mixed disquisition, depending on so long a train of
consequences, as some points of the true religion may,
which one can confidently say will be sufficient for all
men. It is demonstration that 31876 is the product of
94G7172 divided by 297> and yet I challenge you to find
one man of a thousand, to whom you can tender this
proposition with demonstrative or sufficient evidence to
convince him of the truth of it in a dark room ; or
ever to make this evidence appear to a man, that can-
not write and read, so as to make him embrace it as a
truth, if another, whom he hath more confidence in,
tells him it is not so. All the demonstrative evidence
the thing has, all the tender you can make of it, all the
consideration he can employ about it, will never be able
to discover to him that evidence which shall convince
him it is true, unless you will at threescore and
ten, for that may be the case, have him neglect his
calling, go to school, and learn to write, and read,
and cast accounts, which he may never be able to
attain to.

You speak more than once of men's being brought to
lay aside their prejudices to make them consider as they
ought, and judge right of matters in religion; and I
grant without doing so they cannot : but it is impossible
for force to make them do it, unless it could show them,
which are prejudices in their minds, and distinguish
them from the truths there. Who is there almost that
has not prejudices, that he does not know to be so ; and
what can force do in that case ? It can no more remove

298 A Third Letter for Toleration.

them, to make way for truth, than it can remove one
truth to make way for another ; or rather remove an
established truth, or that which is looked on as an
unquestionable principle, (for so are often men's pre-
judices) to make way for a truth not yet known, nor
appearing to be one. It is not every one knows, or
can bring himself to Des Cartes's way of doubting, and
strip his thoughts of all opinions, till he brings them to
self-evident principles, and then upon them builds all
his future tenets.

Do not think all the world, who are not of your
church, abandon themselves to an utter carelessness of
their future state. You cannot but allow there are
many Turks who sincerely seek truth, to whom yet you
could never bring evidence sufficient to convince them
of the truth of the Christian religion, whilst they looked
on it as a principle not to be questioned, that the Koran
was of divine revelation. This possibly you will tell
me is a prejudice, and so it is ; but yet if this man
shall tell you it is no more a prejudice in him, than
it is a prejudice in any one amongst Christians, who
having not examined it, lays it down as an unquestion-
able principle of his religion, that the Scripture is the
word of God ; what will you answer to him ? And yet
it would shake a great many Christians in their religion,
if they should lay by that prejudice, and suspend their
judgment of it, until they had made it out to them-
selves with evidence sufficient to convince one who is
not prejudiced in favour of it ; and it would require
more time, books, languages, learning, and skill, than
falls to most men's share to establish them therein ; if
you will not allow them, in this so distinguishing and
fundamental a point, to rely on the learning, know-
ledge, and judgment of some persons whom they have
in reverence or admiration. This though you blame
it as an ill way, yet you can allow in one of your own
religion, even to that degree, that he maybe ignorant
of the grounds of his religion. And why then may
you not allow it to a Turk, not as a good way, or
as having led him to the truth; but as a way as
lit for him, as for one of your church to acquiesce

A Third Letter for Toleration. 299

in ; and as fit to exempt him from your force, as to
exempt any one of your church from it?

To prevent your commenting on this, in which you
have shown so much dexterity, give me leave to tell you,
that for all this I do not think all religions equally true
or equally certain. But this I say, is impossible for
you or me or any man to know, whether another has
done his duty in examining the evidence on both sides,
when he embraces that side of the question, which we
perhaps upon other views, judge false : and therefore
we can have no right to punish or persecute him for it.
In this, whether and how far any one is faulty, must
be left to the Searcher of hearts, the great and right-
eous Judge of all men, who knows all their circum-
stances, all the powers and workings of their minds;
where it is they sincerely follow, and by what default
they at any time miss truth : and he, we are sure, will
judge uprightly.

But when one man shall think himself a competent
judge, that the true religion is proposed with evidence
sufficient for another ; and thence shall take upon him
to punish him as an offender, because he embraces not,
upon evidence that he the proposer judges sufficient,
the religion that he judges true ; he had need be able
to look into the thoughts of men, and know their
several abilities ; unless he will make his own under-
standing and faculties to be the measure of those of all
mankind ; which if they be no higher elevated, no
larger in their comprehension, no more discerning than
those of some men, he will not only be unfit to be a
judge in that, but in almost any case whatsoever.

But since, 1. You make it a condition to the making
a man an offender in not being of the true religion, that
it has been tendered him with sufficient evidence ; 2.
Since you think it so easy for men to determine when
the true religion has been tendered to any one with suf-
ficient evidence; and 3. Since you pronounce "it
impiety to say that God hath not furnished mankind
with competent means for the promoting his own
honour in the world, and the good of souls \f> give
me leave to ask you a question or two. 1. Can any one

300 A Third Letter for Toleration.

be saved without embracing the one only true religion ?

2. Were any of the Americans of that one only true
religion, when the Europeans first came amongst them ?

3. Whether any of the Americans, before the Chri-
stians came amongst them, had offended in rejecting the
true religion tendered with sufficient evidence ? When
you have thought upon, and fairly answered these
questions, you will be fitter to determine how com-
petent a judge man is, what is sufficient evidence;
who do offend in not being of the true religion ; and
what punishments they are liable to for it.

But methinks here, where you spend almost a whole
page upon the crime of rejecting the true religion duly
tendered, and the punishment that is justly due to it
from the magistrate, you forget yourself, and the founda-
tion of your plea for force ; which is, that it is neces-
sary : when you are so far from proving it to be so in
this case of punishing the offence of rejecting the true
religion, that in this very page you distinguished it from
what is necessary, where you tell us, "your design does
rather oblige you to consider how long men may
need punishment, than how long it may be just to
punish them." So that though they offend, yet if
they do not need punishment, the magistrate cannot
use it, if you ground, as you say you do, the lawful-
ness of force for promoting the true religion upon the
necessity of it. Nor can you say that by his commis-
sion from the law of nature of doing good, the ma-
gistrate, besides reducing his wandering subjects out of
the wrong into the right way, is appointed also to be
the avenger of God's wrath on unbelievers, or those
that err in matters of religion. This at least you thought
not fit to own in the first draught of your scheme ; for
I do not remember, in all your Argument Considered,
one word of crime or punishment: nay, in writing
this second treatise, you were so shy of owning any
thing of punishment, that to my remembrance, you
scrupulously avoided the use of that word, till you
came to this place ; and always where the repeating my
WOrda did not oblige you to it, carefully used the term
of penalties for it, as any one may observe who reads

A Third Letter for Toleration. 301

t lie preceding part of this letter of yours, which I am
now examining. And you were so nice in the point,
that three or four leaves backwards, where I say, By
your rule dissenters must be punished, you mend it, and
say, " or if I please, subjected to moderate penalties."
But here when the inquiry, how long force was to be
continued on men, showed the absurdity of that pre-
tence, that they were to be punished on without end,
to make them consider ; rather than part with your be-
loved force, you open the matter a little farther, and
profess directly the punishing men for their religion.
For though you do all you can to cover it under the
name of rejecting the true religion duly proposed ; yet
it is in truth no more but being of a religion different
from yours, that you would have them punished for :
for all that the author pleads for, and you can oppose
in writing against him, is toleration of religion. Your
scheme therefore being thus mended, your hypothesis
enlarged, being of a different religion from the national
found criminal, and punishments found justly to belong
to it ; it is to be hoped, that in good time your pu-
nishments may grow too, and be advanced to all those
degrees you in the beginning condemned ; when having
considered a little farther, you cannot miss finding,
that the obstinacy of the criminals does not lessen their
crime, and therefore justice will require severer execu-
tion to be done upon them.

But you tell us here, " Because your design does
rather oblige you to consider how long men may need
punishment, than how long it may be just to punish
them ; therefore you shall add, that as long as men
refuse to embrace the true religion, so long penalties
are necessary for them to dispose them to consider
and embrace it : and that therefore, asjustice allows, so
charity requires, that they be kept subject to penalties,
till they embrace the true religion." Let us therefore
see the consistency of this with other parts of your
hypothesis, and examine it a little by them.

Your doctrine is, that where entreaties and admoni-
tions upon trial do not prevail, punishments are to be
used ; but they must be moderate. Moderate punish-

802 A Third Letter for Toleration,

ments have been tried, and they prevail not; what
now is to be done ? Are not greater to be used ? No.
For what reason ? Because those whom moderate pe-
nalties will not prevail on being desperately perverse
and obstinate, remedies are not to be provided for the
incurable, as you tell us in the page immediately pre-
ceding.

Moderate punishments have been tried upon a man
once, and again, and a third time, but prevail not at
all, make no impression ; they are repeated as many
times more, but are still found ineffectual : pray tell me
a reason why such a man is concluded so desperately
perverse and obstinate, thatgreater degrees will not work
upon him ; but yet not so desperately perverse and ob-
stinate, but that the same degrees repeated may work
upon him ? I will not urge here, that this is to pretend
to know the just degree of punishment that will or will
not work on any one ; which I should imagine a pretty
intricate business: but this I have to say, that if you
can think it reasonable and useful to continue a man
several years, nay his whole life, under the same repeated
punishments, without going any higher, though they
work not at all ; because it is possible some time or other
they may work on him ; why is it not as reasonable and
useful, I am sure it is much more justifiable and cha-
ritable, to leave him all his life under the means, which
all agree God has appointed, without going any higher ;
because it is not impossible that some time or other
preaching, and a word spoken in due season, may work
upon him ? For why you should despair of the success
of preaching and persuasion upon a fruitless trial, and
thereupon think yourself authorized to use force; and
yet not so despair of the success of moderate force, as
after years of fruitless trial to continue it on, and not
to proceed to higher degrees of punishment ; you are
concerned for the vindication of your system to show a
reason.

I mention the trial of preaching and persuasion, to
show the unreasonableness of your h) pothesis, supposing
such atrial made: not that in yours, or the common
method, there is or can be a lair trial made what preach-

A Third Letter for Toleration. SOS

ing and persuasion can do. For care is taken by pu-
nishments and ill treatment to indispose and turn away
men's minds, and to add aversion to their scruples ; an
excellent way to soften men's inclinations, and temper
them for the impression of arguments and entreaties ;
though these too are only talked of: for I cannot but
wonder to find you mention, as you do, giving ear to
admonitions, entreaties, and persuasions, when these
are seldom if ever made use of, but in places where
those who are to be wrought on by them are known
to be out of hearing; nor can be expected to come
there, till by such means they have been wrought on.

It is not without reason therefore you cannot part
with your penalties, and would have no end put to
your punishments, but continue them on ; since you
leave so much to their operation, and make so little
use of other means to work upon dissenters.

CHAPTER VI.

Of the End for which Force is to he used.

He that should read the beginning of your Argu-
ment Considered, would think it in earnest to be
your design to have force employed to make men
seriously consider, and nothing else ; but he that shall
look a little farther into it, and to that add also your
defence of it, will find by the variety of ends you de-
sign your force for, that either you know not well what
you would have it for ; or else, whatever it was you
aimed at, you called it still by that name which best
fitted the occasion, and would serve best in that place
to recommend the use of it.

You ask me, " Whether the mildness and gentleness
of the Gospel destroys the coactive power of the ma-
gistrate ?" I answer, as you supposed, No : upon
which you infer, " Then it seems the magistrate may

S04f A Third Letter for Toleration.

use his coactive power, without offending against the
mildness and gentleness of the Gospel." Yes, where
he has commission and authority to use it. " And so,
say you, it will consist well enough with the mildness
and gentleness of the Gospel for the magistrate to use
his coactive power to procure them" [I suppose you
mean the ministers and preachers of the national re-
ligion] " a hearing where their prayers and entreaties
will not do it." No, it will not consist with the gentle
and mild method of the Gospel, unless the Gospel
has directed it, or something else to supply its want,
till it could be had. As for miracles, which you pre-
tend to have supplied the want of force in the first ages
of Christianity, you will find that considered in another
place. But, sir, show me a country where the ministers
and teachers of the national and true religion go about
with prayers and entreaties to procure a hearing, and
cannot obtain it ; and there I think I need not stand
with you for the magistrate to use force to procure it
them ; but that I fear will not serve your turn.

To show the inconsistency and impracticableness of
your method, I had said, " Let us now see to what end
they must be punished : sometimes it is, To bring
them to consider those reasons and arguments which
are proper and sufficient to convince them : of what?
That it is not easy to set Grantham steeple upon
Paul's church? Whatever it be you would have them
convinced of, you are not willing to tell us ; and so
it may be any thing. Sometimes it is, To incline
them to lend an ear to those who tell them they have
mistaken their way, and offer to show them the right.
Which is, to lend an ear to all who differ from them
in religion, as well craftv seducers as others. Whe-
thcr this he for the procuring the salvation of their
souls, the end for which you say this force is to be
used, judge you. Hut this I am sure, whoever will lend
an car to all who will tell them they are out of the way,
will not have much time for any other business.

" Sometimes it is, To recover men to so much
sobriety and reflection, as seriously to put the question

// Third Letter for Toleration. 305

to themselves, whether it be really worth their while
to undergo such inconveniencies for adhering to a re-
ligion which, for any thing they know, may be false ;
or for rejecting another (if that be the case) which,
for aught they know, may be true ; till they have
brought it to the bar of reason, and given it a fair
trial there. Which, in short, amounts to thus much,
viz. To make them examine whether their religion be
true, and so worth the holding, under those penalties
that are annexed to it. Dissenters are indebted to you
for your great care of their souls. But, what, I be-
seech you, shall become of those of the national
church every where, which make far the greater part
of mankind, who have no such punishments to make
them consider ; who have not this only remedy pro-
vided for them, but are left in that deplorable con-
dition you mention, of being suffered quietly, and
without molestation, to take no care at all of their
souls, or in doing of it to follow their own prejudices,
humours, or some crafty seducers? Need not those of
the national church, as well as others, bring their re-
ligion to the bar of reason, and give it a fair trial
there ? And if they need to do so, as they must, if all
national religions cannot be supposed true, they will
always need that which you say is the only means to
make them do so. So that if you are sure, as you tell
us, that there is need of your method, I am sure there
is as much need of it in national churches as any other.
And so, for aught I can see, you must either punish
them or let others alone ; unless you think it reasonable
that the far greater part of mankind should constantly
be without that sovereign and only remedy, which they
stand in need of equally with other people.

" Sometimes the end for which men must be pu-
nished is, to dispose them to submit to instruction, and
to give a fair hearing to the reasons offered for the en-
lightening their minds, and discovering the truth to
them. If their own words may be taken for it, there
are as few dissenters as conformists, in any country,
who will not profess they have done, and do this. And

vol. vi. x

306 A Third Letter for Toleration.

if their own words may not be taken, who, I pray,
must be judge ? You and your magistrates ? If so, then
it is plain you punish them not to dispose them to sub-
mit to instruction, but to your instruction ; not to
dispose them to give a fair hearing to reasons offered
for the enlightening their minds, but to give an
obedient hearing to your reasons. If you mean this,
it had been fairer and shorter to have spoken out
plainly, than thus in fair words, of indefinite significa-
tion, to say that which amounts to nothing. For what
sense is it to punish a man to dispose him to submit to
instruction, and give a fair hearing to reasons offered
for the enlightening his mind and discovering truth to
him, wTho goes two or three times a week several miles
on purpose to do it, and that with the hazard of his
liberty or purse, unless you mean your instructions,
your reasons, your truth ? Which brings us but back
to what you have disclaimed, plain persecution for
differing in religion.

" Sometimes this is to be done, To prevail with men
to weigh matters of religion carefully and impartially.
Discountenance and punishment put into one scale,
with impunity and hopes of preferment put into the
other, is as sure a way to make a man weigh impar-
tially, as it would be for a prince to bribe and threaten
a judge to make him judge uprightly.

" Sometimes it is, To make men bethink themselves,
and put it out of the power of any foolish humour, or
unreasonable prejudice, to alienate them from truth
and their own happiness. Add but this, to put it
out of the power of any humour or prejudice of their
own, or other men's, and I grant the end is good, if
you can find the means to procure it. But why it
should not be put out of the power of other men's
humour or prejudice, as well as their own, wants, and
will always want, a reason to prove. Mould it not, I
beseech you, to ail indifferent bystander, appear hu-
mour or prejudice, or something as bad, to see men,
who profess a religion revealed from heaven, and which
they own contains all in it necessary to salvation, ex-

A Third Letter for Toleration. 307

elude men from their communion, and persecute them
with the penalties of the civil law, for not joining in the
use of ceremonies, which are nowhere to be found in
that revealed religion ? Would it not appear humour or
prejudice, or some such thing, to a sober, impartial
heathen, to see Christians exclude and persecute one of
the same faith, for things which they themselves confess
to be indifferent, and not worth the contending for ? Pre-
judice, humour, passion, lusts, impressions of education,
reverence and admiration of persons, worldly respects,
love of their own choice, and the like; to which you
justly impute many men's taking up and persisting in
their religion, are indeed good words ; and so, on the
other side, are these following, truth, the right way,
enlightening, reason, sound judgment ; but they signify
nothing at all to your purpose, till you can evidently
and unquestionably show the world, that the latter,
truth and the right way, &c. are always, and in all
countries, to be found only in the national church; and
the former, viz. passion and prejudice, &c. only amongst
the dissenters. But to go on :

" Sometimes it is, To bring men to take such care
as they ought of their salvation. What care is such
as men ought to take, whilst they are out of your
church, will be hard for you to tell me. But you en-
deavour to explain yourself in the following words :
that they may not blindly leave it to the choice neither
of any other person, nor yet of their own lusts and
passions, to prescribe to them what faith or worship
they shall embrace. You do well to make use of pu-
nishment to shut passion out of the choice: because
you know fear of suffering is no passion. But let that
pass. You would have men punished, to bring them
to take such care of their salvation, that they may not
blindly leave it to the choice of any other person to
prescribe to them. Are you sincere? Are you in
earnest? Tell me, then, truly: did the magistrate or
the national church, any where, or yours in particular,
ever punish any man to bring him to have this care,
which, you say, he ought to take of his salvation ? Did

x 2

308 A Third Letter for Toleration.

you ever punish any man, that he might not blindly
leave it to the choice of his parish priest, or bishop, or
the convocation, what faith or worship he should em-
brace ? It will be suspected care of a party, or any
thing else, rather than care of the salvation of men's
souls ; if, having found out so useful, so necessary a
remedy, the only method there is room left for, you
will apply it but partially, and make trial of it only on
those whom you have truly least kindness for. This
will unavoidably give one reason to imagine, you do
not think so well of your remedy as you pretend, who
are so sparing of it to your friends, but are very free
of it to strangers, who in other things are used very
much like enemies. But your remedy is like the helle-
boraster that grew in the woman's garden, for the cure
of worms in her neighbours' children ; for truly it
wrought too roughly to give it to any of her own.
Methinks your charity, in your present persecution, is
much-what as prudent, as justifiable, as that good wo-
man's. I hope I have done you no injury, that I here
suppose you of the church of England ; if I have, I
beg your pardon. It is no offence of malice, I assure
you : for I suppose no worse of you, than I confess of
myself.

" Sometimes this punishment that you contend for,
is to bring men to act according to reason and sound
judgment:

Tertius c ccelo cecidit Cato.

" This is reformation indeed. If you can help us to
it, you will deserve statues to be erected to you, as to
the restorer of decayed religion. But if all men have
not reason and sound judgment, will punishment put
it into them? Besides, concerning this matter man-
kind is so divided, that he acts according to reason and
sound judgment at Augsburg, who would be judged
to do quite the contrary at Edinburgh. Will punish-
ment make nun know what is reason and sound judg-
ment J If it will not, it is impossible it should make

A Third Letter for Toleration. 309

/
them act according to it. Reason and sound judg-
ment are the elixir itself, the universal remedy ; and
you may as reasonably punish men to bring them to
have the philosopher's stone, as to bring them to act
according to reason and sound judgment.

" Sometimes it is, To put men upon a serious and
impartial examination of the controversy between the
magistrate and them, which is the way for them to
come to the knowledge of the truth. But what if the
truth be on neither side, as I am apt to imagine you
will think it is not, where neither the magistrate
nor the dissenter is either of them of your church, how
will the examining the controversy between the ma-
gistrate and him be the way to come to the knowledge
of the truth? Suppose the controversy between a
Lutheran and a papist; or, if you please, between a
presbyterian magistrate and a quaker subject; will the
examining the controversy between the magistrate and
the dissenting subject, in this case, bring him to the
knowledge of the truth ? If you say, Yes, then you
grant one of these to have the truth on his side. For
the examining the controversy between a presby-
terian and a quaker, leaves the controversy either of
them has with the church of England, or any other
church, untouched. And so one, at least, of those
being already come to the knowledge of the truth,
ought not to be put under your discipline of punish-
ment, which is only to bring him to the truth. If you
say, No, and that the examining the controversy be-
tween the magistrate and the dissenter, in this case,
will not bring him to the knowledge of the truth, you
confess your rule to be false, and your method to no
purpose.

" To conclude, your system is, in short, this : You
would have all men, laying aside prejudice, humour,
passion, &c. examine the grounds of their religion, and
search for the truth. This, I confess, is heartily to be
wished. The means that you propose to make men
do this, is that dissenters should be punished to make
them do so. It is as if you had said, men generally

310 A Third Letter for Toleration.

are guilty of a fault ; therefore let one sect, who have the
ill luck to be of an opinion different from the magistrate,
be punished. This, at first sight, shocks any one who has
the least spark of sense, reason, or justice. But having
spoken of this already, and concluding that, upon
second thoughts, you yourself will be ashamed of it ;
let us consider it put so as to be consistent with com-
mon sense, and with all the advantage it can bear, and
then let us see what you can make of it. Men are
negligent in examining the religions they embrace, re-
fuse, or persist in ; therefore it is fit they should be
punished to make them do it. This is a consequence,
indeed, which may, without defiance to common sense,
be drawn from it. This is the use, the only use,
which you think punishment can, indirectly and at a
distance, have in matters of religion. You would have
men by punishments driven to examine. What? Re-
ligion. To what end ? To bring them to the know-
ledge of the truth. But I answer,

" First, Every one has not the ability to do this.

" Secondly, Every one has not the opportunity to
do it.

" Would you have every poor protestant, for ex-
ample, in the palatinate, examine thoroughly whether
the pope be infallible, or head of the church ; whether
there be a purgatory ; whether saints are to be prayed
to, or the dead prayed for ; whether the Scripture be
the only rule of faith; whether there be no salvation
out of the church ; and whether there be no church
without bishops ; and an hundred other things in con-
troversy between the papists and those protestants :
and, when he had mastered these, go on to fortify
himself against the opinions and objections of other
churches lie differs from? This, which is no small
task, must be done, before a man can have brought his
religion to the bar of reason, and given it a fair trial
there. And if you will punish men till this be done,
the countryman must leave oil" ploughing and sowing,
and betake himself to the study of Greek and Latin;
and the artizan must sell his tools, to buy fathers and

A Third Letter for Toleration. 311

schoolmen, and leave his family to starve. If some-
thing less than this will satisfy you, pray tell me what
is enough. Have they considered and examined
enough, if they are satisfied themselves where the
truth lies? If this be the limits of their examination,
you will find few to punish ; unless you will punish
them to make them do what they have done already.
For, however he came by his religion, there is scarce
any one to be found who does not own himself satisfied
that he is in the right. Or else, must they be punished
to make them consider and examine, till they embrace
that which you choose for truth ? If this be so, what
do you but in effect choose for them ? when yet you
would have men punished, to bring them to such a care
of their souls that no other person might choose for
them ? If it be truth in general you would have them
by punishments driven to seek, that is to offer matter
of dispute, and not a rule of discipline. For to punish
any one to make him seek till he find truth, without a
judge of truth, is to punish for you know not what;
and is all one as if you should whip a scholar to make
him find out the square root of a number you do
not know. I wonder not, therefore, that you could
not resolve with yourself what degree of severity you
would have used, nor how long continued ; when you
dare not speak out directly whom you would have
punished, and are far from being clear to what end
they should be under penalties.

" Consonant to this uncertainty, of whom, or what,
to be punished, you tell us, that there is no question of
the success of this method. Force will certainly do, if
duly proportioned to the design of it.

" What, I pray, is the design of it ? I challenge you,
or any man living, out of what you have said in your
book, to tell me directly what it is. In all other pu-
nishments that ever I heard of yet, till now that you
have taught the world a new method, the design of
them has been to cure the crime they are denounced
against ; and so I think it ought to be here. What, I
beseech you, is the crime here ? Dissenting ? That

312 A Third Letter for Toleration.

you say not, any where, is a fault. Besides you tell
us, that the magistrate hath not an authority to com-
pel any one to his religion. And that you do not re-
quire that men should have no rule but the religion of
the country. And the power you ascribe to the ma-
gistrate is given him to bring men, not to his own, but
to the true religion. If dissenting be not the fault,
is it that a man does not examine his own religion, and
the grounds of it? Is that the crime your punishments
are designed to cure ? Neither that dare you say, lest
you displease more than you satisfy with your new
discipline. And then again, as I said before, you must
tell us how far you would have them examine, before
you punish them for not doing it. And I imagine, if
that were all we required of you, it would be long
enough before you would trouble us with a law that
should prescribe to every one how far he was to ex-
amine matters of religion ; wherein if he failed, and
came short, he was to be punished ; if he performed,
and went in his examination to the bounds set by the
law, he was acquitted and free. Sir, when you consider
it again, you will perhaps think this a case reserved to
the great day, when the secrets of all hearts shall be
laid open. For I imagine it is beyond the power or
judgment of man, in that variety of circumstances,
in respect of parts, tempers, opportunities, helps,
&c. men are in, in this world, to determine what is
every one's duty in this great business of search,
inquiry, examination, or to know when any one has
done it. That which makes me believe you will be
of this mind, is, that where you undertake for the
success of this method, if rightly used, it is with a
limitation, upon such as are not altogether incurable.
So that when your remedy is prepared according to
art (which art is yet unknown) and rightly applied,
and given in a due dose (all which arc secrets),
it will then infallibly cure. Whom? All that are not
incurable by it. And so will a pippin-posset, eating
fish in Lent, or a presbyterian lecture, certainly cure
all that are not incurable by them. For \ am sure

A Third Letter for Toleration. 313

you do not mean it will cure all, but those who are
absolutely incurable; because you yourself allow one
means left of cure, when yours will not do; viz. The
grace of God. Your words are, what means is there
left (except the grace of God) to reduce them, but to
lay thorns and briars in their way ? And here also, in
the place we were considering, you tell us the incurable
are to be left to God. Whereby, if you mean they are
to be left to those means he has ordained for men's
conversion and salvation, yours must never be made
use of: for he indeed has prescribed preaching and
hearing of his word ; but as for those who will not
hear, I do not find any where that he has commanded
that they should be compelled or beaten to it."

I must beg my reader's pardon for so long a repeti-
tion, which I was forced to, that he might be judge
whether what I there said either deserves no answer, or
be fully answered in that paragraph, where you under-
take to vindicate your method from all impracticable-
ness and inconsistency chargeable upon it, in reference
to the end for which you would have men punished.
Your words are : For what? By which, you say, "you
perceive I mean two things : for sometimes I speak of
the fault, and sometimes of the end for which men are
to be punished; (and sometimes I plainly confound
them.) Now, if it be inquired, for what fault men are
to be punished? you answer, for rejecting the true re-
ligion, after sufficient evidence tendered them of the
truth of it ; which certainly is a fault, and deserves
punishment. But if I inquire for what end such as
do reject the true religion are to be punished; you
say, to bring them to embrace the true religion ; and
in order to that to bring them to consider, and that
carefully and impartially, the evidence which is offered
to convince them of the truth of it, which are unde-
niably just and excellent ends ; and which, through
God's blessing, have often been procured, and may yet
be procured by convenient penalties inflicted for that
purpose. Nor do you know of any thing I say against
any part of this, which is not already answered."

314 A Third Letter for Toleration.

Whether I in this confound two things distinct, or
you distinguish where there is no difference, the reader
may judge by what I have said elsewhere. I shall
here only consider the ends of punishing, you here
again in your reply to me assign ; and those, as I find
them scattered, are these :

Sometimes you speak of this end, as if it were " barely
to gain a hearing to those who by prayers and intreaty
cannot:" and those may be the preachers of any reli-
gion. But I suppose you mean the preachers of the
true religion. And who, I beseech you, must be judge
of that ?

" Where the law provides sufficient means of in-
struction for all, as well as punishment for dissenters,
it is plain to all concerned, that the punishment is in-
tended to make them consider. " What ? The means
the law provides for their instruction. Who then is
judge of what they are to be instructed in, and the
means of instruction, but the law-maker?

" It is to bring men to hearken to instruction."
From whom ? From any body ? " And to consider
and examine matters of religion as they ought to do,
and to bring those who are out of the right way to
hear, consider, and embrace the truth." When is this
end attained, and the penalties which are the means to
this end taken off? When a man conforms to the
national church. And who then is judge of what is
the truth, to be embraced, but the magistrate ?

" It is to bring men to consider those reasons and
arguments which are proper and sufficient to convince
them ; but which, without being forced, they would
not consider." And when have they done this? When
they have once conformed : for after that there is no
force used to make them consider farther.

11 It is to make men consider as they ought ;" and
that, you tell us, is so to consider, " as to be moved
heartily to embrace, and not to reject, truth necessary
to salvation." And when is the magistrate, that has
the care of men's souls, and does all this for their sal-
vation, satisfied that they have so considered? As

A Third Letter for Toleration. 315

soon as they outwardly join in communion with the
national church.

" It is to brine: men to consider and examine those
controversies which they are bound to consider and
examine : i. e. those wherein they cannot err without
dishonouring God, and endangering their own and
other men's salvations. And to study the true religion
with such care and diligence as they might and ought
to use, and with an honest mind." And when, in your
opinion, is it presumable that any man has done all
this? Even when he is in the communion of your
church.

" It is to cure men's unreasonable prejudices and
refractoriness against, and aversion to, the true reli-
gion." Whereof none retain the least tincture or
suspicion, who are once got within the pale of your
church.

" It is to bring men into the right way, into the
way of salvation," which force does, when it has con-
ducted them within the church-porch, and there leaves
them.

" It is to bring men to embrace the truth that must
save them." And here in the paragraph wherein you
pretend to tell us for what force is to be used, you say,
" It is to bring men to embrace the true religion, and
in order to that to bring them to consider, and that
carefully and impartially, the evidence which is offered
to convince them of the truth of it, which, as you say,
are undeniably just and excellent ends ;" but yet such
as force in your method can never practically be made
a means to, without supposing what you say you have
no need to suppose ; viz. that your religion is the
true ; unless you had rather everywhere leave it to
the magistrate to judge which is the right way, what is
the true religion ; which supposition, I imagine, will
less accommodate you than the other. But take which
of them you will, you must add this other supposition
to it, harder to be granted you than either of the
former ; viz. that those who conform to your church
here, if you make yourself the judge, or to the national
church any where, if you make the magistrate judge

316 A Third Letter for Toleration.

of the truth that must save men, and those only, have
attained these ends.

The magistrate, you say, is obliged to do what in him
lies to bring all his subjects " to examine carefully
and impartially matters of religion, and to consider
them as they ought ; i. e. so as to embrace the truth
that must save them." The proper and necessary
means, you say, to attain these ends is force. And
your method of using this force is to punish all the
dissenters from the national religion, and none of those
who outwardly conform to it. Make this practicable
now in any country in the world, without allowing the
magistrate to be judge what is the truth that must
save them, and without supposing also, that whoever
do embrace the outward profession of the national reli-
gion, do in their hearts embrace, L e. believe and obey
the truth, that must save them; and then I think no-
thing in government can be too hard for your under-
taking.

You conclude this paragraph in telling me, " You
do not know of any thing, I say, against any part of
this, which is not already answered." Pray tell me
where it is you have answered those objections I made
to those several ends which you assigned in your Ar-
gument Considered, and for which you would have
force used, and which I have here reprinted again, be-
cause I do not find you so much as take notice of
them: and therefore the reader must judge whether
they needed any answer or no.

But to show that you have not here, where you pro-
mise and pretend to do it, clearly and directly told us
for what force and penalties are to be used, I shall in
the next chapter examine what you mean u by bring-
ing men to embrace the true religion."

A Third Letter for Toleration. 317

CHAPTER VII.

Of your bringing Men to the true Religion.

True religion is on all hands acknowledged to be so
much the concern and interest of all mankind, that
nothing can be named, which so much effectually be-
speaks the approbation and favour of the public. The
very entitling one's self to that sets a man on the right
side. Who dares question such a cause, or oppose what
is offered for the promoting the true religion? This
advantage you have secured to yourself from inatten-
tive readers as much as by the often repeated mention
of the true religion is possible; there being scarce a
page wherein the true religion does not appear, as if
you had nothing else in your thoughts but the bringing
men to it for the salvation of their souls. Whether it
be so in earnest, we will now see.

You tell us, u Whatever hardships some false reli-
gions may impose, it will, however, always be easier to
carnal and worldly-minded men, to give even their
first-born for their transgressions, than to mortify the
lusts from which they spring, which no religion but
the true requires of them." Upon this you ground
the necessity of force to bring men to the true religion,
and charge it on the magistrate as his duty to use it to
that end. What now in appearance can express greater
care to bring men to the true religion ? But let us see
what you say in p. 64, and we shall find that in your
scheme nothing less is meant : there you tell us, " The
magistrate inflicts the penalties only upon them that
break the laws :" and that law requiring nothing but
conformity to the national religion, none but noncon-
formists are punished. So that unless an outward
profession of the national religion be by the mortifica-
tion of men's lusts, harder than their giving their first-

318 A Third Letter for Toleration.

born for their transgressions, all the penalties you con-
tend for concern not, nor can be intended to bring men
effectually to the true religion ; since they leave them
before they come to the difficulty, which is to mortify
their lusts, as the true religion requires. So that your
bringing men to the true religion being to bring them
to conformity to the national, for then you have done
with force ; how far that outward conformity is from
being heartily of the true religion, may be known by
the distance there is between the easiest and the hardest
thing in the world. For there is nothing easier, than
to profess in words ; nothing harder, than to subdue the
heart, and bring thoughts and deeds into obedience of
the truth : the latter is what is required to be of the
true religion ; the other all that is required by penal-
ties, your way applied. If you say, conformists to the
national religion are required by the law civil and eccle-
siastical to lead good lives, which is the difficult part
of the true religion — I answer, these are not the laws
we are here speaking of, nor those which the defenders
of toleration complain of; but the laws that put a di-
stinction between outward conformists and noncon-
formists : and those they say, whatever may be talked
of the true religion, can never be meant to bring men
really to the true religion, as long as the true religion
is, and is confessed to be, a thing of so much greater
difficulty than outward conformity.

Miracles, say you, supplied the want of force in the
beginning of Christianity; and therefore, so far as they
supplied that want, they must be subservient to the
same end. The end then, was to bring men into the
Christian church; into which they were admitted and
received as brethren, when they acknowledged that
Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. Will that serve
the turn? No: force must be used to make men em-
brace creeds and ceremonies ; i. c, outwardly conform
to the doctrine and worship of your church. Nothing
more than that is required by your penalties ; nothing
less than that will excuse from punishment : that, and
nothing but that, will serve the turn; that therefore,

A Third Letter for Toleration. 319

and only that, is what you mean by the true religion
you would have force used to bring men to.

When I tell you, " You have a very ill opinion of
the religion of the Church of England, and must own
it can only be propagated and supported by force, if
you do not think it would be a gainer by a general
toleration all the world over :" you ask, " Why you
may not have as good an opinion of the Church of
England's, as you have of Noah's religion, notwith-
standing you think it cannot now be propagated or
supported without using some kinds or degrees of
force." When you have proved that Noah's religion,
that from eight persons spread and continued in the
world till the apostles' times, as I have proved in an-
other place, was propagated and supported all that
while by your kinds or degrees of force, you may have
some reason to think as well of the religion of the
Church of England as you have of Noah's religion ;
though you think it cannot be propagated and sup-
ported without some kinds or degrees of force. But
till you can prove that, you cannot upon that ground
say you have reason to have so good an opinion of it.

You tell me, " If I will take your word for it, you
assure me you think there are many other countries in
the world besides England, where my toleration would
be as little useful to truth as in England." If you will
name those countries, which will be no great pains, I
will take your word for it, that you believe toleration
there would be prejudicial to truth : but if you will
not do that, neither I nor any body else can believe
you. I will give you a reason why I say so, and that
is, because nobody can believe that, upon your prin-
ciples, you can allow any national religion, differing
from that of the Church of England, to be true ; and
where the national religion is not true, we have already
your consent (as in Spain and Italy, &c.) for toleration.
Now that you cannot, without renouncing your own
principles, allow any national religion, differing from
that established here by law, to be true, is evident :
For why do you punish nonconformists here? "To
bring them, say you, to the true religion." But what

320 A Third Letter for Toleration.

if they hold nothing, but what that other differing
national church does, shall they be nevertheless pu-
nished if they conform not ? You will certainly say,
yes : and if so, then you must either say, they are not
of the true religion ; or else you must own you punish
those, to bring them to the true religion, whom you
allow to be of the true religion already.

You tell me, " If I own with our author, that there
is but one true religion, and I owning myself to be of
the Church of England, you cannot see how I can
avoid supposing, that the national religion now in
England, backed by the public authority of the law,
is the only true religion." If I own, as I do, all that
you here expect from me, yet it will not serve to draw
that conclusion from it which you do; viz. that the
national religion now in England is the only true reli-
gion ; taking the true religion in the sense that I do,
and you ought to take it. I grant that there is but
one true religion in the world, which is that whose doc-
trine and worship are necessary to salvation. I grant
too, that the true religion, necessary to salvation, is
taught and professed in the Church of England : and
yet it will not follow from hence that the religion of
the Church of England, as established by law, is the
only true religion ; if there be any thing established in
the Church of England by law, and made part of its
religion, which is not necessary to salvation, and which
any other church, teaching and professing all that is
necessary to salvation, does not receive.

If the national religion now in England, backed by
the authority of the law, be, as you would have it, the
only true religion ; so the only true religion, that a man
cannot be saved without being of it ; pray reconcile
this with what you say in the immediately preceding
paragraph; viz. " that there are many other countries
in the world where my toleration would be as little
useful as in England." For if there be other national
religions differing from that of England, which you
allow to be true, and wherein men may be saved, the
national religion of England, as now established by
law, is not the only true religion, and men may be

A Third Letter for Toleration. 321

saved without being of it. And then the magistrate
can upon your principles have no authority to use force
to bring men to be of it. For you tell us, force is not
lawful, unless it be necessary ; and therefore the ma-
gistrate can never lawfully use it, but to bring men
to believe and practise what is necessary to salvation.
You must therefore either hold, that there is nothing
in the doctrine, discipline, and ceremonies of the church
of England, as it is established by law, but what is
necessary to salvation : or else you must reform your
terms of communion, before the magistrate, upon your
principles, can use penalties to make men consider till
they conform ; or you can say that the national religion
of England is the only true religion, though it contain
the only true religion in it ; as possibly most, if not all,
the differing Christian churches now in the world do.

You tell us farther, in the next paragraph, " That
wherever this only true religion, ?. e. the national re-
ligion now in England, is received, all other religions
ought to be discouraged." Why, I beseech you, dis-
couraged, if they be true any of them ? For if they be
true, what pretence is there for force to bring men
who are of them to the true religion? If you say all
other religions, varying at all from that of the church
of England, are false ; we know then your measure of
the one only true religion. But that your care is only
of conformity to the church of England, and that by the
true religion you mean nothing else, appears too from
your way of expressing yourself in this passage, where
you own that you suppose that as this only true reli-
gion, to wit, the national religion now in England,
backed with the public authority of law, " ought to be
received wherever it is preached ; so wherever it is
received, all other religions ought to be discouraged in
some measure by the civil powers." If the religion
established by law in England be the only true religion,
ought it not to be preached and received every where,
and all other religions discouraged throughout the
world ? and ought not the magistrates of all countries
to take care that it should be so? But you only say,
wherever it is preached it ought to be received ; and

vol. vi. y

322 A Third Letter for Toleration.

wherever it is received, other religions ought to be
discouraged, which is well suited to your scheme for
enforcing conformity in England, but could scarce drop
from a man whose thoughts were on the true religion,
and the promoting of it in other parts of the world.

Force then must be used in England, and penalties
laid on dissenters there. For what? " to bring them
to the true religion," whereby it is plain you mean
not only the doctrine but discipline and ceremonies of
the church of England, and make them a part of the
only true religion : why else do you punish ali dissenters
for rejecting the true religion, and use force to bring
them to it? when yet a great, if not the greatest, part
of dissenters in England own and profess the doctrine
of the church of England, as firmly as those in the
communion of the church of England. They there-
fore, though they believe the same religion with you,
are excluded from the true church of God, that you
would have men brought to, and are amongst those who
reject the true religion.

I ask whether they are not in your opinion out of the
way of salvation, who are not joined in communion with
the true church ? and whether there can be any true
church without bishops? If so, all but conformists in
England that are of any church in Europe, beside the
Lutherans and papists, are out of the way of salvation ;
and so according to your system have need of force to
be brought into it : and these too, one for their doctrine
of transubstantiation, the other for that of consubstan-
tiation, to omit other things vastly differing from the
church of England, you will not, I suppose, allow to
be of the true religion: and who then are left of the
true religion but the church of England ? For the Ab\ rs-
sines have too wide a difference in many points for me
to imagine, that is one of those places you mean where
toleration would do harm as well as in England. And
J think tlie religion of the Greek church can scarce he4
supposed by you to be the true. For if it should, it
would be .1 strong instance against your assertion, thai
the true religion cannot subsist, but would quickly Ik
fectuallv extirpated without the assistance ofauthorityj

A Third Letter for Toleration. 323

since this has subsisted without any such assistance now
above two hundred years. I take it then for granted,
and others with me cannot but do the same ; till you
tell us, what other religion there is of any church, but
that of England, which you allow to be the true reli-
gion ; that all you say of bringing men to the true
religion, is only bringing them to the religion of the
church of England. If I do you an injury in this, it
will be capable of a very easy vindication : for it is but
naming that other church differing from that of Eng-
land, which you allow to have the true religion, and I
shall yield myself convinced, and shall allow these words,
viz. " The national religion now in England, backed
by the public authority of law, being the only true
religion/' only as a little hasty sally of your zeal. In
the mean time I shall argue with you about the use of
force to bring men to the religion of the church of
England, as established by law : since it is more easy
to know what that is, than what you mean by the true
religion, if you mean any thing else.

To proceed therefore ; in the next place I tell you,
by using force your way to bring men to the religion of
the church of England, you mean only to bring them
to an outward profession of that religion ; and that, as
I have told you elsewhere, because force used your way,
being applied only to dissenters, and ceasing as soon
as they conform, (whether it be intended by the law-
maker for any thing more or no, which we have exa-
mined in another place) cannot be to bring men to any
thing more than outward conformity. For if force be
used to dissenters, and them only, to bring men to the
true religion, and always, as soon as it has brought men
to conformity, it be taken off, and laid aside, as having
done all is expected from it ; it is plain, that by bring-
ing men to the true religion, and bringing them to out-
ward conformity, you mean the same thing. You use
and continue force upon dissenters, because you expect
some effect from it : when you take it off, it has wrought
that effect, or else, being in your power, why do you not
continue it on ? The effect then that you talk of being
the embracing the true religion, and the thing you are

y 2

824 A Third Letter for Toleration.

satisfied with, without any further punishment, expecta-
tion, or inquiry, being outward conformity, it is plain
embracing the true religion and outward conformity,
with you, are the same things.

Neither can you say it is presumable that those who
outwardly conform do really understand, and inwardly
in their hearts embrace with a lively faith and a sincere
obedience, the truth that must save them. 1. Because
it being, as you tell us, the magistrate's duty to do all
that in him lies for the salvation of all his subjects, and
it being in his power to examine, whether they know
and live suitable to the truth that must save them, as
well as conform ; he can or ought no more to presume
that they do so, without taking an account of their
knowledge and lives, than he can or ought to presume
that they conform, without taking any account of their
coming to church. Would you think that physician
discharged his duty, and had, as was pretended, a care
of men's lives ; who having got them into his hands,
and knowing no more of them but that they come
once or twice a week to the apothecary's shop, to hear
what is prescribed them, and sit there a while ; should
say it was presumable they wrere recovered, without ever
examining whether his prescriptions had any effect, or
what estate their health was in ?

2. It cannot be presumable, where there are so many
visible instances to the contrary. He must pass for an
admirable presumer, who will seriously affirm that it is
presumable that all those who conform to the national
religion, where it is true, do so understand, believe, and
practise it, as to be in the way of salvation.

3. It cannot be presumable, that men have parted
with their corruption and lusts to avoid force, when
they fly to conformity, which can shelter them from
force without quitting their lusts. That which is dearer
to men than their first-born is, you tell us, their lusts;
that which is harder than the hardships of false religions
is the mortifying those lusts: here lies the difficulty of
the true religion, that it requires the mortifying of those
lusts; and till that be done, men are not ol the true
religion, nor in the way of salvation : and it is upon this

A Third Letter for Toleration. 325

account only thatyou pretend force to be needful. Force
is used to make them hear : it prevails ; men hear : but
that is not enough, because the difficulty lies not in
that ; they may hear arguments for the truth, and yet
retain their corruption. They must do more ; they must
consider those arguments. Who requires it of them?
The law that inflicts the punishment does not; but
this we may be sure their love of their lusts, and their
hatred of punishment, requires of them, and will bring
them to, viz. to consider how to retain their beloved
lusts, and yet to avoid the uneasiness of the punishment
they lie under; this is presumable they do ; therefore
they go one easy step farther, they conform, and then
they are safe from force, and may still retain their cor-
ruption. Is it therefore presumable they have parted
with their corruption, because force has driven them to
take sanctuary against punishment in conformity, where
force is no longer to molest them, or pull them from
their darling inclinations? The difficulty in religion is,
you say, for men to part with their lusts ; this makes
force necessary : men find out a way by conforming to
avoid force without parting with their lusts ; therefore
it is presumable when they conform, that force, which
they can avoid without quitting their lusts, has made
them part with them ; which is indeed not to part with
their lusts because of force, but to part with them
gratis ; which if you can say is presumable, the foun-
dation of your need of force, which you place in the
prevalency of corruption, and men's adhering to their
lusts, will be gone, and so there will be no need of force
at all. If the great difficulty in religion be for men to
part with, or mortify their lusts, and the only counter-
balance in the other scale, to assist the true religion, to
prevail against their lusts, be force ; which, 1 beseech
you, is presumable, if they can avoid force, and retain
their lusts, that they should quit their lusts, and heartily
embrace the true religion, which is incompatible with
them ; or else that they should avoid the force, and
retain their lusts ? To say the former of these, is to
say that it is presumable, that they will quit their lusts,
and heartily embrace the true religion for its own sake :

326 A Third Letter for Toleration.

for he that heartily embraces the true religion, because
of a force which he knows he can avoid at pleasure,
without quitting his lusts, cannot be said so to embrace
it, because of that force : since a force he can avoid,
without quitting his lusts, cannot be said to assist truth
in making him quit them : for in this truth has no assist-
ance from it at all. So that this is to say there is no
need of force at all in the case.

Take a covetous wretch, whose heart is so set upon
money, that he would give his first-born to save his
bags ; who is pursued by the force of the magistrate to
an arrest, and compelled to hear what is alleged against
him ; and the prosecution of the law threatening im-
prisonment or other punishment, if he do not pay the
just debt which is demanded of him : if he enters himself
in the King's Bench, where he can enjoy his freedom
without paying the debt, and parting with his money ;
will you say that it is presumable he did it to pay
the debt, and not to avoid the force of the law? The
lust of the flesh and pride of life are as strong and pre-
valent as the lust of the eye : and if you will deliberately
say again, that it is presumable, that men are driven
by force to consider, so as to part with their lusts, when
no more is known of them, but that they do what dis-
charges them from the force, without any necessity of
parting with their lusts ; I think I shall have occasion
to send you to my pagans and Mahometans, but shall
have no need to say any thing more to you of this mat-
ter myself.

I agree with you, that there is but one only true
religion ; I agree too that that one only true religion is
professed and held in the church of England ; and vet
I deny, if force may be used to bring men to that true
religion, that upon your principles it can lawfully be
Used to bring men to the national religion in England,
as established by law ; because force, according to your
own rule, being only lawful because it is necessary,
and therefore until to be used where not necessary, /. e.
necessary to bring men to salvation; it can never be
lawfully used to bring a man to any thing that is not
necessary to salvation, as I have more fully shown in

A Third Letter for Toleration. 327

another place. If therefore in the national religion of
England, there be any thing put in as necessary to
communion, that is, though true, yet not necessary to
salvation ; force cannot be lawfully used to bring men
to that communion, though the thing so required in it-
self may perhaps be true.

There be a great many truths contained in Scripture,
which a man may be ignorant of, and consequently not
believe, without any danger to his salvation, or else
very few would be capable of salvation : for I think I
may truly say, there was never any one, but he that was
the Wsdom of the Father, who was not ignorant of
some, and mistaken in others of them. To bring men
therefore to embrace such truths, the use of force, by
your own rule, cannot be lawful : because the belief or
knowledge of those truths themselves not being neces-
sary to salvation, there can be no necessity men should
be brought to embrace them, and so no necessity to use
force to bring men to embrace them.

The only true religion which is necessary to salvation,
may in one national church have that joined with it
which in itself is manifestly false and repugnant to sal-
vation ; in such a communion no man can join with-
out quitting the way to salvation. In another national
church, with this only true religion may be joined what
is neither repugnant nor necessary to salvation j and of
such there may be several churches differing from one
another in confessions, ceremonies, and discipline, which
are usually called different religions ; with either or
each of which a good man, if satisfied in his own mind,
may communicate without danger, whilst another, not
satisfied in conscience concerning something in the
doctrine, discipline, or worship, cannot safely, nor with-
out sin, communicate with this or that of them. Nor
can force be lawfully used, on your principles, to bring
any man to either of them ; because such things are re-
quired to their communion, which not being requisite
to salvation, men may seriously and conscientiously
differ, and be in doubt about, without endangering their
souls.

328 A Third Letter for Toleration.

That which here raises a noise, and gives a credit to
it, whereby many are misled into an unwarrantable zeal,
is, that these are called different religions ; and every
one thinking his own the true, the only true, condemns
all the rest as false religions. Whereas those who hold
all things necessary to salvation, and add not thereto
any thing in doctrine, discipline, or worship, incon-
sistent with salvation, are of one and the same religion,
though divided into different societies or churches,
under different forms : which whether the passion and
polity of designing, or the sober and pious intention of
well-meaning men, set up, they are no other than the
contrivances of men, and such they ought to be esteemed
in whatsoever is required in them, which God has not
made necessary to salvation, however in its own nature
it may be indifferent, lawful, or true. For none of the
articles or confessions of anv church, that I know, con-
taming in them all the truths of religion, though they
contain some that are not necessary to salvation ; to
garble thus the truths of religion, and by their own au-
thority take some not necessary to salvation, and make
them the terms of communion, and leave out others as
necessary to be known and believed, is purely the con-
trivance of men ; God never having appointed any such
distinguishing system : nor, as I have showed, can force,
upon your principles, lawfully be used to bring men to
embrace it.

Concerning ceremonies, I shall here only ask you
whether you think kneeling at the Lord's supper, or
the cross in baptism, are necessary to salvation ? I men-
tion these as having been matter of great scruple : if
you will not say they are, how can you say that force
can be lawfully used to bring men into a communion,
to which these are made necessary? If you say, Kneel-
ing is necessary to a decent uniformity, (for of the
cross in baptism I have spoken elsewhere) though that
should be true, yet it is an argument you cannot use
for it, if you are of the church of England: for if a de-
cent uniformity may be well enough preserved without
kneeling at prayer, where decency requires it at least as

A Third Letter for Toleration. 329

much as at receiving the sacrament, why may it not
well enough be preserved without kneeling at the sa-
crament ? Now that uniformity is thought sufficiently
preserved without kneeling at prayer, is evident by the
various postures men are at liberty to use, and may be
generally observed, in all our congregations, during
the minister's prayer in the pulpit before and after his
sermon, which it seems can consist well enough with
decency and uniformity ; though it be a prayer ad-
dressed to the great God of heaven and earth ; to whose
majesty it is that the reverence to be expressed in our
gestures is due, when we put up petitions to him, who
is invariably the same, in what or whose words soever
we address ourselves to him.

The preface to the Book of Common Prayer tells us,
" That the rites and ceremonies appointed to be used
in divine worship, are things in their own nature in-
different and alterable." Here I ask you, whether any
human power can make any thing, in its own nature
indifferent, necessary to salvation ? If it cannot, then
neither can any human power be justified in the use
of force, to bring men to conformity in the use of such
things. If you think men have authority to make any
thing, in itself indifferent, a necessary part of God's
worship, I shall desire you to consider what our author
says of this matter, which has not yet deserved your
notice.

" The misapplying his power, you say, is a sin in the
magistrate, and lays him open to divine vengeance."
And is it not a misapplying of his power, and a sin
in him, to use force to bring men to such a compliance
in an indifferent thing, which in religious worship may
be a sin to them ? Force, you say, may be used to pu-
nish those who dissent from the communion of the
church of England. Let us suppose now all its doc-
trines not only true, but necessary to salvation ; but
that there is put into the terms of its communion some
indifferent action which God has not enjoined, nor
made a part of his worship, which any man is persuaded
in his conscience not to be lawful ; suppose kneeling at
the sacrament, Which having been superstitiously used

330 A Third Letter for Toleration.

in adoration of the bread, as the real body of Christ,
may give occasion of scruple to some now, as well as
eating of flesh offered to idols did to others in the apo-
stles' time ; which though lawful in itself, yet the apostle
said " he would eat no flesh while the world stand-
eth, rather than to make his weak brother offend," 1
Cor. viii. 13. And if to lead, by example, the scrupu-
lous into any action, in itself indifferent, which they
thought unlawful, be a sin, as appears at large, Rom.
xiv. how much more is it to add force to our example,
and to compel men by punishments to that, which,
though indifferent in itself, they cannot join in without
sinning ! I desire you to show me how force can be ne-
cessary in such a case, without which you acknowledge
it not to be lawful. Not to kneel at the Lord's supper,
God not having ordained it, is not a sin ; and the apo-
stles' receiving it in the posture of sitting or lying,
which was then used at meat, is an evidence it may be
received not kneeling. But to him that thinks kneeling
is unlawful, it is certainly a sin. And for this you may
take the authority of a very judicious and reverend pre-
late of our church, in these words : " Where a man is
mistaken in his judgment, even in that case, it is always
a sin to act against it ; by so doing, he wilfully acts
against the best light which at present he has for the
direction of his actions." Disc, of Conscience, p. 18.
I need not here repeat his reasons, having already quoted
him above more at large ; though the whole passage,
writ, as he uses, with great strength and clearness, de-
serves to be read and considered. If therefore the ma-
gistrate enjoins such an unnecessary ceremony, and
uses force to bring any man to a sinful communion with
our church in it, let me ask you, doth he sin or misap-
ply his power or no ?

True and false religions are names that easily engage
men's affections on the hearing of them ; the one being
the aversion, the other the desire, at least as they per-
suade themselves, of all mankind. This makes men
forwardly give; into these names, wherever they meet
with them ; and when mention is made of bunging men
from a false to the true religion, very often without

A Third Letter for Toleration. 331

knowing what is meant by those names, they think no-
thing can be done too much in such a business, to
which they entitle God's honour, and the salvation of
men's souls.

I shall therefore desire of you, if you are that fair
and sincere lover of truth you profess, when you write
again, to tell us what you mean by true, and what by
a false religion, that we may know which in your sense
are so : for, as you now have used these words in your
treatise, one of them seems to stand only for the religion
of the church of England, and the other for that of all
other churches. I expect here you should make the
same outcries against me, as you have in your former
letter, for imposing a sense upon your words contrary
to your meaning ; and for this you will appeal to your
own words in some other places : but of this I shall leave
the reader to judge, and tell him, this is a way very
easy and very usual for men, who having not clear and
consistent notions, keep themselves as much as they can
under the shelter of general and variously applicable
terms ; that they may save themselves from the absurdi-
ties or consequences of one place, by a help from some
general or contrary expression in another : whether it
be a desire of victory, or a little too warm zeal for a
cause you have been hitherto persuaded of, which hath
led you into this way of writing ; I shall only mind you,
that the cause of God requires nothing, but what may
be spoken out plainly in a clear determined sense, with-
out any reserve or cover. In the mean time this I shall
leave with you as evident, that force, uponyour ground,
cannot be lawfully used to bring men to the communion
of the church of England; (that being all that I can
find you clearly mean by the true religion) till you have
proved that all that is required of one in that commu-
nion, is necessary to salvation.

However therefore you tell us, <c That convenient
brce, used to bring men to the true religion, is all that
/ou contend for, and all that you allow." That it is
Tor " promoting the true religion." That it is to " bring
meu to consider, so as not to reject the truth necessary
to salvation. To bring men to embrace the truth that

332 A Third Letter for Toleration.

must save them." And abundance more to this pur-
pose. Yet all this talk of the true religion amounting
to no more but the national religion established by law
in England ; and your bringing men to it, to no more
than bringing them to an outward profession of it ; it
would better have suited that condition, viz. without
prejudice, and with an honest mind, which you require
in others, to have spoke plainly what you aimed at, ra-
ther than prepossess men's minds in favour of your
cause, by the impressions of a name that in truth did
not properly belong to it.

It was not therefore without ground that I said, " I
suspected you built all on 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,*' &c. Here you erect your
plumes, and to this your triumphant logic gives you
not patience to answer, without an air of victory in the
entrance : " How, sir, is this supposition equally una-
voidable, and equally just in other countries, where
false religions are the national ? (for that you must mean,
or nothing to the purpose.),, Hold, sir ; you go too
fast. Take your own system with you, and you will per-
ceive it will be enough to my purpose, if I mean those
religions which you take to be false; for if there be
any other national churches, which, agreeing with the
church of England in what is necessary to salvation,
yet have established ceremonies different from those
of the church of England ; should not any one who
dissented here from the church of England upon that
account, as preferring that to our way of worship, be
justly punished? If so, then punishment in matters of
religion being only to bring men to the true religion,
you must suppose him not to be yet of it, and so the
national church he approves of not to be of the true re-
ligion. And yet is it not equally unavoidable, and
equally just, that that church should suppose its religion

A Third Letter for Toleration. 333

the only true religion, as it is that yours should do so ;
it agreeing with yours in things necessary to salvation,
and having made some things, in their own nature
indifferent, requisite to conformity for decency and
order, as you have done? So that my saying, It is
equally unavoidable, and equally just in other coun-
tries, will hold good, without meaning what you charge
on me, that that supposition is equally unavoidable, and
equally just, where the national religion is absolutely
false.

But in that large sense too, what I said will hold good ;
andyou would have spared your useless subtilties against
it, if you had been as willing to take my meaning, and
answer my argument, as you were to turn what I said
to a sense which the words themselves show I never
intended. My argument in short was this, That grant-
ing force to be useful to propagate and support religion,
yet it would be no advantage to the true religion, that
you, a member of the church of England, supposing
yours to be the true religion, should thereby claim a
right to use force ; since such a supposition, to those
who were members of other churches, and believed
other religions, was equally unavoidable, and equally
just. And the reason I annexed shows both this to
be my meaning, and my assertion to be true : my words
are, " Unless we can imagine that, every where but in
England, men believe what at the same time they think
to be a lie." Having therefore never said, nor thought
that it is equally unavoidable, or equally just, that men
in every country should believe the national religion of
the country: but that it is equally unavoidable, and
equally just, that men believing the national religion of
their country, be it true or false, should suppose it to
be true ; and let me here add also, should endeavour
to propagate it : however you go on thus to reply : " If
so, then I fear it will be equally true too, and equally
rational : for otherwise I see not how it can be equally
unavoidable, or equally just ; for if it be not equally
true, it cannot be equally just ; and if it be not equally
rational, it cannot be equally unavoidable. But if it be
equally true, and equally rational, then either all religions

334 A Third Letter for Toleration.

are true, or none is true : for if they be all equally true,
and one of them be not true, then none of them can be
true." I challenge any one to put these four good
words, unavoidable, just, rational, and true, more equally
together, or to make a better-wrought deduction : but
after all, my argument will nevertheless be good, that
it is no advantage to your cause, for you or any one of
it, to suppose yours to be the only true religion ; since
it is equally unavoidable, and equally just for any one,
who believes any other religion, to suppose the same
thing. And this will always be so, till you can show,
that men cannot receive false religions upon arguments
that appear to them to be good ; or that having received
falsehood under the appearance of truth, they can, whilst
it so appears, do otherwise than value it, and be acted
by it, as if it were true. For the equality that is here
the question, depends not upon the truth of the opinion
embraced ; but on this, that the light and persuasion a
man has at present, is the guide which he ought to
follow, and which in his judgment of truth he cannot
avoid to be governed by. And therefore the terrible
consequences you dilate on in the following part of that
page I leave you for your private use on some titter
occasion.

You therefore who are so apt, without cause, to com-
plain of want of ingenuity in others; will do well
hereafter to consult your own, and another time change
your style ; and not under the undefined name of the
true religion, because that is of more advantage to your
argument, mean only the religion established by law in
England, shutting out all other religions now professed
in the world. Though when you have defined what is
the true religion, which you would have supported and
propagated by force ; and have told us it is to be found
in the liturgy and thirty-nine articles of the church of
England ; and it be agreed to you, that that is the only
true religion ; your argument of force, as necessary to
men's salvation, from the want, of light and Strength
enough iu the true religion to prevail against men's
lusts, and the corrupl ion of their nature, will not hold ;
because your brii men bj force, vourway applied,

A Third Letter for Toleration. 335

to the true religion, be it what you will, is but bringing
them to an outward conformity to the national church.
But the bringing them so far, and no farther, having
no opposition to their lusts, no inconsistency with their
corrupt nature, is not on that account at all necessary,
nor does at all help, where only, on your grounds, you
say, there is need of the assistance of force towards
their salvation.

CHAPTER VIII.

Of Salvation to be procured by Force, your Way.

There cannot be imagined a more laudable design
than the promoting the salvation of men's souls, by
any one who shall undertake it : but if it be a pretence
made use of to cover some other by-interest, nothing
can be more odious to men, nothing more provoking
to the great God of heaven and earth, nothing more
misbecoming the name and character of a Christian.
With what intention you took your pen in hand to de-
fend and encourage the use of force in the business of
men's salvation, it is fit in charity we take your word ;
but what your scheme, as you have delivered it, is
guilty of, it is my business to take notice of, and repre-
sent to you.

To my saying, that "if persecution, as is pretended,
were for the salvation of men's souls, bare conformity
would not serve the turn, but men should be examined
whether they do it upon reason and conviction :" you
answer, " Who they be that pretend that persecution
is for the salvation of men's souls, you know not."
Whatever you know not, I know one, who in the letter
under consideration pleads for force, as useful for the
promoting " the salvation of men's souls : and that the
use of force is no other means for the salvation of men's

336 A Third Letter for Toleration.

souls, than what the Author and Finisher of our faith
has directed. That so far is the magistrate, when he
gives his helping hand to the furtherance of the Gospel,
by laying convenient penalties upon such as reject it,
or any part of it, from using any other means for the
salvation of men's souls than what the Author and
Finisher of our faith has directed, that he does no more
than his duty for the promoting the salvation of souls.
And as the means by which men may be brought into
the way of salvation." Ay, but where do you say that
persecution is for the salvation of souls ? I thought you
had been arguing against my meaning, and against the
things I say, and not against my words in your meaning,
which is not against me. That I used the word per-
secution for what you call force and penalties, you
know: for in p. 21, that immediately precedes this,
you take notice of it, with some little kind of wonder,
in these words, " persecutions, so it seems you call all
punishments for religion. " That I do so then, whether
properly or improperly, you could not be ignorant ;
and then, I beseech you, apply your answer here to
what I say. My words are, " If persecution, as is pre-
tended, were for the salvation of men's souls, men that
conform would be examined whether they did so upon
reason and conviction." Change my word persecution
into punishment for religion, and then consider the
truth or ingenuity of your answer: for, in that sense
of the word persecution, do you know nobody that
pretends persecution is for the salvation of men's
souls? So much for your ingenuity, and the arts you
allow yourself to serve a good cause. What do you
think of one of my pagans or Mahometans? Could
he have done better ? For I shall often have occa-
sion to mind you of them. Now to your argument.
I said, u That I thought those who make laws, and
use force, to bring men to church-conformity in re-
ligion, seek only the compliance, but concern themselves
not for the conviction of those they punish, and so ne-
ver use force to convince. For pray tell me, when any
dissenter conforms, and enters into the church com-

A Third Letter for Toleration. 337

munion, is lie ever examined to see whether he does
it upon reason and conviction, and such grounds as
would become a Christian concerned for religion ? If
persecution, as is pretended, were for the salvation of
men's souls, this would be done, and men not driven
to take the sacrament to keep their places, or obtain
licences to sell ale ; for so low have these holy things
been prostituted." To this you here reply, " As to
those magistrates, who having provided sufficiently for
the instruction of all under their care, in the true re-
ligion, do make laws, and use moderate penalties, to
bring men to the communion of the church of God,
and conformity to the rules and orders of it ; I think
their behaviour does plainly enough speak them to
seek and concern themselves for the conviction of those
whom they punish, and for their compliance only as the
fruit of their conviction." If means of instruction were
all that is necessary to convince people, the providing
sufficiently for instruction would be an evidence, that
those that did so, did seek and concern themselves for
men's conviction: but if there be something as neces-
sary for conviction as the means of instruction, and
without which those means will signify nothing, and
that be severe and impartial examination ; and if force
be, as you say, so necessary to make men thus examine,
that they can by no other way but force be brought to
do it : if magistrates do not lay their penalties on non-
examination, as well as provide means of instruction ;
whatever you may say you think, few people will find
reason to believe you think those magistrates seek and
concern themselves much for the conviction of those
they punish, when that punishment is not levelled at
that, which is a hinderance to their conviction, i. e.
against their aversion to severe and impartial examina-
tion. To that aversion no punishment can be pre-
tended to be a remedy, which does not reach and com-
bat the aversion ; which it is plain no punishment does,
which may be avoided without parting with, or abating
the prevalency of that aversion. This is the case, where
men undergo punishments for not conforming, which
VOL. vi. z

338 A Third Letter for Toleration.

they may be rid of, without severely and impartially
examining matters of religion.

To show that what I mentioned was no sign of un-
concernedness in the magistrate for mens conviction,
you add, " Nor does the contrary appear from the not
examining dissenters when they conform, to see whether
they do it upon reason and conviction : for where suf-
ficient instruction is provided, it is ordinarily pre-
sumable that when dissenters conform, they do it upon
reason and conviction." Here if ordinarily signifies
any thing, (for it is a word you make much use of,
whether to express or cover your sense, let the reader
judge,) then you suppose there are cases wherein it is
not presumable ; and I ask you, whether in those, or
any cases, it be examined whether dissenters, when
they conform, do it upon reason and conviction ? At
best that it is ordinarily presumable, is but gratis
dictum ; especially since you suppose, that it is the
corruption of their nature that hinders them from con-
sidering as they ought, so as upon reason and conviction
to embrace the truth : which corruption of nature,
that they may retain with conformity I think is very
presumable. But be that as it will, this I am sure is
ordinarily and always presumable, that if those who
use force were as intent upon men's conviction as they
are on their conformity, they would not wholly content
themselves with the one, without ever examining and
looking into the other.

Another excuse you make for this neglect is, " That
as to irreligious persons, who only seek their secular
advantage, how easy it is for them to pretend con-
viction, and to offer such grounds (if that were re-
quired) as would become a Christian concerned for
religion ; that is what no care of man can certainly
prevent." This is an admirable justification of your
hypothesis. Men are to be punished: to what cud?
To make them Beverelyand impartially consider matters
of religion, that they may be convinced, and thereupon
sincerely embrace thr truth. Hut what need of force
or punishment for this? Because their lusts and eorrup-

A Third Letter for Toleration. 339

tions will otherwise keep them both from considering as
they ought, and embracing the true religion; and there-
fore they must lie under penalties till they have con-
sidered as they ought, which is when they have upon
conviction embraced. But how shall the magistrate
know when they upon conviction embrace, that he may
then take off their penalties? That indeed cannot be
known, and ought not to be inquired after, because
irreligious persons, who only seek their secular advan-
tage, or, in other words, all those who desire at their
ease to retain their beloved lusts and corruption, may
" easily pretend conviction, and offer such grounds (if
it were required) as would become a Christian con-
cerned for religion : this is what no care of man can
certainly prevent." Which is reason enough, why no
busy forwardness in man to disease his brother, should
use force upon pretence of prevailing against men's cor-
ruptions, that hinder their considering and embracing
the truth upon conviction, when it is confessed it cannot
be known, whether they have considered, are con-
vinced, or have really embraced the true religion or no.
And thus you have shown us your admirable remedy,
which is not, it seems, for the irreligious (for it is easy,
you say, for them to pretend to conviction, and so avoid
punishment), but for those who would be religious with-
out it.

But here, in this case, as to the intention of the
magistrate, how can it be said, that the force he uses is
designed, by subduing men's corruptions, to make way
for considering and embracing the truth ; when it is so
applied, that it is confessed here, that a man may get
rid of the penalties without parting with the corrup-
tions they are pretended to be used against ? But you
have a ready answer, " This is what no care of man
can certainly prevent;" which is but in other words to
proclaim the ridiculousness of your use of force, and
to avow that your method can do nothing. If by not
certainly you mean, it may any way or to any degree
prevent ; why is it not so done ? If not, why is a word
that signifies nothing put in, unless it be for a shelter

z 2

340 A Third Letter for Toleration.

on occasion ? a benefit yon know how to draw from this
way of writing: but this here, taken how yon please,
will only serve to lay blame on the magistrate, or your
hypothesis, choose you whether. I, for my part, have
a better opinion of the ability and management of the
magistrate : what he aimed at in his laws, that I be-
lieve he mentions in them ; and, as wise men do in
business, spoke out plainly what he had a mind should
be done. But certainly there cannot a more ridiculous
character be put on law-makers, than to tell the world
they intended to make men consider, examine, &c. but
yet neither required nor named any thing in their laws
but conformity. Though yet when men are certainly
to be punished for not really embracing the true reli-
gion, there ought to be certain matters of fact, whereby
those that do, and those that do not so embrace the
truth, should be distinguished ; and for that you have,
it is true, a clear and established criterion, i. e. con-
formity and non-conformity : which do very certainly
distinguish the innocent from the guilty ; those that
really and sincerely do embrace the truth that must
save them, from those that do not.

But, sir, to resolve the question, whether the con-
viction of men's understandings, and the salvation of
their souls, be the business and aim of those who use
force to bring men into the profession of the national
religion; I ask, whether, if that were so, there could be
so many as there are, not only in most country parishes,
but, I think I may say, may be found in all parts of
England, grossly ignorant in the doctrines and princi-
ples of the Christian religion, if a strict inquiry were
made into it ? If force be necessary to be used to bring
men to salvation, certainly some part of it would find
out some of the ignorant and unconsidering that are in
the national church, as well as it does so diligently all
the non-conformists out of it, whether they have con-
sidered, or are knowing or no. But to this you give a
\«iy ready answer: " Would you have the magistrate

punish all indifferently, those who obey the law as well

(IS them that do not? What is the obedience the law

A Third Lrtlcrjbr Toleration. 341

requires ? That you tell us in these words, " If the
magistrate provides sufficiently for the instruction of
all his subjects in the true religion, and then requires
them all, under convenient penalties, to hearken to the
teachers and ministers of it, and to profess and exercise
it with one accord under their direction in public assem-
blies :" which in other words is but conformity ; which
here you express a little plainer in these words : " But
as to those magistrates who, having provided sufficiently
for the instruction of all under their care in the true
religion, do make laws, and use moderate penalties to
bring men to the communion of the church of God,
and to conform to the rules and orders of it." You add,
" Is there any pretence to say that in so doing, he [the
magistrate] applies force only to a part of his subjects,
when the law is general, and excepts none ?" There
is no pretence, I confess, to say that in so doing he
applies force only to a part of his subjects, to make
them conformists; from that it is plain the law excepts
none. But if conformists may be ignorant, grossly igno-
rant of the principles and doctrines of Christianity ; if
there be no penalties used to make them consider as
they ought, so as to understand, be convinced of, be-
lieve and obey the truths of the Gospel ; are not they
exempt from that force which you say " is to make men
consider and examine matters of religion as they ought
to do?" Force is applied to all indeed to make them
conformists; but if being conformists once, and fre-
quenting the places of public worship, and there show-
ing an outward compliance with the ceremonies pre-
scribed (for that is all the law requires of all, call it how
you please), they are exempt from all force and penal-
ties, though they are ever so ignorant, ever so far from
understanding, believing, receiving the truth of the
Gospel ; I think it is evident that then force is not ap-
plied to all " to procure the conviction of the under-
standing.— To bring men to consider those reasons and
arguments which are proper to convince the mind, and
which, without being forced, they would not consider.
— To bring men to that consideration, which nothing

34ft A Third Letter for Toleration.

else but force (besides the extraordinary grace of God)
would bring them to. — To make men good Christians.
— To make men receive instruction. — To cure their
aversion to the true religion. — To bring men to con-
sider and examine the controversies which they are
bound to consider and examine, i. e. those wherein they
cannot err without dishonouring God, and endanger-
ing their own and other men's eternal salvation. — To
weigh matters of religion carefully and impartially. —
To bring men to the true religion and to salvation." —
That then force is not applied to all the subjects for
these ends, I think you will not deny. These are the
ends for which you tell us, in the places quoted, that
force is to be used in matters of religion : it is by its
usefulness and necessity to these ends, that you tell us
the magistrate is authorized and obliged to use force
in matters of religion. Now if all these ends be not
attained by a bare conformity, and yet if by a bare
conformity men are wholly exempt from all force and
penalties in matters of religion; will you say that for
these ends force is applied to all the magistrate's sub-
jects? If you will, I must send you to my pagans and
Mahometans for a little conscience and modesty. If you
confess force is not applied to all for these ends, not-
withstanding any laws obliging all to conformity; you
must also confess, that what you say concerning the
laws being general, is nothing to the purpose ; since
all that are under penalties for not conforming, are not
under any penalties for ignorance, irreligion, or the
want of those ends for which you say penalties are
useful and necessary.

You go on, " And therefore if such persons profane
the sacrament to keep their places, or to obtain licences
to sell ale, this is a horrible wickedness." I excuse
them not. " Hut it is their own, and they alone must
answer for it." Yes, and those who threatened poor
ignorant and irreligious ale-sellers, whose livelihood it
was, to take away their licences, if they did not con-
form and receive the sacrament, may be thought, per-
haps, to have something to answer for. You add, " Hut

A Third Letter for Toleration. 343

it is very unjust to impute it to those who make such
laws, and use such force, or to say that they prostitute
holy things, and drive men to profane them." Nor is
it just to insinuate in your answer, as if that had been
said which was not. But if it be true, that a poor,
ignorant, loose, irreligious wretch should be threatened
to be turned out of his calling and livelihood, if he
would not take the sacrament : may it not be said these
holy things have been so low prostituted ? And if this
be not profaning them, pray tell me what is ?

This I think may be said without injustice to any
body, that it does not appear that those who make
strict laws for conformity, and take no care to have it
examined upon what grounds men conform, are not
very much concerned, that men's understandings should
be convinced : and though you go on to say, that " they
design by their laws to do what lies in them to make
men good Christians ;" that will scarce be believed, if
what you say be true, that force is necessary to bring
M those who cannot be otherwise brought to it, to study
the true religion, with such care and diligence as they
might and ought to use, and with an honest mind."
And yet we see a great part, or any of those who are
ignorant in the true religion, have no such force ap-
plied to them; especially since you tell us, in the same
place, that " no man ever studied the true religion with
such care and diligence as he might and ought to use,
and with an honest mind, but he was convinced of the
truth of it." If then force and penalties can produce
that study, care, diligence, and honest mind, which
will produce knowledge and conviction ; and that (as
you say in the following words) make good men ; I ask
you, if there be found in the communion of the church,
exempt from force upon the account of religion, igno-
rant, irreligious, ill men ; and that, to speak moderately,
not in great disproportion fewer than amongst the non-
conformists ; will you believe yourself when you say
" the magistrates do, by their laws, all that in them lies
to make them good Christians;" when they use not that
force to them which you, not I, say is necessary ; and
that they are, where it is necessary, obliged to use?

344 A Third Letter for Toleration.

And therefore I give you leave to repeat again the
words you subjoin here, " But if after all they (i. e. the
magistrates) can do, wicked and godless men will still
resolve to be so ; they will be so, and I know not who
but God Almighty can help it." But this being spoken
of conformists, on whom the magistrates lay no penal-
ties, use no force for religion, give me leave to mind you
of the ingenuity of one of my pagans or Mahometans.

You tell us, That the usefulness of force to make
scholars learn, authorizes schoolmasters to use it. And
would you not think a schoolmaster discharged his duty
well, and had a great care of their learning, who used
his rod only to bring boys to school ; but if they come
there once a week, whether they slept or only minded
their play, never examined what proficiency they made,
or used the rod to make them study and learn, though
they would not apply themselves without it ?

But to show you how much you yourself are in earnest
for the salvation of souls in this your method, I shall
set down what I said, p. 129, of my letter on that sub-
ject, and what you answer, p. 68, of yours.

L. II. p. 129. " You speak of L. III. p. 68. Your

it here as the most deplorable next paragraph runs

condition imaginable, that ■ men high, and charges

should be left to themselves, and me with nothing less

not be forced to consider and ex- than prevarication,

amine the grounds of their reli- For whereas, as you

gion, and search impartially and tell me, I speak of

diligently after the truth/ This it here as the most

you make the great miscarriage deplorable condi-

of mankind: and for this you tion imaginable, that

seem solicitous, all through your men should be left

treatise, to find out a remedy; to themselves, and

and there is scarce a leaf wherein not be forced to con-

you do not offer yours. But what sider and examine

if, after all now, you should be the grounds of their

found to prevaricate?4 Men have religion, and search

contrived to themselves/ say you, impartially and di-

' a great variety of religions :' it ligentlv after the

granted. 'They seek not the truth, fee. It seems

A Third Letter for Toleration.

315

truth in this matter with that ap-
plication of mind and freedom of
judgment which is requisite :' it is
confessed. ' All the false religions
now on foot in the world have
taken their rise from the slight
and partial consideration, which
men have contented themselves
with, in searching after the true ;
and men take them up, and per-
sist in them, for want of due ex-
amination :' be it so. ' There is
need of a remedy for this; and I
have found one whose success
cannot be questioned :' very well.
What is it ? Let us hear it. ' Why,
dissenters must be punished.' Can
any body that hears you say so,
believe you in earnest; and that
want of examination is the thing
you would have amended, when
want of examination is not the
thing you would have punished?
If want of examination be the
fault, want of examination must
be punished; if you are, as you
pretend, fully satisfied that pu-
nishment is the proper and only
means to remedy it. But if, in
all your treatise, you can show
me one place where you say that
the ignorant, the careless, the
inconsiderate, the negligent in
examining thoroughly the truth
of their own and others' religion,
&c. are to be punished, I will
allow your remedy for a good
one. But you have not said any
thing like this ; and which is
more, I tell you beforehand, you
dare not say it. And whilst you

all the remedy I
offer is no more than
this : " Dissenters
must be punished."
Upon which thus
you insult : " Can
any body that hears
you say so, believe
you in earnest," &c.
Now here I acknow-
ledge, that though
want or neglect of
examination be a
general fault, yet
the method I pro-
pose for curing it
does not reach to
all that are guilty of
it, but is limited to
those who reject the
true religion, pro-
posed to them with
sufficient evidence.
But then, to let you
see how littleground
you have to say that
I prevaricate in this
matter, I shall only
desire you to consi-
der what it is that
the author and my-
self were inquiring
after: for it is not,
what course is to be
taken to confirm and
establish those in the
truth, who have al-
ready embraced it :
nor, how they may
be enabled to propa-
gate it to others (for

346 A Third Letter for Toleration,

do not, the world has reason to both which purposes

judge, that however want of ex- I have already ac-

amination be a general fault, knowledged it very

which you with great vehemency useful, and a thing

have exaggerated ; yet you use much to be desired,

it only for a pretence to punish that all such persons

dissenters; and either distrust should, as far as they

your remedy, that it will not are able, search into

cure this evil, or else care not to the grounds upon

have it generally cured. This evi- which their religion

dently appears from your whole stands, and chal-

management of the argument, lenges their belief);

And he that reads your treatise but the subject of

with attention, will be more con- our inquiry is only,

firmed in this opinion, when he what method is to

shall find that you, who are so be used, to bring

earnest to have men punished, men to the true reli-

to bring them to consider and gion. Now, if this

examine, that so they may dis- be the only thing

cover the way of salvation, have we were inquiring

not said one word of considering, after (as you cannot

searching, and hearkening to the deny it to be), then

Scripture ; which had been as every one sees that

good a rule for a Christian to in speaking to this

have sent them to, ' as to reasons point, I had nothing

and arguments proper to con- to do with any who

vince them' of you know not have already cm-

what ; 'as to the instruction and braced the true reli-

govcrnment of the proper mini- gion; because they

sters of religion/ which who they are not to be brought

are, men are yet far from being to that religion, but

agreed ; or ' as to the information only to be confirmed

of those who tell them they have and edified in it; but

mistaken their way, and offer to was only to consi-

show them the right; and to der how those who

the like uncertain and dangerous reject it may be

guides; which were not those brought to embrace

that our Saviour and the apostles it. So that how

sent men to, but to the Scrip- much soever any of

tares* 'Search the Scriptures, those who own the

for in them you think you have true religion may

A Third Letter for Toleration. 347

eternal life,' says our Saviour to be guilty of neglect

the unbelieving, persecuting of examination, it is

Jews, John v. 39. And it is the evident, I was only

Scriptures which, St. Paul says, concerned to show

' are able to make wise unto sal- how it may be cured

ration,' L2 Tim. iii. 15. in those who, by

" Talk no more therefore, if reason of it, reject
you have any care of your re- the true religion,
putation, how much ' it is every duly proposed or
man's interest not to be left to tendered to them,
himself, without molestation, And certainly to
without punishment in matters confine myself to
of religion.' Talk not of ' bring- this, is not to pre-
ing men to embrace the truth varicate, unless to
that must save them, by putting keep within the
them upon examination.' Talk bounds wThich the
no more ' of force and punish- question under de-
ment, as the only way left to bate prescribes me
bring men to examine.' It is be to prevaricate,
evident you mean nothing less : In telling me
for, though want of examination therefore that " I
be the only fault you complain dare not say that
of, and punishment be in your the ignorant, the
opinion the only way to bring careless, the incon-
men to it; and this the whole siderate, the negli-
design of your book ; yet you gent in examining,
have not once proposed in it, &c. (i. e. all that are
that those, who do not impar- such) are to be pu-
tially examine, should be forced nished," you only
to it. And that you may not tell me that I dare
think I talk at random, when I not be impertinent,
say you dare not; I will, if you And therefore I hope
please, give you some reasons you will excuse me,
for my saying so. if I take no notice

" First, Because, if you propose of the three reasons

that all should be punished, who you offer in your

are ignorant, who have not used next page for your

* such consideration as is apt and saying so. And yet

proper to manifest the truth ; if I had a mind to

but have been determined in the talk impertinently,

choice of their religion by im- I know not why I

348

A Third Letter for Toleration.

pressions of education, admira-
tion of persons, worldly respects,
prejudices, and the like incom-
petent motives ; and have taken
up their religion, without exa-
mining it as they ought ;' you
will propose to have several of
your own church, be it what it
will, punished ; which would be
a proposition too apt to offend
too many of it, for you to ven-
ture on. For whatever need
there be of reformation, every
one will not thank you for pro-
posing such an one as must be-
gin at, or at least reach to, the
house of God.

" Secondly, Because, if you
should propose that all those
who are ignorant, careless, and
negligent in examining, should
be punished, you would have
little to say in this question of
toleration : for if the laws of the
state were made, as they ought
to be, equal to all the subjects,
without distinction of men of
different professions in religion ;
and the faults to be amended by
punishments were impartially
punished in all who are guilty of
them ; this would immediately
produce a perfect toleration, or
show the uselessness of force in
matters of religion. If therefore
you think it so necessary, as you
say, for the ' promoting of true
religion, and the salvation of
souls, that nun should be pu-
nished to make them examine \
do but find a way to apply force

might not have
dared to do so, as
well as other men.

There is one
thing more in this
paragraph, which,
though nothing
more pertinent than
the rest, I shall not
wholly pass over. It
lies in these words :
"He that reads your
treatise with atten-
tion, will be more
confirmed in this
opinion." (viz. That
I use want of exa-
mination only for a
pretence to punish
dissenters, &c. )
" when he shall find
that you, who are
so earnest to have
men punished, to
bring them to con-
sider and examine,
that so they may
discover the way of
salvation, have not
said one word of
considering, search-
ing, and hearkening
to the Scripture ;
which had been as
good a rule for a
Christian to have
sent them to, as to
reasons and argu-
ments proper to con-
vince them of you
know not what/' &&

A Third Letter for Toleration. 349

to all that have not thoroughly How this confirms
and impartially examined, and that opinion, I do
you have my consent. For not see ; nor have
though force be not the proper ' you thought fit to
means of promoting religion, instruct me. But
yet there is no better way to as to the thing itself,
show the usefulness of it, than viz. " my not say-
the applying it equally to mis- ing one word of con-
carriages, in whomsoever found, sidering, searching,
and not to distinct parties or per- and hearkening to
suasions of men, for the reforma- the Scripture;" what-
tion of them alone, when others ever advantage a
are equally faulty, captious adversary
" Thirdly, Because, without may imagine he has
being for as large a toleration as in it, I hope it will
the author proposes, you cannot not seem strange to
be truly and sincerely for a free any indifferent and
and impartial examination. For judicious person,
whoever examines, must have who shall but con-
the liberty to judge, and follow sider that through-
his judgment; or else you put out my treatise I
him upon examination to no pur- speak of the true
pose. And whether that will religion only in ge-
not as well lead men from, as to neral, i. e. not as li-
your church, is so much a ven- mited to any parti-.
ture, that, by your way of writing, cular dispensation,
it is evident enough you are loth or to the times of
to hazard it ; and if you are of the Scriptures ; but
the national church, it is plain as reaching from the
your brethren will not bear with fall of Adam to the
you in the allowance of such a end of the world,
liberty. You must therefore ei- and so comprehend-
ther change your method ; and ing the times which
if the want of examination be preceded the Scrip-
that great and dangerous fault tures ; wherein yet
you would have corrected, you God left not himself
must equally punish all that are without witness, but
equally guilty of any neglect in furnished mankind
this matter ; and then take your with sufficient means
only means, your beloved force, of knowing him and

350 A Third Letter for Toleration.

and make the best of it; or else his will, in order to
you must put off your mask, their eternal salva-
and confess that you design not tion. For I appeal
your punishments to bring men to all men of art,
to examination, but to con- whether, speaking of
formity. For the fallacy you the true religion un-
have used is too gross to pass der this generality,
upon this age." I could be allowed

to descend to any
such rules of it, as belong only to some particular times,
or dispensations ; such as you cannot but acknowledge
the Old and New Testaments to be.

In this your answer, you say, " the subject of our
inquiry is only what method is to be used to bring
men to the true religion." He that reads what vou
say, again and again, " That the magistrate is em-
powered and obliged to procure, as much as in him lies,
i. e. as far as by penalties it can be procured, that
no man neglect his soul," and shall remember how
many pages you employ, A. p. 6, he. and here, p. 6,
&c. to show that it is the corruption of human nature
which hinders men from doing what they may and
ought for the salvation of their souls; and that there-
fore penalties, no other means being left, and force were
necessary to be used by the magistrate to remove these
great obstacles of lusts and corruptions, that " none
of his subjects might remain ignorant of the way of
salvation, or refuse to embrace it." One would think
" your inquiry had been after the means of curing
men's aversion to the true religion, (which," you tell
us, p. 53, " if not cured, is certainly destructive of
men's eternal salvation") that so they might heartily
embrace it for their salvation. But here you tell u^,
11 your inquiry is only what method is to be used to
bring men to the true religion:" whereby vou evi-
dently mean nothing hut outward conformity to that
which yon think the true chinch, as appears by the ne\!
following words: "Now if this he the only thine we
were inquiring after, then everyone sees that in speak-

A Third Letter for Toleration. 351

tag to this point I had nothing to do with any who
have already embraced the true religion." And also
every one sees that since amongst those with whom
(having already embraced the true religion) you and
your penalties have nothing to do ; there are those
who have not considered and examined matters of reli-
gion as they ought, whose lusts and corrupt natures keep
them as far alienated from believing, and as averse to a
real obeying the truth that must save them, as any other
men : it is manifest that embracing the true religion in
your sense is only embracing the outward profession of
it, which is nothing but outward conformity. And that
being the farthest you would have your penalties pursue
men, and there leave them with as much of their ig-
norance of the truth, and carelessness of their souls, as
they please : who can deny but that it would be imper-
tinent in you to consider how want of impartial exa-
mination, or aversion to the true religion, should in
them be cured ? Because they are none of those sub-
jects of the commonwealth, whose spiritual and eternal
interests are by political government to be procured or
advanced: none of those subjects whose salvation the
magistrate is to take care of.

And therefore I excuse you, as you desire, for not
taking notice of my three reasons ; but whether the
reader will do so or no, is more than I can undertake.
I hope you too wall excuse me for having used so harsh
a word as prevaricate, and impute it to my want of skill
in the English tongue. But when I find a man pretend
to a great concern for the salvation of men's souls, and
make it one of the great ends of civil government, that
the magistrate should make use of force to bring all his
subjects to consider, study and examine, believe and
embrace the truth that must save them ; when I shall
have to do with a man, who to this purpose hath writ
two books to find out and defend the proper remedies
for that general backwardness and aversion, which de-
praved human nature keeps men in, to an impartial
search after, and hearty embracing the true religion ;
and who talks of nothing less than obligations on sove-
reigns, both from their particular duty, as well as from

352 A Third Letter for Toleration.

common charity, to take care that none of their sub-
jects should want the assistance of this only means left
for their salvation ; nay, who has made it so necessary
to men's salvation, that he talks as if the wisdom and
goodness of God would be brought in question, if those
who needed it should be destitute of it ; and yet, not-
withstanding all this show of concern for men's salva-
tion, contrives the application of this sole remedy so,
that a great many who lie under the disease should be
out of the reach and benefit of his cure, and never have
this only remedy applied to them : when this I say is so
manifestly in his thoughts all the while, that he is forced
to confess, " that, though want or neglect of examina-
tion be a general fault, yet the method he proposes
for curing it does not reach to all that are guilty of
it ;" but frankly owns, that he was not concerned to
show how the neglect of examination might be cured
in those who conform, but only in those who by reason
of it reject the true religion duly proposed to them ;
which rejecting the true religion will require a man of
art to show to be here any thing but non-conformity to
the national religion : when, I say, I meet with a man
another time that does this, who is so much a man of
art, as to talk of all, and mean but some ; talk of hearty
embracing the true religion, and mean nothing but
conformity to the national : pretend one thing, and
mean another ; if you please to tell me what name I
shall give it, I shall not fail : for who knows how soon
again I may have an occasion for it?

If I would punish men for non-conformity without
owning of it, 1 could not use a better pretence than to
say it was to make them hearken to reasons and argu-
ments proper to convince them, or to make them sub-
mit to the instruction and government of the proper
ministers of religion, without any tiling else ; supposing
still at the bottom the arguments for, and the ministers
of my religion to be these, that till they outwardly com-
plied with, they were to be punished. Hut if, instead
of outward conformity to my religion, covered under
these indefinite terms, I should tell them, they were to
examine the Scripture, which was the fixed rule for

A Third Letter for 'Joleration. $5$

them and me ; not examining could not give me a
pretence to punish them, unless I would also punish
conformists, as ignorant and unversed in Scripture as
they, which would not do my business.

But what need I use arguments to show, that your
punishing to make men examine is designed only
against dissenters, when, in your answer to this very
paragraph of mine, you in plain words <c acknowledge,
that though want of examination be a general fault,
yet the method you propose for curing does not reach
to all that are guilty of it?" To which if you please
to add what you tell us, that when dissenters conform,
the magistrate cannot know, and therefore never exa-
mines whether they do it upon reason and conviction
or no ; though it be certain that, upon conforming,
penalties, the necessary means, cease, it will be obvious,
that, whatever be talked, conformity is all that is
aimed at, and that want of examination is but the
pretence to punish dissenters.

And this I told you any one must be convinced of,
who observes that you, who are so earnest to have
men punished to bring them to consider and examine,
that so they may discover the way of salvation, have
not said one word of considering, searching, and
hearkening to the Scripture, which, you were told, was
as good a rule for a Christian to have sent men to, as
to " the instruction and government of the proper
ministers of religion, or to the information of those
who tell them they have mistaken their way, and offer
to show them the right.5' For this passing by the
Scripture you give us this reason, that " throughout
your treatise you speak of the true religion only in
general, L e. not as limited to any particular dispensa-
tion, or to the times of the Scriptures, but as reaching
from the fall of Adam to the end of the world, &c.
And then you appeal to all men of art, whether speak-
ing of the true religion, under this generality, you
could be allowed to descend to any such rules of it as
belong only to some particular times or dispensations,
such as I cannot but acknowledge the Old and New
Testaments to be."

vol. vr. a A

3,54 A Third Letter for Toleration.

The author that you write against making it his
business, as nobody can doubt who reads but the first
page of his letter, to show that it is the duty of Chri-
stians to tolerate both Christians and others who differ
from them in religion ; it is pretty strange, in asserting
against him that the magistrate might and ought to use
force to bring men to the true religion, you should
mean any other magistrate than the Christian magi-
strate, or any other religion than the Christian religion.
But it seems you took so little notice of the design of
your adversary, which was to prove that Christians
were not to use force to bring any one to the Chri-
stian religion, that you would prove, that Christians
were now to use force, not only to bring men to the
Christian, but also to the Jewish religion ; or that of
the true church before the law, or to some true religion
so general that it is none of these. " For," say you,
"throughout your treatise you speak of the true religion
only in general ; i. e. not as limited to any particular
dispensation :" though one that were not a man of art
would suspect you to be of another mind yourself,
when you told us, the shutting out of the Jews from
the rights of the commonwealth " is a just and neces-
sary caution in a Christian commonwealth;" which
you say to justify your exception in the beginning of
your " argument,9' against the largeness of the author's
toleration, who would not have Jews excluded. But
speak of the true religion only in general as much as
you please, if your true religion be that by which men
must be saved, can you send a man to any better guide
to that true religion now than the Scripture ?

If, when you were in your altitudes, writing the first
book, your men of art could not allow you to descend
to any such rule as the Scripture, (though even there
you acknowledge the severities spoken against are such
ai are used to make men Christians) because there
(by an art proper to yourself) you were to speak of
true religion under a generality, which had nothing to
do witli the duty of Christians, in reference to tolera-
tion : yel when here, in your second hook, where you
condescend all along to speak of the Christian Rcli-

A Third Letter for Toleration. 355

gion, and tell us, " that the magistrates have authority
to make laws for promoting the Christian religion ;
and do by their laws design to contribute what in them
lies to make men good Christians ;" and complain of
toleration as the very bane of the life and spirit of
Christianity, &c. and have vouchsafed particularly to
mention the Gospel ; why here, having been called upon
for it, you could not send men to the Scriptures, and
tell them directly, that those they were to study dili-
gently, those they were impartially and carefully to
examine, to bring them to the true religion, and into
the way of salvation ; rather than talk to them, as you
do, of receiving instruction, and considering reasons
and arguments proper and sufficient to convince them ;
rather than propose, as you do all along, such objects
of examination and inquiry in general terms, as are as
hard to be found as the thing itself for which they are
to be examined: why, I say, you have here again
avoided sending men to examine the Scriptures, is just
matter of inquiry. And for this you must apply your-
self again to your men of art, to furnish you with some
other reason.

If you will but cast your eyes back to your next
page, you will there find that you build upon this, that
the subject of your and the author's inquiry " is only
what method is to be used to bring men to the true
religion." If this be so, your men of art, who cannot
allow you to descend to any such rule as the Scriptures,
because you speak of the true religion in general, i.e.
not as limited to any particular dispensation, or to the
times of the Scriptures, must allow, that you deserve to
be head of their college ; since you are so strict an
observer of their rules, that though your inquiry be,
" What method is to be used to bring men to the true
religion," now under the particular dispensation of the
Gospel, and under Scripture-times ; you think it an un-
pardonable fault to recede so far from your generality,
as to admit the study and examination of the Scripture
into your method; for fear, it is like, your method
would be too particular, if it would not now serve to
bring men to the true religion, who lived before the

a a 2

356 A Third Letter for Toleration.

flood. But had you had as good a memory, as is generally
thought needful to a man of art, it is believed you
would have spared this reason, for your being so back-
ward in putting men upon examination of the Scripture.
And any one, but a man of art, who shall read what
you tell us the magistrate's duty is ; and will but con-
sider how convenient it would be, that men should
receive no instruction but from the ministry, that you
there tell us the magistrate assists ; examine no argu-
ments, hear nothing of the Gospel, receive no other
sense of the Scripture but what the ministry proposes ;
(who if they had but the coactive power, you think
them as capable of as other men,) might assist them-
selves ; he, I say, who reflects but on these things,
may perhaps find a reason that may better satisfy the
ignorant and unlearned, who have not had the good
luck to arrive at being of the number of these men of
art, why you cannot descend to propose to men the
studying of the Scripture.

Let me for once suppose you in holy orders, (for we,
that are not of the adepti, may be allowed to be igno-
rant of the punctilios in writing observed by the men
of art) and let me then ask what art is this, whose rules
are of that authority, that one, who has received com-
mission from Heaven to preach the Gospel in season
and out of season for the salvation of souls, may not
allow himself to propose the reading, studying, exa-
mining of the Scripture, which has for at least these
sixteen hundred years contained the only true religion
in the world; for fear such a proposal should offend
against the rules of this art, by being too particular,
and confined to the Gospel-dispensation ; and therefore
could not pass muster, nor find admittance, in a trea-
tise wherein the author professes it his only business to
" inquire what method is to be used to bring men to
the true religion?" Do you expect any other dispensa-
tion, that you are so afraid of being too particular,
if you should mmqnd the use and study of the

Scripture, to bring men to the true religion now in the
times of the Gospel? Why might you not as well send
them to the Scriptures, as to the ministers and teachers

A Third Letter for Toleration. 857

of the true religion? Have those ministers any other
religion to teach than what is contained in the Scrip-
tures? But perhaps you do this out of kindness and
care, because possibly the Scriptures could not be
found ; but who were the ministers of the true religion,
men could not possibly miss. Indeed, you have allowed
yourself to descend to what belongs only to some par-
ticular times and dispensations, for their sake, when
you speak of the ministers of the Gospel. But whether
it be as fully agreed on amongst Christians, who are
the ministers of the Gospel that men must hearken to,
and be guided by; as which are the writings of the
apostles and evangelists, that, if studied, will instruct
them in the way to heaven ; is more than you or your
men of art can be positive in . Where are the canons of
this over-ruling art to be found, to which you pay such
reverence? May a man of no distinguishing character
be admitted to the privilege of them ? For I see it may
be of notable use at a dead-lift, and bring a man off
with flying colours, when truth and reason can do him
but little service. The strong guard you have in the
powers you write for, and when you have engaged a
little too far, the safe retreat you have always at hand
in an appeal to these men of art, made me almost at a
stand, whether I were not best make a truce with one
who had such auxiliaries. A friend of mine, finding
me talk thus, replied briskly, it is a matter of religion,
which requires not men of art; and the assistance of
such art as savours so little of the simplicity of the
Gospel, both shows and makes the cause the weaker.
And so I went on to your two next paragraphs.

In them, to vindicate a pretty strange argument for
the magistrate's use of force, you think it convenient
to repeat it out of your A. p. 26 ; and so, in compliance
with you, shall I do here again. There you tell us,
" The power you ascribe to the magistrate is given
him to bring men, not to his own, but to the true
religion : and though, (as our author puts us in mind)
the religion of every prince is orthodox to himself; yet
if this power keep within its bounds, it can serve the

3.58 A Third Letter for Toleration,

interest of no other religion but the true, among
such as have any concern for their eternal salvation;
(and those that have none, deserve not to be con-
sidered) because the penalties it enables him that has
it to inflict, are not such as may tempt such persons
either to renounce a religion which they believe to be
true, or to profess one which they do not believe to be
so ; but only such as are apt to put them upon a serious
and impartial examination of the controversy between
the magistrate and them, which is the way for them to
come to the knowledge of the truth. And if, upon
such examination of the matter, they chance to find
that the truth does not lie on the magistrate's side,
they have gained thus much however, even by the
magistrate's misapplying his power ; that they know
better than they did before where the truth doth lie;
and all the hurt that comes to them by it, is only the
suffering some tolerable inconveniencies for their fol-
lowing the light of their own reason, and the dictates
of their own consciences ; which certainly is no such
mischief to mankind as to make it more eligible that
there should be no such power vested in the magistrate,
but the care of every man's soul should be left to him-
self alone, (as this author demands it.)"

To this I tell you, " That here, out of abundant
kindness, when dissenters have their heads, without
any cause, broken, you provide them a plaster." For,
say you, " if upon such examination of the matter,
(#. e. brought to it by the magistrate's punishment)
they chance to find that the truth doth not lie on the
magistrate's side, they have gained thus much however,
even by the magistrate's misapplying his power, that
they know better than they did before where the truth
docs lie. Which is as true as if you should say : Upon

inclination I find such an one is out of the way to
York, therefore I know better than I did before that I
am in tin; right. For neither of you may be in the
right. This were true indeed, if there were but two
ways in all, a right and a wrong." To this you reply
here : "That whoever shall consider the penalties, will,

A Third Letter Jvr Toleration. 359

you persuade yourself, find no heads broken, and so
but little need of a plaster. The penalties, as you
say, are to be such as will not tempt such as have any
concern for their eternal salvation either to renounce
a religion which they believe to be true, or profess
one which they believe not to be so; but only such as,
being weighed in gold scales, are just enough, or, as
you express it, are apt to put them upon a serious and
impartial examination of the controversy between the
magistrate and them." If you had been pleased to
have told us what penalties those were, we might have
been able to guess whether there would have been
broken heads or no : but since you have not vouch-
safed to do it, and, if I mistake not, will again appeal
to your men of art for another dispensation, rather
than ever do it ; I fear nobody can be sure these pe-
nalties will not reach to something worse than a broken
head : especially if the magistrate shall observe that
you impute the rise and growth of false religions
(which it is the magistrate's duty to hinder) to the
pravity of human nature, unbridled by authority ;
which by what follows he may have reason to think
is to use force sufficient to counterbalance the folly,
perverseness, and wickedness of men : and whether
then he may not lay on penalties sufficient, if not to
break men's heads, yet to ruin them in their estates
and liberties, will be more than you can undertake.
And since you acknowledge here, that the magistrate
may err so far in the use of this his power, as to mis-
take the persons that he lays his penalties on ; will
you be security that he shall not also mistake in the
proportion of them, and not lay on such as men would
willingly exchange for a broken head ? All the assur-
ance you give us of this is, " If this power keep within
its bounds, i. e. as you here explain it, If the penal-
ties the magistrate makes use of to promote a false
religion, do not exceed the measure of those which he
may warrantably use for the promoting the true."
The magistrate may, notwithstanding any thing you
have said, or can say, use any sort of penalties, any
degree of punishment ; you having neither showed the

360 A Third Letter fur Toleration.

measure of them, nor will be ever able to show the
utmost measure, which may not be exceeded, if any
may be used.

But what is this I find here ? " If the penalties the
magistrate make use of to promote a false religion"
Is it possible that the magistrate can make use of
penalties to promote a false religion ; of whom you told
us, but three pages back, " That may always be said of
him, (what St. Paul said of himself) that he can do
nothing against the truth, but for the truth?" By
that one would have thought you had undertaken to
us, that the magistrate could no more use force to pro-
mote a false religion, than St. Paul could preach to
promote a false religion. If you say, the magistrate
has no commission to promote a false religion, and
therefore it may always be said of him what Saint
Paul said of himself, &c. I say, no minister was ever
commissioned to preach falsehood ; and therefore it
may always be said of every minister, (what St. Paul
said of himself) that he can do nothing against the
truth, but for the truth :" wrhereby we shall very com-
modiously have an infallible guide in every parish, as
well as one in every commonwealth. But if you thus
use Scripture, I imagine you will have reason to appeal
again to your men of art, whether, though you may
not be allowed to recommend to others the examina-
tion and use of Scripture, to find the true religion, yet
you yourself may not use the Scripture to what purpose,
and in what sense you please, for the defence of your
cause.

To the remainder of what I said in that paragraph,
your answer is nothing but an exception to an in-
ference I made. The argument you were upon, was
to justify the magistrate's inflicting penalties to bring
men to a Fake religion, by the gain those that suffered
them would receive.

Their gain was this : "That they would know better
than they did before where (he truth does lie." To
which I replied, " Which is as true, as if you should
say, upon oxaminaticftl I liml such an one is out of
the way to York ; then fore J know better than I did

A Third Letter for Toleration. 361

before, that I am in the right." This consequence
von find fault with, and say it should be thus : " There-
fore I know better than I did before, where the right
way lies." This, you tell me, " would have been
true ; which was not for my purpose." These con-
sequences, one or the other, are much-what alike true.
For he that of an hundred ways, amongst which there
is but one right, shuts out one that he discovers cer-
tainlv to be wron^, knows as much better than he did
before, that he is in the right, as he knows better than
before, where the right way lies. For before it was
ninety-nine to one that he was not in the right ; and
now he knows it is but ninety-eight to one that he is
not in the right ; and therefore knows so much better
than before, that he is in the right, just as much as he
knows better than he did before, where the right way
lies. For let him, upon your supposition, proceed on ;
and every day, upon examination of a controversy with
some one in one of the remaining ways, discover him
to be in the wrong ; he will every day know better than
he did before, equally, where the right way lies, and
that he is in it ; till at last he will come to discover the
right way itself, and himself in it. And therefore your
inference, whatever you think, is as much as the other
for my purpose ; which was to show what a notable
gain a man made, in the variety of false opinions and
religions in the world, by discovering that the magi-
strate had not the truth on his side; and what thanks he
owed the magistrate, for inflicting penalties upon him
so much for his improvement, and for affording him
so much knowledge at so cheap a rate. And should
not a man have reason to boast of his purchase, if he
should by penalties be driven to hear and examine all
the arguments that can be proposed by those in powrer
for all their foolish and false religions? And yet this
gain is what you propose as a justification of magistrates'
inflicting penalties for promoting their false religions.
And an " impartial examination of the controversy be-
tween them and the magistrate, you tell us here, is
the way for such as have any concern for their eternal
salvation to come to the knowledge of the truth."

362 A Third Letter for Toleration.

To my saying, * He that is punished may have exa-
mined before, and then I am sure he gains nothing :"
you reply, " But neither does he lose much, if it be
true, which you there add, that all the hurt that be-
falls him is only the suffering some tolerable incon-
venience for his following the light of his own reason,
and the dictates of his conscience." So it is, there-
fore, you would have a man rewarded for being an
honest man (for so is he who follows the light of his
own reason, and the dictates of his conscience), only
with the suffering some tolerable inconveniencies. And
yet those tolerable inconveniencies are such as are to
counterbalance men's lusts, and the corruption of de-
praved nature, which you know any slight penalty
is sufficient to master. But that the magistrate's
discipline shall stop at those your tolerable incon-
veniencies, is what you are loth to be guarantee for :
for all the security you dare give of it is, " If it be
true which you there add." But if it should be other-
wise, the hurt may be more I see than you are willing
to answer.

L.ILp.l33."How- L. III. p. 71. As to what
ever, you think you you say here of the nature of
do well to encourage my discourse, I shall only put
the magistrate in pu- you in mind that the question
nishing, and comfort there debated is, Whether the
the man who has magistrate has any right or au-
sufferecl unjustly by thority to use force for the pro-
showing what he shall moting the true religion ; which
gain by it. Whereas, plainly supposes the unlawful-
on the contrary, in ness and injustice of using force
a discourse of this to promote a false religion, as
nature, where the granted on both sides. So that
bounds of right and I could no way be obliged to
wrong are inquired take notice of it in my dis-
into, and should be course, but only as occasion
established, the ma- should be offered,
gistrate was to be And whether I have not
showed the bounds showed the bounds of the 111a-
of his authority, and gistrate'a authority, as far as I

A Third Letter for 'Toleration. 363

warned of the injury was any way obliged to do it,
lie did when he mis- let any indifferent person judge,
applied his power, and But to talk here of a " sort of
punished any man people who are very wary of
who deserved it not ; touching upon the magistrate's
and not be soothed duty, and tender of showing
into injustice, by con- the bounds of his power,"
sideration of gain that where I tell the magistrate that
might thence accrue the power I ascribe to him, in
to the sufferer. ' Shall reference to religion, is given
we do evil, that good him to bring men, " not to his
may come of it?' own, but to the true religion ;**
There are a sort of and that he misapplies it, when
people who are very he endeavours to promote a
wary of touching false religion by it, is, methinks,
upon the magistrate's at least a little unseasonable,
duty, and tender of Nor am I any more con-
showing the bounds cerned in what you say of the
of his power, and the magistrate's misapplying his
injustice and ill con- power in favour of a party,
sequences' of his mis- For as you have not yet proved
applying it ; at least, that his applying his power to
so long as it is mis- the promoting the true reli-
applied in favour of gion (which is all that I con-
them, and their party, tend for) is misapplying it;
I know not whether so much less can you prove it
you are of their num- to be misapplying it in favour
ber: but this I am of a party,
sure, you have the But that " I encourage the
misfortune here to fall magistrate in punishing men
into their mistake, to bring them to a false re-
The magistrate, you ligion, (for that is the punishing
confess, may in this we here speak of) and soothe
case misapplyhispow- him into injustice, by showing
er; and instead of re- what those who suffer unjustly
presenting to him the shall gain by it," when in the
injustice of it, and very same breath I tell him
the account he must that by so punishing he mis-
give to his Sovereign applies his power, is a discovery
one day of this great which I believe none but your-
trust put into his self could have made. When

364

A Third Letter for Toleration.

I say that the magistrate mis-
applies his power by so punish-
ing, I suppose all other men
understand me to say, that he
sins in doing it, and lays him-
self open to divine vengeance
by it. And can he be en-
couraged to this, by hearing
what others may gain by what
(without repentance) must cost
him so dear?

hands, for the equal
protection of all his
subjects; you pretend
advantages which the
sufferer may receive
from it ; and so, in-
stead of disheartening
from you, give en-
couragement, to the
mischief: which, up-
on your principle,
joined to the natural
thirst in man after
arbitrary power, may
be carried to all man-
ner of exorbitancy,
with some pretence
of right."

Here your men of art will do well to be at hand again.
For it may be seasonable for you to appeal to them,
whether the nature of your discourse will allow you to
descend to show " the magistrate the bounds of his
authority, and warn him of the injury he does, if he
misapplies his power."

You say, " the question there debated is, whether
the magistrate has any right or authority to use force
for promoting the true religion ; which plainly sup-
poses the unlawfulness and injustice of using force to
promote a false religion, as granted on both sides."
Neither is that the question in debate; nor, if it were,
does it suppose what you pretend. But the question
in debate is, as you put it, Whether any body has a
right to use force in matters of religion ? You say, in-
deed, "The magistrate has, to bring men to the true
religion." If, thereupon, you think the magistrate
has none to bring men to a fuse religion, whatever
your men of art may think, it is probable other men
would not have thought it to have been beside the na-
ture of your discourse, to have warned the magistrate,
that he should consider well, and impartially examine

A Third Letter for Toleration, 3G5

the grounds of his religion, before he use any force to
bring men to it. This is of such moment to men's
temporal and eternal interests, that it might well de-
serve some particular caution addressed to the magi-
strate, who might as much need to be put in mind of
impartial examination as other people : and it might,
whatever your men of art may allow, be justly expected
from you, who think it no deviation from the rules
of art to tell the subjects that they must submit to the
penalties laid on them, or else fall under the sword of
the magistrate ; which, how true soever, will hardly by
any body be found to be much more to your purpose
in this discourse, than it would have been to have told
the magistrate of what ill consequence it would be to
him and his people, if he misused his power, and warned
him to be cautious in the use of it. But not a word
that way, Nay, even where you mention the account
he shall give for so doing, it is still to satisfy the sub-
jects that they are well provided for, and not left un-
furnished of the means of salvation, by the right God
has put into the magistrate's hand to use his power to
bring them to the true religion ; and therefore they
ought to be well content ; because, if the magistrate
misapply it, the Great Judge will punish him for it.
Look, sir, and see whether what you say, any where,
of the magistrate's misuse of his power, have any other
tendency : and then I appeal to the sober reader, whe-
ther, if you had been as much concerned for the bound-
ing, as for the exercise of force in the magistrate's
hands, you would not have spoke of it after another
manner.

The next thing you say is, " that the question (being
whether the magistrate has any right to use force to
bring men to the true religion,) supposes the unlaw-
fulness of using force to promote a false religion as
granted on both sides ;" which is so far from true,
that I suppose quite the contrary, viz. That if the ma-
gistrate has a right to use force to promote the true, he
must have a right to use force to promote his own re-
ligion ; and that for reasons I have given you elsewhere.
But the supposition of a supposition serves to excuse

366 A Third Letter for Toleration.

you from speaking any thing directly of setting bounds
to the magistrate's power, or telling him his duty in
that point; though you are very frequent in mention-
ing the obligation he is under, that men should not
want the assistance of his force, and how answerable
he is if any body miscarry for want of it ; though there
be not the least whisper of any care to be taken, that
nobody be misled by it. And now I recollect myself,
I think your method would not allow it : for if you
should have put the magistrate upon examining, it
would have supposed him as liable to error as other
men ; whereas, to secure the magistrate's acting right,
upon your foundation of never using force but for the
true religion, I see no help for it, but either he or you
(who are to license him) must be got past the state of
examination into that of certain knowledge and in-
fallibility.

Indeed, as you say, " you tell the magistrate that the
power you ascribe to him in reference to religion, is
given him to bring men not to his own, but to the true
religion." But do you put him upon a severe and
impartial examination which, amongst the many false,
is the only true religion he must use force to bring his
subjects to ; that he may not mistake and misapply his
power in a business of that consequence ? Not a syl-
lable of this. Do you then tell him which it is he
must take, without examination, and promote with
force ; whether that of England, France, or Denmark ?
This, methinks, is as much as the pope, writh all his
infallibility, could require of princes. And yet what
is it less than this you do, when you suppose the reli-
gion of the church of England to be the only true ;
and, upon this your supposition, tell the magistrate it is
his duty, by force, to bring men to it, without ever
putting him upon examining, or suffering him or any
body else to question, whether it be the only true reli-
gion or no? For if you will stick to what you in an-
other place say: " That it is enough to suppose that
there IS one true religion, and but one, and that that
religion may be known by those who profess it ;"
what authority will this knowabk-ncss of the true reli-

A Third Letter for Toleration. 367

gioB give to the king of England, more than to the
king of France, to use force, if he does not actually
know the religion he professes to be the true ; or to
the magistrate more than the subject, if he has not ex-
amined the grounds of his religion? But if he believes
you when you tell him your religion is the true, all is
well ; he has authority enough to use force, and he need
not examine any farther. If this were not the case,
why you should not be careful to prepare a little advice
to make the magistrate examine, as well as you are so-
licitous to provide force to make the subject examine,
will require the skill of a man of art to discover.

Whether you are not of the number of those men I
there mentioned (for that there have been such men in
the world instances might be given), one may doubt
from your principles. For if, upon a supposition that
yours is the true religion, you can give authority to the
magistrate to inflict penalties on all his subjects that
dissent from the communion of the national church,
without examining whether theirs, too, may not be that
only true religion which is necessary to salvation ; is not
this to demand, that the magistrate's power should be
applied only in favour of a party ? And can any one
avoid being confirmed in this suspicion, when he reads
that broad insinuation of yours, p. 34, as if our magi-
strates were not concerned for truth or piety, because
they granted a relaxation of those penalties which you
would have employed in favour of your party? for so
it must be called, and not the church of God, exclu-
sive of others, unless you will say men cannot be saved
out of the communion of your particular church, let
it be national where you please.

You do not, you say, encourage the magistrate to
misapply his power; because "in the very same breath
you tell him he misapplies his power.,, I answer,
let all men understand you, as much as you please, to
say that he sins in doing it $ that will not excuse you
from encouraging him there, unless it be impossible that
a man may be encouraged to sin. If your telling the
magistrate that his subjects gain by his misapplying of
force, be not an encouragement to him to misapply it,

368 A Third Letter fur Toleration.

the doing good to others must cease to be an encou-
ragement to any action. And whether it be not a great
encouragement in this case to the magistrate to go on
in the use of force, without impartially examining whe-
ther his or his subjects' be the true religion, — when he
is told that, be his religion true or false, his subjects,
who suffer, will be sure to be gainers by it, — let any one
judge. For the encouragement is not, as you put it,
to the magistrate to use force to bring men to what he
thinks a false religion ; but it is an encouragement to
the magistrate, who presumes his to be the true reli-
gion, to punish his dissenting subjects, without due and
impartial examination on which side the truth lies. For
having never told the magistrate, that neglect of exa-
mination is a sin in him, if you should tell him a thou-
sand times, that he who uses his power to bring men
to a false religion misapplies it, he would not under-
stand by it that he sinned, whilst he thought his the
true; and so it would be no restraint to the misapply-
ing his power.

And thus we have some prospect of this admirable
machine you have set up for the salvation of souls.

The magistrate is to use force to bring men to the
true religion. But what if he misapplies it to bring
men to a false religion? It is well still for his subjects :
they are gainers by it. But this may encourage him to
a misapplication of it. No; you tell him that he that
uses it to bring men to a false religion, misapplies it ;
and, therefore, lie cannot but understand that you say
" he sins, and lays himself open to divine vengeance. "
No; he believes himself in the right; and thinks as St.
Paul, whilst a persecutor, that he does God good ser-
vice. And you assure him here, he makes his suffer-
ing subjects gainers ; and so lie goes on as comfortably
.!. Paul did. Is there no remedy for this? Yes, a
very ready one, and that is, that the " one only true
religion may be known by those who profess it to be
the only true religion. "

To which, if we add how you moderate as well
direct the magistrate's hand in punishing, by making
the last regulation of your convenient penalties to lie

A Third Lfflhr for Toleration. 369

in the prudence and experience of magistrates them-
selves, we shall find the advantages of your method.
Tor are not your necessary means of salvation, which
lie in moderate penalties used to bring men to the true
religion, brought to a happy state ; when that which
is to guide the magistrate in the knowledge of the true
religion is, that " the true religion may be known by
those who profess it to be the only true religion y
and the convenient penalties, to be used for the pro-
moting of it, are such as the magistrate shall in his
prudence think fit ; and that, whether the magistrate
applies it right or wrong, the subject will be a gainer
by it? If in either of your discourses you have given
the magistrate any better direction than this to know the
true religion by, which he is by force to promote ; or
any other intelligible measure to moderate his penalties
by; or any other caution to restrain the misuse of his
power; I desire you to show it me: and then I shall
think I have reason to believe, that in this debate you
have had more care of the true religion, and the salva-
tion of souls, than to encourage the magistrate to use
the power he has, by your direction, and without exa-
mination, and to what degree he shall think fit, in fa-
vour of a party. For the matter thus stated, if I mis-
take not, will serve any magistrate to use any degree of
force against any that dissent from his national religion.
Having recommended to the subjects the magistrate's
persecution by a show of gain, which will accrue to
them by it, you do well to bring in the example of
Julian, who, whatever he did to the Christians, would,
no more than you, own that it was persecution, but for
their advantage in the other world. But whether his
pretending gain to them, upon grounds which he did
not believe ; or your pretending gain to them, which
nobody can believe to be one ; be a greater mockery,
you were best look. This seems reasonable, that his
talk of philanthropy, and yours of moderation, should
be bound up together. For till you speak and tell
them plainly what they may trust to, the advantage the
persecuted are to receive from your clemency may, I

VOL. VI. BB

370 A Third Letter for Toleration.

imagine, make a second part to what the Christians of
that age received from his. But you are solicitous for
the salvation of souls, and dissenters shall find the
benefit of it.

CHAPTER IX.

Of the Usefulness of Force in Matters of Religion.

You having granted that in all pleas for any thing,
because of its usefulness, it is not enough to say that
it may be serviceable ; but it must be considered,
not only what it may, but what it is likely to produce ;
and the greater good or harm likely to come from it
ought to determine the use of it ; I think there need
nothing more to be said to show the uselessness of force
in the magistrate's hands for promoting the true reli-
gion, after it has been proved that, if any, then all
magistrates, who believe their religion to be true, are
under an obligation to use it. But since the usefulness
and necessity of force is the main foundation on which
you build your hypothesis, we will in the two remain-
ing chapters examine particularly what you say for
them.

To the author's saying, "That truth seldom hath
received, and he fears never will receive, much assist-
ance from the power of great men, to whom she is
but rarely known, and more rarely welcome ;" you
answer, "And yet God himself foretold and promised
that kings should be nursing fathers, and queens
nursing mothers to his church." It" we may judge
oft his prophecy by what is past or present, we shall have
reason to think it concerns not our days ; or it' it does,
that God intended not t hat the church should have many
Mieh nursing fathers and nursing mothers, that were to
nurse them up with moderate penalties, if those were

A Third Letter for Toleration. 37 1

to be the swaddling-clouts of this nursery. Perhaps*
if you read that chapter, you will think you have little
reason to build much on this promise, till the restoring
of Israel: and when you see the Gentiles bring thy,
(#• e. as the style of the chapter seems to import the
sons of the Israelites) " sons in their arms, and thy
daughters be carried upon their shoulders," as is
promised in the immediately preceding words ; you
may conclude that then "kings shall be thy (i. e.
Israel's) nursing fathers, and queens thy nursing
mothers." This seems to me to be the time designed
by that prophecy ; and I guess to a great many others,
upon an attentive reading that chapter in Isaiah. And
to all such this text will do you little service, till you
make out the meaning of it better than by barely
quoting of it ; which will scarce ever prove, that God
hath promised that so many princes shall be friends to
the true religion, that it will be better for the true
religion, that princes should use force for the imposing
or propagating of their religions, than not. For unless
it prove that, it answers not the author's argument ; as
an indifferent reader must needs see. For he says not
* truth never, but she seldom hath received, and he
fears never will receive (not any, but) much assistance
from the power of great men, to whom she is but
rarely known, and more rarely zvelco?ne." And there-
fore to this of Isaiah pray join that of St. Paul,
1 Cor. i. 26, "Not many wise, not many mighty, not
many noble."

But supposing many kings were to be nursing fathers
to the church, and that this prophecy were to be ful-
filled in this age, and the church were now to be their
nursery ; it is I think more proper to understand this
figurative promise, that their pains and discipline were
to be employed on those in the church, and that they
should feed #nd cherish them, rather than that these
words meant that they should whip those that were out
of it. And therefore this text will, I suppose, upon a
just consideration of it, signify very little against the
known matter of fact which the author urges 5 unless
you can find a country where the cudgel and the scourge

b b 2

373 A Third Letter for Toleration.

are more the badges and instruments of a good nurse
than the breast and the bib ; and that she is counted a
good nurse of her own child, who busies herself in whip-
ping children not hers, nor belonging to her nursery.

" The fruits which give you no enco ragement to
hope for any advantage from the author's toleration,
which almost all but the church of England enjoyed
in the times of the blessed reformation, as it was
called, you tell us, were sects and heresies." Here
your zeal hangs a little in your light. It is not the
author's toleration which here you accuse. That, you
know, is universal : and the universality of it is that
which a little before you wondered at, and complained
of. Had it been the author's toleration, it could not
have been almost all but the church of England ; but it
had been the church of England and all others. But
let us take it, that sects and heresies were, or will be
the fruits of a free toleration ; ?. e. men are divided in
their opinions and ways of worship. Differences in
ways of worship, wherein there is nothing mixed
inconsistent with the true religion, will not hinder men
from salvation, who sincerely follow the best light they
have ; which they are as likely to do under toleration as
force. And as for difference of opinions, speculative
opinions in religion ; I think I may safely say, that
there arc scarce any where three considering men, (for
it is want of consideration you would punish) who are
in their opinions throughout of the same mind. Thus
far then, if charity be preserved, (which it is likelier
to be where there is toleration than where there is
persecution) though without uniformity, I see no great
reason to complain of those ill fruits of toleration.

But men will run, as they did in the late times,
into " dangerous and destructive errors, and extrava-
gant ways of worship." As to errors in opinion, it"
men upon toleration pe SO apt to vary in opinions, and
run so wide one from another, it is evident they are
not so averse to thinking as yon complain. For it is
hard for nun, not under force, to quit one opinion and
embrace another, without thinking of them. , Bui if
there be danger of that, it is most likely the national

A Third Letter for Toleration. 373

religion should sweep and draw to itself the loose and
unthinking part of men, who without thought, as well
as without any contest with their corrupt nature, may
embrace the profession of the countenanced religion,
and join in outward communion with the great and
ruling men of the nation. For he that troubles not
his head at all about religion, what other can so well
suit him as the national, with which the cry and pre-
ferments go ; and where, it being, as you say, pre-
sumable that he makes that his profession upon con-
viction, and that he is in earnest ; he is sure to be
orthodox without the pains of examining, and has the
law and government on his side to make it good that
he is in the right ?

But seducers, if they be tolerated, will be ready at
hand, and diligent ; and men will hearken to them.
Seducers have surely no force on their side, to make
people hearken. And if this be so, there is a remedy
at hand, better than force, if you and your friends will
use it, which cannot but prevail ; and that is, let the
ministers of truth be as diligent > and they bringing
truth with them, truth obvious and easy to be under-
stood, as you say what is necessary to salvation is,
cannot but prevail.

• But seducers are hearkened to, because they teach
opinions favourable to men's lusts. Let the magistrate,
as is his duty, hinder the practices which their lusts
would carry them to, and the advantage will be still on
the side of truth.

After all, sir, if, as the apostle tells the Corinthians,
1 Cor. xi. 19, "There must be heresies amongst you,
that they which are approved may be made manifest ;"
which, I beseech you, is best for the salvation of men's
souls ; that they should inquire, hear, examine, consider,
and then have the liberty to profess what they are per-
suaded of; or that, having considered, they should be
forced not to own nor follow their persuasions ; or else
that, being of the national religion, they should go
ignorantly on without any consideration at all ? In one
case, if your penalties prevail, men are forced to act
contrary to their con. jS, which is not the way to

374 A Third Letter for Toleration.

salvation ; and if the penalties prevail not, you have
the same fruits, sects, and heresies, as under toleration :
in the other, it is true, those ignorant, loose, unthink-
ing conformists do not break company with those who
embrace the truth that will save them ; but I fear can
no more be said to have any share in it, than those who
openly dissent from it. For it is not being in the
company, but having on the wedding-garment, that
keeps men from being bound hand and foot, and cast
into the dreadful and eternal prison.

You tell us, " Force has a proper efficacy to procure
the enlightening of the understanding, and the pro-
duction of belief," viz. by making men consider.
But your ascribing men's aversion to examine matters
of religion to the corruption of their nature ; force, your
way applied, (i. e. so that men avoid the penalties by
an outward conformity) cannot have any proper efficacy
to procure consideration ; since men may outwardly
conform, and retain their corruption and aversion to
consideration ; and upon this account force, your way
applied, is absolutely impertinent.

But further ; if force has such a proper efficacy to
procure the production of belief, it will do more harm
than good, employed by any but orthodox magistrates.
But how to put it only into orthodox hands is the diffi*
culty. For I think I have proved, that if orthodox
magistrates may, and ought to use force, for the pro-
moting their religion, all that think themselves or-
thodox are obliged to use it too. And this may sen :.
for an answer to all that you have said, p. 16.

I having said, " Whatever indirect efficacy there bj
in force applied by the magistrate your way, it
makes against you ; force used by the magistrate to
bring men to consider those reasons and arguments
which arc proper and sufficient to convince them,
but which, without being forced, they would not
consider ; may, say you, be serviceable indirectly and
at a distance to make men embrace the truth which
must save them. And thus, say I, it may be ser-
viceable to bring men to receive ami embrace
falsehood, which will destroy them." To this you,

A Third Letter for Toleration. 375

with great triumph, reply, — " How, sir, may force be
used by the magistrate, to bring men to consider those
reasons and arguments which are proper and sufficient
to convince them, be serviceable to bring men to em-
brace falsehood, such falsehood as will destroy them ?
It seems then there are reasons and arguments which
are proper and sufficient to convince men of the truth
of falsehood, which will destroy. Which is certainly
a very extraordinary discovery, though such as no
man can have any reason to thank you for."

In the first place, let me ask you, Where did you
find, or from what words of mine do you infer that
notable proposition, "That there are reasons and
arguments proper and sufficient to convince men of
the truth of falsehood ?" If a magistrate of the true
religion may use force to make men consider reasons
and arguments proper to convince men of the truth of
his religion, may not a prince of a false religion use
force to make men consider reasons and arguments
proper and sufficient to convince them of what he be-
lieves to be true ? And may not force thus be service-
able to bring men to receive and embrace falsehood ?

In the next place, did you, who argue with so much
school-subtilty, as if you drank it in at the very foun-
tain, never hear of such an ill way of arguing as " a
conjunctis ad divisa?" There are no arguments pro-
per and sufficient to bring a man into the belief of
what is in itself false, whilst he knows or believes it
to be false ; therefore there are no arguments proper
and sufficient to bring a man into the belief of what is
in itself false, which he neither knows nor believes to
be so. A senior sophister would be laughed at for
such logic. And yet this is all you say in that sen-
tence you erect for a trophy, " to convince men of
the truth of falsehood f* which though not my words,
but such as you in your way supply from what I said,
you are exceedingly pleased with, and think their very
repeating a triumph. But though there are no argu-
ments proper and sufficient to convince men of the
truth of falsehood, as falsehood ; yet I hope you will
allow that there are arguments proper and sufficient to

37G A Third Letter for Toleration.

make men receive falsehoods for truths; why else do you
complain of seducers ? And those who embrace false-
hoods for truths, do it under the appearance of truth,
misled by those arguments which make it appear so,
and so convince them. And that magistrates, who take
their religion to be true, though it be not so, may with
force use such arguments, you will, I think, grant.

But you talk as if nobody could have arguments
proper and sufficient to convince another, but he that
was of your way, or your church. This indeed is a
new and very extraordinary discovery, and such as your
brethren, if you can convince them of it, will have
reason to thank you for. For if any one was ever by
arguments and reasons brought off, or seduced from
your church, to be a dissenter ; there were then, I
think, reasons and arguments proper and sufficient to
convince him. I will not name to you again Mr.
Reynolds, because you have charity enough to question
his sincerity. Though his leaving his country, friends,
and acquaintance, may be presumed as great a mark of
his being convinced and in earnest, as it is for one to
write for a national religion in a country where it is
uppermost. I will not yet deny, but that, in you, it
may be pure zeal for the true religion, which you
would have assisted with the magistrate's force. And
since you seem so much concerned for your sincerity in
the argument, it must be granted you deserve the
character of a well-meaning man, who own your
sincerity in a way so little advantageous to your
judgment.

But if Mr. Reynolds, in your opinion, was misled by
corrupt ends, or secular interest ; what do you think
of a prince [James II.] now living? Will you doubt
his sincerity? or that he was convinced of the truth
of th" religion he professed, who ventured three crowns
for it? What do you think of Mr. Chillingworth,
when he left the church of England for the Romish
profession ? Did he doit without being convinced that
that was right? Or w:is he convinced with reasons
and arguments, not proper or sufficient to convince
him ?

A Third Letter for Toleration. 377

But certainly this could not be true, because, as you
say5, p. c25, the Scripture does not teach any thing of it.
Or perhaps those that leave your communion do it al-
ways without being convinced, and only think they are
convinced when they are not ; or are convinced with
arguments not proper and sufficient to convince them.
If nobody can convince another, but he that has truth
on his side, you do more honour to the " first and se-
cond letter concerning toleration," than is for the
advantage of your cause, when you impute to them
the increase of sects and heresies amongst us. And
there are some, even of the church of England, have
professed themselves so fully satisfied by the reasons
and arguments in the first of them, that though I dare
not be positive to you, whose privilege it is to convince
men that they are convinced ; yet I may say, it is as
presumable they are convinced, having owned it, as it
is presumable that all that are conformists are made so
upon reason and conviction.

This, 1 suppose, may serve for an answer to your next
words, c< That God in his just judgment will send such
as receive not the love of truth, that they may be
saved, but reject it for the pleasure they have in
unrighteousness, kve^ystav mkdvyjs, strong delusion, i. e.
such reasons and arguments as will prevail with men,
so disposed, to believe a lie, that they may be damned
this you confess the Scripture plainly teaches us.
But that there are any such reasons or arguments as
are proper and sufficient to convince or satisfy any,
but such resolute and obdurate sinners, of the truth
of such falsehood as will destroy them, is a position
which you are sure the Scripture doth not teach us ;
and which, you tell me, when I have better consi-
dered it, you hope I will not undertake to maintain.
And yet if it be not maintainable, what I say here
is to no purpose : for if there be no such reasons and
arguments as here we speak of, it is in vain to talk
of the magistrate's using force to make men consider
them."

But if you are still of the mind, that no magistrate
but those who are of the true religion can have argu-

378

A Third Letter for Toleration.

ments backed with force, proper and sufficient to con-
vince ; and that in England none but resolute, obdu-
rate sinners ever forsook or forbore the communion of
the church of England, upon reasons and arguments
that satisfy or convince them ; I shall leave you to en-
joy so charitable an opinion.

But as to the usefulness of force, your way applied, I
shall lay you down again the same argument I used
before ; though in words less fitted for your way of
reasoning on them, now I know your talent. If there
be any efficacy in force to bring men to any persuasion,
it will, your way applied, bring more men to error than
to truth. Your way of using it is only to punish men
for not being of the national religion ; which is the only
way you do or can apply force, without a toleration.
Non-conformity is the fault that is punished ; which
fault, when it ceases, the punishment ceases. But yet to
make them consider, is the end for which they are pu-
nished; but whether it be or be not intended to make
men consider it alters nothing in the case. Now I say,
that since all magistrates who believe their religion to
be true, are as much obliged to use force to bring their
subjects to it, as if it were true ; and since most of the
national religions of the world are erroneous; if force
made use of to bring men to the national religion, by
punishing dissenters, have any efficacy, let it be what
it will ; indirect and at a distance, if you please ; it is
like to do twenty times more harm than good ; because
of the national religions of the world, to speak much
within compass, there are above twenty wrong for one
that is right.

Indeed, could force be directed to drive all men in-
differently, who are negligent and backward in it, to
study, examine, and consider seriously matters of reli-
gion, and search out the truth ; and if men were, upon
their study and examination, permitted to follow what
appears to them to be right ; you might have some pre-
tence for forge, as serviceable to truth in making men
consider. But this is impossible! but under a tolera-
tion. And I doubt whether, even there, force can be
so applied, as to make men consider and impartially

A Third Letter for Toleration, 37(J

examine what is true in the professed religions of the
world, and to embrace it. This at least is certain, that
where punishments pursue men, like outlying deer,
only to the pale of the national church; and, when
once they are within that, leave them free there and at
ease ; it can do no service to the true religion, even in
a country where the national is the true. For the pe-
nalties ceasing as soon as men are got within the pale
and communion of the church, they help not men at all
against that which you assign as the great hinderance
to the true religion, and which therefore, in your opi-
nion, makes force necessary to assist it.

For there being no necessity that men should leave
either their vices or corruption, or so much as their
ignorance, to get within the pale of the church ; force,
your way applied, serves only to bring them, even in
the few Christian and orthodox countries, to the pro-
fession, not to the knowledge, belief, or practice, of
the true religion.

You say corrupt nature inclines men from the true
religion to false ones ; and moderate force is requisite
to make such men consider. But such men as, out of
corrupt nature, and for their ease and carnal pleasures,
choose an erroneous religion without considering, will
again, as soon as they can find their choice incommoded
by those penalties, consult the same corrupt nature and
carnal appetites, and, without considering any thing
further, conform to that religion where they can best
enjoy themselves. It is only the conscientious part of
dissenters, such as dissent not out of indulgence to
corrupt nature, but out of persuasion, who will not con-
form without considering as they ought. And there-
fore your argument from corrupt nature is out of doors.
If moderate penalties serve only to work on those who
are led by corrupt nature, they are of no use but to fill
the church with hypocrites ; that is, to make those
men worse hypocrites than they were before, by a new
act of hypocrisy ; and to corrupt the manners of the
rest of the church, by their converse with these. And
whether this be for the salvation of souls, as is pre-
tended, or for some other end, that the priests of all

380 A Third Letter for Toleration.

religions have generally so earnestly contended for it, I
leave to be considered. For as for those who dissent
out of persuasion, I suspect your moderate penalties
will have little effect upon them. For such men being
awed by the fear of hell-fire, if that fear wTill not make
them consider better than they have done, moderate
penalties will be too weak to work upon them. It is well
if dragooning and martyring can do it.

But you add, " May it not be true nevertheless, that
force, your way applied, may be serviceable, indirectly
and at a distance, to bring men to embrace the truth,
which may save them ? which is all you are con-
cerned here to make good." So that if it may
possibly happen that it should ever bring two men to
embrace the truth, you have gained your point, and
overthrown toleration, by the usefulness and necessity
there is of force. For without being forced these two
men would never have considered : which is more yet
than you know, unless you are of his private council,
who only can tell when the season of grace is past, and
the time come that preaching, entreaty, instruction,
and persuasion shall never after prevail upon a man.
But whatever you are here concerned to make good, are
you not also concerned to remember what you say ;
where declaring against the magistrate's having a power
to use what may any way, at any time, upon any per-
son, by any accident, be useful towards the promoting
the true religion, you say, "Who sees not that how-
ever such means might chance to hit right in some
few cases, yet, upon the whole matter, they would
certainly do a great deal more harm than good; and
in all pleas (making use of my words) for any thing
because of its usefulness, it is not enough to say that
it may be serviceable, but it must be considered, not
only what it may, but what it is likely to produce ;
and the greater good or harm like to come from it
Ought to determine the use Of it ?"

You proceed; and tell me, that I, "not con to

say that, force, your way applied, (*. e. to bring men

to embrace the truth which must Bave them) may be

iceable to bring men •< embrace falsehood which

A Third Letter for Toleration. 381

will destroy them ; and so is proper to do as much
harm as good, (which seems strange enough ;) I add
(to increase the wonder) that in your indirect way it
is much more proper and likely to make men receive
and embrace error, than the truth: and that, 1. Be-
cause men out of the right way are apt, and I think
I may say apter, to use force than others ; which is
doubtless an irrefragable demonstration, that force
used by the magistrate to bring men to receive and
embrace the truth which must save them, is much
more proper and likely to make men receive error
than the truth." And then you ask me, " How we
come to talk here of what men out of the right way
are apt to do, to bring others into their, L e. a wrong
way ; where we are only inquiring, what may be
done to bring men to the right way? For you must
put me in mind, you say, that this is our question,
viz. Whether the magistrate has any right to use force,
to bring men to the true religion?" Whether the
magistrate has a right to use force in matters of reli-
gion, as you more truly state it, p. 78, is the main
question between us, I confess. But the question here
between us is about the usefulness of force, your way
applied ; which being to punish dissenters as dissenters,
to make them consider, I showed would do more harm
than good. And to this you were here answering.
Whereby, I suppose, it is plain that the question here
is about the usefulness of force, so applied. And I
doubt not but my readers, who are not concerned,
when the question in debate will not serve your turn,
to have another substituted, will take this for a regular
and natural way of arguing, viz. " That force, your
way applied, is more proper and likely to make men
embrace error than the truth ; because men out of
the right way are as apt, I think I may say apter, to
use force than others." You need not then ask, as
you do, " How we come to talk here of men out of the
right way ?" You see how. If you do not, I know
not what help there is for your eyes. And I must con-,
tent myself that any other reader, that has eyes, will not
miss it. And I wonder that you should : since you

382 A Third Letter for Toleration.

know I have on several occasions argued against the use
of force in matters of religion, upon a supposition, that
if any one, then all magistrates, have a just pretence
and right to use it ; which has served you in some places
for matter of great reproof, and, in others, of sport and
diversion. But because so plain a thing as that was
so strange to you, that you thought it a ridiculous pa-
radox to say, " That for all magistrates to suppose the
religion they believed to be true, was equally just
and reasonable ;" and because you took no notice of
the words adjoined that proved it, viz. " Unless we can
imagine every where but in England, [or where the
national religion is the true] men believe what at
the same time they think to be a lie ;" I have taken
the pains to prove it to you more at large in another
place, and therefore shall make bold to use it here as an
argument against force, viz. That if it have any efficacy,
it will do more harm than good : " Because men out of
the right way are as apt, or apter, to use it ;" and I
shall think it a good one till you have answered it.

It is a good and a sure way, and shows a zeal to the
cause, still to hold fast the conclusion, and, whatever be
in debate, return still to one's old position. I arguing
against what you say for the use of force, viz. "That
force used not to convince by its own proper efficacy,
but only to make men consider, might indirectly,
and at a distance, do some service towards the bring-
ing men to embrace the truth ;" after other argu-
ments against it, 1 say, that " whatever efficacy there
is in force, your way applied, i. e. to punish all,
and none but, dissenters from the national church,
makes against you :" and the first reason I give for
it, is in these words : " Because men out of the right
way, arc as apt, or apter, to use force than others:"
which is what you are here answering. And what can
be done better to answer it, thai) to the words 1
have above cited, to subjoin these following ? •" Now
whereas our author Bays, that penalties or force is
absolutely impertinent in this case, because it is not
proper to convince the mind; to which you answer,
that, though force be not proper to convince the

A Third Jxtter for Toleration. 383

mind, yet it is not absolutely impertinent in this
case, because it may, however, do some service to-
wards the bringing men to embrace the truth which
must save them, by bringing them to consider those
reasons and arguments which are proper to convince
the mind ; and which, without being forced, they
would not consider." Here I tell you, " No ; but
it is much more proper and likely to make men re-
ceive and embrace error than truth ; because men
out of the right way are as apt, and perhaps apter,
to use force than others." Which, you tell me, "is
as good a proof, you believe, as the thing would ad-
mit : for otherwise, you suppose, I would have given
you a better." And thus you have certainly gained
the cause. For I having proved that force, your way
applied, whatever efficacy it had, would do more harm
than good, have not sufficiently proved that it cannot
do some service towards the bringing men to embrace
the truth ; and therefore it is not absolutely imperti-
nent. But since you think this apt enough to prove
the use of force in matters of religion impertinent, I
shall farther show you that force, applied your way to
make people consider, and so to make them embrace
the truth, is impertinent.

Your way is to lay penalties on men for non-con-
formity, as you say, to make men consider: now here let
me ask any one but you, whether it be not utterly im-
pertinent so to lay penalties on men, to make them con-
sider, when they can avoid those penalties without con-
sidering? But because it is not enough to prove force,
your way applied, utterly impertinent, I shall show you,
in the next place, that were a law made to punish not
barely non-conformity, but non-consideration, those pe-
nalties, laid on not considering, would be utterly im-
pertinent ; because it could never be proved that a man
had not considered the arguments offered him. And
therefore all law-makers till you, in all their penal laws
about religion, laid all their penalties upon not em-
bracing ; and it was against that that our author was ar-
guing, when he said penalties, in this case, are absolutely
impertinent ; because they are not proper to convince

381 A Third Letter for Toleration.

the mind. For in that case, when penalties are laid on
men for not embracing, it is plain they are used as a
means to make men embrace : which, since those who
are careless in matters of religion can do without con-
sidering, and those who are conscientious cannot do
without conviction ; and since penalties can in no wise
convince ; this use of them is absolutely impertinent,
and will always be so till you can show a way how they
can be used in religion, not as motives to embrace, but
as motives barely to make men consider. For if you
punish them on when they tell you they have considered
your arguments, but are not convinced by them ; and
you judge of their having not considered, by nothing
but their not embracing ; it is plain you use penalties
instead of arguments to convince them ; since without
conviction, those whom our author pleads for cannot,
embrace ; and those who do embrace without convic-
tion, it is all one as if they did not embrace at all ;
they being not one jot the more in the way of salvation ;
and so penalties are absolutely impertinent. But em-
bracing in the sense of the law, and yours too, when
you say men have not considered as they ought as long-
as they reject, is nothing but outward conformity, or
an outward profession of embracing, wherewith the law
is satisfied, and upon which the penalties cease. Now
penalties used to make men in this sense embrace, are
absolutely impertinent to bring men to embrace in
earnest, or, as the author calls it, believe : because an
outward profession, which in this case is the immediate
end to which penalties are directed, and beyond which
they do not reach, is no proper means to produce in
men consideration, conviction, or believing.

What can be more impertinent than to vex and dis-
ease people with the use offeree, to no purpose? and
that force must needs be to no purpose, which is so ap-
plied as to leave the end for which it is pretended to be
used, without the means which is acknowledged neces;
sary for its attainment. That this is so, in your wav o\'
using force, will easily Appear from your hypothesis.
You tell us at large, in your Argument considered,

that men's lusts hinder them from even impartial consi-

A Third Letter for Toleration. 980

deration and examination of matters in religion: and
therefore force is necessary to remove this hinderance.
You tell us likewise at large in your letter, that men's
corrupt nature and beloved lusts hinder them also from
embracing the true religion, and that force is necessary
likewise to remove this obstacle. Now, in your way
of using force, wherein penalties are laid on men till,
and no longer than till, they are made outwardly to
conform, force is so applied, that notwithstanding the
intention of the law-maker, let it be what it will, neither
the obstacle to impartial examination, arising from
men's lusts, nor the aversion to the embracing the
true religion, arising from men's corrupt nature, can
be removed ; unless they can be removed without that
which you suppose necessary to their removal. For since
a man may conform, without being under the necessity
of impartial examining or embracing, on the one hand,
or suffering the penalties, on the other ; it is unavoid-
able, that he should neither impartially examine nor
embrace, if penalties are necessary to make him do
either ; because penalties, which are the necessary re-
medies to remove those hinderances, were never applied
to them; and so those obstacles, not being removed for
want of their necessary remedy, must continue on to
hinder both examining and embracing. For penalties
cannot be used as a means to any end, or be applied to
the procuring any action to be done, which a man, from
his lusts, or any other cause, has an aversion to ; but
by putting them as it wrere in one scale as a counterba-
lance to that aversion, and the action in the other scale,
and putting a man under the necessity of choosing the
one or the other : where that is not done, the penalty
may be avoided, the aversion or obstacle hath nothing
to remove it, and so the action must remain undone.
So that if penalties be necessary to make men impar-
tially examine and really embrace ; if penalties are not
so laid on men as to make the alternative to be either
suffering the penalties or conforming ; it is impossible
that men who, without penalties, would not impartially
examine, or really embrace, the true religion, should ever
vol. vi. c c

386 A Third Letter for Toleration.

do either; and then I beseech you consider whether
penalties, your way applied, be impertinent or no.

The necessity ofpenalties is only where there is some
inclination or bias in a man, whencesoever arising, that
keeps him from doing something in his power, which
he cannot be brought to without the inconveniencies of
some penal infliction. The efficacy ofpenalties lies in
this, that the inconvenience to be suffered by the penal-
ties overbalance the bias or inclination which leans
the man the other way, and so removes the obstacle ;
and the application of this remedy lies only in putting
a man under the necessary choice either of doing the
action, or suffering the penalty : so that in whatever
case a man has not been put under that necessity, there
penalties have never been applied to the procuring that
action : for the obstacle, or aversion to it, has never had
its necessary remedy.

Perhaps you will say, it is not absolutely impertinent,
because it may possibly " do some service indirectly
and at a distance/' and be the occasion that some may
consider and embrace. If whatever may by accident
contribute to any end, may be used not impertinently
as a means to that end, nothing that I know can be
impertinent; and a penalty of twelvepence a time laid
on them for being drunk, may be said to be a pertinent
means to make men Cartesians or conformists; because
it may indirectly and at a distance do some service, by
being an occasion to make some men consider their
mispending their time ; whereby it may happen that one
may betake himself to the study of philosophy, where he
may meet with arguments proper and fit to convince
him of the truth of that philosophy ; as another, be-
taking himself to the study of divinity, may consider
arguments proper and fit to make him, whether it be
in England, Holland, or Denmark, of the national pro-
fession, which he was not of before.

.lust thus, and no otherwise, does twelvepence a Sun-
day, or any other penalty, laid on non-conformity, make
men study and embrace the true religion ; and what-
ever you will call the service it does, direct or indirect,

A Third Letter for Toleration, 387

near or at a distance, it is plain it produces that effect,
and conduces to that end, merely by accident; and
therefore must- be allowed to be impertinent to be used
to that purpose.

That your way of using force in matters of religion,
even in a country where the magistrate is of the true
religion, is absolutely impertinent, I shall further show
you from your own position.

Here, in the entrance, give me leave to observe to
you, that you confound two things very different, viz.
your way of applying force, and the end for which you
pretend to use it. And this, perhaps, may be it which
contributes to cast that mist about your eyes, that you
always return to the same place, and stick to the same
gross mistake. For here you say, " Force, your way
applied, u e. to bring men to embrace the truth which
must save them:" but, sir, to bring men to embrace
the truth, is not your way of applying force, but the
end for which you pretend it is applied. Your way to
punish men, as you say, moderately for being dis-
senters from the national religion ; this is your way of
using force. Now, if in this way of using it, force does
service merely by accident, you will then, I suppose,
allow it to be absolutely impertinent. For you say, " If
by doing service by accident, I mean doing it but sel-
dom, and beside the intention of the agent, you assure
me that it is not the thing you mean when you say
force may, indirectly and at a distance, do some ser-
vice." For in that use of force, which you defend, the
effect is both intended by him that uses it, and withal,
you " doubt not, so often attained, as abundantly to ma-
nifest the usefulness of it." Whereby it is plain the
two marks, whereby you distinguished your indirect
and at a distance usefulness, from that which is by acci-
dent, are that that by accident does service but seldom,
and beside the intention of the agent, but yours the
contrary.

First, as to the intention, you tell us, in the use of
force, which you defend, " the effect is intended by
him that uses it ;" that is, those who made laws to
punish non-conformists, designed those penalties to make

c c £

388 A Third Letter for Toleration,

all men, under their power, "consider so as to be con-
vinced of, and embrace the truths that should save
them." If one should ask you how you knew it to be
their intention, can you say, they ever told you so? If
they did not, then so far you and I know their inten-
tions alike. Did they ever say so in those laws ? nor
that neither. Those versed, then, in the interpretation
of laws, will tell you nothing can be known to be the
intention of the law-makers in any law, of which the
law is wholly silent : that way, then, you cannot know
it to have been their intention, if the law says nothing of
it. Whatever was the intention of former law-makers,
if you had read with attention the last act of uniformity
of Car. II. printed before the common-prayer-book, I
conclude you would have been better satisfied about the
intention of the then law-makers in that law ; for I
think nothing can be plainer to any one who will look
into that statute, than that their only end in that law
was, what they have expressed in these words : " And
to the end that uniformity in the public worship of God
(which is so much desired) may be speedily effected ;"
which was driven with such speed, that if all concerned
had opportunity to get and peruse the then established
liturgy, it is certain they had not over-much time seri-
ously and deliberately to consider of all the parts of it
before the day set for the use of it.

But you think they ought to have intended, and
therefore they did : and I think they neither ought, nor
could, in making those laws, intend so impracticable
a thing; and therefore they did not. Which being as
certain a way of knowledge as yours, if you know it by
that way, it is possible you and I may at the same time
know contraries.

But you know it, by their " having provided suf-
ficient means of instruction for all under their care, in
the true religion ;" of this sufficient means, we have
something to say in another place. Penalties laid ex-
pressly on one fault have no evidence that they were
designed to mend another, though there are sufficient
means provided of mending it, if men would make
a sufficient use of them ; unless those two faults are

A Third Letter Jbt Toleration. 889

so connected, as one cannot be mended without the
other. Now if men cannot conform, without so con-
sidering as to be convinced of, and embrace the truth
that must save them ; you may know that penalties
laid on non-conformity were intended to make men so
consider : but if men may conform without so con-
sidering, one cannot know nor conclude those penalties
were intended to make men so consider, whatever pro-
vision there is made of means of instruction.

But you will say, it is evident that penalties on non-
conformists were intended to make them use these
means of instruction, because they are intended for
the bringing men to church, the place of instruction.
That they are intended to bring men to church, the
place of preaching, that I grant*, but that those penal-
ties that are laid on them for not coming to church
can be known thereby to be intended to make men so
consider as to be convinced and embrace the true reli-
gion, that I deny : and it is utterly impossible it should
be so, if what you say be true, where you tell us, that
" the magistrates concern themselves for compliance
or conformity, only as the fruit of their conviction."
If, therefore, the magistrates are concerned for men's
conformity, only as the fruit of their conviction, and
coming to church be that conformity ; coming to church
cannot be intended as a means of their conviction:
unless it be intended they should be convinced before
they are convinced.

But to show you that you cannot pretend the penalty
of laws for conformity to proceed from a care of the
souls of all under the magistrate's power, and so to be
intended to make them all consider, in any sense : can
you, or any one, know, or suppose, that penalties, which
are laid by the law on non-conformity, are intended to
make all men consider; where it is known that a great
number, under the magistrate's power, are dispensed
with, and privileged from those penalties ? How many,
omitting the Jews, are there, for example, in the king
of England's dominions, under his care and power,
of the Walloon and French church ; to whom force is
never applied, and they live in security from it ! How

390 A Third Letter for Toleration.

many pagans are there in the plantations, many whereof
born in his dominions, of whom there was never any
care taken that they should so much as come to church,
or be in the least instructed in the Christian religion !
And yet must we believe, or can you pretend, that the
magistrate's use of force, against non-conformists, is to
make all his subjects consider, " so as to be convinced
of, and embrace the truth that must save them ?" If
you say, in your way you mean no such indulgence : I
answer, the question is not of yours, but the magi-
strate's intention ; though what your intention is, who
would have the want of consideration, or knowledge, in
conformists, exempt from force, is visible enough.

Again, Those penalties cannot be supposed to be in-
tended to make men consider, which are laid on those
who have, or may have already considered ; and such
you must grant to be the penalties laid in England on
non-conformists, unless you will deny, that any non-con-
formist has, or can consider, so as to be convinced, or
believe, and embrace the truth that must save him. So
that you cannot vouch the intention of the magistrate,
where his laws say nothing; much less affirm, that force
is intended to produce a certain end in all his subjects,
which is not applied to them all, and is applied to some
who have attained that end already: unless you have a
privilege to affirm, against all appearance, whatsoever
may serve your cause. But to learn some moderation
in this, I shall send you to my pagans and Mahometans.
For whatever charitable wishes magistrates may some-
times have in their thoughts, which I meddle not with;
nobody can say, that in making the laws, or in the use
of force, we are speaking of, they intended to make
men consider and examine, so as M to be convinced
of, and heartily to embrace the truth that must save
them," but he that gives himself the liberty to say any
thing.

The service that force does, indirectly and at a di-
stance, you tell us, in the following page, is to make
people " apply themselves to the use of those means
and helps, which are proper to make them what they
are designed to be.,> In the case before us, What

A Third Letter for Toleration. 891

arc men designed to be? Holy believers of the Gospel
in this world, without which no salvation, no seeing of
God in the next. Let us sec now, whether force, your
way applied, can be suited to such a design, and so
intended for that end.

You hold, that all out of the national church, where
the religion of the national church is true, should be
punished, and ought to have force used to them : and
again, you grant that those who are in the communion
of the national church ought not to be punished, or be
under the stroke of force ; nor indeed in your way can
they. If now the effect be to prevail with men to
consider as they ought, so that they may become what
they are designed to be : how can any one think, that
you, and they who use force thus, intend, in the use of
it, that men should really be Christians, both in per-
suasion and practice, without which there is no salva-
tion, if they leave off force before they have attained
that effect? Or how can it be imagined, that they
intend any thing but conformity by their use of force,
if they leave off the use of it as soon as men conform ?
unless you will say that an outward conformity to the
national church, whose religion is the true religion, is
such an embracing of the truth as is sufficient to salva-
tion : or that an outward profession of the Christian reli-
gion is the same with being really a Christian ; which
possibly you will not be very forward to do, when you
recollect what you meet with in the sermons and printed
discourses of divines of the church of England, con-
cerning the ignorance and irreligion of conformists
themselves : for penalties can never be thought, by any
one, but he that can think against common sense, and
what he pleases, to be intended for any end; which by
that constitution, and law whereby they are imposed, are
to cease before that end be attained. And will you say,
that all who are conformable have so well considered,
that they believe, and heartily embrace the truths of the
Gospel, that must save them : when perhaps it will be
found that a great many conformists do not so much as
understand them? But the ignorance or irreligiousness
to be found amongst conformists, which your way of

$91 A Third Letter for Toleration.

talking forces me in some places to take notice of, let
me here tell you once for all, I lay not the blame of upon
conformity, but upon your use of force to make men
conform. For whatever the religion be, true or false,
it is natural for force, and penalty so applied, to bring
the irreligious, and those who are careless and uncon-
cerned for the true, into the national profession : but
whether it be fitter for such to be kept out, rather
than by force to be driven into, the communion of any
church, and owned as members of it; those who have
a due care and respect for truly religious and pious
conformists were best to consider.

But farther, if, as you say, the opposition to the true
religion lies only in men's lusts, it having light and
strength enough, were it not for that, to prevail : and
it is upon that account only that force is necessary ;
there is no necessity at all to use force on men, only
till they conform, and no farther ; since I think you
will not deny but that the corruption of human nature
is as great in conformists as in non-conformists; in the
professors of, as in the dissenters from, the national
religion. And therefore either force was not necessary
before, or else it is necessary still, after men are con-
formists ; unless you will say, that it is harder for a
man to be a professor, than a Christian indeed : and
that the true religion, by its own light and strength, can,
without the help of force, prevail over a man's lusts,
and the corruption of his nature ; but it has need of the
help of force, to make him a conformist, and an out-
ward professor. And so much for the effect, which is
intended by him that uses it, in that use of force which
you defend.

The other argument you bring to show, that your in-
direct and at a distance usefulness of force, your way
applied, is not by accident, is the frequent success of it;
which I think is not the true mark of what is not by
accident : for an effect may not be by accident, though
it has never been produced but once ; and is certainly
as little by accident the first time, as when it has been
produced a thousand times. That then, by which any
thing is excused from being by accident, is not the ire-

A Third Letter for Toleration. 393

quency of the event, but that whereon the frequency of
the event depends, when frequent trials are made ; and
that is the proper, natural, direct efficacy of the cause
or means, which produces the effect. As in the case
before us, penalties are the cause or means used to pro-
duce an end ; the proper and immediate effect of pe-
nalties is to produce some pain or inconvenience ; and
the natural effect of that is to make a man, who na-
turally flies from all pain or inconvenience, to endeavour
to avoid; whereby it naturally and directly works upon
the will of man, by proposing to him this unavoidable
choice of doing some action, or enduring the pain or
inconvenience of the penalty annexed to its omission.
When the pain of doing the action is outweighed in the
sense of him that lies under the penalty, the pain, that
by the law is annexed to the omission, operates upon
his will as naturally as thirteen ounces in one scale,
laid against twelve ounces in the other, incline the
balance, and bring it down on that side. And this is
by a direct and natural efficacy, wherein there is no-
thing of chance.

Let us see, then, how far this will go in your indirect
and at a distance usefulness. In your method, the
action you propose to be done is considering, or a
severe and impartial examining matters of religion,
which, you tell us, men by their great negligence or
aversion are kept from doing. What now is a proper
means to produce this? " Penalties, without which,
you tell us, it will not be done/' How now is it ap-
plied in your method? Conformity, and men's neglect
or aversion to it, is laid in one scale, and the penalty,
joined to the omission of it, laid in the other ; and in
this case, if the inconvenience of the penalty over-
weighs the pains of, or aversion to conformity, it does
by a direct and natural efficacy produce conformity :
but if it produces a severe and impartial examination,
that is merely by accident ; because the inconvenience
of the penalty is not laid against men's aversion or
backwardness to examine impartially, as a counter-
balance to that, but against their aversion or backward-
ness to conform ; and so whatever it does, indirectly

394> A Third Letter for Toleration.

and at a distance, it is certain its making men severely
and impartially examine, if ever that happens, is as
much by accident, as it would be by accident, if a piece
of lead in one scale, as a counterpoise to feathers in
the opposite scale, should move or weigh down gold
that was put in the scale of another pair of balances,
which had no counterpoise laid against it. Unless you
will say there is a necessary connexion between con-
formity and a severe and impartial examination.

But you will say, perhaps, that though it be not pos-
sible that penalties should produce examination but by
mere accident, because examination has no necessary
connexion with conformity, or the profession of any
religion ; yet since there are some who will not take up
any profession without a severe and impartial examina-
tion, penalties for non-conformity will, by a direct and
natural efficacy, produce examination in all such. To
which I answer, That those are, if we may believe what
you say, so very few, that this your remedy, which you
put into the magistrate's hands to bring all his subjects
to consider and examine, will not work upon one in a
thousand ; nay, it can work on none at all, to make
them severely and impartially examine, but merely
by accident. For if they are men, whom a slight and
partial examination, which upon your principles you
must say sufficed to make non-conformists, a slight and
partial examination will as well serve to make them
conformists ; and so penalties laid on them to make
them conform, can only by accident produce a severe
and impartial examination, in such men, who can take
up the profession of any religion without a severe and
impartial examination ; no more than it can otherwise,
than by accident produce any examination in those
who, without any examination, can take up the pro-
fession of any religion.

And in those very few, who take not up the profession
of any religion without a severe and impartial examina-
tion, that penalties can do any service, to bring them
either to the truth that must save them, or so much
as to outward conformity, but merely by accident ;
that is also evident. Because all such iii a country,

A Third loiter for Toleration. 395

where they dissent from the national religion, must
necessarily have severely and impartially examined
already, or else you destroy the supposition this argu-
ment is built on, viz. that they are men who do severely
and impartially examine before they choose. And if
you lay, or continue your penalties on men, that have
so examined ; it is plain you use them instead of rea-
sons and arguments : in which use of them you confess
they have no proper efficacy, and therefore if they do
any service, it is merely by accident.

But now let us see the success you boast of, and for
that you tell us, that you doubt not but it is " so often
attained, as abundantly to manifest the usefulness of
it." You speak here of it as a thing tried, and so
known, that you doubt not. Pray tell us where your
moderate (for great ones you acknowledge to do harm,
and to be useless) penalties have been used with such
success, that we may be past doubt too. If you can
show no such place, do you not vouch experience where
you have none ? and show a willingness not to doubt,
where you have no assurance ? In all countries, where
any force is used to bring men to the profession of the
national religion, and to outward conformity, it is not
to be doubted but that force joining with their natural
corruption, in bringing them into the way of prefer-
ment, countenance, protection, ease, and impunity,
should easily draw in all the loose and careless in
matters of religion, which are every where the far
greater number : but is it those you count upon, and
will you produce them as examples of what force has
done to make men consider, study, and embrace the
true religion ? Did the penalties laid on non-conformity
make you " consider, so as to study, be convinced, and
embrace the true religion ?" Or can you give an in-
stance of any one, in whom it produced this effect? If
you cannot, you will have some reason to doubt of what
you have said, and not to be so confident that the ef-
fect you talk of is so often attained. Not that I deny,
but that God may sometimes have made these punish-
ments the occasions to men of setting themselves se-
riously on considering religion ; and thence they may

396 A Third Letter for Toleration.

have come into the national religion upon a real con-
viction: but the instances of it I believe to be so few,
that you will have reason to remember your own words,
where you speak of such things as " Any way, at any
time, upon any person, by any accident, may be useful
towards the promoting of true religion : if men should
thence take occasion to apply such things generally ;
who sees not, that however they might chance to hit
right in some few cases, yet, upon the whole matter,
they would certainly do a great deal more harm than
good." You and I know a country wherein, not long
since, greater severities were used than you pretend to
approve of. Were there not, for all that, great num-
bers of several professions stood out, who, by your rule,
ought now to have your moderate penalties tried upon
them? And can you think less degrees of force can
work, and often, as you say, prevail, where greater
could not ? But perhaps they might prevail on many
of those to return, who having been brought into the
communion of the church by former penal laws, have
now upon the relaxation left it again. A manifest de-
monstration, is it not? that " their compliance was the
fruit of their conviction ; and that the magistrate was
concerned for their compliance only as the fruit of
their conviction :" when they, as soon as any relaxation
of those laws took off the penalties, left again the com-
munion of the national church? For the lessening the
number of conformists is, I suppose, one of those things
which you say your " eyes cannot but see at this time ;"
and which you, with concern, impute to the late re-
laxation : a plain evidence how presumable it is, even
in your own opinion, that those who conform do it
upon real conviction.

To conclude, these proofs, though I do not pretend
to bring as good as the thing will admit, will serve my
turn to show, that force is impertinent; since by your
own confession it has no direct efficacy to convince men,
and, by its being indirect and at a distance useful, is
not at all distinguished from being barely so by acci-
dent: since you CJUl neither prove it to be intended for
that end, nor frequently to succeed; which are the two

A Third Letter for Toleration. 397

marks whereby you put a difference between indirect
and at a distance, and by accident : this, I say, is
enough to show what the author said is true, that the
use of force is wholly impertinent ; which, whatever
others do, you upon another reason must be forced to
allow.

You profess yourself of the church of England, and,
if I may guess, are so far of it as to have subscribed
the XXXIX. Articles ; which if you have done, and as-
sented to what you subscribed, you must necessarily al-
low that all force, used for the bringing men to the true
religion, is " absolutely impertinent 5* for that must
be absolutely impertinent to be used as a means, which
can contribute nothing at all to the end for which it is
used. The end here is to make a man a true Christian,
that he may be saved ; and he is then, and then only, a
true Christian, and in the way of salvation, when he be-
lieves, and with sincerity obeys the Gospel. By the
thirteenth article of the church of England, you hold,
that " works done before the grace of Christ, and the
" inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasing to God ; for-
" asmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ ;
11 neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or,
" as the school-authors say, deserve grace of congruity ;
" yea rather, for that they are not done as God has
" willed and commanded, them to be done, we doubt
" not but they have the nature of sin." Now if it be
impertinent to use force to make a man do more than
he can, and a man can do nothing to procure grace,
unless sin can procure it; and without grace a man
cannot believe, or live so as to be a true Christian ; it
is certainly wholly impertinent to use force to bring a
man to be truly a Christian. To hear and consider is
in men's power, you will say, and to that force may be
pertinent ; I grant to make men hear, but not to make
them consider in your sense, which, you tell us, is to
" consider so as to embrace ;" if you mean by embracing
any thing but outward conformity: and that according
to your article contributes nothing to the attaining of
grace ; because without grace your article says it is a
sin ; and to conform to, and outwardly profess a reli-

598- A Third Letter for Toleration.

gion which a man does not understand and heartily be-
lieve, every one, I think, judges to be a sin, and no fit
means to procure the grace of God.

But you tell us, " That God denies his grace to none
who seriously ask it." If that be so, methinks force
should most properly and pertinently be used to make
men seriously pray to God for grace. But how, I be-
seech you, will this stand with your thirteenth article ?
For if you mean by seriously, so as will make his seek-
ing acceptable to God ; that cannot be, because he is
supposed yet to want grace, which alone can make it
acceptable : and if his asking has the nature of sin, as
in the article you do not doubt but it has, can you ex-
pect that sinning should procure the grace of God?
You will I fear here, without some great help in a very
nice distinction from the school-authors, be forced
either to renounce your article in the plain sense of it,
and so become a dissenter from the church of England ;
or else acknowledge force to be wholly impertinent to
the business of true religion and salvation.

Another reason I gave against the usefulness of force
in matters of religion was, " Because the magistrates
of the world, being few of them in the right way, — not
one of ten, take which side you will, perhaps not one
of a hundred, being of the true religion, — it is likely
your indirect way of using force would do a hundred,
or at least ten times as much harm as good." To
which you reply, " Which would have been to the pur-
pose if you had asserted that every magistrate may use
force, your indirect way (or any way) to bring men to
his own religion, whatever that be. But if you assert
no such tiling, (as no man you think but an atheist
will assert it) then this is quite beside the business."
I think I have proved, that if magistrates of the true
religion may use force to bring men to their religion,
every magistrate may use force to bring men to his
own religion, when he thinks it the true, and then do
you look where the atheism will light.

In the next paragraph, having quoted these following
words of mine, where I say, " Under another pretence,
you put into the magistrate's hands as much force to

A Third Letter for Toleration. 399

bring them to his religion, as any the opencst perse-
cutors can pretend to. I ask what difference is there
between punishing them to bring them to mass, and
punishing them to make them consider those reasons
and arguments which are proper and sufficient to con-
vince them that they ought to go to mass?" You
reply : " A question which you shall then think your-
self obliged to answer, when I have produced those
reasons and arguments which are proper and sufficient
to convince men that they ought to go to mass." But
if you had not omitted the three or four immediately
preceding lines, (an art to serve a good cause, which
puts me in mind of my pagans and Mahometans) the
reader would have seen that your reply was nothing at
all to my argument. My words were these,

" Especially, if you consider, that as the magistrate
will certainly use it [force] to force men to hearken
to the proper ministers of his religion, let it be what
it will ; so you having set no time nor bounds to this
consideration of arguments and reasons short of being
convinced, you under another," &c. My argument
is to show of what advantage force, your way applied,
is like to be to the true religion, since it puts as much
force into the magistrate's hands as the openest per-
secutors can pretend to, which the magistrates of wrong
persuasions may and will use as well as those of the
true ; because your way sets no other bounds to con-
sidering, short of complying. And then I ask, " What
difference there is between punishing you to bring you
to mass, or punishing you to consider those reasons
and arguments which are proper and sufficient to con-
vince you that you ought to go to mass ?" To which
you reply, That it is a " question you shall then think
yourself obliged to answer, when I have produced
those reasons and arguments that are proper and suf-
ficient to convince men that they ought to go to mass."
Whereas the objection is the same, whether there be,
or be not, reasons and arguments proper to convince
men that they ought to go to mass ; for men must be
punished on till they have so considered as to comply :
and what difference is there then between punishing

400 A Third Letter for Toleration.

men to bring them to mass, and punishing them to
make them consider so as to go to mass? But though
I pretend not to produce any reasons and arguments
proper and sufficient to convince you or all men, that
they ought to go to mass ; yet do you think there are
none proper and sufficient to convince any men ? and
that all the papists in the world go to mass without be-
lieving it their duty ? And whosoever believes it to be
his duty, does it upon reasons and arguments, proper
and sufficient to convince him, (though perhaps not to
convince another) that it is so ; or else I imagine he
would never believe at all. What think you of those
great numbers of Japaneses that resisted all sorts of
torments, even to death itself, for the Romish religion ?
And had you been in France some years since, who
knows but the arguments the king of France produced
might have been proper and sufficient to have convinced
you that you ought to go to mass ? I do not by this
think you less confident of the truth of your religion
than you profess to be. But arguments, set on with
force, have a strange efficacy upon human frailty ; and
he must be well assured of his own strength, who can
peremptorily affirm, he is sure he should have stood
what above a million of people sunk under : amongst
which, it is great confidence to say, there was not one
so well persuaded of the truth of his religion as you
are of yours; though some of them gave great proofs
of their persuasion in their sufferings for it. But what
the necessary method of force may be able to do, to
bring any one, in your sense, to any religion, u e. to
an outward profession of it ; he that thinks himself
secure against, must have a greater assurance of him-
self, than the weakness of decayed and depraved nature
will well allow. If you have any spell against the force
of arguments, driven with penalties and punishments,
you will do well to teach it the world ; for it is the
hard luck of well-meaning people to be often misled
by them ; and even the confident themselves have not
seldom fallen under them, and betrayed their weakness.
To my demanding if you meant " reasons and argu-
ments proper and sufficient to convince men of the

A Third Letter for Toleration. 401

truth, why did you not say so?" You reply, " As if
it were possible for any man that reads your answer to
think otherwise." Whoever reads that passage in your
A. p. 5, cannot possibly think you meant to speak out,
and possibly you found some dilliculty to add any thing
to your words, (which are these, " Force used to bring
men to consider reasons and arguments proper and suf-
ficient to convince them") that might determine their
sense. For if you had said, to convince them of truth ;
then the magistrate must have made laws, and used
force, to make men search after truth in general, and
that would not have served your turn : if you had said
to convince them of the truth of the magistrate's re-
ligion, that would too manifestly have put the power
in every magistrate's hands, which, you tell us, " none
but an atheist will say." If you had said, to convince
them of the truth of your religion, that had looked too
ridiculous to be owned, though it were the thing you
meant ; and therefore in this strait, where nothing you
could say would well fit your purpose, you wisely
choose to leave the sense imperfect, and name nothing
they were to be convinced of; but leave it to be col-
lected by your reader out of your discourse, rather than
add three words to make it good grammar, as well as
intelligible sense.

To my saying, " That if you pretend it must be ar-
guments to convince men of the truth, it would in this
case do you little service ; because the mass in France
is as much supposed the truth, as the liturgy here:"
You reply, " So that it seems, that, in my opinion,
whatsoever is supposed the truth, it is the truth, for
otherwise this reason of mine is none at all." If, in my
opinion, the supposition of truth authorizes the magi-
strate to use the same means to bring men to it, as if
it were true ; my argument will hold good, without
taking all to be true which some men suppose true.
According to this answer of yours, to suppose or be-
lieve his religion the true, is not enough to authorize
the magistrate to use force ; he must know, i. e. be in-
fallibly certain, that his is the true religion. We will
for once suppose you our magistrate, with force pro-

VOL. VI. D D

402 A Third Letter for 'Toleration.

moting our national religion. I will not ask yon, whe-
ther you know that all required of conformists is ne-
cessary to salvation : but will suppose one of my pagans
asking you, whether you know Christianity to be the
true religion ? If you say, Yes; he will ask you how
you know it ? and no doubt but vou will srive the an-
swer, whereby our Saviour proved his mission, John v.
36, that " the works which our Saviour did, bear wit-
ness of him, that the Father sent him." The miracles
that Christ did, are a proof of his being sent from God,
and so his religion the true religion. But then you will
be asked again, whether you know that he did those
miracles, as well as those who saw them done? If you
answer, Yes ; then it is plain that miracles are not yet
withdrawn, but do still accompany the Christian religion
with all the efficacy and evidence that they had upon
the eye-witnesses of them ; and then, upon your own
grounds, there will be no necessity of the magistrate's
assistance ; miracles still supplying the want of it. If
you answer, that matter of fact done out of your sight,
at such a distance of time and place, cannot be known
to you as certainly as it was to the eye-witnesses of it,
but that you upon very good grounds firmly believe it ;
you are then come to believing that yours is the true
religion, and if that be sufficient to authorize you to
use force, it will authorize any other magistrate of any
other religion to use force also. For whoever believes
any thing, takes it to be true, and as he thinks upon
good grounds ; and those often who believe on the
weakest grounds, have the strongest confidence : and
thus all magistrates, who believe their religion to be
true, will be obliged to use force to promote it, as if it
were the true.

To my saying that the usefulness of force, your way
applied, amounts to no more but this, that it is not im-
possible but that it may be useful : Vou reply, " I leave
it to be judged by what has been said ;" and 1 leave it
to you yourself to judge: only, that you may not for-
get, 1 shall heir remind you in short of some of the
reasons 1 have to say so: 1. You grant that Force has
no direct efficacy to bring men to embrace the truth.

A Third Letter for Toleration. 403

& You distinguish the indirect and at a distance use-
fulness of your force, from that which is barely by ac-
cident, by these two marks, viz. First, That punishment
on dissenters for non-conformity is, by those that use it,
intended to make men consider: and Secondly, That
your moderate punishments, by experience, are found
often successful ; and your having neither of these marks,
it must be concluded to be useful only by accident :
and such an usefulness, as I said, " One cannot deny
to auricular confession, doing of penance, going pil-
grimages to saints, and what not? Yet our church does
not think fit to use them ; though it connot be denied
but they may have some of your indirect and at a di-
stance usefulness ; that is, perhaps may do some service
indirectly, and by accident." If the intention of those
that use them, and the success they will tell you they
find in the use of them, be a proof of doing service
more than by accident ; that cannot be denied to them
more than to penalties, your way applied. To which
let me add, that the niceness and difficulty there is, to
hit that just degree of force, which, according to your
hypothesis, must be neither so much as to do harm,
nor so little as to be ineffectual, — for you yourself can-
not determine it, — makes its usefulness yet more uncer-
tain and accidental. And after all, let its efficacy to
work upon men's minds be what it will, great or little,
it being sure to be employed ten, or, possibly, a hun-
dred times to bring men to error, for once that it is
employed to bring men to the truth ; and where it
chances to be employed on the side of truth, it being
liable to make a hundred, or perhaps a thousand out-
ward conformists, for one true and sincere convert ;
I leave it also to be judged what usefulness it is like
to be of.

To show the usefulness of force, your way applied,
I said, " Where the law punished dissenters without
telling them it is to make them consider, they may
through ignorance and oversight neglect to do it :"
Your answer is, " But where the law provides sufficient
means of instruction for all, as well as punishment for
dissenters, it is so plain to all concerned, that the pu-

d d 2

4>04 A Third Letter for Toleration.

nishment is intended to make them consider, that you
see no danger of men's neglecting to do it, through ig-
norance or oversight." I hope you mean by consider,
so to consider as not only to embrace in an outward
profession, for then all you say is but a poor fallacy,
for such a considering amounts to no more but bare
outward conformity; but so to consider, study, and
examine matters of religion, as really to embrace what
one is convinced to be thetrue, with faith and obedience.
If it be so plain and easy to understand, that a law,
that speaks nothing of it, should yet be intended to
make men consider, search, and study, to find out the
truth that must save them ; I wish you had showed us
this plainness. For I confess many of all degrees, that
I have purposely asked about it, did not ever see, or so
much as dream, that the act of uniformity, or against
conventicles, or the penalties in either of them, were
ever intended to make men seriously study religion,
and make it their business to find the truth which must
save them ; but barely to make men conform. But
perhapsyou have met with handicraftsmen, and country
farmers, maid-servants, and day-labourers, who have
quicker understandings, and reason better about the
intention of the law ; for these as well as others are
concerned. If you have not, it is to be feared your
saying " it is so plain, that you see no danger of men's
neglecting to do it, through ignorance or oversight,"
is more for its serving your purpose, than from any ex-
perience you have that it is so.

When you will inquire into this matter, you will, I
guess, find the people so ignorant amidst that great
plainness you speak of, that not one of twenty of any
degree, amongst the conformists or non-conformists,
ever understood the penalty of twelvepencc a Sunday,
or any other of our penal laws against non-conformity,
to be intended to set men upon studying the true re-
ligion, and impartially examining what is necessary to
salvation. And if you would come to Hudibras's de-
cision, I believe he would have a good wager of it, who
should give you a guinea for each one who had thought
so, and receive but a shilling for every one who had

A Third Letter for Toleration, 405

not. Indeed, you do not Ray, it is plain every where,
but only " where the law provides sufficient means of
instruction for all, as well as punishments for dissenters."
From whence, I think it will follow, that that contri-
butes nothing to make it plain ; or else that the law
has not provided sufficient means of instruction in Eng-
land, where so very few find this to be so plain. If by
this sufficient provision of means of instruction for all,
you mean persons maintained at the public charge to
preach and officiate in the public exercise of the na-
tional religion ; I suppose you needed not this restric-
tion, there being few places which have an established
national religion , where there is not such means of in-
struction provided ; if you intend any other means of
instruction, I know none the law has provided in Eng-
land but the XXXIX Articles, the liturgy, and the
Scripture; and how either of them by itself, or these alto-
gether, with a national clergy, make it plain, that the
penalties laid on non-conformity are intended to make
men consider, study, and impartially examine matters
of religion, you would do well to show. For magi-
strates usually know, (and therefore make their laws
accordingly) that the people seldom carry either their
interpretation or practice beyond what the express let-
ter of the law requires of them. You would do well
also to show, that a sufficient provision of means of in-
struction, cannot but be understood to require an ef-
fectual use of them, which the law that makes that pro-
vision says nothing of; but, on the contrary, contents
itself with something very short of it : for conformity
or coming to church, is at least as far from considering,
studying, and impartially examining matters of religion,
so as to embrace the truth upon conviction and with
an obedient heart ; as being present at a discourse con-
cerning mathematics, and studying mathematics, so as
to become a knowing mathematician, are different one
from the other.

People generally think they have done their duties
abundantly, if they have been at church, whether they
mind any thing done there or no : this they call serving
of God, as if it were their whole duty ; so backward

4-OG A Third Letter for Toleration.

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 oc-
casion, 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 sus-
pect the vulgar, who have scarce time and thought
enough to make inferences from the law, which scarce
one often 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 ar-
gue about it, will find reason to think that those penal-
ties were not intended to make men examine the doc-
trine 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 punish-
ments 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 :V
You reply, " No man who rejects truth necessary to
hifl salvation, has considered already as he ought to con-
sider." The words M as he ought," are not, as I take
it, in the question : and so your answer is, " No man

A Third Letter for Toleration. 407

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 he nothing to the purpose, unless you
will dare to say, that all dissenters reject truth necessary
to salvation. For without the supposition, that all dis-
senters reject the truth necessary to salvation, the ar-
gument 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 religions of the world
are, beyond comparison, more of them false or erro-
neous, 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 :

408 A Third Letter for Toleration.

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 con-
sider 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 twro 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 man-
kind be not able to discern betwixt truth andfalsehood,
in matters concerning their salvation, (as I must mean if I
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 docs he certainly know them to be so? li* you say
he only believes them lo 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 Cor the salvation of their subjects' souls ;
old so the king of France did what he was obliged to,

A Third Letter for Toleration. 409

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 in-
fallible 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 un-
derstand, other things he cannot believe, assent, or con-
sent to. What now is to be done with him ? He must
either be punished on, or resign himself up to the de-
termination and direction of the civil magistrate ; which,
till you can find a better name for it, we will call im-
plicit 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; be-
cause notwithstanding the long and many proofs and
remote consequences, the false grounds and the captious
and fallacious arguments of learned men versed in con-
troversies " with which I (as well as those of the Ro-
man 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-

410 A Third Letter for Toleration.

standings. This will be a good answer to what I ob-
jected 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 false-
hood. And indeed, besides what you say here, upon
your hypothesis, that force is lawful only because it is ne-
cessary 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 need-
ful 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 ex-
posed to all that sincerely and diligently seek it, that no
such person shall ever tail 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 ex-
plained 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

... i

propositions in Athanasius's Creed : it is more, truly,

than I should be apt to think of any one of them;

A Third Letter for Toleration. 411

and yet I cannot hence believe myself authorized to
judge or pronounce them all damned: it is too bold
an intrenching on the prerogative of the Almighty ; to
their own Master they stand or fall.

The doctrine of original sin is that which is pro-
fessed and must be owned by the members of the
church of England, as is evident from the XXXIX
Articles, and several passages in the liturgy : and yet I
ask you, whether this be " so obvious and exposed to
all that diligently and sincerely seek the truth," that
one who is in the communion of the church of England,
sincerely seeking the truth, may not raise to himself
such difficulties concerning the doctrine of original sin
as may puzzle him, though he be a man of study ; and
whether he may not push his inquiries so far, as to be
staggered in his opinion?

If you grant me this, as I am apt to think you will,
then I inquire whether it be not true, notwithstanding
what you say concerning the plainness and obviousness
of truths necessary to salvation, that a great part of
mankind may not be able to discern between truth and
falsehood, in several points, which are thought so far
to concern their salvation, as to be made necessary
parts of the national religion ?

If you say it may be so, then I have nothing further
to inquire ; but shall only advise you not to be so severe
hereafter in your censure of Mr. Reynolds, as you are
where you tell me, that " famous instance I give of the
two Reynolds's is not of any moment to prove the
contrary ; unless I can undertake, that he that erred
was as sincere in his inquiry after that truth as I sup-
pose him able to examine and judge."

You will, I suppose, be more charitable another time,
when you have considered that neither sincerity nor
freedom from error, even in the established doctrines
of their own church, is the privilege of those who join
themselves in outward profession to any national church
whatsoever. And it is not impossible, that one, who
has subscribed the XXXIX Articles, may yet make it
a question, " Whether it may be truly said that God
imputes the first sin of Adam to his posterity?" &c.

412 A Third Letter for Toleration.

But we are apt to be so fond of our own opinions, and
almost infallibility, that we will not allow them to be
sincere who quit our communion ; whilst, at the same
time, we tell the world, it is presumable, that all who
embrace it do it sincerely, and upon conviction ; though
we cannot but know many of them to be but loose, in-
considerate, and ignorant people. This is all the reason
you have, when you speak of the Reynolds's, to suspect
one of the brothers more than the other: and to think
that Mr. Chillingworth had not as much sincerity when
he quitted, as when he returned to the church of Eng-
land, is a partiality which nothing can justify without
pretending to infallibility.

To show that you do not fancyyour force to be useful,
but that you "judge so upon just and sufficient grounds,
you tell us, the strong probability of its success is
grounded upon the consideration of human nature,
and the general temper of mankind, apt to be wrought
upon by the method you speak of, and upon the in-
disputable attestation of experience. " The considera-
tion of human nature, and the general temper of man-
kind, will teach one this, that men are apt, in things
within their power, to be wrought upon by force, and
the more wrought upon, the greater the force or punish-
ments are : so that where moderate penalties will not
work, great severities will. Which consideration of
human nature, if it be a just ground to judge any force
useful, will, I fear, necessarily carry you, in your judg-
ment, to severities beyond the moderate penalties so
often mentioned in your system, upon a strong pro-
bability of the success of greater punishments, where
less would not prevail.

Hut if to consider so as you require, i. e. so as to em-
brace and believe, be not in their power, then no force
at all, great or little, is or can be useful. You must
therefore (consider it which way you will) either re-
nounce all force as useful, or pull off your mask, and
own all the severities of the cruellest persecutors.

The oilier reason of your judging force to be useful,
you say, is grounded on the indisputable attestation of
experience. Pray tell us where you have this attestation

A Third letter for Toleration. 413

of experience for your moderate, which is the only use-
ful force : name the country where true religion or
sound Christianity has been nationally received, and
established by moderate penal laws, that the observing
persons you appeal to may know where to employ their
observation : tell us how long it was tried, and what
was the^success of it ? And where there has been the re-
laxation of such moderate penal laws, the fruits where-
of have continually been Epicurism and atheism? Till
you do this, I fear that all the world will think there
is a more indisputable attestation of experience for the
success of dragooning, and the severities you condemn,
than of your moderate method; which we shall com-
pare with the king of France's, and see which is most
successful in making proselytes to church conformity,
(for yours as well as his reach no further than that)
when you produce your examples : the confident talk
whereof is good to countenance a cause, though ex-
perience there be none in the case.

But you " appeal, you say, to all observing persons,
whether wherever true religion or sound Christianity
have been nationally received and established by mo-
derate penal laws, it has not always visibly lost
ground by the relaxation of those laws?'5 True or
false religions, sound or unsound Christianity, wherever
established into national religions by penal laws, always
have lost, and always will lose ground, i. e. lose several
of their conforming professors, upon the relaxation of
those laws. But this concerns not the true, more than other
religions, nor is any prejudice to it; but only shows
that many are, by the penalties of the law, kept in the
communion of the national religion, who are not really
convinced or persuaded of it : and therefore, as soon as
liberty is given, they own the dislike they had many of
them before, and out of persuasion, curiosity, &c. seek
out and betake themselves to some other profession.
This need not startle the magistrates of any religion,
much less those of the true ; since they will be sure to
retain those, who more mind their secular interest than
the truth of religion, who are every where the greater
number, by the advantages of countenance and prefer-

«4 A Third Letter for Toleration.

merit : and if it be the true religion, they will retain
those also who are in earnest about it, bvthe strong tie
of conscience and conviction.

You go on, " Whether sects and heresies (even the
wildest and most absurd, and even Epicurism and
atheism) have not continually thereupon spread them-
selves, and whether the very life of Christianity has
not sensibly decayed, as well as the number of sound
professors of it been daily lessened upon it ?" As to
atheism and Epicurism, whether they spread more under
toleration, or national religions, established by mode-
rate penal laws ; when you show us the countries where
fair trial hath been made of both, that we may com-
pare them together, we shall better be able to judge.

" Epicurism and atheism,** say you, u are found con-
stantly to spread themselves upon the relaxation of
moderate penal laws." We will suppose your history
to be full of instances of such relaxations, which you
will in good time communicate to the world, that
wants this assistance from your observation. But were
this to be justified out of historv, vet would it not be
anv argument against toleration ; unless your history
can furnish you with a new sort of religion founded in
atheism. However, you do well to charge the spreading
of atheism upon toleration in matters of religion, as
an argument against those who denv atheism, which
takes away all religion, to have anv right to toleration
at all. But perhaps, as is usual for those who think all
the world should see with their eyes, and receive their
systems for unquestionable verities, zeal for your own
way makes you call all atheism that agrees not with
it. That which makes me doubt of this are these fol-
lowing words : " Not to speak of what at this time
our eves cannot but see, for fear of giving offence :
though I hope it will be none to any that have a ju<t
concern for truth and piety, to take notice of the
book^ and pamphlets which now fly so thick about
this kingdom, manifestly tending to the multiplyi
of sects and divisions, and even to the promoting of
scepticism in religion amongst US. In which number,
you say, you shall not much need my pardon, if

A Third Letter for Toleration. 415

you reckon the First and Second Letter concerning
Toleration." Wherein, by a broad insinuation, you
impute the spreading of atheism amongst us to the late
relaxation made in favour of protestant dissenters : and
yet all that you can take notice of as a proof of this
is, " the books and pamphlets which now fly so thick
about this kingdom, manifestly tending to the mul-
tiplying of sects and divisions, and even to the pro-
moting of scepticism in religion amongst us ;" and,
for instance, you name the First and Second Letter con-
cerning Toleration. If one may guess at the others by
these, the atheism and scepticism you accuse them of
will have but little more in it than an opposition to
your hypothesis ; on which the whole business of re-
ligion must so turn, that whatever agrees not with your
system must presently, by interpretation, be concluded
to tend to the promoting of atheism or scepticism in
religion. For I challenge you to show, in either of
those two letters you mention, one word tending to
Epicurism, atheism, or scepticism in religion.

But, sir, against the next time you are to give an
account of books and pamphlets tending to the pro-
moting scepticism in religion amongst us, I shall mind
you of the Third Letter concerning Toleration, to
be added to the catalogue, which asserting and building
upon this, that " true religion may be known by those
who profess it to be the only true religion," does not
a little towards betraying the Christian religion to scep-
tics. For what greater advantage can be given them,
than to teach, that one may know the true religion ?
thereby putting into their hands a right to demand it to
be demonstrated to them, that the Christian religion is
true, and bringing on the professors of it a necessity of
doing it. I have heard it complained of as one great
artifice of sceptics, to require demonstrations where they
neither could be had, nor were necessary. But if the
true religion may be known to men to be so, a sceptic
may require, and you cannot blame him if he does not
receive your religion, upon the strongest probable ar-
guments, without demonstration.

416 A Third Letter for Toleration.

And if one should demand of you demonstration of
the truths of your religion, which, I beseech you, would
you do, either renounce your assertion, that it may be
known to be true, or else undertake to demonstrate it
to him ?

And as for the decay of the very life and spirit of
Christianity, and the spreading of Epicurism amongst
us : I ask, what can more tend to the promoting of
them than this doctrine, which is to be found in the
same letter, viz. That it is presumable that those who
conform, do it upon reason and conviction? When you
can instance in any thing so much tending to the pro-
moting of scepticism in religion and Epicurism, in the
first or second letter concerning toleration, we shall
have reason to think you have some ground for what
you say.

As to Epicurism, the spreading whereof you likewise
impute to the relaxation of your moderate penal laws ;
that, so far as it is distinct from atheism, I think re-
gards men's lives more than their religions, i. e. specu-
lative opinions in religion and wTays of worship, which
is what we mean by religion, as concerned in toleration.
And for the toleration of corrupt manners, and the de-
baucheries of life, neither our author nor I do plead for
it ; but say it is properly the magistrate's business by
punishments to restrain and suppress them. I do not
therefore blame your zeal against atheism and Epi-
curism ; but you discover a great zeal against something
else in charging them on toleration, when it is in the
magistrate's power to restrain and suppress them by more
effectual laws than those for church conformity. For
there are those who will tell you, that an outward pro-
fession of the national religion, even where it is the
true religion, is no more opposite to, or inconsistent
with, atheism or Epicurism, than the owning of an-
other religion, especially any Christian profession, that
differs from it. And therefore you in vain impute
atheism or Epicurism to the relaxation of penal laws,
that require no more than an outward conformity (o
the national church.

A Third Letter for Toleration. 417

As to the sects and unchristian divisions, (for other
divisions there may be without prejudice to Chri-
stianity,) at whose door they chiefly ought to be laid,
I have showed you elsewhere.

One thing I cannot but take notice of here, that
having named " sects, heresies, Epicurism, atheism,
and a decay of the spirit and life of Christianity," as
the fruits of relaxation, for which you had the attesta-
tion of former experience, you add these words, "Not
to speak of what our eyes at this time cannot but see,
for fear of giving offence." Whom is it, I beseech you,
you are so afraid of offending, if you should speak of the
" Epicurism, atheism, and decay of the spirit and life of
Christianity,, amongst us ? But I see, he that is so mode-
rate in one part of his letter, that he will not take upon
him to teach law-makers and governors, even what
they cannot know without being taught by him; L e.
what he calls moderate penalties or force ; may yet, in
another part of the same letter, by broad insinuations,
use reproaches, wherein it is a hard matter to think
law-makers and governors are not meant. But who-
ever be meant, it is at least advisable in accusations
that are easier suggested than made out, to cast abroad
the slander in general, and leave others to apply it, for
fear those who are named, and so justly offended with
a false imputation, should be entitled to ask, as in this
case, how it appears " that sects and heresies have
multiplied, Epicurism and atheism spread themselves,
and that the life and spirit of Christianity is decayed"
more within these two years, than it was before ; and
that all this mischief is owing to the late relaxation of
the penal laws against protestant dissenters ?

You go on, " And if these have always been the
fruits of the relaxation of moderate penal laws, made
for the preserving and advancing true religion ; you
think this consideration alone is abundantly sufficient
to show the usefulness and benefit of such laws. For
if these evils have constantly sprung from the relaxa-
tion of those laws, it is evident they were prevented
before by those laws." One would think, by your

VOL. VI. E E

418 A Third Letter for Toleration.

saying, " always been the fruits, and constantly
sprung,' ' that moderate penal laws, for preserving the
true religion, had been the constant practice of all
Christian commonwealths ; and that relaxations of
them, in favour of a free toleration, had frequently
happened ; and that there were examples, both of the
one and the other, as common and known, as of princes
that have persecuted for religion, and learned men
who have employed their skill to make it good. But
till you showr us in what ages or countries your mode-
rate establishments were in fashion, and where they
were again removed to make way for our author's
toleration ; you to as little purpose talk of the fruits of
them, as if you should talk of the fruit of a tree which
nobody planted, or was nowhere suffered to grow till
one might see what fruit came from it.

Having laid it down as one of the conditions for a
fair debate of this controversy, " That it should be
without supposing all along your church in the right,
and your religion the true;" I add these words:
" Which can no more be allowed to you in this case,
whatever your church or religion be, than it can be to
a papist or a Lutheran, a presbyterian or an anabap-
tist; nay, no more to you, than it can be allowed to a
Jew or Mahometan." To which you reply, " No, sir?
Not whatever your church or religion be? That seems
somewhat hard. And you think I might have given
you some reason for what I say ; for certainly it is not
so self-evident as to need no proof. But you think it is
no hard matter to guess at my reason, though I did not
think fit expressly to own it. For it is obvious enough,
there can be no other reason for this assertion of mine,
but either the equal truth, or at least the equal cer-
tainty (or uncertainty) of all religions. For whoever
considers my assertion, must see, that to make it good
I shall be obliged to maintain one of these two things :
either, 1. That no religion is the true religion, in oppo-
sition to other religions: which makes all religions
true or false, and so either way indifferent. Or, L2.
That though some one religion be the true religion,

A Third Letter for Toleration. 419

yet no man can have any more reason than another
man of another religion may have to believe his to be
the true religion : which makes all religions equally
certain, (or uncertain, whether I please) and so renders
it vain and idle to inquire after the true religion, and
only apiece of good luck if any man be of it ; and such
good luck as he can never know that he has, till he
come into the other world. Whether of these two
principles I will own, you know not. But certainly
one or other of them lies at the bottom with me, and
is the lurking supposition upon which I build all that
I say.''

Certainly no, sir, neither of these reasons you have
so ingenuously and friendly found out for me, lies at
the bottom ; but this, that whatever privilege or power
you claim, upon your supposing yours to be the true
religion, is equally due to another, who supposes his to
be the true religion, upon the same claim : and there-
fore that is no more to be allowed to you than to him.
For whose is really the true religion, yours or his,
being the matter in contest betwixt you, your sup-
posing can no more determine it on your side, than
his supposing on his; unless you can think you have a
right to judge in your own cause. You believe yours
to be the true religion, so does he believe his : you say
you are certain of it ; so says he, he is : you think you
have " arguments proper and sufficient'' to convince
him, if he would consider them ; the same thinks he of
his. If this claim, which is equally on both sides, be
allowed to either, without any proof; it is plain he, in
whose favour it is allowed, is allowed to be judge in his
own cause, which nobody can have a right to be, who
is not at least infallible. If you come to arguments
and proofs, which you must do, before it can be deter-
mined whose is the true religion, it is plain your sup-
position is not allowed.

In our present case, in using punishments in religion,
your supposing yours to be the true religion, gives you
or your magistrate no more advantage over a papist,
presbyterian, or Mahometan, or more reason to punish

420 A Third Letter for Toleration.

either of them for his religion, than the same sup-
position in a papist, presbyterian, or Mahometan, gives
any of them, or a magistrate of their religion, advantage
over you, or reason to punish you for your religion :
and therefore this supposition, to any purpose or pri-
vilege of using force, is no more to be allowed to you
than to any one of any other religion. This the words,
in this case, which I there used, would have satisfied
any other to have been my meaning : but whether your
chanty made you not to take notice of them, or the joy
of such an advantage as this not to understand them;
this is certain, you were resolved not to lose the oppor-
tunity, such a place as this afforded you, of showing
your gift in commenting and guessing shrewdly at a
man's reason?, when he does not think fit expressly to
own them himself.

I must own you are a very lucky hand at it ; and as
you do it here upon the same ground, so it is just with
the same success, as you in another place have exer-
cised your logic on my saying something to the same
purpose as I do here. But, sir, if you will add but
one more to your plentiful stock of distinctions, and
observe the difference there is between the ground of
any one's supposing his religion is true, and the privi-
lege he may pretend to by supposing it true, you will
never stumble at this again ; but you will find, that
though, upon the former of these accounts, men of all
religions cannot be equally allowed to suppose their
religions true, yet in reference to the latter, the sup-
position may and ought to be allowed or denied equally
to all men. And the reason of it is plain, viz. because
tin' assurance wherewith one man supposes his religion
to be true, being no more an argument of its truth to
another than vice versa, neither of them can claim by
the assurance, wherewith he supposes his religion the
true, any prerogative or power over the other, which
the other has not by the same title an equal claim to
over him. If this will not serve to spare you the pains
another time of any more such reasonings, as we have
twice had on this subject, I think I shall be forced to

A Third Letter for Toleration. 421

send you to my Mahometans or pagans: and I doubt
whether I am not less civil to your parts than I should
be, that I do not send you to them now.

You go on, and say, " But as unreasonable as this
condition is, you see no need you have to decline it,
nor any occasion I had to impose it upon you. For
certainly the making what I call your new method con-
sistent and practicable, does no way oblige you to sup-
pose all along your religion the true, as I imagine."
And as I imagine it does : for without that supposition,
I would fain have you show me, how it is in any one
country practicable to punish men to bring them to the
true religion. For if you will argue for force, as ne-
cessary to bring men to the true religion, without sup-
posing yours to be it ; you will find yourself under
some such difficulty as this, that then it must be first
determined, (and you will require it should be) which
is the true religion, before any one can have a right to
use force to bring men to it ; which, if every one did
not determine for himself, by supposing his own the
true, nobody, I think, will desire toleration any longer
than till that be settled.

You go on : " No, sir ; it is enough for that purpose
that there is one true religion, and but one." Suppose
not the national religion, established by law in Eng-
land, to be that, and then even upon your principles
of its being useful, and that the magistrate has a com-
mission to use force for the promoting the true religion,
prove, if you please, that the magistrate has a power
to use force to bring men to the national religion in
England. For then you must prove the national reli-
gion, as established by law in England, to be that one
true religion, and so the true religion ; that he rejects
the true religion who dissents from any part of it;
and, so rejecting the true religion, cannot be saved.
But of this more in another place.

Your other two suppositions, which you join to the
foregoing, are, " That that religion may be known by
those who profess it, to be the only true religion ; and
may also be manifested to be such by them to others,
so far at least, as to oblige them to receive it, and to
leave them without excuse, if they do not."

422 A Third Letter for Toleration.

These, you say, are suppositions, " enough for the
making your method consistent and practicable. " They
are, I guess, more than enough, for you, upon them,
to prove any national religion in the world the only
true religion. And till you have proved (for you pro-
fess here to have quitted the supposition of any one's
being true, as necessary to your hypothesis) some na-
tional religion to be that only true religion, I would
gladly know how it is any where practicable to use
force to bring men to the true religion.

You suppose " there is one true religion, and but
one." In this we are both agreed : and from hence,
I think, it will follow, since whoever is of this true
religion shall be saved, and without being of it no
man shall be saved, that upon your second and third
suppositions it will be hard to show any national reli-
gion to be this only true religion. For who is it will
say, he knowTs, or that it is knowable, that any national
religion (wherein must be comprehended all that, by
the penal laws, he is required to embrace) is that only
true religion, which if men reject they shall, and
which if they embrace they shall not, miss salvation?
Or can you undertake that any national religion in the
world can be manifested to be such, i. e. in short, to
contain all things necessary to salvation, and nothing
but what is so ? For that, and that alone, is the one only
true religion, without which nobody can be saved,
and which is enough for the salvation of every one
who embraces it. And therefore whatever is less or
more than this, is not the only true religion, or that
which there is a necessity for their salvation men
should be forced to embrace.

I do not hereby deny, that there is any national re-
ligion which contains all that is necessary to salvation ;
for so doth the Romish religion, which is not, for all
that, so much as a true religion. Nor do I deny, that
there are national religions that contain all things ne-
cessary to salvation, and nothing inconsistent with it,
and so may be called true religions. But since they all
of them join with what is necessary to salvation a
great, deal that is not so, and make that as necessary
to communion as what is necessary to salvation, not

A Third Letter for Toleration. 423

suffering any one to be of their communion, without
taking all together ; nor to live amongst them free
from punishment, out of their communion ; will you
affirm, that any of the national religions of the world,
which are imposed by penal laws, and to which men are
driven with force, can be said to be that one only true
religion, which if men embrace they shall be saved,
and which if they embrace not they shall be damned ?
And therefore your two suppositions, true or false,
are not enough to make it practicable, upon your prin-
ciples of necessity, to use force upon dissenters from
the national religion, though it contain in it nothing
but truth ; unless that which is required to com-
munion be all necessary to salvation. For whatever is
not necessary to salvation, there is no necessity any
one should embrace. So that whenever you speak of
the true religion, to make it to your purpose, you must
speak only of what is necessary to salvation ; unless
you will say, that in order to the salvation of men's
souls, it is necessary to use force to bring them to em-
brace something, that is not necessary to their salva-
tion. I think that neither you, or any body else, will
affirm, that it is necessary to use force to bring men
to receive all the truths of the Christian religion,
though they are truths God has thought fit to reveal.
For then, by your own rule, you, who profess the
Christian religion, must know them all, and must be
able to manifest them to others; for it is on that here
you ground the necessity and reasonableness of penal-
ties used to bring men to embrace the truth. But I
suspect it is the good word religion, (as in other places
other words) has misled you, whilst you content your-
self with good sounds, and some confused notions,
that usually accompany them, without annexing to
them any precise, determined signification. To con-
vince you that it is not without ground I say this, I
shall desire you but to set down what you mean here
by true religion, that we may know what in your sense
is, and what is not contained in it. Would you but do
this fairly, and define your words, or use them in one con-
stant settled sense, I think the controversy between you
and me would be at an end/without any farther trouble.

424 A Third Letter for Toleration.

Having showed of what advantage they are like to be
to you for the making your method practicable ; in the
next place let us consider your suppositions themselves.
As to the first, " there is one true religion, and but
one," we are agreed. But what you say in the next
place, that " that one true religion may be known by
those who profess it," will need a little examination.
As first, it will be necessary to inquire what you mean
by known ; whether you mean by it knowledge pro-
perly so called, as contradistinguished to belief, — or
only the assurance of a firm belief? If the latter, I
leave you your supposition to make your use of it :
only with this desire, that to avoid mistakes, when you
do make any use of it, you would call it believing. If
you mean, that the true religion may be known with
the certainty of knowledge properly so called; I ask
you farther, whether that true religion be to be known
by the light of nature, or needed a divine revelation to
discover it? If you say, as I suppose you will, the
latter ; then I ask whether the making out of that to
be a divine revelation depends not upon particular
matters of fact, whereof you were no eye-witness, but
were done many ages before you were born ? and if so,
by what principles of science they can be known to
any man now living ?

The articles of my religion, and of a great many
such other short-sighted people as I am, are articles of
faith, which we think there are so good grounds to
believe, that we are persuaded to venture our eternal
happiness on that belief: and hope to be of that number
of whom our Saviour said, " Blessed are they that have
not seen, and yet have believed." But we neither
think that God requires, nor has given us faculties
capable of knowing in this world several of those truths
which are to be believed to salvation. If you have a
religion, all whose general truths are either self-evident,
or capable of demonstration, (for matters of fact are
not capable of being any way known but to the by-
standers) you will do well to let it be known, for the
ending of controversies, and banishing of error con-
cerning any of those points, out of the world. For
whatever may be known, besides matter of fact, is

A Third Letter for Toleration, 425

capable of demonstration ; and when you have demon-
strated to any one any point in religion, you shall have
my consent to punish him if he do not assent to it.
But yet let me tell you, there are many truths, even in
mathematics, the evidence whereof one man seeing, is
able to demonstrate to himself, and so may know them:
which evidence yet he not being able to make another
see, (which is to demonstrate to him) he cannot make
known to him, though his scholar be willing, and with
all his power applies himself to learn it.

But granting your supposition, " that the one true
religion may be known by those who profess it to be
the only true religion -" will it follow from hence, that
because it is knowrable to be the true religion, therefore
the magistrate who professes it actually knows it to be
so? Without which knowledge, upon your principles,
he cannot use force to bring men to it. But if you are
but at hand to assure him which is the true religion,
for which he ought to use force, he is bound to believe
you ; and that will do as well as if he examined and
knew himself, or perhaps better. For you seem not well
satisfied with what the magistrates have lately done,
without your leave, concerning religion in England.
And I confess the easiest way to remove all difficulties
in the case, is for you to be the magistrate's infallible
guide in matters of religion. And therefore you do
well here also to keep to your safe style, lest if your
sense were clear and determined, it might be more
exposed to exceptions; and therefore you tell us the
true religion may be known by those who profess it.
For not saying by some of those, or by all those, the
error of what you say is not so easily observed, and
requires the more trouble to come at : which I shall
spare myself here, being satisfied that the magistrate,
who has so full an employment of his thoughts in the
cares of his government, has not an overplus of leisure
to attain that knowledge which you require, and so
usually contents himself with believing.

Your next supposition is, that " the one true religion
may also be manifested to be such, by them, to others;
so far, at least, as to oblige them to receive it, and

426 A Third Letter for Toleration.

leave them without excuse if they do not." That it
can be manifested to some, so as to oblige, r. e. cause
them to receive it, is evident, because it is received.
But because this seems to be spoken more in reference
to those who do not receive it, as appears by these fol-
lowing words of yours : " then it is altogether as plain,
that it may be very reasonable and necessary for some
men to change their religion ; and that it may be made
appear to them to be so. And then, if such men will
not consider what is offered to convince them of the
reasonableness and necessity of doing it, it may be
very fit and reasonable," you tell me, " for any thing I
have said to the contrary, in order to the bringing them
to the consideration, to require them, under conve-
nient penalties, to forsake their false religions, and
embrace the true." You suppose the true religion
may be so manifested by a man that is of it, to all men
so far as to leave them, if they do not embrace it,
without excuse. Without excuse, to whom I beseech
you ? To God, indeed, but not to the magistrate ;
who can never know whether it has been so manifested
to any man, that it has been through his fault that he
has not been convinced ; and not through the fault of
him to whom the magistrate committed the care of
convincing him : and it is a sufficient excuse to the
magistrate, for any one to say to him, I have not neg-
lected to consider the arguments that have been of-
fered me by those whom you have employed to manifest
it to me ; but that yours is the only true religion I am
not convinced. Which is so direct and sufficient an
excuse to the magistrate, that had he an express com-
mission from heaven to punish all those who did not
consider, he could not yet justly punish anyone whom
he could not convince had not considered. But you
endeavour to avoid this, by what you infer from this
supposition ; viz. " That then it may be very fit and
reasonable, for any thing I have said to the contrary,
to require men, under convenient penalties, to forsake
their false religions, to embrace the true, in order to
the bringing them to consideration." Whether I have
said any thing to the contrary or no, the readers must

A Third Letter for Toleration. 427

judge, and I need not repeat. But now, I say, it is
neither just nor reasonable to require men, under
penalties, to attain one end, in order to bring them to
use the means not necessary to that, but to another end.
For where is it you can say (unless you will return to
your old supposition, of yours being the true religion;
which you say is not necessary to your method) that
men are by the law " required to forsake their false
religions, and embrace the true ?" The utmost is this,
in all countries where the national religion is imposed
by law, men are required, under the penalties of those
laws, outwardly to conform to it ; which you say is in
order to make them consider. So that your punish-
ments are for the attaining one end, viz. conformity,
in order to make men use consideration, which is a
means not necessary to that, but another end, viz.
finding out and embracing the one true religion. For
however consideration may be a necessary means to
find and embrace the one true religion, it is not at all a
necessary means to outward conformity in the com-
munion of any religion.

To manifest the consistency and practicableness of
your method to the question, what advantage would it
be to the true religion, if magistrates did every where
so punish ? You answer, that " by the magistrate's
punishing, if I speak to the purpose, I must mean
their punishing men for rejecting the true religion, (so
tendered to them, as has been said) in order to the
bringing them to consider and embrace it. Now before
we can suppose magistrates every where so to punish,
we must suppose the true religion to be every where
the national religion. And if this were the case, you
think it is evident enough, what advantage to the true
religion it would be, if magistrates every where did so
punish. For then we might reasonably hope that all
false religions would soon vanish, and the true become
once more the only religion in the world : whereas, if
magistrates should not so punish, it were much to be
feared (especially considering what has already hap-
pened) that, on the contrary, false religions and atheism,
as more agreeable to the soil, would daily take deeper
root, and propagate themselves, till there were no room

428 A Third Letter fur Toleration.

left for the true religion (which is but a foreign plant)
in any corner of the world."

If you can make it practicable that the magistrate
should punish men for rejecting the true religion, with-
out judging which is the true religion, — or if true reli-
gion could appear in person, take the magistrate's seat,
and there judge all that rejected her, — something
might be clone. But the mischief of it is, it is a man
that must condemn, men must punish ; and men cannot
do this but by judging who is guilty of the crime which
they punish. An oracle, or an interpreter of the law
of nature, who speaks as clearly, tells the magistrate,
he may and ought to punish those " who reject the
true religion/' tendered with sufficient evidence :"
the magistrate is satisfied of his authority, and believes
this commission to be good. Now I would know how
possibly he can execute it, without making himself the
judge first what is the true religion ; unless the law of
nature at the same time delivered into his hands the
XXXIX Articles of the one only true religion, and
another book wherein all the ceremonies and outward
worship of it are contained. But it being certain,
that the law of nature has not done this ; aud as cer-
tain, that the articles, ceremonies, and discipline of
this one only true religion have been often varied in
several ages and countries, since the magistrate's com-
mission by the law of nature was first given : there is
no remedy left, but that the magistrate must judge
what is the true religion, if he must punish them who
reject it. Suppose the magistrate be commissioned to
punish those who depart from right reason ; the ma-
gistrate can yet never punish any one, unless he be
judge what is right reason; and then judging that
murder, theft, adultery, narrow cart-wheels, or want
of bows and arrows in a man's house, are against right
reason, he may make laws to punish men guilty of
those, as rejecting right reason.

So, if the magistrate in England or France, having a
commission to punish those who reject the one only true
religion, judges the religion of his national church to be
it; it is possible for him to lay penalties on those who
reject it, pursuant to that commission ; otherwise, with-

A Third Letter for Toleration. 429

out judging that to be the one only true religion, it is
wholly impracticable for him to punish those who em-
brace it not, as rejecters of the one only true religion.
To provide as good a salvo as the thing will bear, you
say, in the following words, " Before we can suppose
magistrates every where so to punish, we must sup-
pose the true religion to be every where the national."
That is true of actual punishment, but not of laying
on penalties by law ; for that would be to suppose the
national religion makes or chooses the magistrate, and
not the magistrate the national religion. But we see
the contrary ; for let the national religion be what it will
before, the magistrate doth not always fall into it and
embrace that ; but if he thinks not that, but some other
the true, the first opportunity he has he changes the
national religion into that which he judges the true,
and then punishes the dissenters from it; where his
judgment, which is the true religion, always necessarily
precedes, and is that which ultimately does, and must
determine who are rejecters of the true religion, and so
obnoxious to punishment. This being so, I would
gladly see how your method can be any way practicable
to the advantage of the true religion, whereof the ma-
gistrate every where must be judge, or else be can pu-
nish nobody at all.

You tell me that whereas I say, that to justify punish-
ment it is requisite that it be directly useful for the pro-
curing some greater good than that which it takes
awTay ; you <c wish I had told you why it must needs
be directly useful for that purpose." However exact
you may be in demanding reasons of what is said, I
thought here you had no cause to complain; but you
let slip out of your memory the foregoing words of
this passage, which together stands thus: " Punish-
ment is some evil, some inconvenience, some suffering,
by taking away or abridging some good thing, which
he who is punished has otherwise a right to. Now, to
justify the bringing any such evil upon any man, two
things are requisite; 1. That he that does it has a
commission so to do. 2. That it be directly useful for
the promoting some greater good." It is evident by

430 A Third Letter for Toleration.

these words, that punishment brings direct evil upon a
man, and therefore it should not be used but where it
is directly useful for the procuring some greater good.
In this case, the signification of the word directly, car-
ries a manifest reason in it, to any one who understands
what directly means. If the taking away any good
from a man cannot be justified, but by making it a
means to procure a greater ; is it not plain it must be
so a means as to have, in the operation of causes and
effects, a natural tendency to that effect ? And then it
is called directly useful to such an end : and this may
give you a reason " why punishment must be directly
useful for that purpose." I know you are very tender
of your indirect and at a distance usefulness of force,
which I have in another place showed to be, in your
way, only useful by accident ; nor will the question
you here subjoin excuse it from being so, viz. " Why
penalties are not as directly useful for the bringing
men to the true religion, as the rod of correction is to
drive foolishness from a child, or to work wisdom in
him ?" Because the rod works on the will of the child,
to obey the reason of the father, whilst under his tui-
tion ; and thereby makes it supple to the dictates of
his own reason afterwards, and disposes him to obey
the light of that, when being grown to be a man, that is
to be his guide, and this is wisdom. If your penalties
are so used, I have nothing to say to them.

Your way is charged to be impracticable to those
ends you propose, which you endeavour to clear, p. 63.
That there may be fair play on both sides, the reader
shall have in the same view what we both say :

L. II. p. 125. "It remains L. III. p. 63. But

now to examine, whether the how little to the purpose

author's argument will not this request of yours

hold good, even against pu- is, will quickly appear,

nishments in your way. For For if the magistrate

if the magistrate's authority provides sufficiently for

be, as you here say, only to the instruction of all his

procure all his subjects (mark subjects in the true re-

what you say, all his sub- ligion ; and then re-

A Third Letter for Toleration. 431

jects) the means of disco- quires them all, under
vering the way of salvation, convenient penalties, to
and to procure withal, as hearken to the teachers
much as in him lies, that and ministers of it, and
none remain ignorant of it, to profess and exercise
or refuse to embrace it, either it with one accord, un-
for want of using those means, der their direction, in
or by reason of any such pre- public assemblies : is
judices as may render them there any pretence to
ineffectual. If this be the ma- say, that in so doing he
gistrate's business, in refer- applies force only to a
ence to all his subjects; I de- part of his subjects,
sire you, or any man else, to when the law is general,
tell me how this can be done, and excepts none ? It
by the application of force is true the'magistrate in-
only to a part of them ; un- flicts the penalties, in
less you will still vainly sup- that case, only upon
pose ignorance, negligence, them that break the law.
or prejudice, only amongst But is that the thing
that part which any where you mean by his " ap-
differs from the magistrate, plying force only to a
If those of the magistrate's part of his subjects ?"
church may be ignorant of Would you have him
the way of salvation ; if it be punish all indifferently?
possible there may be amongst them that obey the law,
them those who refuse to em- as well as them that do
brace it, either for want of not?
using those means, or by rea- As to ignorance,
son of any such prejudices as negligence, and preju-
may render them ineffectual; dice, I desire you, or
what in this case becomes of any man else, to tell me
the magistrate's authority to what better course can
procure all his subjects the be taken to cure them,
means of discovering the way than that which I have
of salvation? Must these of mentioned. For if after
his subjects be neglected, all that God's ministers
and left without the means and the magistrate can
he has authority to procure do, some will still re-
them ? Or must he use force main ignorant, negli-
upon them too? And then, gent, or prejudiced, I
prayshowmehow this can be do not take that to be

432 A Third Letter for Toleration.

done. Shall the magistrate any disparagement to
punish those of his own re- it: for certainly that is
ligion, to procure them the a very extraordinary re-
means of discovering the way medy, which infallibly
of salvation, and to procure, cures all diseased per-
as much as in him lies, that sons to whom it is ap-
they remain not ignorant plied,
of it, or refuse not to em-
brace it? These are such con-
tradictions in practice, this
is such condemnation of a
man's own religion, as no one
can expect from the magi-
strate; and I dare say you
desire not of him. And yet

this is that he must do, if his authority be to procure
all his subjects the means of discovering the way to
salvation. And if it be so needful, as you say it is, that
he should use it, I am sure force cannot do that till it
be applied wider, and punishment be laid upon more
than you would have it. For, if the magistrate be by
force to procure, as much as in him lies, that none re-
main ignorant of the way of salvation, must he not
punish all those who are ignorant of the way of salva-
tion ? And pray tell me how is this any way practicable,
but by supposing none in the national church ignorant,
and all out of it ignorant, of the way of salvation ?
Which what is it, but to punish men barely for not
being of the magistrate's religion ; the very thing you
deny he has authority to do? So that the magistrate
having, by your own confession, no authority thus to
use force ; and it being otherwise impracticable for
the procuring all his subjects the means of discovering
the way of salvation ; there is an end of force. And
so force being laid aside, either as unlawful or im-
practicable, the author's argument holds good against
Force, even in your way of applying it."

The backwardness and lusts that hinder an impartial

examination, as yon describe it, is general. The cor-
ruption of nature which hinders a real embracing the

A Third Letter for Toleration. iSS

true religion, that also you tell us here is universal, I
ask a remedy for these in your way. You say the law for
conformity is general, excepts none. Very likely, none
that do not conform ; but punishes none who, conform-
ing, do neither impartially examine nor really embrace
the true religion. From whence I conclude there is no
corruption of nature in those who are brought up or
join in outward communion with the church of Eng-
land. But as to ignorance, negligence, and prejudice,
you say " you desire me, or any man else, to tell what
better course can be taken to cure them, than that
which you have mentioned." If your church can find
no better way to cure ignorance and prejudice, and
the negligence that is in men to examine matters of
religion, and heartily embrace the true, than what is
impracticable upon conformists ; then, of all others,
conformists are in the most deplorable state. But, as I
remember, you have been told of a better way, which
is, the discoursing with men seriously and friendly about
matters in religion, by those whose profession is the care
of souls ; examining what they do understand, and
where, either through laziness, prejudice, or difficulty,
they do stick ; and applying to their several diseases, pro-
per cures ; which it is as impossible to do by a general
harangue, once or twice a week out of the pulpit, as
to fit all men's feet with one shoe, or cure all men's ails
with one, though very wholesome, diet-drink. To be
thus " instant in season, and out of season," some men
have thought a better way of cure, than a desire only to
have men driven by the whip, either in your, or the
magistrate's hand, into the sheepfold : where when they
are once, whether they understand, or no, their mini-
ster's sermons ; whether they are, or can be better for
them or no ; whether they are ignorant and hypocritical
conformists, and in that way like to remain so, rather
than to become knowing and sincere converts ; some
bishops have thought it not sufficiently inquired : but
this nobody is to mention, for whoever does so,
" makes himself an occasion to show his good-will to
the clergy."

VOL. VI. F F

io^i A Third Letter for Toleration.

This had not been said by me here, now I see how apt
you are to be put out of temper with any thing of this
kind, though it be in every serious man's mouth, had
not you desired me to show you a better way than force,
your way applied. And, to use your way of arguing,
since bare preaching, as now used, it is plain, will not
do, there is no other means left but this to deal with the
corrupt nature of conformists ; for miracles are now
ceased, and penalties they are free from ; therefore, by
your way of concluding, no other being left, this of
visiting at home, conferring and instructing, and admo-
nishing men there, and the like means, proposed by
the reverend author of the Pastoral Care, is necessary ;
and men, whose business is the care of souls, are
obliged to use it : for you " cannot prove, that it cannot
do some service," I think I need not say, " indirectly
and at a distance." And if this be proper and sufficient
to bring conformists, notwithstanding the corruption of
their nature, " to examine impartially, and really em-
brace the truth that must save them ;" it will remain
to show why it may not do as well on non-conformists,
whose, I imagine, is the common corruption of nature,
to bring them to examine and embrace the truth that
must save them ? And though it be not so extraordinary
a remedy as will infallibly cure all diseased persons, to
whom it is applied : yet since the corruption of nature,
which is the same disease, and hinders the " impartial
examination, and hearty embracing the truth that must
save them," is equally in both, conformists and non-con-
formists ; it is reasonable to think it should in both have
the same cure, let that be what it will.

A Third Letter for Toleration, 435

CHAPTER X.

Of the Necessity of Force, in Matters of Religion.

You tell us " you do not ground the lawfulness of
such force, as you take to be useful for the promoting
the true religion, upon the bare usefulness of such force,
but upon the necessity as well as usefulness of it ; and
therefore you declare it to be no fit means to be used,
either for that purpose or any other, where it is not
necessary as well as useful."

How useful force in the magistrate's hand, for bring-
ing men to the true religion, is like to be, we have
shown in the foregoing chapter, in answer to what you
have said for it. So that it being proved not useful, it
is impossible it should be necessary. However we will
examine what you say to prove the necessity of it. The
foundation you build on for its necessity we have in your
Argument considered, p. 10 ; where having at large di-
lated on men's inconsiderateness in the choice of their
religions, and their persisting in those they have once
chosen, without due examination, vou conclude thus :
" Now if this be the case, if men are so averse to a due
consideration, if they usually take up their religion
without examining it as they ought, what other means
is there left ?" Wherein you suppose force necessary,
instead of proving it to be so ; for preaching and per-
suasion not prevailing upon all men, you upon your own
authority think fit something else should be done ; and
that being resolved, you readily pitch on force, because
you say you can find nothing else ; which in effect is
only to tell us, if the salvation of men's souls were only
left to your discretion, how you would order the matter.

And in your answer to me, you very confidently tell
us, " the true religion cannot prevail without the assist-
ance either of miracles or of authority." I shall here

f f2

436 A Third Letter for Toleration.

only observe one or two things, and then go on to
examine how yon make this good.

The first thing I shall observe is, that in your Argu-
ment considered, &c. you suppose force necessary only
to master the aversion there is in men to considering
and examination : and here in your answer to me, you
make force necessary to conquer the aversion there is
in men to embrace and obey the true religion. Which
are so very different, that the former justifies the use of
force only to make men consider ; the other justifies the
use of force to make men embrace religion. If you
meant the same thing when you writ your first treatise,
it was not very ingenuous to express yourself in such
words as were not proper to give your reader your true
meaning ; it being a far different thing to use force to
make men consider, which is an action in their power
to do or omit, and to use force to make them embrace,
f. e. believe any religion, which is not a thing in any
one's power to do or forbear as he pleases. If you say
you meant barely considering in your first paper, as the
whole current of it would make one believe ; then I see
your hypothesis may mend, as we have seen in other
parts, and, in time, may grow to its full stature.

Another thing I shall remark to you is, that in your
first paper, besides preaching and persuasion, and the
grace of God, nothing but force was necessary. Here
in your second, it is either miracles or authority, which
how you make good, we will now consider.

You having said, you had no 4t reason from any ex-
periment to expect that the true religion should be any
way the gainer by toleration, " I instanced in the prevail-
ing of the Gospel, by its own beauty, force, and reason-
ableness, in the first ages of Christianity. You reply,
that it has not the same beauty, force, and reasonableness
now that it had then, unless " 1 include miracles too,
which are now ceased ; and, as you tell us, were not
withdrawn, till by their help Christianity had prevailed
to be received for the religion of the empire, and to be
encouraged and supported by the laws of it."

\\ therefore we will believe you upon your own word,

A Third Letter for Toleration. 1«,T/

force being necessary, (for prove it necessary you never
can) you have entered into the counsel of God, and tell
us, when force could not be had, miracles were employed
to supply its want: " I cannot but think, say you, it is
highly probable (if we may be allowed to guess at the
counsels of infinite wisdom) that God was pleased to
continue them till then," i. e. till the laws of the empire
supported Christianity, " not so much for any necessity
there was of them all that time, for the evincing the truth
of the Christian religion, as to supply the want of the
magistrate's assistance." You allow yourself to guess
very freely, when you will make God use miracles to
supply a means he nowhere authorized or appointed.
How long miracles continued we shall see anon.

Say you, " If we may be allowed to guess :" this
modesty of yours, where you confess you guess, is only
concerning the time of the continuing of miracles ; but
as to their supplying the want of coactive force, that you
are positive in, both here and where you tell us," Why
penalties were not necessary at first, to make men to
give ear to the Gospel, has already been shown ;" and
a little after, " the great and wonderful things which
were to be done for the evidencing the truth of the
Gospel, were abundantly sufficient to procure atten-
tion," &c. How you come to know so undoubtedly that
miracles were made use of to supply the magistrate's
authority, since God nowhere tells you so, you would
have done well to show.

But in your opinion force was necessary, and that
could not then be had, and so God must use miracles,
For, say you, " Our Saviour was no magistrate, and
therefore could not inflict political punishments upon
any man ; so much less could he empower his apostles to
do it." Could not our Saviour empower his apostles
to denounce or inflict punishments on careless or ob-
stinate unbelievers, to make them hear and consider ?
You pronounce very boldly methinks of Christ's power,
and set very narrow limits to what at another time you
would not deny to be infinite : but it was convenient here
for your present purpose, that it should be so limited.

438 A Third Letter for Toleration.

But, they not being magistrates, " he could not em-
power his apostles to inflict political punishments."
How is it of a sudden, that they must be political
punishments? You tell us all that is necessary, is to
" lay briars and thorns in men's ways, to trouble and
disease them to make them consider." This I hope
our Saviour had power to do, if he had found it neces-
sary, without the assistance of the magistrate ; he could
have always done by his apostles and ministers, if he had
so thought fit, what he did once by St. Peter, have
dropped thorns and briars into their very minds, that
should have pricked, troubled, and diseased them suf-
ficiently. But sometimes it is briars and thorns only
that you want ; sometimes it must be human means ;
and sometimes, as here, nothing will serve your turn
but political punishments; just as will best suit your
occasion, in the argument you have then before you.

That the apostles could lay on punishments, as trou-
blesome and as great as any political ones when they
were necessary, we see in Ananias and Sapphira : and he
that had " all power given him in heaven and in earth"
could, if he had thought fit, have laid briars and thorns
in the way of all that received not his doctrine.

You add, " But as he could not punish men to make
them hear him, so neither was there any need that
he should. He came as a prophet sent from God to
reveal a new doctrine to the world; and therefore, to
prove his mission, he was to do such things as could
only be done by a divine power : and the works
which he did were abundantly sufficient both to gain
him a hearing, and to oblige the world to receive his
doctrine." Thus the want of force and punishments
is supplied. How far? so far as they are supposed
necessary to gain a hearing, and so far as to oblige the
world to receive Christ's doctrine; whereby, as I sup-
pose, you mean sufficient to lay an obligation on them
to receive his doctrine, and render them inexcusable if
they did not : hut that they were not suflicicnl lo make
all that saw them effectually to receive and embrace the
Gospelj 1 think is evident; ami you will not 1 imagine

A Third Letter for Toleration. 439

say, that all who saw Christ's miracles believed on him.
So that miracles were not to supply the want of such
force, as was to be continued on men to make them
consider as they ought, i. e. till they embraced the truth
that must save them. For we have little reason to think
that our Saviour, or his apostles, contended with their
neglect or refusal by a constant train of miracles, con-
tinued on to those who were not wrought upon by the
Gospel preached to them. St. Matthew tells us, chap,
xiii. 58, that he did not many mighty works in his own
country, because of their unbelief; much less were mi-
racles to supply the want of force in that use you make
of it, where you tell us it is to punish the fault of not
being of the true religion : for we do not find any mira-
culously punished to bring them into the Gospel. So
that the want of force to either of these purposes not
being supplied by miracles, the Gospel it is plain sub-
sisted and spread itself without force so made use of, and
without miracles to supply the want of it ; and therefore
it so far remains true, that the Gospel having the same
beauty, force, and reasonableness now as it had at the
beginning, it wants not force to supply the defect of
miracles, to that for which miracles were nowhere
made use of. And so far, at least, the experiment is
good, and this assertion true, that the Gospel is able to
prevail by its own light and truth, without the con-
tinuance of force on the same person, or punishing men
for not being of the true religion.

You say, "Our Saviour, being no magistrate, could
not inflict political punishments ; much less could he
empower his apostles to do it." I know not what
need there is, that it should be political ; so there were
so much punishment used, as you say is sufficient to
make men consider, it is not necessary it should come
from this or that hand : or if there be any odds in that,
we should be apt to think it would come best, and most
effectually, from those who preached the Gospel, and
could tell them it was to make them consider ; than from
the magistrate, who neither doth, nor, according to your
scheme, can, tell them it is to make them consider-

440 A Third Letter for Toleration.

And this power you will not deny but our Saviour
could have given to the apostles.

But if there were such absolute need of political
punishments, Titus or Trajan might as well have been
converted as Constantine. For how true it is, that mi-
racles supplied the want of force from those days till
Constantine's, and then ceased, we shall see by and by.
I say not this to enter boldly into the counsels of God,
or to take upon me to censure the conduct of the Al-
mighty, or to call his providence to an account ; but to
answer your saying, " Our Saviour was no magistrate,
and therefore could not inflict political punishments."
For he could have had both magistrates and political
punishments at his service, if he had thought fit; and
needed not to have continued miracles longer " than
there was necessity for evincing the truth of the Chri-
stian religion, as you imagine, to supply the want of the
magistrate's assistance, by force, wmich is necessary."
But how come you to know that force is necessary ?
Has God revealed it in his word ? nowhere. Has it
been revealed to you in particular? that you will not
say. What reason have you for it ? none at all but this,
that having set down the grounds, upon which men
take up and persist in their religion, you conclude,
" what means is there left but force ?" Force therefore
you conclude necessary, because, without any authority,
but from your own imagination, you are peremptory,
that other means, besides preaching and persuasion, is
to be used ; and therefore it is necessary, because you
can think of no other.

When I tell you there is other means, and that by
your own confession the grace of God is another means,
and therefore force is not necessary: you reply, "Though
the grace of God be another means, and you thought fit
to mention it, to prevent cavils; yet it is none of the
means of which you were Speaking, in the place I refer
to; which any one who reads that paragraph will find
to be only human means: and therefore, though the
grace of God be both a proper and sufficient means,
and such as can work by itself, ami without which

A Third Letter for Toleration. 441

neither penalties nor any other means can do any thing ;
yet it may be true however, that when admonitions and
entreaties fail, there is no human means left, but penal-
ties, to bring prejudiced persons to hear and consider
what may convince them of their errors, and discover
the truth to them. And then penalties will be neces-
sary in respect to that end as a human means."

In which words, if you mean an answer to my argu-
ment, it is this, that force is necessary, because to bring
men into the right way there is other human means ne-
cessary, besides admonitions and persuasions. For else
what have we to do with human in the case? But it is
no small advantage one owes to logic, that where sense
and reason fall short, a distinction ready at hand may
eke it out. Force, when persuasions will not prevail,
is necessary, say you, because it is the only means left.
When you are told it is not the only means left, and so
cannot be necessary on that account : you reply, that
" when admonitions and entreaties fail, there is no
human means left, but penalties, to bring prejudiced
persons to hear and consider what may convince them
of their errors, and discover the truth to them : and
then penalties will be necessary in respect to that end,
as a human means."

Suppose it be urged to you, when your moderate
lower penalties fail, there is no human means left but
dragooning and such other severities, which you say
you condemn as much as I, " to bring prejudiced per-
sons to hear and consider what may convince them of
their errors, and discover the truth to them $' and then
dragooning, imprisonment, scourging, fining, &c. will
be necessary in respect to that end, as a human means ;
what can you say but this ? that you are empowered to
judge what degrees of human means are necessary, but
others are not. For without such a confidence in your
own judgment, where God has neither said how much,
nor that any force is necessary ; I think this is as good an
argument for the highest, as yours is for the lower pe-
nalties. When " admonitions and entreaties will not
prevail, then penalties, lower penalties, some degrees
of force will be necessary, say you, as a human means."

442 A Third Letter j or Toleration.

And when your lower penalties, your some degrees of
force, will not prevail, then higher degrees will be neces-
sary,say I, as a human means. And my reason is the same
with yours, because there is no other means, i. e. human
means, left. Show me how your argument concludes
for lower punishments being necessary, and mine not
for higher, even to dragooning, " et eris mihi magnus
Apollo."

But let us apply this to your succedaneum of mira-
cles, and then it will be much more admirable. You
tell us, admonitions and entreaties not prevailing to
bring men into the right way, " force is necessary, be-
cause there is no other means left." To that it is said,
yes, there is other means left, the grace of God. Ay,
but, say you, that will not do ; because you speak only
of human means. So that, according to your way of ar-
guing, some other human means is necessary : for you
yourself tell us, that the means you were speaking of,
where you say, " that when admonitions and entreaties
will not do, what other means is there left but force ?
were human means." Your words are, " which any
one, who reads that paragraph, will find to be only
human means." By this argument, then, other human
means are necessary besides preaching and persuasion,
and those human means you have found out to be either
force or miracles : the latter are certainly notable human
means. And your distinction of human means serves
you to very good purpose, having brought miracles
to be one of your human means. Preaching and
admonitions, say you, are not sufficient to bring men
into the right way ; something else is necessary : yes,
the grace of God ; no, say you, that will not do, it is
not human means : it is necessary to have other human
means ; therefore, in the three or four first centuries
lifter Christianity, the insufficiency of preaching and
admonitions was made up with miracles, and thus the
necessity of other human means is made good. But to
consider a little farther your miracles as supplying the
want of force.

The question between us here is, whether the Chri-
stian religion did not prevail, in the first ages of the

A Third Letter for Toleration. 443

church* by its own beauty, force, and reasonableness,
without the assistance of force ? I say it did, and there-
fore external force is not necessary. To this you reply,
" that it cannot prevail by its own light and strength,
without the assistance either of miracles, or of authority ;
and therefore the Christian religion not being still ac-
companied with miracles, force is now necessary." So
that, to make your equivalent of miracles correspond
with your necessary means of force, you seem to require
an actual application of miracles, or of force, to prevail
with men to receive the Gospel ; ?. e. men could not be
prevailed with to receive the Gospel without actually
seeing of miracles. For when you tell us, that " you
are sure I cannot say the Christian religion is still ac-
companied with miracles, as it was at its first planting,"
I hope you do not mean that the Gospel is not still
accompanied with an undoubted testimony that miracles
were done by the first publishers of it ; which was as
much of miracles, as I suppose the greatest part of those
had, with whom the Christian religion prevailed, till it
was " supported and encouraged, as you tell us, by the
laws of the empire :" for I think you will not say, or if
you should, you could not expect to be believed, that
all, or the greatest part of those, that embraced the
Christian religion, before it was supported by the laws
of the empire, which was not till the fourth century,
had actually miracles done before them, to work upon
them. And all those, who were not eye-witnesses of
miracles done in their presence, it is plain had no other
miracles than we have ; that is, upon report ; and it is
probable not so many, nor so well attested, as we have.
The greatest part then, of those who were converted,
at least, in some of those ages, before Christianity was
supported by the laws of the empire, I think you must
allow, were wrought upon by bare preaching, and such
miracles as we still have, miracles at a distance, related
miracles. In others, and those the greatest number,
prejudice was not so removed, that they were prevailed
on to consider, to consider as they ought, i. e. in your
language, to consider so as to embrace. If they had
not so considered in our days, what, according to your
scheme, must have been done to them, that did not

1 14 A Third Letter Jar Toleration.

consider as they ought ? Force must have been applied
to them. What therefore in the primitive church was
to be done to them ? Why ! your succedaneum miracles,
actual miracles, such as you deny the Christian religion
to be still accompanied with, must have been done in
their presence, to work upon them. Will you say this
was so, and make a new church-history for us, and
outdo those writers who have been thought pretty liberal
of miracles? If you do not, you must confess miracles
supplied not the place of force ; and so let fall all your
fine contrivance about the necessity either of force or
miracles ; and perhaps you will think it at last a more
becoming modesty, not to set the divine power and pro-
vidence on work by rules, and for the ends of your hy-
pothesis, without having anything in authentic history,
much less in divine and unerring revelation, to justify
you. But force and power deserve something more
than ordinary and allowable arts or arguments, to get
and keep them : " si violandum sit jus, regnandi causa
violandum est."

If the testimony of miracles having been done were
sufficient to make the Gospel prevail, without force, on
those who were not eye-witnesses of them ; we have
that still, and so upon that account need not force to
supply the want of it ; but if truth must have either the
law of the country, or actual miracles to support it,
what became of it after the reign of Constantine the
Great, under all those emperors that were erroneous or
heretical? It supported itself in Piedmont, and France,
and Turkey, many ages without force or miracles : and
it spread itself in divers nations and kingdoms of the
north and east, without any force, or other miracles
than those that were done many ages before. So that
1 think you will, upon second thoughts, not deny, but
that the true religion is able to prevail now, as it did at
first, and lias done since in many places, without assist-
ance from the powers in being; by its own beauty,
force, and reasonableness, whereof well-attested mira-
cles are a part.

But the account you give us of miracles will deserve
to he a little c\amincd. We have it in these words:
*k ( onsnlering thai those extraordinary means were not

A Third Lctte7\for Toleration. 445

withdrawn till by their help Christianity had prevailed
to be received for the religion of the empire, and to be
supported and encouraged by the laws of it; you can-
not, you say, but think it highly probable, (if we may
be allowed to guess at the counsels of infinite wisdom)
that God was pleased to continue them till then ; not
so much for any necessity there was of them all that
while, for the evincing the truth of the Christian reli-
gion, as to supply the want of the magistrate's assist-
ance." Miracles then, if what you say be true, were
continued till " Christianity was received for the re-
ligion of the empire, not so much to evince the truth
of the Christian religion, as to supply the want of the
magistrate's assistance." But in this the learned author,
whose testimony you quote, fails you. For he tells you
that the chief use of miracles in the church, after the
truth of the Christian religion had been sufficiently con-
firmed by them in the world, was to oppose the false
and pretended miracles of heretics and heathens ; and
answerable hereunto miracles ceased and returned again,
as such oppositions made them more or less necessary.
Accordingly miracles, which before had abated, in
Trajan's and Hadrian's time, which was in the latter
end of the first, or beginning of the second century,
did again revive to confound the magical delusions of
the heretics of that time. And in the third century
the heretics using no such tricks, and the faith being
confirmed, they by degrees ceased, of which there then,
he says, could be no imaginable necessity. His words
are, " Et quidem eo minus necessaria sunt pro veterum
principiis recentiora ilia miracula, quod haereticos, quos
appellant, nullos adversarios habeant, qui contraria illis
dogmata astruant miraculis. Sic enim vidimus, apud
veteres, dum nulli ecclesiam exercerent adversarii, seu
haeretici, seu Gentiles ; aut satis illi praeteritis miraculis
fuissent refutati ; aut nullas ipsi praestigias opponerent
quae veris essent miraculis oppugnandae ; subductam
deinde paulatim esse mirificam illam spiritus virtutem.
Ortos sub Trajano Hadrianoque haereticos ostendimus
praestigiis magicis fuisse usos, et proinde miraculorum
verorum in ecclesia usum una rcvixisse. Ne dicam prar>

446 A Third Letter for Toleration.

stigiatores etiam Gentiles eodem illo seculo sane fre-
quentissimos, Apuleium in Africa, in Asia Alexandrum
Pseudomantim, multosque alios quorum meminit Ari-
stides. Tertio seculo orto, haeretici Her mogenes, Praxeas,
Noetus, Theodotus, Sabellius, Novatianus, Artemas,
Samosatenus, nulla, ut videtur, miracula ipsi vendita-
bant, nullis propterea miraculis oppugnandL Inde vi-
dimus, apud ipsos etiam catholicos, sensim defecisse
miracula. Et quidem, hsereticis nulla in contrarium
miracula ostentantibus, quae tandem fingi potest miracu-
lorum necessitas traditam ab initio fidem, miraculisque
adeo jamdudum confirmatam praedicantibus ? Nulla
certe prorsus pro primgevo miraculorum exemplo. Nulla
denique consciis vere primaavam esse fidem quam novis
miraculis suscipiunt confirmandam." Dodwell, Dis-
sertat. in Iraen. Diss. II. Sect. 65.

The history therefore you have from him, of mira-
cles, serves for his hypothesis, but not at all for yours.
For if they were continued to supply the want of force,
which was to deal with the corruption of depraved hu-
man nature ; that being, without any great variation
in the world, constantly the same, there could be no
reason why they should abate and fail, and then return
and revive again. So that there being then, as you
suppose, no necessity of miracles for any other end, but
to supply the want of the magistrate's assistance ; they
must, to suit that end, be constant and regularly the
same as you would have force to be, which is steadily and
uninterruptedly to be applied, as a constantly necessary
remedy, to the corrupt nature of mankind.

If you allow the learned Dodwell's reasons for the
continuation of miracles, till the fourth century, your
hypothesis, that they were continued to supply the ma-
gistrate's assistance, wrill be only precarious. For if
there was need of miracles till that time to other pur-
poses, the continuation of them in the church, though
you could prove them to be as frequent and certain
as those of our Saviour and the apostles, it would
not advantage your cause ; since it would be no evi-
dence, that they were used for that end, which as long
as there were other visible uses of them, von could not,

A Third Lc Iter for Toleration. 447

without revelation, assure us were made use of by Di-
vine Providence " to supply the want of the magi-
strate's assistance." You must therefore confute his
hypothesis, before you can make any advantage of
what he says, concerning the continuation of miracles,
for the establishing of yours. For till you can show,
that that which he assigns was not the end, for which
they were continued in the church ; the utmost you
can say is, that it may be imagined, that one reason of
their continuation was to supply the want of the ma-
gistrate's assistance : but what you can without proof
imagine possible, I hope you do not expect should
be received as an unquestionable proof that it was so.
I can imagine it possible they were not continued for
that end, and one imagination will be as good a proof
as another.

To do your modesty right therefore, I must allow,
that you do faintly offer at some kind of reason, to prove
that miracles were continued to supply the want of the
magistrate's assistance : and since God has nowhere
declared that it was for that end, you would persuade
us, in, this paragraph, that it was so, by two reasons.
One is, that the truth of the Christian religion being
sufficiently evinced by the miracles done by our Sa-
viour and his apostles, and perhaps their immediate
successors ; there was no other need of miracles to be
continued till the fourth century ; and therefore they
were used by God to supply the want of the magistrate's
assistance. This I take to be the meaning of these words
of yours, " I cannot but think it highly probable that
God was pleased to continue them till then ; 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."
Whereby, I suppose, you do not barely intend to tell
the wrorld what is your opinion in the case ; but use this
as an argument, to make it probable to others, that this
was the end for which miracles were continued ; which
at the best will be but a very doubtful probability to
build such a bold assertion on, as this of yours is, viz*

448 A Third Letter for Toleration.

That " the Christian religion is not able to subsist and
prevail in the world, by its own light and strength, with-
out the assistance either of force or actual miracles."
And therefore you must either produce a declaration
from Heaven that authorizes you to say, that miracles
were used to supply the want of force, or show that
there was no other use of them but this. For if any other
use can be assigned of them, as long as they continued
in the church, one may safely deny, that they were to
supply the want of force : and it will lie upon you to
prove it by some other way than by saying you think it
highly probable. For I suppose you do not expect that
your thinking any thing highly probable, should be a
sufficient reason for others to acquiesce in, when perhaps,
the history of miracles considered, nobody could bring
himself to say he thought it probable, but one whose
hypothesis stood in need of such a poor support.

The other reason you seem to build on is this, that
when Christianity was received for the religion of the
empire, miracles ceased, because there was then no
longer any need of them ; which I take to be the argu-
ment insinuated in these words, " Considering thatthose
extraordinary means were not withdrawn till by their
help Christianity had prevailed to be received for the
religion of the empire. " If then you can make it ap-
pear that miracles lasted till Christianity was received
for the religion of the empire, without any other reason
for their continuation, but to supply the wrant of the
magistrate's assistance ; and that they ceased as soon as
the magistrates became Christians ; your argument will
have some kind of probability, that within the Roman
empire this was the method God used for the propa-
gating the Christian religion. But it will not serve to
make good your position, " that the Christian religion
cannot subsist and prevail by its owrn strength and light,
without the assistance of miracles or authority, 7 unless
vou can show, that (iod made use of miracles to intro-
duce and support it in other parts of the world, not
subject to the Roman empire, till the magistrates there
also became Christians. For the corruption oi' nature

A Third Letter for Toleration. 449

being the same without, as within the bounds of the
Roman empire; miracles, upon your hypothesis, were as
necessary to supply the want of the magistrate's assist-
ance in other countries as in the Roman empire. For
J do not think you will find the civil sovereigns were
the first converted in all those countries, where the
Christian religion was planted after Constantine's reign :
and in all those it will be necessary for you to show us
the assistance of miracles.

But let us see how much your hypothesis is favoured
by church history. If the writings of the fathers of
greatest name and credit are to be believed, miracles
were not withdrawn when Christianity had prevailed to
be received for the religion of the empire. Athanasius,
the great defender of the catholic orthodoxy, writ the
life of his contemporary St. Anthony, full of miracles ;
which though some have questioned, yet the learned
Dodwell allows to be writ by Athanasius : and the style
evinces it to be his, which is also confirmed by other
ecclesiastical writers.

Palladius tells us, " That Ammon did many mira-
cles : but that particularly St. Athanasius related in
the life of Anthony, that Ammon going with some
monks Anthony had sent to him, when they came to
the river Lycus, which they were to pass, was afraid
to strip for fear of seeing himself naked ; and whilst
he was in dispute of this matter, he was taken up,
and in an ecstasy carried over by an angel, the rest of
the monks swimming the river. When he came to
Anthony, Anthony told him he had sent for him, be-
cause God had revealed many things to him concern-
ing him, and particularly his translation. And when
Ammon died in his retirement, Anthony saw his soul
carried into heaven by angels. " Palladius in Vita
Ammonis.

Socrates tells us, "That Anthony saw the soul of
Ammon taken up by angels, as Athanasius writes in
the life of Anthony."

And again, says he, " It seems superfluous for me to
relate the many miracles Anthony did ; how he fought

VOL. VI. G G

i56 A Third Letter for Toleration.

openly with devils, discovering all their tricks and
cheats : for Athanasins bishop of Alexandria has pre-
vented me on that subject, having writ a book particu-
larly of his life.,5>

" Anthony was thought worthy of the vision of God,
and led a life perfectly conformable to the laws of
Christ. This, whoever reads the book, wherein is con-
tained the history of his life, will easily know ; wherein
he will also see prophecy shining out: for he prophesied
very clearly of those who were infected with the Arian
contagion, and foretold what mischief from them was
threatened to the churches ; God truly revealing all
these things to him, which is certainly the principal
evidence of the catholic faith, no such man being to
be found amongst the heretics. But do not take this
upon my word, but read and study the book itself."

This account you have from St. Chrysostom *, whom
Mr. Dodwell calls the contemner of fables.

St. Hierom, in his treatise De Viro Perfecto, speaks
of the frequency of miracles done in his time, as a thing
past question : besides those, not a few, which he has
left upon record, in the lives of Hilarion and Paul, two
monks, whose lives he has writ. And he that has a
mind to see the plenty of miracles of this kind, need
but read the collection of the lives of the fathers, made
by Rosweydus.

Ruffin tells us, that Athanasius lodged the bones of
St. John Baptist in the wall of the church, knowing by
the spirit of prophecy the good they were to do to the
next generation : and of what efficacy and use they were,
may be concluded from the church with the golden
roof, built to them soon after, in the place of the temple
of Serapis.

St. Austin tells us f, " That he knew a blind man
restored to sight by the bodies of the Milan martyrs,
and some other such things; of which kind there were

* Chrysost. Horn. 8. in Matth. ii.

t Coecum illuminahim i'uissc jam novoram. Ncc caqux COgDOSChnUf,
enumcraiT pottUMUf. Au^. Retract, lib. I. D. 1!*.

// Third Letter for" Toleration. 451

so many clone in that time, that many escaped Ins know-
ledge ; and those which lie knew were more than he
Ceroid number." More of this yon may see Epist. 137.

He further assures us, that by the single relics of
St. Stephen " a blind woman received her sight. Lu-
culliis was cured of an old fistula ; Eucharius of the
stone; three gouty men recovered; a lad killed with
a cart-wheel going over him, restored to life safe and
sound, as if he had received no hurt: a nun lying at
the point of death, they sent her coat to the shrine, but
she dying before it was brought back, was restored to
life by its being laid on her dead body. The like
happened at Hippo to the daughter of Bassus; and two
others," whose names he sets down, were by the same
relics raised from the dead.

After these and other particulars there set down, of
miracles done in his time by those relics of St. Ste-
phen, the holy father goes on thus: "What shall I do?
pressed by my promise of despatching this work, I
cannot here set down all : and without doubt many,
when they shall read this, will be troubled that I have
omitted so many particles, which they truly know as
well as I *. For if I should, passing by the rest, write
only the miraculous cures which have been wrought
by this most glorious martyr, Stephen, in the colony of
Calama, and this of ours, I should fill many books, and
yet should not take in all of them : but only those of
which there are collections published t, which are read
to the people : for this I took care should be done,
when I saw that signs of divine power, like those of
old, were frequent also in our times %. It is not now
two years since that shrine has been at Hippo : and
many of the books, which I certainly knew to be so,
not being published, those which are published con-
cerning those miraculous operations amounted to near

* Quae utique mecum sciunt.
t Libelli dati sunt.

X Cum viderimus antiquis similia divinarum signa virtutum etiam
nostris temporibus frequentari. Aug. de Civ. Dei, lib. xxii. c. 8.

G G 2

4.3L2 A Third Letter for Toleration.

fifty when I writ this. But at Calama, where this
shrine was before, there are more published, and their
number is incomparably greater. At Uzal also a colony,
and near Utica, we know many famous things to have
been done by the same martyr."

Two of those books he mentions are printed in the
appendix of the tenth tome of St. Austin's works of
Plantin's edit. One of them contains two miracles ;
the other, as I remember, about seventeen. So that at
Hippo alone, in two years' time, we may count, besides
those omitted, there were published above 600 miracles,
and, as he says, incomparably more at Calama : besides
what were done by other relics of the same St. Stephen,
in other parts of the world, which cannot be supposed
to have had less virtue than those sent to this part of
Africa. For the relics of St. Stephen, discovered by
the dream of a monk, were divided and sent into distant
countries, and there distributed to several churches.

These may suffice to show, that if the fathers of the
church of greatest name and authority are to be be-
lieved, miracles were not withdrawn, but continued
down to the latter end of the fourth century, long after
" Christianity had prevailed to be received for the reli-
gion of the empire."

But if these testimonies of Athanasius, Chrysostom,
Palladius, Ruffin, St. Hierom, and St. Austin, will not
serve your turn, you may find much more to this purpose
in the same authors; and, if you please, you may con-
sult also St. Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssen,
St. Ambrose, St. Hilary, Theodoret, and others.

This being so, you must either deny the authority of
these fathers, or grant that miracles continued in the
church after " Christianitv was received for the religion
of the empire : and then they could not be to supply the
want of the magistrate's assistance," unless they were to
supply the want of what was not wanting; and there-
fore they were continued for some other end. Which
end of the continuation of miracles, when you are so
far instructed in as to be able to assure us, that it was
different from that for which God made use of them in

A Third Lc tier for Toleration. 453

the second and third centuries ; when you arc so far
admitted into the secrets of Divine Providence as to be
able to convince the world that the miracles between the
apostles' and Constantine's time, or any other period you
shall pitch on, were to supply the want of the magi-
strate's assistance, and those after, for some other pur-
pose, what you say may deserve to be considered. Until
you do this, you will only show the liberty you take to
assert with great confidence, though without any ground,
whatever will suit your system ; and that you do not stick
to make bold with the counsels of infinite wisdom, to
make them subservient to your hypothesis.

And so I leave you to dispose of the credit of eccle-
siastical writer^ as you shall think fit ; and by your au-
thority to establish or invalidate theirs as you please.
But this, I think, is evident, that he who will build his
faith or reasonings upon miracles delivered by church-
historians, will find cause to go no farther than the
apostles' time, or else not to stop at Constantine's: since
the writers after that period, whose word we readily
take as unquestionable in other things, speak of mira-
cles in their time with no less assurance than the
fathers before the fourth century ; and a great part of
the miracles of the second and third centuries stand
upon the credit of the writers of the fourth. So that
that sort of argument which takes and rejects the testi-
mony of the ancients at pleasure, as may best suit with
it, will not have much force with those who are not
disposed to embrace the hypothesis, without any argu-
ments at all.

You grant, " That the true religion has always light
and strength of its own, i. e. without the assistance of
force or miracles, sufficient to prevail with all that con-
sidered it seriously, and without prejudice : that there-
fore, for which the assistance of force is wanting, is to
make men consider seriously, and without prejudice."
Now, whether the miracles that we have still, miracles
done by Christ and his apostles, attested, as they are,
by undeniable history, be not fitter to deal with men's
prejudices than force, and than force which requires

454 A Third Letter for Toleration.

nothing but outward conformity, I leave the world to
judge. All the assistance the true religion needs from
authority is only a liberty for it to be truly taught ;
but it has seldom had that, from the powers in being,
in its first entry into their dominions, since the with-
drawing of miracles : and yet I desire you to tell me,
into what country the Gospel, accompanied, as now it
is, only with past miracles, hath been brought by the
preaching of men, who have laboured in it after the
example of the apostles, where it did not so prevail over
men's prejudices, that " as many as were ordained to
eternal life," considered and believed it. Which, as
you may see, Acts xiii. 48, was all the advance it made,
even when assisted with the gift of miracles : for neither
then were all, or the majority, wrought on to consider
and embrace it.

But yet the Gospel " cannot prevail by its own light
and strength ;" and therefore miracles were to supply
the place of force. How was force used ? A law being
made, there was a continued application of punishment
to all those whom it brought not to embrace the doc-
trine proposed. Were miracles so used till force took
place ? For this we shall want more new church-history,
and J think contrary to what we read in that part of
it which is unquestionable ; I mean in the Acts of the
Apostles, where we shall find, that the then promulgators
of the Gospel, when they had preached, and clone what
miracles the Spirit of God directed, if they prevailed
not, they often left them ; " Then Paul and Barnabas
waxed bold, and said it was necessary that the word of
(iod should first have been spoken to you : but seeing
you put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy,
we turn to the Gentiles," Acts xiii. 4C. " They shook
oil' the dust of their feet against them, and came unto
Itanium," Acts xiii. ,01. " But when divers were
hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way
before the multitude, he departed from them, and sepa-
rated the disciples," Acts xix. [). u Paul Wtt pressed
in spirit, and testified to the .lews that .Jesus was
Christ; and when they opposed themselves, and bias-

A Third Ixtlerfor Toleration. 455

phemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them,
Your blood be upon your own heads ; I am clean :
from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles," Acts
xviii. 6. Did the Christian magistrates ever do so, who
thought it necessary to support the Christian religion
by laws ? Did they ever, when they had a while pu-
nished those whom persuasions and preaching had not
prevailed on, give off, and leave them to themselves,
and make trial of their punishment upon others? Or
is this your way of force and punishment? If it be not,
yours is not what miracles came to supply the room
of, and so is not necessary. For you tell us, they are
punished to make them consider, and they can never be
supposed to consider "as they ought, whilst they persist
in rejecting ;" and therefore they are justly punished
to make them so consider : so that not so considering,
being the fault for which they are punished, and the
amendment of that fault the end which is designed to
be attained by punishing, the punishment must con-
tinue. But men were not always beat upon with mira-
cles. To this, perhaps, you will reply, that the seeing
of a miracle or two, or half a dozen, was sufficient to
procure a hearing ; but that being punished once or
twice, or half a dozen times, is not ; for you tell us,
" the power of miracles communicated to the apostles
served altogether as well as punishment, to procure
them a hearing :" where, if you mean by hearing, only
attention, who doubts but punishment may also pro-
cure that? If you mean by hearing, receiving and
embracing what is proposed, that even miracles them-
selves did not effect upon all eye-witnesses. Why then,
I beseech you, if one be to supply the place of the
other, is one to be continued on those who do reject ;
when the other was never long continued, nor, as I
think we may safely say, often repeated to those who
persisted in their former persuasions ?

After all, therefore, may not one justly doubt, whe-
ther miracles supplied the place of punishment? nay,
whether you yourself, if you be true to your own
principles, can think so? You tell us, that not to join
" themselves to the true church, where sufficient evi-

456 A Third Letter for Toleration.

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 per-
sisted 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 accom-
panied ; 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 good-
nature ; but it is consonant to your principles : for if
not professing the true religion, where sufficient evi-
dence 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 argu-
ments : 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 magi-
strates 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 t his 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

A Third Letter for Toleration. 45J

countries where the magistrate is not of the true reli-
giah ? " Unless, as you urge it, you will say (what
without impiety cannot be said) that the wise and be-
nign 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 de-
gree 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 cor-
poral punishments, not starving and tormenting in
noisome prisons :" those you condemn. " Not com-
pulsion : 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 reli-
gion, as to supply the want of the magistrate's assist-
ance. For the true religion not being able to support
itself by its own light and strength, without the assist-
ance 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 inconve-
niencies, such as only disturb and disease a little ;" if
you cannot show that in all countries, where the ma-
gistrates have been Christian, they have assisted with

458 // Third Letter for Toleration.

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 with-
drawing 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 autho-
rity from history talk of miracles, and political admini-
sl nit ions, as may best suit his system.

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

A Third Letter for Toleration. 459

authority ; but when God has once sufficiently settled
his religion in the world, so that if men from thence-
forth 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 mi-
racles ? 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, u 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, ac-
cording 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,

460 A Third Letter for Toleration,

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 pre-
sume 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 assist-
ance 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 pre-
vail. 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 capa-
cities, 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 pro-
pagate the true religion, but subjects will not. If you
are not, you must bethink yourself how to answer that
old question,

*- Snl quia custodier ipsos

Cuftodet?"

To my having said, that prevailing without the assist-
ance of force, 1 thought was made use of as an argu-

A Third Letter for Toleration. 461

merit for the truth of the Christian religion : you reply,
that you hope " I am mistaken : for sure this is a very
bad argument, That the Christian religion, so contrary
in the nature of it, as well to flesh and blood, as to
the powers of darkness, should prevail as it did, and
that not only without any assistance from authority,
but even in spite of all the opposition which authority
and a wicked world, joined with those infernal powers,
could make against it. This, I acknowledge, has de-
servedly been insisted upon by Christians, as a very
good proof of their religion. But to argue the truth
of the Christian religion, from its mere prevailing in
the world, without any aid from force, or the assist-
ance of the powers in being ; as if whatever religion
should so prevail must needs be the true religion ;
whatever may be intended, is really not to defend the
Christian religion, but to betray it." How you have
mended the argument by putting in u mere," which is
not any where used by me, I will not examine. The
question is, whether the Christian religion, such as it
was then (for I know not any other Christian religion),
and is still, " contrary to flesh and blood, and to the
powers of darkness," prevailed not without the assist-
ance of human force, hy those aids it has still ? This,
I think, you will not deny to be an argument used for
its truth by Christians, and some of our church. How
far any one in the use of this argument pleases or dis-
pleases you, I am not concerned. All the use I made
of it was to show, that it is confessed that the Christian
religion did prevail, without that human means of the
coactive power of the magistrate, which you affirmed to
be necessary ; and this, I think, makes good the expe-
riment I brought. Nor will your seeking, your way,
a refuge in miracles, help you to evade it ; as I have
already shown.

But you give a reason for what you say, in these fol-
lowing words : " For neither does the true religion
always prevail without the assistance of the powers in
being, nor is that always the true religion which does
so spread and prevail." Those who use the argu-
ment of its prevailing without force, for the truth of

462 A Third Letter for Toleration,

the Christian religion, it is like will tell you, that, if it
be true, as you say, that the Christian religion, which
at other times does, sometimes does not, prevail without
the assistance of the powers in being ; it is, because
when it fails, it wants the due assistance and diligence
of the ministers of it : " How shall they hear without a
preacher?" How shall the Gospel be spread and pre-
vail, if those who take on them to be the ministers and
preachers of it either neglect to teach it others as they
ought, or confirm it not by their lives ? If, therefore,
you will make this argument of any use to you, you
must show where it was, that the ministers of the
Gospel, doing their duty by the purity of their lives,
and their uninterrupted labour, in being instant in
season, and out of season, have not been able to make
it prevail. An instance of this, it is believed, you will
scarce find : and if this be the case, that it fails not to
prevail where those, whose charge it is, neglect not to
teach and spread it with that care, assiduity, and appli-
cation which they ought, you may hereafter know
where to lay the blame ; not on the want of sufficient
light and strength in the Gospel to prevail (wherein me-
thinks you make very bold with it) ; but on the want
of what the apostle requires in the ministers of it, some
part whereof you may read in these words to Timothy :
" But thou, O man of God, follow after righteous-
ness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness: give
attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine :
preach the word, be instant in season and out of sea-
son ; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long-suffering
and doctrine :" and more to this purpose in his epistles
to Timothy and Titus.

That the Christian religion has prevailed, and sup-
ported itself in the world now above these sixteen
hundred years, you must grant ; and that it has not been
by force, is demonstration. For wherever the Christian
religion prevailed, it did it, as far as we know any thing
of the means of its propagation and support, without
the help of that force, moderate force, which you say
■ alone useful and necessary. So that if the se\e-
lities you condemn he, as you confess, apter to hinder

A Third Let lev for Toleration. 4fi;>

than promote the Gospel, and it has nowhere had the
assistance of your moderate penalties; it must follow,
that it prevailed without force, only by its own strength
and light, displayed and brought home to the under-
standings and hearts of the people, by the preachings,
entreaties, and exhortations of its ministers. This at
least you must grant, that force can be by no means
necessary to make the Gospel prevail any where, till
the utmost has been tried that can be done by argu-
ments and exhortations, prayers and entreaties, and all
the friendly ways of persuasion.

As to the other part of your assertion, " Nor is that
always the true religion that does so spread and pre-
vail," it is like they will demand instances of you, where
false religions ever prevailed against the Gospel, with-
out the assistance of force on the one side, or the betray-
ing of it by the negligence and carelessness of its teachers
on the other ? So that if the Gospel any where wants
the magistrate's assistance, it is only to make the mini-
sters of it do their duty. I have heard of those, and
possibly there are instances of it now wanting, who by
their pious lives, peaceable and friendly carriage, and
diligent application to the several conditions and capa-
cities of their parishioners, and screening them as much
as they could from the penalties of the law, have in a
short time scarce left a dissenter in a parish, where, not-
withstanding the force had been before used, they scarce
found any other. But how far this has recommended
such ministers to those who ought to encourage or fol-
low the example, I wish you would inform yourself,
and then tell me. But who sees not that a justice of
peace's warrant is a shorter, and much easier way for
the minister, than all this ado of instruction, debates,
and particular application. Whether it be also more
Christian, or more effectual to make real converts, others
may be apt to inquire. This, I am sure, it is not justi-
fiable, even by your very principles, to be used till
the other has been thoroughly tried.

How far our Saviour is like to approve of this method
in those whom he sends ; what reward he is like to

464 A Third Letter for Toleration.

bestow on ministers of his word, who are forward to
bring their brethren under such correction ; those who
call themselves successors of the apostles will do well
to consider from wThat he himself says to them, Luke
xii. 42. For that that was spoken particularly to the
apostles and preachers of the Gospel, is evident not only
from the words themselves, but from St. Peter's ques-
tion. Our Saviour having in the foregoing verses de-
clared in a parable the necessity of being watchful, St.
Peter, verse 41, asks him, " Lord, speakest thou this
parable unto us, or even to all ?" To this demand
our Saviour replies in these words : " Who then is that
faithful and wise steward whom his lord shall make ruler
over his household, to give them their portion of meat
in due season ? Blessed is that servant whom the Lord,
when he cometh, shall find so doing. Of a truth, I
say unto you, he will make him ruler over all that he
hath. But, and if that servant say in his heart, My lord
delayeth his coming ; and shall begin to beat the men-
servants, and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be
drunken : the lord of that servant will come in a day
when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he
is not aware ; and will cut him in sunder, and will ap-
point him his portion with unbelievers ; or with hypo-
crites," as it is, Matth. xxiv. 51.

But if there be any thing in the argument for the
truth of Christianity, (as God forbid there should not)
that it has, and consequently can prevail without force ;
I think it can scarce be true in matter of fact, that false
religions do also prevail against the Christian religion,
when they come upon equal terms in competition, and
as much diligence and industry is used by the teachers
of it, as by seducers to false religions, the magistrate
using his force on neither side. For if in this cases
which is the fair trial, Christianity can prevail, and false
religions too; it is possible contrarieties may prevail
against one another both together. To make good
therefore your assertion9 you must show us, where ever
any other religion so spread and prevailed, as to drive
Christianity out of any country, without force, where

A Third Letter for Toleration. 46Y>

1 he ministers of it did their duty to teach, adorn, and
support it.

As to the following words, " Nor is that always the
true religion which does so spread and prevail ; as I
doubt not but you will acknowledge with me, when
you have but considered within how few generations
after the flood the worship of false gods prevailed
against that which Noah professed and taught his
children, which was undoubtedly the true religion,
almost to the utter exclusion of it (though that at
first was the only religion in the world) without any
aid from force, or assistance from the powers in
being." This will need something more than a ne-
gative proof, as we shall see by and by.

Where I say, " The inventions of men need the force
and help of men ; a religion that is from God, wants
not the assistance of human authority :" the first
part of those words you take no notice of; neither grant
nor deny it to be so ; though perhaps it will prove a
great part of the controversy between us.

To my question, U Whether if such a toleration as is
proposed by the author of the first letter were esta-
blished in France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, &c. the
true religion would not be a gainer by it?" you an-
swer, That the " true religion would be a loser by it
in those few places where it is now established as the
national religion ;" and particularly you name Eng-
land. It is then, it seems, by your way of moderate
force and lower penalties, that in all countries where it
is national, the true religion hath prevailed and subsists.
For the controversy is between the author's universal
toleration and your new way of force ; for greater de-
grees of force you condemn as hurtful. Say then that
in England, and wherever the true religion is national,
it has been beholden to your force for the advantages
and support it has had, and I will yield you the cause.
But of national religions, and particularly that of
England, I have occasion to speak more in another
place.

In the next place you answer, That you suppose I do
not hope I shall persuade the world to consent to my

VOL. VI. H II

4G6 A Third Letter for Toleration.

toleration. I think, by your logic, a proposition is
not less true or false, because the world will or will
not be persuaded to consent to it. And therefore,
though it will not consent to a general toleration, it
may nevertheless be true that it would be advantageous
to the true religion : and if nobody must speak truth
till he thinks all the world will be persuaded by it, you
must have a very good opinion of your oratory, or else
you will have a very good excuse to turn your parson-
age, when you have one, into a sinecure. But though
I have not so good an opinion of my gift of persuasion,
as perhaps you have of yours ; yet I think I may with-
out any great presumption hope, that I may as soon
persuade England, the world, or any government in
it, to consent to my toleration, as you persuade it to
content itself with moderate penalties.

You farther answer, If such a toleration established
there would permit the doctrine of the church of Eng-
land to be truly preached, and its worship set up in any
popish, Mahometan, or pagan country, you think true
religion would be a " gainer by it for some time ; but
you think withal, that an universal toleration would
ruin it both there and every where else in the end."
You grant it then possible, notwithstanding the cor-
ruption of human nature, that the true religion may gain
somewhere, and for some time, by toleration: it will
gain under a new toleration you think, but decay under
an old one : would you had told us the reason why you
think so. "But you think there is great reason to fear,
that, without God's extraordinary providence, it would
in a much shorter time, than any one who does not
well consider the matter will imagine, be most ef-
fectually extirpated by it throughout the world."
If you have considered right, and the matter be really
so, it is demonstration that the Christian religion, since
Constantino's time, as well as the true religion before
Moses's time, must needs have been totally extinguished
out of the world, and have so continued, unless by
miracle and immediate revelation restored. For those
men, i. c. the magistrates, upon whose being of the true
religion, the preservation oi* it, according to you, de-

A Third Letter for Toleration. tf)7

pends, living all of tlicni under a free toleration, must
needs lose the true religion effectually and speedily
from among them ; and, they quitting the true reli-
gion, the assistance of force, which should support it
against a general defection, be utterly lost.

The princes of the world are, I suppose, as well in-
fected with the depravred nature of man as the rest of
their brethren. These, whether a hundred or a thou-
sand, suppose they lived together in one society where-
in, with the true religion, there were a free toleration,
and no coactive power of the magistrate employed about
matters of religion ; would the true religion be soon
extirpated amongst them ? If you say it would not, you
must Grant toleration not to be so destructive of the true
religion as you say; or you must think them of another
race than the rest of corrupt men, and free from that
general taint. If you grant that the true religion would
be quickly extirpated amongst them by toleration,
living together in one society ; the same will happen
to them, living as princes, where they are free from all
coactive power of the magistrate in matters of religion,
and have as large a toleration as can be imagined : un-
less you will say, that depraved human nature works
less in a prince than a subject ; and is most tame, most
mortified, where it has most liberty and temptation.
Must not then, if your maxim be true, toleration quickly
deprive the few orthodox princes that are in the
world, (take it when you will) of the true religion ;
and with them take away the assistance of authority,
which is necessary to support it amongst their subjects ?
Toleration then does not, whatever' your fears are,
make that woeful wreck on true religion which you
talk of.

I shall give you another evidence of it, and then come
to examine your great reason taken from the corruption
of human nature, and the instance you so often repeat,
and build so much on, the apostasy after the flood.
Toleration, you say, would quickly and effectually ex-
tirpate the true religion throughout the world. What
now is the means to preserve true religion in the world ?
If you may be believed, it is force ; but not all force,

hh 2

468 A Third Letter for Toleration.

great severities, fire, faggot, imprisonment, loss of
estate, &c. These will do more harm than good ; it
is only lower and moderate penalties, some tolerable
inconveniencies, can do the business. If then moderate
force hath not been all along, no, nor any where, made
use of for the preservation of the true religion; the
maintenance and support of the true religion in the
world has not been owing to what you oppose to to-
leration ; and so your argument against toleration is
out of doors.

You give us in this and the foregoing pages the
grounds of your fear ; it is the corruption of human
nature which opposes the true religion. You express it
thus : " Idolatry prevailing against it [the true religion]
not by its own light and strength, for it could have
nothing of either, but merely by the advantage it had
in the corruption and pravity of human nature, rinding
out to itself more agreeable religions than the true.
For, say you, whatever hardships some false religions
may impose, it will however always be easier to carnal,
worldly-minded men, to give even their first-born for
their transgressions, than to mortify their lusts from
which they spring; which no religion but the true
requires of them." I wronder, saying this, how you
could any longer mistake the magistrate's duty, in re-
ference to religion, and not see wherein force truly
can and ought to be serviceable to it. What you have
said plainly shows you that the assistance the magi-
strate's authority can give to the true religion, is in
subduing of lusts ; and -its being directed against
pride, injustice, rapine, luxury, and debauchery, and
those other immoralities which come properly under
his cognizance, and may be corrected by punishments ;
and not by the imposing of creeds and ceremonies, as
you tell us. Sound and decent you might have left
out, whereof their fancies, and not the law of God, will
always be judge, and consequently the rule.

The ease between the true and false religions, as you
have stated it, in short, stands thus : " True religion
has always light and strength of its own sufficient
to prevail with all that seriously consider it, and with-

A Third Letter for Toleration. 469

out prejudice. Idolatry or false religions have nothing
of light or strength to prevail with." Why then does
not the true religion prevail against the false, having so
much the advantage in light and strength ? The coun-
terbalance of prejudice hinders. And wherein does that
consist? The drunkard must part with his cups and
companions, and the voluptuous man with his plea-
sures. The proud and vain must lay by all excess in
apparel, furniture, and attendance ; and money (the
support of all these) must be got only by the ways of
justice, honesty, and fair industry : and every one must
live peaceably, uprightly, and friendly with his neigh-
bour. Here then the magistrate's assistance is wanting :
here they may and ought to interpose their power, and
by severities against drunkenness, lasciviousness,and all
sorts of debauchery ; by a steady and unrelaxed punish-
ment of all the ways of fraud and injustice ; and by their
administration, countenance, and example, reduce the
irregularities of men's manners into order, and bring
sobriety, peaceableness, industry, and honesty into fa-
shion. This is their proper business every where ; and
for this they have a commission from God, both by the
light of nature and revelation; and by this removing
the great counterpoise, which lies in strictness of life,
and is so strong a bias, with the greatest part, against the
true religion, they would cast the balance on that side.
For if men were forced by the magistrate to live sober,
honest, and strict lives, whatever their religion were,
would not the advantage be on the side of truth, when
the gratifying of their lusts were not to be obtained by
forsaking her? In men's lives lies the main obstacle to
right opinions in religion : and if you will not believe
me, yet what a very rational man of the church of Eng-
land says in the case, [Dr. Bentley, in his sermon of
the Folly of Atheism, p. 16] will deserve to be remem-
bered : " Did religion bestow heaven, without any forms
and conditions, indifferently upon all ; if the crown
of life was hereditary, and free to good and bad, and
not settled by covenant upon the elect of God only,
such as live soberly, righteously, and godly in this
present world ; I believe there would be no such

470 A Third Letter for Toleration.

thing as an infidel among us. And, without contro-
versy, it is the way and means of attaining to heaven,
that makes profane scoffers so willing to let go the ex-
pectation of it. It is not the articles of the creed,
but their duty to God and their neighbour, that is
such an inconsistent, incredible legend. They will
not practise the rules of religion, and therefore they
cannot believe the * doctrines' of it." The ingenious
author will pardon me the change of one word, which
I doubt not but suits his opinion, though it did not so
well that argument he was then on.

You grant the true religion has always light and
strength to prevail ; false religions have neither. Take
away the satisfaction of men's lusts, and which then, I
pray, hath the advantage ? Will men, against the light
of their reason, do violence to their understandings,
and forsake truth, and salvation too, gratis ? You tell
us here, " No religion but the true requires of men the
difficult task of mortifying their lusts." This being
granted you, what service will this do you to prove the
necessity of force to punish all dissenters in England ?
Do none of their religions require the mortifying of
lusts as well as yours?

And now let us consider your instance whereon you
build so much, that we hear of it over and over again.
For you tell us, " Idolatry prevailed, but yet not by
the help of force, as has been sufficiently shown."
And again, tc That truth left to shift for herself will
not do well enough, has been sufficiently shown."
What you have done to show this is to be seen where
you tell us, " Within how few generations after the flood
the worship of false gods prevailed against the reli-
gion which Noah professed and taught his children,
(which was undoubtedly the true religion) almost to
the utter exclusion of it, (though that at first was
the only religion in the world) without any aid from
force, or the assistance of the powers in being, for
any thing we find in the history of those limes, as we
may reasonably believe, considering that it found an

itrance into the world, ami entertainment in it,
when it could have no such aid or assistance. Of

A Third Letter for Toleration. 471

which (besides the corruption of human nature) you
suppose there can no other cause be assigned, or none
more probable than this, that the powers then in
being did not do what they might and ought to have
done towards the preventing or checking that hor-
rible apostasy." Here you tell us, that the " wor-
ship of false gods, within a very few generations after
the flood, prevailed against the true religion, almost
to the utter exclusion of it." This you say indeed,
but without any proofs, and unless that be showing,
you have not, as you pretend, any way shown it. Out
of what records, I beseech you, have you it, that the
true religion was almost wholly extirpated out of the
world, within a few generations after the flood ? The
Scripture, the largest history we have of those times*,
says nothing of it; nor does, as I remember, mention
any as guilty of idolatry within two or three hundred
years after the flood. In Canaan itself I do not think
that you can out of any credible history show, that
there was any idolatry within ten or twelve generations
after Noah ; much less that it had so overspread the
world, and extirpated the true religion out of that
part of it, where the scene lay of those actions recorded
in the history of the Bible. In Abraham's time, Mel-
chisedec, who was king of Salem, was also the priest of
the most high God. We read that God, with an im-
mediate hand, punished miraculously, first mankind, at
the confusion of Babel, and afterward Sodom, and four
other cities ; but in neither of these places is there any
the least mention of idolatry, by which they provoked
God, and drew down vengeance on themselves. So
that truly you have shown nothing at all ; and what the
Scripture shows is against you. For besides that it is
plain by Melchisedec, the king of Salem, and priest of
the most high God, to whom Abraham paid tithes, that
all the land of Canaan was not yet overspread with
idolatry, though afterwards in the time of Joshua, by the
forfeiture was therefore made of it to the Israelites, one
may have reason to suspect it were more defiled with it
than any part of the world ; besides Salem, I say, he
that reads the story of Abimelech, Gen. xx. xxi. xxvi.

472 A Third Letter for Toleration.

will have reason to think, that he also and his kino
dom, though Philistines, were not then infected with
idolatry.

You think they, and almost all mankind, were idol-
aters, but you may be mistaken ; and that which may
serve to show it, is the example of Elijah the prophet,
who was at least as infallible a guesser as you, and was
as well instructed in the state and history of his own
country and time, as you can be in the state of the whole
world three or four thousand years ago. Elijah thought
that idolatry had wholly extirpated the true religion out
of Israel, and complains thus to God: " The children
of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down
thy altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword:
and I, even I alone, am left, and they seek my life,
to take it away," 1 Kings, xix. 10. And he is so fully
persuaded of it, that he repeats it again, verse 14< ; and
yet God tells him, that he had there yet seven thousand
knees that had not bowed to Baal, seven thousand that
were not idolaters: though this was in the reign of Ahab,
a king zealous for idolatry ; and in a kingdom set up in
an idolatrous worship, which had continued the national
religion, established and promoted by the continued
succession of several idolatrous princes. And though
the national religions soon after the flood were false;
which you are far enough from proving; how does it
thence follow, that the true religion was near extir-
pated? which it must needs quite have been before St.
Peter's time, if there wTere so great reason to fear, as you
tell us, that the true religion, without the assistance of
force, " would in a much shorter time, than any one
that does not well consider the matter would ima-
gine, be most effectually extirpated throughout the
world." For above two thousand years after Noah's
time, St. Peter tells us, " that in every nation, he that
feareth God, and workcth righteousness, is accepted
by him," Acts x. 8.5. }]y which words, and by the
occasion on which they were spoken, it is manifest, that
in countries where for two thousand years together no
force had been used for the support of Noah's true re-
ligion, it was not yet wholly extirpated. But that you

A Third Letter for "Toleration. 473

may not think it was so near, that there was but one
left, only Cornelius, if you will look into Acts xvii. 4,
vou will find a great multitude of them at Thessalonica,
" And of the devout Greeks a great multitude believed,
and consorted with Paul and Silas." And again,
verse 17, more of them in Athens, a city wholly given
to idolatry. For that those o-sZo^svoi which we translate
devout, and whereof many are mentioned in the Acts,
were Gentiles, who worshipped the true God, and kept
the precepts of Noah, Mr. Mede has abundantly proved.
So that whatsoever you, " who have well considered
the matter," may imagine of the shortness of time,
wherein Noah's religion would be " effectually extir-
pated throughout the world," without the assistance
of force ; we find it at Athens, at Philippi, at Corinth,
amongst the Romans, in Antioch of Pisidia, in Thessa-
lonica, above two thousand years after, and that not so
near being extinguished, but that in some of those places
the professors of it were numerous: at Thessalonica they
are called a great multitude : at Antioch many : and
how many of them were in other parts of the world,
whereof there was no occasion to make mention in that
short history of the Acts of Apostles, who knows ?
If they answered, in other places, to what were found
in these, as what reason is there to suppose they should
not ? I think we may imagine them to be as many as
there were effectually of the true religion Christians in
Europe, a little before the Reformation ; notwithstandi-
ng the assistance the Christian religion had from au-
thority, after the withdrawing of miracles.

But you have a salvo, for you write warily, and
endeavour to save yourself on all hands : you say,
" There is great reason to fear, that without God's ex-
traordinary providence, it would in a much shorter
time, than any one who does not well consider the
matter would imagine, be most effectually extir-
pated by it, throughout the world." It is without
doubt the providence of God which governs the affairs
both of the world and his church ; and to that, whe-
ther you call it ordinary or extraordinary, you may trust
the preservation of his church, without the use of such

474- A Third Letter for Toleration.

means as he has nowhere appointed or authorized.
You fancy force necessary to preserve the true religion,
and hence you conclude the magistrate authorized, with-
out any farther commission from God, to use it, " if
there be no other means left :" and therefore that
must be used : if religion should be preserved without
it, it is by the extraordinary providence of God; where
extraordinary signifies nothing, but begging the thing
in question. The true religion has been preserved
many ages, in the church, without force. Ay, say you,
that was by the "extraordinary providence of God." His
providence which over-rules all events, we easily grant
it : but why extraordinary providence ? because force
was necessary to preserve it. And why was force neces-
sary? because otherwise, without " extraordinary pro-
vidence," it cannot be preserved. In such circles,
covered under good words, but misapplied, one might
show you taking many a turn in your answer, if it were
fit to waste other time to trace your wanderings. God
has appointed preaching, teaching, persuasion, instruc-
tion, as a means to continue and propagate his true
religion in the world ; and if it were any where preserved
and propagated without that, we might call it his <# ex-
traordinary providence ;" but the means he has ap-
pointed being used, we may conclude, that men have
done their duties, and so may leave it to his providence,
however we will call it, to preserve the little flock,
which he bids not to fear, to the end of the world.

But let us return again to what you say, to make good
this hypothesis of yours, That idolatry entered first
into the world by the contrivance, and spread itself by
the endeavours of private men, without the assistance of
the magistrates and those in power. To prove this, you
tell us, " that it found entrance into the world, and
entertainment in it, when it could have no such aid
or assistance. " When was this, I beseech you, that
idolatry found this entrance into the world ? Under
what king's reign was it, that you are so positive it
could haw QO such aid or assistance ? If you had named
the time, the tiling, though of no great moment to
you, had been sure. But now we may very justly (pies-

A Third Letter for Toleration. 475

lion this bare assertion of yours. For since we find, as
far back as we have any history of it, that the great
men of the world were always forward to setup and pro-
mote idolatry and false religions ; you ought to have
given us some reason why, without authority from
history, you affirm that idolatry, at its entrance into the
world, had not that assistance from men in power, which
it never failed of afterwards. Who they were that
made Israel to sin, the Scripture tells us. Their kings
were so zealous promoters of idolatry, that there is
scarce any one of them, that has not that brand left
upon him in holy writ.

One of the first false religions, whose rise and way of
propagating we have an account of in sacred history,
was by an ambitious usurper, who, having rebelled
against his master, wTith a false title set up a false reli-
gion, to secure his power and dominion. Why this
might not have been done before Jeroboam's days, and
idols set up at other places as well as at Dan and Bethel,
to serve political ends, will need some other proof than
barely saying, it could not be so at first. The devil,
unless much more ignorant, was not less busy in those
days to engage princes in his favour, and to weave re-
ligion into affairs of state, the better to introduce his
worship and to support idolatry, by accommodating it
to the ambition, vanity, or superstition, of men in power:
and therefore you may as well say, that the corruption
of human nature, as that the assistance of the powers
in being, did not, in those clays, help forward false
religions ; because your reading has furnished you
with no particular mention of it out of history. But
you need but say, that the "worship of false gods pre-
vailed without any aid from force, or the assistance of
the powers in being, for any thing we find in the hi-
story of those times," and then you have sufficiently
shown, what? even that you have just nothing to show
for your assertion.

But whatever that any thing is, which you find in
history, you may meet with men, whose reading yet I
will not compare with yours, who think they have found
in history, that princes, and those in power, first cor-

476 A Third Letter for Toleration.

rupted the true religion, by setting up the images and
symbols of their predecessors in their temples, which,
by their influence, and the ready obedience of the priests
they appointed, were in succession of time proposed to
the people as objects of their worship. Thus they think
they find in history that Isis, queen of Egypt, with her
counsellor Thoth, instituted the funeral rites of king-
Osiris, by the honour done to the sacred ox. They
think they find also in history, that the same Thoth,
who was also king of Egypt in his turn, invented the
figures of the first Egyptian gods, Saturn, Dagon, Ju-
piter Ham mon, and the rest : that is, the figures of
their statues or idols ; and that he instituted the worship
and sacrifices of these gods : and his institutions were so
well assisted by those in authority, and observed by the
priests they set up, that the worship of those gods soon
became the religion of that, and a pattern to other
nations. And here wre may perhaps, with good reason,
place the rise and original of idolatry after the flood,
there being nothing of this kind more ancient. So ready
was the ambition, vanity, or superstition of princes, to
introduce their predecessors into the divine wrorship of
the people ; to secure to themselves the greater vene-
ration from their subjects, as descended from the gods ;
or to erect such a worship, and such a priesthood, as
might awe the blinded and seduced people into that
obedience they desired. Thus Ham, by the authority
of his successors, the rulers of Egypt, is first brought
for the honour of his name and memory into their tem-
ples ; and never left, till he is erected into a god, and
made Jupiter Ham mon, &c. which fashion took after-
wards with the princes of other countries.

Was not the great god of the eastern nations, Baal,
or Jupiter Belus, one of the first kings of Assyria? And
which, I pray, is the more likely, that courts, by their
instruments the priests, should thus advance the honour
of kings amongst, the people for the ends of ambition
and power ; or the people find out these refined ways
of doing it, and introduce them into courts for the en-
slaving themselves ? What idolatry does your history
tell you of among the Cheeks, before Phoroneus and

A Third Letter for Toleration. 477

Danaus, kings of the Arrives, and Cccrops and Theseus,
kings of Attica, and Cadmus, king of Thebes, intro-
duced it? an art of rule it is probable they borrowed
from the Egpptians. 80 that if you had not vouched
the silence of history, without consulting it, you would
possibly have found, that in the first ages princes, by
their influence and aid ; by the help and artifice of the
priests they employed ; their fables of their gods, their
mysteries and oracles, and all the assistance they could
give it by their authority ; did so much against the truth,
before direct force was grown into fashion, and appeared
openly ; that there would be little reason of putting the
guard and propagation of the true religion into their
hands now, and arming them with force to promote it.
That this was the original of idolatry in the world,
and that it was borrowed by other magistrates from the
Egyptians, is farther evident, in that this worship was
settled in Egypt, and grown the national religion there,
before the gods of Greece and several other idolatrous
countries were born. For though they took their pat-
tern of deifying their deceased princes from the Egyp-
tians, and kept, as near as they could, to the number
and genealogies of the Egyptian gods ; yet they took
the names still of some great men of their own, which
they accommodated to the mythology of the Egyptians.
Thus, by the assistance of the powers in being, idolatry
entered into the world after the flood. Whereof, if there
wrere not so clear footsteps in history, why yet should
you not imagine princes and magistrates, engaged in
false religions, as ready to employ their power for the
maintaining and promoting their false religions in those
days, as we find them now ? And therefore, wdiat you say
in the next words, of the entrance of idolatry into the
world, and the entertainment it found in it, will not
pass for so very evident, without proof ; though you tell
us ever so confidently, that you " suppose, besides the
corruption of human nature, there can no other cause
be assigned of it, or none more probable than this,
that the powers then in being did not what they might
and ought to have done," i. e. if you mean it to your
purpose, use force your way, to make men consider ,

478 A Third Letter for Toteration.

or to " impose creeds and ways of worship, towards the
preventing that horrible apostasy."

I grant that the entrance and growth of idolatry
might be owing to the negligence of the powers in
being, in that they did not do what they might and
ought to have done, in using their authority to suppress
the enormities of men's manners, and correct the irre-
gularity of their lives. But this was not all the assist-
ance they gave to that horrible apostasy : they were, as
far as history gives us any light, the promoters of it,
and leaders in it ; and did what they ought not to have
done, by setting up false religions, and using their au-
thority to establish them, to serve their corrupt and
ambitious designs.

National religions, established by authority, and en-
forced by the powers in being, we hear of every where,
as far back as we have any account of the rise and
growth of the religions of the world. Show me any
place, within those few generations, wherein you say the
apostasy prevailed after the flood, where the magistrates
being of the true religion, the subjects by the liberty of
a toleration were led into false religions ; and then you
will produce something against liberty of conscience.
But to talk of that great apostasy, as wholly owing to
toleration, when you cannot produce one instance of
toleration then in the world, is to say what you please.

That the majority of mankind were then, and always
have been, by the corruption and pravity of human
nature, led away, and kept from embracing the true
religion, is past doubt. But whether this be owing to
toleration in matters of religion, is the question. David
describes a horrible corruption and apostasy in his
time, so as to say, "There is none that doeth good, no
not one," Psal. xiv. and yet I do not think you will say
a toleration then in that kingdom was the cause of it.
If the greatest part cannot be ill without a toleration, I
am ati aid you must be fain to find out a toleration in
every country, and in all ages of the world. For I
think it is true, of all times and places, thai the broad

way, that leadetfa to de8tructionf has had most travel-
lers. I would be clad to know where it was that force,

A Third Letter for Toleration, 479

your way applied, i. c. with punishments only upon
non-conformists, ever prevailed to bring the greater
number into the narrow way, that leads unto life,
which, our Saviour tells us, there are few that find.

The corruption of human nature, you say, opposes
the true religion. I grant it you. There was also, say
you, a horrible apostasy after the flood ; let this also be
granted you : and yet from hence it will not follow, that
the true religion cannot subsist and prevail in the world
without the assistance, offorce, your way applied, till you
have shown that the false religions, which were the in-
ventions of men, grew up under toleration, and not by
the encouragement and assistance of thepowers in being.

How near soever therefore the true religion was to be
extinguished within a few generations after the flood ;
(which whether more in danger then, than in most
ages since, is more than you can show) this will be
still the question, whether the liberty of toleration, or
the authority of the powers in being, contributed most
to it ? And whether there can be no other, nor more
probable cause assigned, than the want of force your
way applied, I shall leave the reader to judge. This I
am sure, whatever causes any one else shall assign, are
as well proved as yours, if they offer them only as
their conjectures.

Not but that I think men could run into false and
foolish ways of worship, without the instigation or as-
sistance of human authority ; but the powers of the
world, as far as we have any history, having been always
forward enough, (true religion as little serving princes
as private men's lusts) to take up wrong religions, and
as forward to employ their authority to impose the reli-
gion, good or bad, which they had once taken up ; I
can see no reason why the not using of force, by the
princes of the world, should be assigned as the sole, or
so much as the most probable cause of propagating the
false religions of the world, or extirpating the true ; or
how you can so positively say, idolatry prevailed with-
out any assistance from the powers in being.

Since therefore history leads us to the magistrates, as

4-80 A Third Letter for Toleration.

the authors and promoters of idolatry in the world, to
Which we may suppose their not suppressing of vice,
joined as another cause of the spreading of false reli-
gions ; you were best consider, whether you can still
suppose there can no other cause be assigned of the pre-
vailing of the worship of false gods, but the magistrate's
not interposing his authority in matters of religion.
For that that cannot with any probability at all be as-
signed as any cause, I shall give you this farther reason.
You impute the prevailing of false religions to " the
corruption and pravity of human nature, left to itself,
unbridled by authority." Now if force, your way
applied, does not at all bridle the corruption and pra-
vity of human nature ; the magistrate's not so inter-
posing his authority cannot be assigned as any cause at
all of that apostasy. So that, let that apostasy have
what rise, and spread as far as you please, it will not
make one jot for force, your way applied, or show that
that can receive any assistance your way from authority.
For your use of authority and force, being only to bring
men to an outward conformity to the national religion,
it leaves the corruption and pravity of human nature as
unbridled as before, as I have shown elsewhere.

You tell us, "that it is not true, that the true reli-
gion will prevail by its own light and strength, with-
out miracles, or the assistance of the powers in being,
because of the corruption of human nature." And
for this you give us an instance in the apostasy presently
after the flood. And you tell us, that without the assist-
ance of force it would presently be extirpated out of the
world. If the corruption of human nature be so uni-
versal and so strong, that without the help of force the
true religion is too weak to stand it, and cannot at all
prevail without miracles or force ; how come men ever to
be converted, in countries where the national religion is
false? If you say by extraordinary providence ; what
that, amounts to, has been shown. If you Bay this cor-
ruption is so potent in all men, as to oppose and prevail
against theGospelj not assisted by force or miracles; that
is not true. It in most men ; so it is still, even where

./ Third Lttterj/br Toleration. 481

force is used. For I desire you to name me a country,
where the greatest part are really and truly Christians,
such as you confidently believe Christ, at the last day,
will own to be so. In England having, as you do, ex-
cluded all the dissenters ; (or else why would you have
them punished, to bring them to embrace the true re-
ligion?) you must, I fear, allow yourself a great lati-
tude in thinking, if you think that the corruption of
human nature does not so far prevail, even amongst
conformists, as to make the ignorance, and lives, of
great numbers amongst them, such as suits not at all
with the spirit of true Christianity. How great their
ignorance may be, in the more spiritual and elevated
parts of the Christian religion, may be guessed by what
the reverend bishop, before cited, says of it, in reference
to a rite of the church, the most easy and obvious to be
instructed in, and understood. His words are, " In the
common management of that holy rite (confirmation)
it is but too visible, that of those multitudes that crowd
to it, the far greater part come merely as if they were
to receive the bishop's blessing, without any sense of
the vow made by them, and of their renewing their
baptismal engagements in it." Past. Care, p. 189. And
if Origen were now alive, might he not find many in
our church, to whom these words of his might be ap-
plied, " Whose faith signifies only thus much, and goes
no farther than this, viz. that they come duly to the
church, and bow their heads to the priest ?" he. Horn, in
Jos. IX. For it seems it was then the fashion to bow to
the priest, as it is now to the altar. If, therefore, you say
force is necessary, because without it no men will so con-
sider as to embrace the true religion, for the salvation
of their souls ; that I think is manifestly false. If you
say it is necessary to use such means as will make the
greatest part so embrace it, you must use some other
means than force, your way applied ; for that does not
so far work on the majority. If you say it is necessary,
because possibly it may work on some, which bare
preaching and persuasion will not; I answer, if possibly
your moderate punishments may work on some, and
therefore they are necessary, it is as possible that greater

VOL. VI. i i

482 A Third Letter for Toleration.

punishments may work on others, and therefore they
are necessary, and so on to the utmost severities.

That the corruption of human nature is everywhere
spread, and that it works powerfully in the children of
disobedience, " who receive not the love of the truth,
but have pleasure in unrighteousness ;" and therefore
God gives them up to believe a lie ; nobody, I think,
will deny. But that this corruption of human nature
works equally in all men, or in all ages ; and so that
God will, or ever did, give up all men, not restrained
by force, your way modified and applied, to believe a
lie (as all false religions are), that I yet see no reason
to grant. Nor will this instance of Noah's religion, you
so much rely on, ever persuade, till you have proved,
that from those eight men which brought the true reli-
gion with them into the new world, there were not eight
thousand, or eighty thousand, which retained it in the
world in the worst times of the apostasy. And secondly,
till you have proved that the false religions of the world
prevailed, without any aid from force, or the assistance
of the powers in being. And thirdly, that the decay of
the true religion was for want of force, your moderate
force ; neither of which you have at all proved, as I
think it manifest.

One consideration more, touching Noah and his re-
ligion, give me leave to suggest, and that is, if force
were so necessary for the support of true religion,asyou
make it, it is strange God, who gave him precepts
about other things, should never reveal this to him,
nor any body else, that I know. To this you, who have
confessed the " Scripture not to have given the magi-
strate this commission, " must say, that it is plain
enough in the commission that he has from the law of
nature, and so needed not any revelation to instruct
the magistrate in the right he has to use force. I con-
fess the magistrates have used force in matters of reli-
gion, and have been as confidently and constantly put
upon it by their priests, as if they had as clear a com-
mission from heaven, as St. Peter had to preach the
Gospel to the Gentiles. But yet it is plain, notwith-
standing that commission from the law of nature, there

A Third Letter for Toleration. 483

needs some farther instruction from revelation ; since
it does not appear that they have found out the right
use of force, such as the true religion requires for its
preservation; and though you have, after several thou-
sands of years, at last discovered it, yet it is very im-
perfectly ; you not being able to tell, if a law were now
to be made against those who have not considered as
they ought, what are those moderate penalties which
are to be employed against them, though yet without
that all the rest signifies nothing. But however doubt-
ful you are in this, I am glad to find you so direct in
putting men's rejecting the true religion, upon the
difficulty they have to " mortify their lusts, which the
true religion requires of them," and I desire you to
remember it in other places, where I have occasion to
mind you of it.

To conclude, That we may see the great advantage
your cause will receive from that instance you so much
rely on, of the apostasy after the flood, I shall oppose
another to it. You say, that " idolatry prevailed in the
world in a few generations, almost to the utter exclu-
sion of the true religion, without any aid from force, or
assistance of the powers in being, by reason of tolera-
tion." And, therefore, you think there is great reason
to fear, that " the true religion would, by toleration,
quickly be most effectually extirpated throughout the
world :" And I say, that after Christianity was received
for the religion of the empire, and whilst political laws
and force interposed in it, a horrible apostasy pre-
vailed, to almost the utter exclusion of true religion,
and a general introducing of idolatry. And, therefore,
I think there is great reason to fear more harm than
good from the use of force in religion.

This I think as good an argument against, as yours
for, force, and something better; since what you build
on is only presumed by you, not proved from history :
whereas the matter of fact here is well known; nor will
you deny it, when you consider the state of religion in
Christendom under the assistance of that force, which
you tell us succeeded and supplied the place of with-
drawn miracles, which in your opinion are so necessary

i i 2

484 A Third Letter for Toleration.

in the absence of force, that you make that the reason of
their continuance ; and tell us, they " were continued
till force could be had, not so much for evincing the
truth of the Christian religion, as to supply the want of
the magistrate's assistance." So that whenever force
failed, there, according to your hypothesis, are miracles
to supply its want ; for, without one of them, the true
religion, if we may believe you, will soon be utterly ex-
tirpated ; and what force, in the absence of miracles,
produced in Christendom several ages before the Re-
formation, is so well known, that it will be hard to find
what service your way of arguing will do any but the
Romish religion.

But to take your argument in its full latitude, you
say, but you say it without book, that there was once a
toleration in the world to the almost utter extirpation
of the true religion ; and I say to you, that as far as re-
cords authorize either opinion, we may say force has
been always used in matters of religion, to the great pre-
judice of the true religion, and the professors of it.
And there not being an age wherein you can show me,
upon a fair trial of an established national toleration,
that the true religion was extirpated, or endangered, so
much as you pretend by it (whereas there is no age,
whereof we have sufficient history to judge of this mat-
ter, wherein it will not be easy to find that the true re-
ligion, and its followers, suffered by force): you will in
vain endeavour, by instances, to prove the ill effects
or uselessness of toleration, such as the author proposed ;
which I challenge you to show me was ever set up in
the world, or that the true religion suffered by it ; and
it is to the want of it, and the restraints and disadvan-
tages the true religion has laboured under, its so little
spreading in the world will justly be imputed: until,
from better experiments, you have something to say
against it.

Our Saviour has promised that he will build his
church on this fundamental truth, that he is " Christ
the Son of God; so that the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it:" and this I believe, though you tell
U8 the true religion is not able to subsist without the

A Third Letter for Toleration. 485

assistance of force, when miracles cease. I do not re-
member that our Saviour any where promises any other
assistance but that of his Spirit ; or gives his little flock
any encouragement to expect much countenance or
help from the great men of the world, or the coercive
power of the magistrates, nor any where authorizes
them to use it for the support of his church ; " not
many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not
many noble," 1 Cor. i. 26, is the style of the Gospel ;
and I believe will be found to belong to all ages of the
church militant, past and to come, as well as to the
first: for God, as St. Paul tells us, has chosen the
" foolish things of the world to confound the wise, and
the weak things of the world to confound the mighty;"
and this not only till miracles ceased, but ever since.
" To be hated for Christ's name sake, and by much
tribulation to enter into the kingdom of heaven,"
has been the general and constant lot of the people of
God, as well as it seems to be the current strain of the
New Testament ; which promises nothing of secular
power or greatness ; says nothing of " kings being
nursing fathers, or queens nursing mothers:" which
prophecy, whatever meaning it have, it is like our
Saviour would not have omitted to support his church
with some hopes and assurance of such assistance,
if it were to have any accomplishment before his
second coming ; when Israel shall come in again, and
with the Gentiles make up the fulness of his glorious
kingdom. But the tenour of the New Testament is,
" All that will live godly in Jesus Christ shall suffer
persecution," c2 Tim. iii. 12.

In your Argument considered, you tell us, "that
no man can fail of finding the way of salvation that
seeks it as he ought." In my answer, 1 take no-
tice to you, that the places of Scripture you cite to
prove it, point out this way of seeking as we ought, to
be a good life : as particularly that of St. John, " If
any one will do his will, he shall know of the doc-
trine whether it be of God :" upon which I use these
words : " So that these places, if they prove what
you cite them for, that no man can fail of find-
ing the way of salvation, who seeks it as he ought •

486 A Third Letter for Toleration.

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 salva-
tion as they ought, should by their laws and penalties
force them to a good life ; a good conversation being
the surest and readiest way to a right understanding.
And that if magistrates will severely and impartially
set themselves against vice, in whomsoever it is found,
truereligion will be spread wider than ever hitherto it has
been by the imposition of creeds and ceremonies." To
this you reply, " Whether the magistrates setting them-
selves severely and impartially against what you sup-
pose I call vice, or the imposition of sound creeds
and decent ceremonies, does more conduce to the
spreading the true religion, and rendering it fruitful in
the lives of its professors, we need not examine ; you
confess, you think, both together do best ; and this,
you think, is as much as needs be said to that para-
graph." If it had been put to you, whether a good
living, or a good prebend, would more conduce to the
enlarging your fortune, I think it would be allowed
you as no improper or unlikely answer, what you say
here, " I think both together would do best;'* but
here the case is otherwise : your thinking determines
not the point : and other people of equal authority
may, and I will answer for it, do think otherwise; but
because I pretend to no authority, I will give you a
reason why your thinking is insufficient. You tell us,
that " force is not a fit means, where it is not neces-
sary as well as useful \%* and you prove it to be neces-
sary, because there is no other means left. Now if the
severity of the magistrate, against what I call vice,
will, as you will not deny, promote a good life, and
that be the right way to seek the truths of religion ;
here is another means besides imposing of creeds and
ceremonies, to promote the true religion ; and there-
fore your argument for its necessity, because of no
other means left, being gone, you cannot say " both
together are best," when one of them being not ne-
cessary, is therefore, by your own confession, not to be
used.

I having said, That if such an indirect and at a

A Third Letter for Toleration, 487

distance usefulness were sufficient to justify the use
of force, the magistrate might make his subjects
eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven : you reply, that
you " suppose I will not say castration is necessary,
because you hope I acknowledge, that marriage, and
that grace which God denies to none who seriously
ask it, are sufficient for that purpose." And I hope
you acknowledge, that preaching, admonitions, and
instructions, and that grace which God denies to none
who seriously ask it, are sufficient for salvation. So
that by this answer of yours, there being no more
necessity of force to make men of the true religion,
than there is of castration to make men chaste ; it will
still remain that the magistrate, when he thinks fit,
may, upon your principles, as well castrate men to
make them chaste, as use force to make them embrace
the truth that must save them.

If castration be not necessary, " because marriage
and the grace of God are sufficient" without it: nor
will force be necessary, because preaching and the
grace of God are sufficient without it; and this, I
think, by your own rule, where you tell us, " Where
there are many useful means, and some of them are
sufficient without the rest, there is no necessity of using
them all." So that you must either quit your neces-
sity of force, or take in castration too : which, however
it might not go down with the untractable and despe-
rately perverse and obstinate people in these western
countries, yet is a doctrine, you may hope, may meet
with a better reception in the Ottoman empire, and
recommend you to some of my Mahometans.

To my saying, " If what we are apt to think useful,
were thence to be concluded so, we might be in
danger to be obliged to believe the pretended miracles
of the church of Rome, by your way of reasoning;
unless we will say, that which without impiety cannot
be said, that the wise and benign Disposer and Governor
of all things does not use all useful means for promoting
his own honour in the world, and the good of souls."
This, I think, will conclude as much for miracles as

488 A Third Letter for Tckrai'wn.

for force: you reply, "you think it will not; for
in the place I intend, you speak not of useful, but
of competent, i. e. sufficient means. Now, competent
or sufficient means are necessary ; but you think no
man will say that all useful means are so : and there-
fore though, as you affirm, it cannot be said without im-
piety, that the wise and benign Disposer and Governor
of all things has not furnished mankind with competent
means for the promoting his own honour in the world,
and the good of souls ; yet it is very agreeable with
piety, and with truth too, to say that he does not
now use all useful means : because, as none of his
attributes obliges him to use more than sufficient means;
so he may use sufficient means, without using all useful
means. For where there are many useful means, and
some of them are sufficient without the rest, there is
no necessity of them all. So that from God's not
using miracles now, to promote the true religion, I
cannot conclude that he does not think them useful
now, but only that he does not think them necessary.
And therefore, though what we are apt to think useful
were thence to be concluded so ; yet if whatever is
useful be not likewise to be concluded necessary, there
is no reason to fear that we should be obliged to believe
the miracles pretended to by the church of Rome.
For if miracles be not now necessary, there is no in-
convenience in thinking the miracles pretended to by
the church of Rome to be but pretended miracles."
To which I answer, Put it how you will, for com-
petent means, or useful means, it will conclude for
miracles still as much as for force. Your words are
these, " W such a degree of outward force, as has
been mentioned, be really of great and necessary use
for the advancing these ends, as, taking the world as
we rind it, you say, you think it appears to be ; then it
must be acknowledged there is a right somewhere to
use it for the advancing those cutis ; unless we will say,
what without impiety cannot be said, that the wise
and benign Disposer of all things has not furnished
mankind with competent means lor the promoting his

A Third Letter for Toleration. 489

own honour in the world, and the good of souls." What,
I beseech you, now is the sum of this argument, but
this, "force is of great and necessary use ; therefore
the wise and benign Disposer of all things, who will
not leave mankind unfurnished (which it would be
impiety to say) of competent means for the promoting
his honour in the world, and the good of souls, has
given somewhere a right to use it?"

Let us try it now, whether it will not do as well for
miracles. Miracles " are of great and necessary use,
as great and necessary, at least, as force; therefore the
wise and benign Disposer of all things, who will not
leave mankind unfurnished, which it would be impiety
to say, of competent means for the promoting his
honour in the world, and the good of souls," has given
somewhere a power of miracles. I ask you, when I in
the second letter used your own words, applied to
miracles instead of force, would they not conclude then
as well for miracles as for force ? For you must re-
member there was not then in all your scheme one word
of miracles to supply the place of force. Force alone was
mentioned, force alone was necessary; all was laid on
force. Nor was it easy to divine, that miracles should
be taken in, to mend the defects of your hypothesis ;
which in your answer to me you now have done, and I
easily allow it, without holding you to any thing you
have said, and shall always do so. For seeking truth,
and not triumph, as you frequently suggest, I shall
always take your hypothesis as you please to reform it,
and either embrace it, or show you why I do not.

Let us see, therefore, whether this argument will do
any better now your scheme is mended, and you make
force or miracles necessary. If force or miracles are of
" great and necessary use for the promoting true reli-
gion and the salvation of souls ; then it must be ac-
knowledged, that there is somewhere a right to use the
one, or a power to do the other, for the advancing those
ends ; unless we will say, what without impiety cannot be
said, that the wise and benign Disposer and Governor
of all things has not furnished mankind with competent
means for the promoting his own honour, and the good

490 A Third Letter for Toleration.

souls." From whence it will follow, if your argument
be good, that where men have not a right to use force,
there still we are to expect miracles, unless we wTill say,
&c. Now, where the magistrates are not of the true
religion, there, by this part of your scheme, there is a
right in nobody to use force ; for if there were, what
need of miracles, as you tell us there was, in the first
age of Christianity, to supply that want ? since the
magistrates, who were of false religions then, were fur-
nished with as much right, if that were enough, as they
are now. So that where the magistrates are of false
religions, there you must, upon your principles, affirm
miracles are still to supply the want of force ; " unless
you will say, what without impiety cannot be said, that
the wise and benign Disposer and Governor of all things
hath not furnished mankind with competent means for
the promoting his own honour in the world, and the
good of souls." Now how far this will favour the
pretences of the church of Rome to miracles in the
East and West Indies, and other parts not under popish
governments, you were best consider. This is evident,
that in all countries where the true religion is not
received for the religion of the state, and supported
and encouraged by the laws of it, you must allow
miracles to be as necessary now, as ever they were any
where in the world, for the supply of the want of force,
before the magistrates were Christians. And then
what advantage your doctrine gives to the church of
Rome is very visible. For they, like you, supposing
theirs the only true religion, are supplied by you with
this argument for it ; viz. That the " true religion will
not prevail by its own light and strength, without the
assistance of miracles or authority ; which are the
competent means, which, without impiety, it cannot be
said, that the wise and benign Disposer and Governor
of all things has not furnished mankind with." From
whence they will not think it hard to draw this conse-
quence, that therefore the wise and benign Governor of
all things has continued in their church the power of
miracles; (which yours does not so much as pretend
to) to supply the want of the magistrates assistance,

A Third Letter for Toleration, 491

where that cannot be had to make the true religion
prevail. And if a papist should press you with this
argument, I would gladly know what you would reply
to him.

Though this be enough to make good what I said,
yet since I seek truth, more than my own justification,
let us examine a little what it is you here say of " com-
petent means. Competent means, you say, are neces-
sary ; but you think no man will say, all useful means
are so." If you think you speak plain, clear, deter-
mined sense, when you used this good English word
competent, I pity you : if you did it with skill, I send
you to my pagans and Mahometans. But this safe way
of talking, though it be not altogether so clear, yet it
so often occurs in you, that it is hard to judge whether
it be art or nature. Now pray what do you mean by
" mankind's being furnished with competent means ?"
If it be such means as any are prevailed on by to
embrace the truth that must save them, preaching
is a competent means ; for by preaching alone, with-
out force, many are prevailed on, and become truly
Christians : and then your force, by your own con-
fession, is not necessary. If by competent, you un-
derstand such means, by which all men are prevailed
on, or the majority, to become truly Christians, I fear
your force is no competent means.

Which way ever you put it, you must acknowledge
mankind to be destitute of competent means, or your
moderate force not to be that necessary competent
means : since, whatever right the magistrates may have
had any where to use it, wherever it has not been used,
let the cause be what it will that kept this means from
being used, there the people have been destitute of
that means.

But you will think there is little reason to complain
of obscurity, you having abundantly explained what you
mean by competent, in saying competent, L e. sufficient
means. So that we have nothing to do but to find out
what you mean by sufficient : and the meaning of that
word, in your use of it, you happily give us in these
following, " What does any man mean by sufficient

4(J2 A Third Letter for Toleration.

evidence, but such as will certainly win assent wherever
it is duly considered?" Apply this to your means,
and then tell me, whether your force be such compe-
tent, i. e. sufficient means, that it certainly produced
embracing the truth, wherever it was duly, i. e, your
way applied ; if it did not, it is plain it is not your
competent, sufficient means, and so the world, without
any such imputation to the divine wisdom and be-
nignity, might be without it. If you will say it was
sufficient, and did produce that end wherever it was
applied, I desire you then to tell me whether mankind
hath been always furnished with competent means.
You have it now in your choice, either to talk im-
piously, or renounce force, and disowrn it to be com-
petent means ; one of the two I do not see how, by
your own argument, you can avoid.

But to lay by your competent and sufficient means,
and to ease you of the uncertainty and difficulty you
will be in to determine what is so, in respect of man-
kind ; I suppose it will be little less " impious to say,
that the wise and benign Disposer and Governor hath
not furnished mankind with necessary means, as to say
he hath not furnished them with competent means.,,
Now, sir, if your moderate penalties, and nothing else,
be, since the withdrawing of miracles, this necessary
means, what will be left you to say, by your argument,
of the wisdom and benignity of God in all those coun-
tries where moderate penalties are not made use of?
where men are not furnished with this means to bring
them to the true religion ? For unless you can say,
that your moderate penalties have been constantly
made use of in the world for the support and encou-
ragement of the true religion, and to bring men to it,
ever since the withdrawing of miracles ; you must
confess, that not only some countries, (which yet were
enough against you) but mankind in general, have
been unfurnished of the u necessary means for pro-
moting the honour of God in the world, and the salva-
tion of men's souls." This argument out of your own
mouth, were there no other, is sufficient to show the
weakness and unreasonableness of your scheme ; and

A Third Letter for Toleration. 493

I hope the due consideration of it will make you
cautious another time how you entitle the wisdom and
benignity of God to the support of what you once
fancy to he of great and necessary use.

I having thereupon said, " Let us not therefore be
more wise than our Maker in that stupendous and su-
pernatural work of our salvation. The Scripture,"
&c.

You reply, " Though the wTork of our salvation be,
as I justly call it, stupendous and supernatural ; yet
you suppose no sober man doubts, but it both admits
and ordinarily requires the use of natural and human
means, in subordination to that grace which works it.''

If you had taken notice of these immediately fol-
lowing words of mine, " The Scripture that reveals it
to us, contains all that we can know or do, in order to
it ; and where that is silent, it is presumption in us to
direct ;" you would not have thought what you here
say a sufficient answer : for though God does make use
of natural and human means in subordination to grace,
yet it is not for man to make use of any means, in
subordination to his grace, which God has not ap-
pointed ; out of a conceit it may do some service in-
directly and at a distance.

The whole covenant and work of grace is the con-
trivance of God's infinite wisdom. What it is, and by
what means he will dispense his grace, is known to us
by revelation only; which is so little suited to human
wisdom, that the apostle calls it " the foolishness of
preaching/' In the Scripture is contained all that
revelation, and all things necessary for that work, all
the means of grace ; there God has declared all that
he would have done for the salvation of souls ; and if
he had thought force necessary to be joined with the
foolishness of preaching, no doubt but he would some-
where or other have revealed it, and not left it to the
wisdom of man : which how disproportioned and oppo-
site it is to the ways and wisdom of God in the Gospel,
and how unfit to be trusted in the business of salva-
tion, you may see, 1 Cor. i. from verse 17 to the end.

494 A Third Letter Jbr Toleration.

" The work of grace admits, and ordinarily requires
the use of natural and human means." I deny it not:
let us now hear your inference: " Therefore till I have
shown that no penal laws, that can be made, can do
any service towards the salvation of men's souls in
subordination to God's grace, or that God has for-
bidden the magistrate" to use force, for so you ought
to put it, but you rather choose, according to your
ordinary way, to use general and doubtful words ;
and therefore you say, " to serve him in that great
work with the authority which he has given him,
there will be no occasion for the caution I have given,"
not to be wiser than our Maker in that stupendous work
of our salvation. By which way of arguing, any thing
that I cannot show, cannot possibly, cannot indirectly
and at a distance, or by accident, do any service, or
God has not forbidden, may be made use of for the
salvation of souls. I suppose you mean expressly for-
bidden ; for else I might think these words (" Who
has required this at your hands?") sufficient prohi-
bition of it. The sum of your argument is, " what
cannot be showed not to do any service, may be used
as a human means in subordination to grace, in the
work of salvation." To which I reply, That what may,
through the grace of God, sometimes do some service,
cannot, without a further warrant from revelation than
such usefulness, be required, or made use of as a subordi-
nate means to grace. For if so, then auricular confes-
sion, penance, pilgrimages, processions, &c. which no-
body can show do not ever do any service, at least,
indirectly and at a distance, towards the salvation of
souls, may all be justified.

It is not enough that it cannot be shown that it can-
not do any service to justify its usefulness; for what is
there that may not, indirectly and at a distance, or by
accident, do some service ? To show that it is a
human means, that God has nowhere appointed, in
subordination to grace, in the supernatural work of
salvation, is enough to prove it an unwarrantable bold-
ness to use it : and much more so in the present case

A Third Letter for Toleration. 495

of force, which, if put into the magistrate's hands with
power to use it in matters of religion, will do more
harm than good, as I think I have sufficiently shown.

And therefore, since, according to you, the magi-
strate's commission to use force for the salvation of
souls, is from the law of nature ; which commission
reaches to none, since the revelation of the Gospel, but
Christian magistrates ; it is more natural to conclude,
were there nothing else in the case but the silence of
Scripture, that the Christian magistrate has no such
power, because he has no such commission any where
in the Gospel, wherein all things are appointed neces-
sary to salvation ; than that there was so clear a com-
mission given to all magistrates by the law of nature,
that it is necessary to show a prohibition from revela-
tion, if one will deny Christian magistrates to have
that power. Since the commission of the law of nature
to magistrates, being only that general one, of doing
good, according to the best of their judgments: if
that extends to the use of force in matters of religion,
it will abundantly more oppose than promote the true
religion ; if force in the case has any efficacy at all, and
so do more harm than good: which, though it shows
not what you here demand, that it cannot do any ser-
vice towards the salvation of men's souls, for that can-
not be shown of any thing ; yet it shows the disservice
it does is so much more than any service can be ex-
pected from it, that it can never be proved that God
has given power to magistrates to use it by the com-
mission they have of doing good, from the law of na-
ture.

But whilst you tell me, " Till I have shown that
force and penalties cannot do any service towards the
salvation of souls, there will be no occasion for the
caution I gave you," not to be wiser than our Maker
in that stupendous and supernatural work; you have
forgot your own confession, that it is not enough to
authorize the use of force, that it may be useful, if it
be not also necessary. And when you can prove such
means necessary, which though it cannot be shown,
never upon any occasion to do any service; yet may
be, and is abundantly shown to do little service, and so

496 A Third Letter for Toleration.

uncertainly, that if it be used, it will, if it has any
efficacy, do more harm than good : if you can, I say,
prove such a means as that necessary, I think I may
yield to you the cause. But the use of it has so much
certain harm, and so little and uncertain good in it,
that it can neverbe supposed included or intended in the
general commission to the magistrates, of doing good ;
which may serve for an answer to your next paragraph.

Only let me take notice, that you here make this
commission of the law of nature to extend the use of
force, only to u induce those, who would not otherwise,
to hear what may and ought to move them to embrace
the truth." They have heard all that is offered to
move them to embrace, i. e. believe, but are not
moved : is the magistrate by the law of nature com-
missioned to punish them for what is not in their power ?
for faith is the gift of God, and not in a man's power :
or is the magistrate commissioned by the law of nature,
which empowers him in general, only to do them good ?
Is he, I say, commissioned to make them lie, and pro-
fess that which they do not believe ? And is this for
their good? If he punish them till they embrace, i. e.
believe, he punishes them for what is not in their power;
if till they embrace, u e. barely profess, he punishes
them for what is not for their good : to neither of which
can he be commissioned by the law of nature.

To my saying, u Till you can show us a commission
in Scripture, it will be fit for us to obey that precept of
the Gospel (Mark iv. 24) which bids us take heed
what we hear :" you reply, That this, " you suppose,
is only intended for the vulgar reader ; for it ought
to be rendered, attend to what you hear;'' which you
prove out of Grotius. What if I or my readers arc
not so learned as to understand either the Greek
original, or Grotius's Latin comment? Or if we did,
are we to be blamed for understanding the Scripture
in that sense, which the national, i. c. as you say, the
true religion authorizes, and which you tell us would
be a fault in us if we did not believe?

For if, as you suppose, there be suflicient provision
made in Englandfor the instructing all men in the truth;
we cannot then but take the words in this sense, it being

A Third Letter for Toleration. 497

that which the public authority has given them; for
if we are not to follow the sense as it is given us in
the translation authorized by our governors, and used
in our worship established by law, but must seek it
elsewhere, it will be hard to find how there is any
other provision made for instructing men in the sense of
the Scripture, which is the truth that must save them,
but to leave them to their own inquiry and judgment,
and to themselves, to take whom they think best for
interpreters and expounders of Scripture, and to quit
that of the true church, which she has given in her
translation. This is the liberty you take to differ from
the true church, when you think fit, and it will serve
your purpose. She says, IC Take heed what you hear j"
but you say, the true sense is, " Attend to what you
hear." Methinks you should not be at such variance
with dissenters ; for after all, nothing is so like a non-
conformist as a conformist. Though it be certainly every
one's right to understand the Scripture in that sense
which appears truest to him, yet I do not see how you,
upon your principles, can depart from that which the
church of England has given it : but you, I find, when
you think fit, take that liberty ; and so much liberty as
that would, I think, satisfy all the dissenters in England.
As to your other place of Scripture ; if St. Paul, as it
seems to me, in that tenth to the Romans, where show-
ing that the Gentiles were provided with all things
necessary to salvation, as well as the Jews, — and that
by having men sent to them to preach the Gospel, that
provision was made, — what you say in the two next
paragraphs will show us that you understand that the
Greek word uKorj signifies both hearing and report; but
does no more answer the force of those two verses,
against you, than if you had spared all you said with your
Greek ^iticism. The words of St. Paul are these:
" How then shall they call on him on whom they have
not believed ? And how shall they believe in him of
whom they have not heard ? And how shall they hear
without a preacher ? And how shall they preach, except
they be sent? So then faith cometh by hearing, and

VOL. VI. K K

498 A Third Letter for Toleration.

hearing by the word of God," Rom. x. 14, 15, 17. In
this deduction of the means of propagating the Gospel,
we may well suppose St. Paul would have put in miracles
or penalties, if, as you say, one of them had been ne-
cessary. But whether or no every reader will think
St. Paul set down in that place all necessary means, I
know not; but this, I am confident, he will think, that
the New Testament does ; and then I ask, Whether
there be in it one word of force to be used to bring men
to be Christians, or to hearken to the good tidings of
salvation offered in the Gospel ?

To my asking, " What if God, for reasons best
known to himself, would not have men compelled ?"
You answer, * If he would not have them compelled,
now miracles are ceased, as far as moderate penalties
compel, (otherwise you are not concerned in the de-
mand) he would have told us so." Concerning mi-
racles supplying the want of force, I shall need to say
nothing more here: but to your answer, that " God
would have told us so," I shall in few words state
the matter to you. You first suppose force necessary
to compel men to hear ; and thereupon suppose the ma-
gistrate invested with a power to compel them to hear ;
and from thence peremptorily declare, that if God
would not have force used, he would have told us so.
You suppose also, that it must be only moderate force.
Now may we not ask one, that is so far of the council
of the Almighty, that he can positively say what he
would or would not have, to tell us, whether it be not
as probable that God, who knows the temper of man
that he has made, who knows how apt he is not to
spare any degree of force when he believes he has a
commission to compel men to do any thing in their
power, and who knows also how prone man is to think
it reasonable to do so ; whether, I say, it is not as pro-
bable that God, if he would have the magistrate to
use none but moderate force to compel men to hear,
would also have told us so? Fathers are not more apt
than magistrates to strain their power beyond what is
Movement for the education of tneir children ; and yet

A Third Letter for Toleration. 499

it has pleased God to tell them in the New Testament, of
this moderation, by a precept more than once repeated.

To my demanding, " What if God would have men
left to their freedom in this point, if they will hear,
or if they will forbear; will you constrain them?
Thus we are sure he did with his own people," &c.
You answer, M But those words, whether they will hear,
or whether they will forbear, which we find thrice
used in the prophet Ezekiel, are nothing at all to my
purpose. For by hearing there, no man understands
the bare giving an ear to what was to be preached,
nor yet the considering it only ; but the complying
with it, and obeying it; according to the paraphrase
which Grotius gives of the words." Methinks, for
this once, you might have allowed me to have hit upon
something to the purpose, you having denied me it in
so many other places : if it were but for pity ; and one
other reason ; which is, that all you have to say against
it is, that " by hearing there, no man understands the
bare giving an ear to what was to be preached, nor
yet the considering it ; but the complying with it, and
obeying it." If I misremember not, your hypothesis
pretends the use of force to be not barely to make men
give an ear, nor yet to consider ; but to make them
consider as they ought, u e. so as not to reject ; and
therefore, though this text out of Ezekiel be nothing
to the purpose against bare giving an ear; yet, if you
please, let it stand as if it were to the purpose against
your hypothesis, till you can find some other answer
to it.

If you will give yourself the pains to turn to Acts
xxviii. 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, you will read these words :
" And some believed the things that were spoken, and
some believed not. And when they agreed not among
themselves they departed, after that Paul had spoken
one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the
prophet unto our fathers, saying, Go unto this people,
and say, hearing, ye shall hear, and shall not under,
stand ; and seeing, ye shall see, and not perceive. For
the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears

K K 2

500 A Third Letter for Toleration.

are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed ;
lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their
ears, and understand with their heart, and should be
converted, and I should heal them. Be it known
therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent
unto the Gentiles, and that thev will hear it."

If one should come now, and out of your treatise,
called The Argument of the Letter concerning Tole-
ration considered and answered, reason thus, " It is
evident that these Jews have not sought the truth in
this matter with that application of mind and freedom
of judgment which was requisite ; whilst they suffered
their lusts and passions to sit in judgment, and manage
the inquiry. The impressions of education, the rever-
ence and admiration of persons, worldly respects, and
the like incompetent motives, have determined them.
Now if this be the case, — if these men are averse to a
due consideration of things, where they are most con-
cerned to use it, — what means is there left (besides the
grace of God) to reduce them out of the wrong way
they are in, but to lay thorns and briars in it ?" Would
you not think this a good argument to show the neces-
sity of using force and penalties upon these men in the
Acts, who refused to be brought to embrace the true
religion upon the preaching of St. Paul ? " For what
other means was left, what human method could be
used to bring them to make a wiser and more rational
choice, but laying such penalties upon them as might
balance the weight of such prejudices, which inclined
them to prefer a false way before the true ?" Tell me,
I beseech you, would you not, had you been a Christian
magistrate in those days, have thought yourself obliged
to try, by force, " to overbalance the weight of those
prejudices which inclined them to prefer a false way
to the true?" For there was no other human means
left; and if that be not enough to prove the necessity
of using it, you have no proof of any necessity of force
at all.

If you would have laid penalties upon them, I ask
you, what if God) lor reasons host known to himself,

A Third Letter for Toleration. 501

thought it not necessary to use any other human means
but preaching and persuasion ? You have a ready
answer, there is no other human means but force, and
some other human means besides preaching is necessary,
i. c. in your opinion : and is it not fit your authority
should carry it ? For as to miracles, whether you think
fit to rank them amongst human means or no ; or whe-
ther or no there were any showed to these unbelieving
Jews, to supply the want of force ; I guess, in this case,
you will not be much helped, whichever you suppose :
though to one unbiassed, who reads that chapter, it
will, I imagine, appear most probable that St. Paul,
when he thus parted with them, had done no miracles
amongst them.

But you have, at the close of the paragraph before us,
provided a salvo for all, in telling us, " However the
penalties you defend are not such as can any way be
pretended to take away men's freedom in this point."
The question is, whether there be a necessity of using
other human means but preaching, for the bringing
men to embrace the truth that must save them ; and
whether force be it? God himself seems, in the places
quoted, and others, to teach us, that he would have
left men to their freedom from any constraint of force in
that point ; and you answer, " The penalties you defend
are not such as can any ways be pretended to take
away men's freedom in this point." Tell us what
you mean by these words of yours, " take away
men's freedom in this point ;" and then apply it.
I think it pretty hard to use penalties and force to
any man, without taking away his freedom from penal-
ties and force. Farther, the penalties you think ne-
cessary, if we may believe you yourself, are to " be
such as may balance the weight of those prejudices,
which incline men to prefer a false way before a
true :" whether these be such as you will defend,
is another question. This, I think, is to be made
plain, that you must go beyond the lower degrees
of force, and moderate penalties, to balance those pre-
judices.

502 A Third Letter for Toleration.

To my saying, " That the method of the Gospel is
to pray and beseech, and that if God had thought it
necessary to have men punished to make them give ear,
he could have called magistrates to be spreaders of the
Gospel, as well as poor fishermen, or Paul a persecutor,
who yet wanted not power to punish Ananias and
Sapphira, and the incestuous Corinthian :" you reply,
u Though it be the method of the Gospel, for the mini-
sters of it to pray and beseech men ; yet it appears from
my own words here, both that punishments may be
sometimes necessary ; and that punishing, and that even
by those who are to pray and beseech, is consistent
with that method." I fear, sir, you so greedily lay
hold upon any examples of punishment, when on any
account they come in your way, that you give yourself
not liberty to consider whether they are for your pur-
pose or no ; or else you would scarce infer, as you do
from my words, that, in your case, " punishments may
be sometimes necessary." Ananias and Sapphira were
punished : " therefore it appears," say you, " that pu-
nishments may be sometimes necessary." For what, I
beseech you ? For the only end, you say, punishments
are useful in religion, i. e. to make men consider. So
that Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead : for what
end ? To make them consider. If you had given your-
self the leisure to have reflected on this, and the other
instance of the incestuous Corinthian, it is possible you
would have found neither of them to have served very
well to show punishment necessary to bring men to
embrace the true religion ; for both these were punish-
ments laid on those who had already embraced the
true religion, and were in the communion of the true
church ; and so can only show, if you will infer any thing
concerning the necessity of punishments from them,
that punishments may be sometimes necessary for those
who are in the communion of the true church. And
of that you may make your advantage.

As to your other inferences from my words, viz.
" That punishing, and that even by those who are, as
ambassadors, to pray and beseech, is consistent with

A Third Letter for Toleration. 5()S

that method ;" when they can do it as the apostles did,
by the immediate direction and assistance of the Spirit
of God, I shall easily allow it to be consistent with the
method of the Gospel. If that will not content yon,
it is plain, yon have an itch to be handling the secular
sword ; and since Christ has not given you the power
you desire, you would be executing the magistrate's
pretended commission from the law of nature. One
thing more let me mind you of, and that is, that if,
from the punishments of Ananias and Sapphira, and the
incestuous Corinthian, you can infer a necessity of pu-
nishment to make men consider ; it will follow that there
was a necessity of punishment to make men consider,
notwithstanding miracles, which cannot therefore be
supposed to supply the want of punishments.

To my asking, " What if God, foreseeing this force
would be in the hands of men as passionate, as bumor-
some, as liable to prejudice and error, as the rest of
their brethren, did not think it a proper means to bring
men into the right way ?" You reply, " But if there be
any thing of an argument in this, it proves that there
ought to be no civil government in the world ; and so
proving too much, proves nothing at all." This you
say ; but you being one of those mortals who is liable
to error as well as your brethren, you cannot expect
it should be received for infallible truth, till you have
proved it ; and that you will never do, till you can
show, that there is as absolute a necessity of force in
the magistrate's hands for the salvation of souls, as there
is of force in the magistrate's hands for the preservation
of civil society ; and next, till you have proved that
force, in the hands of men as passionate and humor-
some, or liable to prejudice and error as their brethren,
would contribute as much to the bringing men, and
keeping them in the right way to salvation, as it does
to the support of civil society, and the keeping men at
peace in it.

Where men cannot live together without mutual in-
juries, not to be avoided without force, reason has
taught them to seek a remedy in government ; which
always places power somewhere in the society to restrain

504f A Third Letter for- Toleration.

and punish such injuries ; which power, whether placed
in the community itself, or some chosen by the com-
munity to govern it, must still be in the hands of men ;
and where, as in societies of civilized and settled na-
tions, the form of the government places this power out
of the community itself, it is unavoidable, that out of
men, such as they are, some should be made magistrates,
and have coercive power of force put into their hands,
to govern and direct the society for the public good ;
without which force, so placed in the hands of men,
there could be no civil society, nor the ends for which
it is instituted to any degree attained. And thus
government is the will of God.

It is the will of God also, that men should be saved ;
but to this it is not necessary that force or coactive
power should be put into men's hands, because God
can and hath provided other means to bring men to
salvation: to whichjyou indeed suppose, but can never
prove force necessary.

The passions, humours, liableness to prejudices and
errors, |common to magistrates with other men, do not
render force in their hands so dangerous and unuseful to
the ends of society, which is the public peace, as to the
ends of religion, which is the salvation of men's souls.
For though men of all ranks could be content to have
their own humours, passions, and prejudices satisfied ;
yet when they come to make laws, which are to direct
their force in civil matters, they are driven to oppose
their laws to the humours, passions, and prejudices of
men in general, whereby their own come tobe restrained:
for if law-makers, in making of laws, did not direct
them against the irregular humours, prejudices, and
passions of men, which are apt to mislead them ; if
they did not endeavour, with their best judgment, to
bring men from their humours and passions, to the obe-
dience and practice of right reason; the society could
not subsist, and so they themselves would be in danger
to lose their station in it, and be exposed to the unre-
strained humours, passions, ami violence of Others. And
hence it conies, that be men as humorsome, passionate,
and prejudiced as they will, they are still by their own

A Third Letter for Toleration. £05

interest obliged to make use of their best skill, unci with
their most unprejudiced and sedatest thoughts, take
care of the government, and endeavour to preserve the
commonwealth ; and therefore, notwithstanding their
humours and passions, their liableness to error and
prejudice, they do provide pretty well for the support
of society, and the power in their hands is of use to the
maintenance of it.

But in matters of religion it is quite otherwise ; you
had told us, about the latter end of your Argument,
p. 22, how liable men were in choosing their religion to
be misled by humour, passion, and prejudice ; and there-
fore it was not fit that in a business of such concern-
ment they should be left to themselves : and hence, in
this matter of religion, you would have them subjected
to the coactive power of the magistrate. But this con-
trivance is visibly of no advantage to the true religion,
nor can serve at all to secure men from a wrong choice.
For the magistrates, by their humours, prejudices, and
passions, which they are born to like other men, being
as liable and likely to be misled in the choice of their
religion as any of their brethren, as constant experi-
ence hath always shown ; what advantage could it be to
mankind, for the salvation of their souls, that the
magistrates of the world should have power to use force
to bring men to that religion which they, each of them,
by whatsoever humour, passion, or prejudice influenced,
had chosen to themselves as the true ? For whatsoever
you did, I think with reverence we may say, that
God foresaw, that whatever commission one magistrate
had by the law of nature, all magistrates had ; and that
commission, if there were any such, could be only to
use their coactive power to bring men to the religion
they believed to be true, whether it were really the true
or no ; and therefore I shall, without taking away go-
vernment out of the world, or so much as questioning
it, still think this a reasonable question : " What if
God, foreseeing this force would be in the hands of
men as passionate, as humoursome, as liable to pre-
judice and error, as the rest of their brethren; did
not think it a proper means, in such hands, to bring

506 A Third Letter for Toleration.

men into the right way ?' and that it needs a better
answer than you have given to it : and therefore you
might have spared the pains you have taken in this
paragraph, to prove that the magistrate's being liable
as much as other men to humour, prejudice, passion,
and error, makes not force, in his hands, wholly unser-
viceable to the administration of civil government ;
which is what nobody denies : and you would have
better employed it to prove, that if the magistrate's
being as liable to passion, humour, prejudice, and error,
as other men, made force, in his hands, improper to
bring men to the true religion ; this would take away
government out of the world : which is a consequence,
I think, I may deny.

To which let me now add, what if God foresaw, that
if force, of any kind or degree whatsoever, were al-
lowed in behalf of truth, it would be used by erring,
passionate, prejudiced men, to the restraint and ruin of
truth, — as constant experience in all ages has shown, —
and therefore commanded that the tares should be suf-
fered to grow with the wheat, till the harvest, when
the infallible Judge shall sever them ? That parable of
our Saviour's plainly tells us, if force were once per-
mitted, even in favour of the true religion, what mis-
chief it was like to do in the misapplication of it, by
forward, busy, mistaken men, and therefore he wholly
forbid it; and yet, I hope, this does not take away civil
government out of the world.

To my demanding, " What if there be other means ?"
and saying, " Then yours ceases to be necessary upon
that account, that there is no other means left ; for
the grace of God is another means:" you answer,
That " though the grace of God is another means, yet
it is none of the means of which you were speaking
in the place I refer to ; which any one, who reads
that paragraph, will find to be only human mean?."
Jn that place you were endeavouring to prove force
necessary to bring men to the true religion, as appears;
and there having dilated for lour or five pages together
upon the M carelessness, prejudices, passions, lusts, im-
pressions of education, \vorhll\ respects," and other

A Third Letter for Toleration. 507

the like causes, which you think mislead and keep men
from the true religion ; you at last conclude force
necessary to bring men to it, because admonitions and
entreaties not prevailing, there is no other means left.
To this, grace being instanced in as another means, you
tell us here you mean no other human means left. So
that, to prove force necessary, you must prove that God
would have other human means used besides praying,
preaching, persuasion, and instruction ; and for this, you
will need to bring a plain direction from revelation for
your moderate punishments ; unless you will pretend
to know, by your own natural wisdom, what means God
has made necessary ; without which, those whom he
hath foreknown and predestinated, and will in his good
time call, Romans viii. 29, by such means as he thinks
fit, according to his purpose, cannot be brought into
the way of salvation. Perhaps you have some warrant
we know not of, to enter thus boldly into the counsel
of God ; without which, in another man, a modest
Christian would be apt to think it presumption.

You say, there are many who are not prevailed on by
prayers, entreaties, and exhortations, to embrace the
true religion. What then is to be done ? " Some de-
grees of force are necessary" to be used. Why ? Be-
cause there is no other human means left. Many are
not prevailed on by your moderate force. What then
is to be done ? Greater degrees of force are necessary,
because there is no other human means left. No, say
you, God has made moderate force necessary, because
there is no other human means left where preaching and
entreaties will not prevail ; but he has not made greater
degrees of force necessary, because there is no other
human means left where moderate force will not prevail.
So that your rule changing, where the reason continues
the same, we must conclude you have some way of judg-
ing concerning the purposes and ways of the Almighty
in the work of salvation, which every one understands
not. You would not else, upon so slight ground as you
have yet produced for it, which is nothing but your own
imagination, make force, your moderate force, so ne-
cessary, that you bring in question the wisdom and

508 A Third Letter for Toleration.

bounty of the Disposer and Governor of all things, as if
he " had not furnished mankind with competent means
for the promoting his own honour in the world, and
the good of souls," if your moderate force were
wanting to bring them to the true religion ; whereas
you know that most of the nations of the world always
were destitute of this human means to bring them to the
true religion. And I imagine you would be put to it,
to name me one now, that is furnished with it.

Besides, if you please to remember what you say in the
next words : " And therefore, though the grace of God
be both a proper and sufficient means, and such as can
work by itself, and without which neither penalties
nor any other means can do any thing," and by con-
sequence can make any means effectual ; how can you
say any human means, in this supernatural work, unless
what God has declared to be so, is necessary? Preaching,
and instruction, and exhortation, are human means that
he has appointed : these, therefore, men may and ought
to use ; they have a commission from God, and may
expect his blessing and the assistance of his grace ; but
to suppose, when they are used and prevail not, that
force is necessary, because these are not sufficient, is to
exclude grace, and ascribe this work to human means ;
as in effect you do, when you call force competent and
sufficient means, as you have done. For if bare preach-
ing, by the assistance of grace, can and will certainly
prevail: and moderate penalties, as you confess, or any
kind of force, without the assistance of grace, can do
nothing ; how can you say, that force is in any case a
more necessary or a more competent or sufficient
means than bare preaching and instruction ; unless you
can show us, that God hath promised the co-operation
and assistance of his grace to force, and not to preach-
ing? The contrary whereof has more of appearance.
Preaching and persuasion are not competent means, you
say : Why ? because without the co-operation of grace
they Can do nothing: butby the assistance of grace they
can prevail even without force. Force too, without
grace, you acknowledge can do nothing; but, joined
with preaching and grace, it can prevail. Why then, I

A Third Letter for Toleration. 509

pray, is it a more competent means than preaching ; or

why necessary, where preaching prevails not? since it
can do nothing without that, which, if joined to preach-
ing, can make preaching effectual without it.

You goon, " Yet it may he true however, that when
admonitions and entreaties fail, there is no human means
left but penalties, to bring prejudiced personsto hear and
consider what may convince them of their errors, and
discover the truth to them : and then penalties will be
necessary in respect to that end, as an human means.''
Let it be true or not true, that when entreaties, &c. fail,
there is no human means left but penalties : your infer-
ence I deny, that then penalties will be necessary as an
human means. For I ask you, since you lay so much
stress to so little purpose on human means, is some hu-
man means necessary ? if that be your meaning, you have
human means in the case, viz. admonitions, entreaties ;
being instant in season and out of season. I ask you
again, Are penalties necessary because the end could not
be obtained by preaching, without them ? that you can-
not say ; for grace co-operating with preaching will pre-
vail. Are penalties then necessary, as sure to produce
that end ? nor so are they necessary ; for without the as-
sistance of grace, you confess, they can do nothing. So
that penalties, neither as human means, nor as any means,
are at all necessary. And now you may understand what
1 intend, by saying that the grace of God is the only
means, which is the inquiry of your next paragraph, viz.
this I intend, that it is the only efficacious means, with-
out which all human means is ineffectual. You tell me,
If by it " I intend that it does either always, or ordinarily
exclude all other means ; you see no ground I have to
say it." And I see no ground you have to think I in-
tended, that it excludes any other means that God in
his goodness will be pleased to make use of: but this I
intend by it, and this, I think, I have ground to say,
that it excludes all the human means of force from being
necessary, or so much as lawful to be used ; unless God
hath required it by some more authentic declaration
than your bare saying or imagining it is necessary.

510 A Third Letter for Toleration.

And you must have more than human confidence, if
you continue to mix this poor and human contrivance
of yours with the wisdom and counsel of God in the
work of salvation ; since he having declared the means
and methods to be used for the saving men's souls, has
in the revelation of the Gospel, by your own confes-
sion , prescribed no such human means.

To my saying, " God alone can open the ear that it
may hear, and open the heart that it may understand :"
you reply, " But, by your favour, this does not prove
that he makes use of no means in doing of it." Nor
needs it : it is enough for me, if it proves, that if
preaching and instruction do not open the ear, or the
heart, it is not necessary any one should try his strength
writh a hammer or an augre. Man is not in this busi-
ness, (where no means can be effectual, without the
assistance and co-operation of his grace) to make use
of any means which God hath not prescribed. You here
set up a way of propagating Christianity according to
your fancy, and tell us how you would have the work
of the Gospel carried on : you commission the magistrate
by the argument of congruity ; you find an efficacy in
punishment towards the converting of men ; you limit
the force to be used to low and moderate degrees, and
to countries where sufficient means of instruction are
provided by the law, and where the magistrate's reli-
gion is the true, i. e. where it pleases you ; and all this
without any direction from God, or any authority so
much as pretended from the Gospel ; and without its
being truly for the propagation of Christianity, but only
so much of it as you think fit, and what else you are
pleased to join to it. Why else, in the religion you are
content to have established by law, and promoted by
penalties, is any thing more or less required than is ex-
pressly contained in the New Testament?

This indeed is well suited to any one, who would
have a power of punishing those that differ from his
opinion, and would have men compelled to conformity in
England. l>ut in thigyour fair contrivance, what becomes
of the rest of mankind, left to wander in darkness out oi

A Third Letter for Toleration. 511

this Goshen, who neither have, nor (according to yonr
scheme) can have, your necessary means of force and
penalties to bring them to embrace the truth that must
save them ? for if that be necessary, they cannot with-
out a miracle, either prince or people, be wrought on
without it. If a papist at Rome, a Lutheran at Stock-
holm, or a Calvinist at Geneva, should argue thus for
his church, would you not say, that such as these looked
like the thoughts of a poor prejudiced mind ? But they
may mistake, and you cannot ; they may be prejudiced,
but you cannot. Say too, if you please, you are confi-
dent you are in the right, but they cannot be confident
they are so. This I am sure, God's thoughts are not
as man's thoughts, nor his ways as man's ways, Isaiah
lv. 8. And it may abate any one's confidence of the
necessity or use of punishments, for not receiving our
Saviour, or his religion, when those who had the power
of miracles were told, that " they knew not what man-
ner of spirit they were of," when they would have com-
manded down fire from heaven, Luke ix. 55. But you
do well to take care to have the church you are of
supported by force and penalties, whatever becomes of
the propagation of the Gospel, or the salvation of men's
souls, in other parts of the world, as not coming within
your hypothesis.

In your next paragraph, to prove that God does bless
the use of force, you say you suppose I mean, by the
words you there cite, that the " magistrate has no
ground to hope that God will bless any penalties that
he may use to bring men to hear and consider the doc-
trine of salvation ; or (which is the same thing) that
God does not (at least not ordinarily) afford his grace
and assistance to them who are brought by such penalties
to hear and consider that doctrine, to enable them to
hear and consider it as they ought, i. e. so as to be
moved heartily to embrace it." You tell me, " If this
be my meaning, then to let me see that it is not true,
you shall only desire me to tell you, whether they that
are so brought to hear and consider, are bound to be-
lieve the Gospel or not? If I say they are ; (and you
suppose I dare not say otherwise) then it evidently fol-

512 A Third Letter for Toleration.

lows, that God does afford them that grace which is
requisite to enable them to believe the Gospel : because
without that grace it is impossible for them to believe
it ; and they cannot be bound to believe what it is im-
possible for them to believe." To which I shall only
answer, that by this irrefragable argument it is evident,
that wherever due penalties have been used, — for those
you tell us are sufficient and competent means to make
men hear and consider as they ought, — there all men
were brought to believe the Gospel : which, whether
you will resolve with yourself to be true or false, will
be to me indifferent, and on either hand equally advan-
tage your cause. Had you appealed to experience for
the success of the use of force by the magistrate, your
argument had not shown half so much depth of theo-
logical learning : but the mischief is, that if you will
not make it all of a piece scholastic ; and by arguing
that all whom the magistrates use force upon " are
brought to consider as they ought, and to all that are
so wrought upon God does afford that grace which is
requisite ;" and so roundly conclude for a greater suc-
cess of force, to make men believe the Gospel, than
ever our Saviour and the Apostles had by their preach-
ing and miracles ; for that wrought not on all ; your un-
answerable argument comes to nothing. And in truth,
as you have in this paragraph ordered the matter, by
being too sparing of your abstract metaphysical reason-
ing, and employing it by halves, we are fain, after all,
to come to the dull way of experience ; and must be
forced to count, as the parson does his communicants,
by his Easter-book, how many those are so brought to
hear and consider, to know how far God blesses penal-
ties. Indeed, were it to be measured by conforming,
the Easter-book would be a good register to determine
it : but since you put it upon believing, that will be of
somewhat a harder disquisition.

To my saying, (npon that place out of Isaiah, vi.
10, " Make the heart of this people fat, lest they un-
derstand, and convert, and be healed) will all the
force you can use he a means to make such people
hear and understand, and be converted?" Von reply,

A Third Letter for Toleration. 513

No, sir, it will not. But what then ? What if God de-
clares that he will not heal those who have long re-
sisted all his ordinary methods, and made themselves,
morally speaking, incurable by them? (which is the
utmost, you say, I can make of the words I quote).
Will it follow from thence, that no good can be done
by penalties upon others, who are not so far gone in
wickedness and obstinacy ? If it will not, as it is evi-
dent it will not, to what purpose is this said?" It is
said to this purpose, viz. to show that force ought not
to be used at all. Those ordinary methods which, re-
sisted, are punished with a reprobate sense, are the
ordinary methods of instruction, without force ; as is
evident from this place and many others, particularly
Romans i. From whence I argue, that what state
soever you will suppose men in, either as past, or not
yet come to the day of grace, nobody can be justified
in using force to work upon them. For till the ordi-
nary methods of instruction and persuasion can do no
more, force is not necessary ; for you cannot say what
other means is there left, and so by your own rule not
lawful. For till God hath pronounced this sentence
here, on any one, "make his heart fat," &c. the ordi-
nary means of instruction and persuasion may, by the
assistance of God's grace, prevail. And when this sen-
tence is once passed upon them, and '* God will not
afford them his grace to heal them," (I take it, you
confess in this place) I am sure you must confess your
force to be wholly useless, and so utterly impertinent -,
unless that can be pertinent to be used, which you own
can do nothing. So that whether it will follow or no,
from men's being given up to a reprobate mind, for
having resisted the preaching of salvation, "that no
good can be done by penalties upon others ;" this will
follow, that not knowing whether preaching may not,
by the grace of God, yet work upon them ; or whether
the day of grace be past with them; neither you nor
any body else can say that force is necessary ; and if it
be not necessary, you yourself tell us it is not to be used.
In your next paragraph, you complain of me, as re-

VOL. VI. l L

514 A Third Letter for Toleration.

presenting your argument, as you say " I commonly
do, as if you allowed any magistrate, of what religion
soever, to lay penalties upon all that dissent from
him." Unhappy magistrates that have not your al-
lowance ! But to console them, I imagine they will
find that they are all under the same obligation, one
as another, to propagate the religion they believe to be
the true, whether you allow it them or no. For to
go no farther than the first words of your argument,
which you complain I have misrepresented, and which
you tell me runs thus, " When men fly from the means
of right information ;" I ask you here, who shall be
judge of those means of right information ; the magi-
strate who joins force with them to make them be
hearkened to, or no? When you have answered that,
you will have resolved a great part of the question,
what magistrates are to use force ?

But that you may not complain again of my misre-
presenting, I must beg my readers' leave to set down
your argument at large in your own words, and all
you say upon it : " When men fly from the means of
a right information, and will not so much as consider
how reasonable it is thoroughly and impartially to
examine a religion, which they embraced upon such
inducements as ought to have no sway at all in the
matter, and therefore with little or no examination
of the proper grounds of it; what human method
can be used to bring them to act like men in an affair
of such consequence, and to make a wiser and more
rational choice, but that of laying such penalties upon
them, as may balance the weight of those prejudices,
which inclined them to prefer a false way before the
true?" &c. Now this argument, you tell me, I pre-
tend to retort in this manner : " and I say, I see no
other means left, (taking the world as we now find it,
wherein the magistrate never lays penalties for matters
of religion upon those of his own church, nor is it to
be expected they ever should) to make men of the na-
tional church, any where, thoroughly and impartially
examine a religion, which they embraced upon such

A Third Letter for Toleration. 515

inducements as ought to have no sway at all in the
matter, and therefore with little or no examination of
the proper grounds of it : and therefore I conclude
the use of force by dissenters upon conformists neces-
sary. I appeal to all the world, whether this be not
as just and natural a conclusion as yours?" And you
say you are " well content the world should judge.
And when it determinest hat there is the same reason
to say, that to bring those who conform to the national
church to examine their religion, it is necessary for
dissenters (who cannot possibly have the coactive
power, because the national church has that on its side,
and cannot be national without it) to use force upon
conformists ; as there is to say, that where the national
church is the true church, there to bring dissenters
(as I call them) to examine their religion, it is neces-
sary for the magistrate (who has the coactive power)
to lay moderate penalties upon them for dissenting :
you say, when the world determines thus, you will
never pretend any more to judge what is reasonable,
in any case whatsoever. Eor you doubt not but you
may safely presume, that the world will easily admit
these two things. 1. That though it be very fit and
desirable, that all that are of the true religion should
understand the true grounds of it, that so they may
be the better able both to defend themselves against
the assaults of seducers, and to reduce such as are out
of the way ; yet this is not strictly necessary to their
salvation : because experience shows (as far as men
are capable to judge of such matters) that many do
heartily believe and profess the true religion, and con-
scientiously practise the duties of it, who yet do not
understand the true grounds upon which it challenges
their belief; and no man doubts, but whosoever does
so believe, profess, and practise the true religion, if he
perseveres to the end, shall certainly attain salvation
by it. 2. That how much soever it concerns those who
reject the true religion (whom I may call dissenters
if I please) to examine and consider why they do
so ; and how needful soever penalties may be to bring
them to this ; it is, however, utterly unreasonable, that

ll2

516 A Third Letter for Toleration.

such as have not the coactive power should take upon
them to inflict penalties for that purpose : because, as
that is not consistent with order and government,
which cannot stand where private persons are per-
mitted to usurp the coactive power ; so there is no-
thing more manifest, than that the prejudice which is
done to religion, and to the interest of men's souls,
by destroying government, does infinitely outweigh
any good that can possibly be done by that which
destroys it. And whoever admits and considers these
things, you say, you are very secure will be far enough
from admitting, that there is any parity of reason in
the cases we here speak of, or that mine is as just and
natural a conclusion as yours. "

The sum of what you say amounts to thus much :
men being apt to take up their religion upon induce-
ments that ought to have no sway at all in the matter,
and so, with little or no examination of the grounds of
it ; therefore penalties are necessary to be laid on them,
to make them thoroughly and impartially examine.
But yet penalties need not be laid on conformists, in
England, to make them examine ; because they, and
you, believe yours to be the true religion : though it
must be laid on presbyterians and independents, &c.
to make them examine, though they believe theirs to
be the true religion, because you believe it not to be so.
But you give another very substantial reason, why pe-
nalties cannot be laid on conformists, to make them
examine; and that is, "because the national church
has the coactive power on its side," and therefore
they have no need of penalties to make them examine.
The national church of France, too, has the coactive
power on its side, and therefore they who are of it
nave no need of penalties, any of them, to make them
examine.

If your argument be good, that men take up their
religion upon wrong Inducements, and without due
examination of the proper grounds of it; and that
therefore they have need of penalties to be laid on them
to make them examine, as thej ought, the grounds of
then i ; you must confess there are s ome in the

A Third Letter for Toleration. 517

church of England, to whom penalties are necessary :
unless you will affirm, that all, who are in the com-
munion of the church of England, have so examined :
but that I think you will not do, however you endea-
vour to palliate their ignorance and negligence in this
matter. There being therefore a need of penalties, I
say, it is as necessary that presbyterians should lay pe-
nalties on the conformists of the church of England to
make them examine, as for the church of England to
lay penalties on the presbyterians to make them do
so : for they each equally believe their religion to be
true ; and we suppose, on both sides, there are those
who have not duly examined. But here you think
you have a sure advantage, by saying it is not con-
sistent with the "order of government, and so it is im-
practicable. " I easily grant it. But is yours more
practicable? When you can make your way practi-
cable, for the end for which you pretend it necessary,
viz. to make " all, who have taken up their religion
upon such inducements as ought to have no sway at all
in the matter, to examine thoroughly and impartially
the proper grounds of it ;" when, I say, you can show
your way practicable, to this end, you will have cleared
it of one main objection, and convinced the world that
yours is a more just and natural conclusion than mine.

If your cause were capable of any other defence, I
suppose we should not have had so long and elaborate
an answer as you have given us in this paragraph,
which at last bottoms only on these two things : 1.
That there are in you, or those of your church, some
approaches towards infallibility in your belief that your
religion is true, which is not to be allowed those of
other churches, in the belief of theirs. 2. That it is
enough if any one does but conform to it, and remain
in the communion of your church : or else one would
think there should be as much need for conformists
too of your church to examine the grounds of their
religion, as for any others.

" To understand the true grounds of the true religion
is not, you say, strictly necessary to salvation." Yet,
I think, you will not deny but it is as strictly necessary

518 A Third Letter for Toleration.

to salvation, as it is to conform to a national church
in all those things it imposes : some whereof are not
necessary to salvation ; some whereof are acknowledged
by all to be indifferent ; and some whereof, to some
conscientious men, who thereupon decline communion,
appear unsound or unlawful. If not being strictly ne-
cessary to salvation, will excuse from penalties in the
one case, why will it not in the other? And now I
shall excuse the world from determining my conclusion
to be as natural as yours : for it is pity so reasonable a
disputant as you are, should take so desperate a reso-
lution as "never to pretend any more to judge what
is reasonable in any case whatsoever."

Whether you have proved that force, used by the
magistrate, be a means prescribed by God to procure
the gift of faith from him, which is all you say in the
next paragraph, others must judge.

In that following, you quote these words of mine :
" If all the means God has appointed to make men
hear and consider, be exhortation in season and out
of season, &c. together with prayer for them, and the
example of meekness, and a good life ; this is all ought
to be done, whether they will hear, or whether they
will forbear." To which you thus reply, "But if
these be not all the means God has appointed, then
these things are not all that ought to be done." But
if I ask you, How do you know that this is not all God
has appointed ; you have nothing to answer, to bring
it to your present purpose, but that you know it by the
light of nature. For all you say is but this, that by
the light of nature you know force to be useful and
necessary to bring men into the way of salvation ; by
the tight of nature you know the magistrate lias a com-
mission to use force to that purpose ; and by the same
light of nature, you know that miracles were appointed
tO supply the want of force till the magistrates were
Christians. I imagine, sir, you would scarce have
thought this a reasonable answer, if you had taken no-
tice of my words in the same paragraph immediately
preceding those you have cited; which, thai you may
see the scope <>i my argument, 1 will here trouble you

A Third Letter for Toleration, 519

again ; and they are these : "It is not for you and
me, out of an imagination that they may be useful, or
are necessary, to prescribe means in the great and
mysterious work of salvation, other than what God
himself has directed. God has appointed force as
useful and necessary, and therefore it is to be used ;
is a way of arguing becoming the ignorance and hu-
mility of poor creatures. But I think force useful or
necessary, and therefore it is to be used; has methinks
a little too much presumption in it. You ask what
means else is there left? None, say I, to be used by
man, but what God himself has directed in the Scrip-
tures, wherein are contained all the means and methods
of salvation. Faith is the gift of God. And we are
not to use any other means to procure this gift to any
one, but what God himself has prescribed. If he has
there appointed, that any should be forced to hear
those who tell them they have mistaken their way, and
offer to show them the right ; and that they should be
punished by the magistrate, if they did not; it will be
past doubt, it is to be made use of. But till that can
be done, it will be in vain to say, what other means is
there left."

My argument here lies plainly in this : That all the
means and methods of salvation are contained in the
Scripture : which either you were to have denied, or
else have shown where it was in Scripture that force
was appointed. But instead of that, you tell us, that
God appointed miracles in the beginning of the Gospel.
And though, when these ceased, the means I mention
were all the ministers had left, yet this proves not that
the magistrate was not to use force. Your words are,
" As to the first spreaders of the Gospel, it has already
been shown, that God appointed other means besides
these for them to use, to induce men to hear and con-
sider : and though, when those extraordinary means
ceased, these means which I mention (viz. preaching,
&c.) were the only means left to the ministers of the
Gospel ; yet that is no proof that the magistrate,
when he became Christian, could not lawfully use
such means as his station enabled him to use, when

520 A Third Letter for Toleration.

they became needful." I said, in express words, a No
means was to be used by man, but what God himself
has directed in the Scripture." And you answer,
This is no proof that the Christian magistrate may
not use force. Perhaps when they so peremptorily in-
terpose their decisive decrees in the business of salva-
tion, establish religions by laws and penalties, with
what articles, creeds, ceremonies, and discipline, they
think fit ; (for this we see done almost in all countries)
when they force men to hear those, and those only,
who by their authority are chosen and allowed to tell
men they have mistaken their way, and offer to show
them the right ; it may be thought necessary to prove
magistrates to be men. If that needs no proof, what
I said needs some other answer.

But let us examine a little the parts of what you
here say : " As to the first spreaders of the Gospel,
say you, it has already been shown, that God appointed
other means besides exhortation in season and out of
season, prayer, and the example of a good life, for
them to use to induce men to hear and consider."
What were those other means? To that you answer
readily, miracles. Ergo, men are directed now by
Scripture to use miracles. Or else what answer do you
make to my argument, which I gave you in these wTords,
" No means is to be used by man, but what God him-
self has directed in the Scriptures, wherein are con-
tained all the means and methods of salvation." No,
they cannot use miracles now as a means, say you, for
they have them not. What then ? Therefore the
magistrate, who has it, must use force to supply the
want of those extraordinary means which are now
ceased. This indeed is an inference of yours, but
not of the Scriptures. Does the Scripture say any
thing of this? Not a word; not so much as the least
intimation towards it in all the New Testament. l>e
it then true or false, that force is a means to he used
by men in the absence1 of miracles; this is yet no an-
swer to my argument. ; this is no proof that it is ap-
pointed in Scripture; which is the thing my argument
turns on.

A Third Letter for Toleration. 521

Revelation then fails you. Let us see now how rea-
son and common sense, that common light of nature,
will help you out.

You then reason thus : bare preaching, &c. will not
prevail on men to hear and consider; and therefore some
other means is necessary to make them do so. Pray
what do you mean by men, or any other of those in-
definite terms, you have always used in this case? Is it
that bare preaching will prevail on no men ? Does rea-
son, (under which I comprehend experience too, and
all the ways of knowledge, contradistinguished to reve-
lation) discover any such thing to you ? I imagine you
will not say that; or pretend that nobody was ever
brought, by preaching or persuasion, to hear and con-
sider the truths of the Gospel, (mean by considering
what you will) without other means used by those who
applied themselves to the care of converting them. To
such therefore as may be brought to hear and consider,
without other means, you will not say that other means
are necessary.

In the next place, therefore, When you say bare
preaching will not prevail on men, do you mean that it
will not prevail on all men, and therefore it is necessary
that men should use other means? Neither, I think,
will reason authorize you to draw such a consequence:
because neither will preaching alone, nor preaching as-
sisted with force, or any other means man can use, pre-
vail on all men. And therefore no other means can be
pretended to be necessary to be used by man, to do what
men by those means never did, nor ever can do.

That some men shall be saved, and not all, is, I
think, past question to all that are Christians: and those
that shall be saved, it is plain, are the elect. If you
think not this plain enough in Scripture, I desire you
to turn to the seventeenth of the XXXIX articles of
the church of England, where you will read these
words : " Predestination to life is the everlasting pur-
pose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the
world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his
counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damna-
tion those whom he has chosen in Christ out of man-

50,0, A Third Letter for Toleration.

kind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salva-
tion, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore they which
be indued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called
according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in
due season : they through grace obey the calling; they
be justified freely; they be made sons of God by adop-
tion ; they be made like the image of his only be-
gotten Son Jesus Christ ; they walk religiously in
good works ; and at length, by God's mercy, they
attain to everlasting felicity." Now pray tell me
whether bare preaching will not prevail on all the elect
to hear and consider without other means to be used by
men. If you say it will, the necessity of your other
means, I think, is out of doors. If you say it will not,
I desire you to tell me how you do know it without re-
velation ? And whether by your own reason you can
tell us, whether any, and what means God has made ne-
cessary, besides what he has appointed in Scripture for
the calling his elect? When you can do this, we shall
think you no ordinary divine, nor a stranger to the
secret counsels of the infinitely wise God. But till
then, your mixing your opinion with the divine wis-
dom in the great work of salvation, and, from argu-
ments of congruity, taking upon you to declare the
necessity or usefulness of means, which God has not ex-
pressly directed, for the gathering in of his elect ; will
scarce authorize the magistrate to use his coactive
power for the edifying and completing the body of
Christ, which is his church. " Those whom God hath
chosen in Christ out of mankind, before the founda-
tions of the world, are called, according to God's pur-
pose, by his Spirit, working in due season, and through
grace obey the calling," say you in your article.
The outward means that God has appointed for this, is
preaching. Ay, but preaching is not enough; that is, is
not sufficient means, say you. And I ask you how you
know it ; since the Scripture, which declares all that we
cm know in tins mat ,tcr,says nothing of the insufficiency
of it, or of the necessity of any Other? Nor can there be
a necessity of any Other means than what God expressly
appoints, in a matter wherein no means can operate er-

A Third Letter for Toleration. 523

fectually, without the assistance of his grace; and where
the assistance of his grace can make any outward means
he appoints effectual.

I must desire you here to take notice, that by preach-
ing, which 1 use for shortness, I mean exhortation, in-
struction, entreaty, praying for; and, in fine, any out-
ward means of persuasion in the power of man, separate
from force.

You tell us here, " as to the first spreaders of the
Gospel, God appointed other means, viz. miracles, for
them to use to induce men to hear and consider." If
by the first spreaders of the Gospel, you mean the
twelve apostles and seventy disciples, whom Christ
himself sent to preach the Gospel ; they indeed were
appointed, by his immediate command, to show mira-
cles by the power which he had bestowed upon them.
But will you say., all the ministers and preachers of the
Gospel had such a commission, and such a power, all
along from the apostles' time ; and that they, every one,
did actually show miracles, to induce men to hear and
consider, quite down till Christianity was supported by
the law of the empire ? Unless you could show this,
though you could produce some well-attested miracles,
done by some men in every age till that time ; yet it
would not be sufficient to prove that miracles were ap-
pointed to be constantly used to induce men to hear and
consider ; and so, by your reasoning, to supply the want
of force, till that necessary assistance could be had from
the authority of the magistrate become Christian. For
since it is what you build upon, that men will not hear
and consider upon bare preaching; and I think you will
forwardly enough agree, that till Christianity was made
the religion of the empire, there were those every where
that heard the preachers of it so little, or so little con-
sidered what they said, that they rejected the Gospel;
and that therefore miracles or force are necessary means
to make men hear and consider; you must own that
those who preached without the power of miracles, or the
coactive power of the magistrate accompanying them,
were unfurnished of competent and sufficient means to
make men hear and consider ; and so to bring them to

524 A Third Letter for Toleration.

the true religion. If you will say the miracles done by
others were enough to accompany their preaching, to
make it be heard and considered ; the preaching of the
ministers at this day is so accompanied, and so will
need no assistance of force from the magistrate. If the
report of miracles done by one minister of the Gospel
some time before, and in another place, were sufficient
to make the preaching of ten or a thousand others be
heard and considered ; why is it not so now ? For the
credibility and attestation of the report is all that is of
moment, when miracles done by others, in other place
are the argument that prevails. But this, I fear, will
not serve your turn in the business of penalties ; and,
whatever might satisfy you in the case of miracles, I
doubt you would not think the salvation of souls suf-
ficiently provided for, if the report of the force of pe-
nalties, used some time since on one side of the Tweed,
were all that should assist the preachers of the true reli-
gion on the other, to make men hear and consider.

St. Paul, in his epistle to Titus, instructs him what
he, and the presbyters he should ordain in the cities of
Crete, were to do for the propagating of the Gospel,
and bringing men heartily to embrace it. His direc-
tions are, that they should be " blameless, not rioters,
not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine or
filthy lucre, not strikers, not unruly; lovers of hospi-
tality, and of good men; sober, just, holy, temperate;
to be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and con-
vince gainsayers ; in all things to be a pattern of good
works; in doctrine showing uncorruptedness, gravity,
sincerity, sound speech that cannot be condemned,
that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed,
having no evil to say of you. These things speak,
and exhort, and rebuke, with all authority. Avoid
foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions.
A man that is an heretic, alter the first and second
admonition, reject.,, To repay you the favour of
your greek, it is tapatroS'9 which, if I may take your
liberty of receding from our translation, 1 would read
" avoid/'

The ('retails, by the account St. Paul gives of them,

A Third Letter for Toleration. 525

were a people that would require all the means that
were needful to prevail with any strangers to the Gospel
to hear and consider. But yet we find nothing directed
for the support and propagation of the Gospel in this
island, but preaching, exhortation, reproof, &c. with
the example of a good life. In all this epistle, writ
on purpose to instruct the preachers of the Gospel, in
the means they were to use among the Cretans, for their
conversion, not a word about miracles, their power or
use : which one would think strange, if they were the
means appointed, and necessary to make men hear and
consider, and without which they would not do it.
Preaching, admonition, exhortation, entreaties, instruc-
tion, by the common right of reason, were known, and
natural to be used, to persuade men. There needed
not much be said to convince men of it. But, if miracles
were a necessary means, it was a means wholly new, un-
expected, and out of the power of other teachers. And
therefore one would think, if they were appointed for
the ends you propose, one should hear something of
that appointment : since that they were to be used, or
how, and when, was farther from common apprehen-
sion, and seems to need some particular direction.

If you say the same Spirit that gave them the power
of miracles, would also give them the knowledge both
that they had it, and how to use it ; I am far enough
from limiting the operations of that infinitely wise
Spirit, who will not fail to bring all the elect of God
into the obedience of truth, by those means, and in that
manner, he shall think necessary. But yet our Saviour,
when he sent abroad his disciples, with the power of
miracles, not only put it in their commission, whereby
they were informed that they had that extraordinary
gift, but added instructions to them in the use of it :
" Freely you have received, freely give;" a caution as
necessary to the Cretan elders, in the use of miracles,
if they had that power ; there being nothing more liable
to be turned to the advantage of filthy lucre.

I do not question but the Spirit of God might give
the power, and stir up the mind of the first spreaders of
the Gospel to do miracles on some extraordinary occa-

526 A Third Letter for Toleration.

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 accom-
pany 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 effec-
tual 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 Cre-
tan 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 appoint-
ment, need, or use of miracles.

I said, " But whatever neglect or aversion there is
in some men, impartially and thoroughly to be instruct-
ed ; there will, upon a due examination, I fear, be
found no less a neglect and aversion in others, im-
partially 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 scholas-
tical 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 founda-
tions of religion ; and that if there were not a neglect
in this part, I thought there would be little need of
any oilier means. To this you tell me, in the next
paragraph, " you do not see how pertinent my dis-
course, 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 al-
lowed by you to be pertinent, in a debate about ne-
cessary means ; when possibly those very neglects may
serve to make other means seem requisite, which really

A Third Letter for Toleration. 527

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 where-
ever the neglect be, it can scarce be said there is suf-
ficient 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 dis-
course of the pastoral care, to cure that neglect for the
future. There he tells you, p. 115, 118, that " mi-
nisters 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 -7
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 ; to-
wards 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, u 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 for-
gotten." P. 187 he says, " every priest that minds his

528 A Third Letter for Toleration.

duty will find, that no part of it is so useful as cate-
chistical 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 vo-
taries 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 twisted 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 re-
duced 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 ne-
cessary ; the magistrate, upon your principles, can nei-
ther lawfully use force, nor the ministers of any national
church plead for it any where, but where they them-
selves have first done their duties : a draught whereof,
adapted to our present circumstances, wo have in the
newly published discourse of the pastoral care. And
he that shall press the use of force as necessary, before he

A Third Letter f&r Toleration. 5Q{)

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 con-
venient 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 me-
thod ; 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

530 A Third Letter for Toleration.

barons nations missed it. But yon have ontdone Solon
and Lycurgns, Moses and our Saviour; and are re-
solved to be a law-maker of a way by yourself. It is
an old and obsolete way, and will not serve your turn,
to be<nn 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 im-
punity to the innocent, or the opportunity of amend-
ment to those who would avoid the penalties, are for-
malities 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 mis-
carriage 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 pro-
ceeding, 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 prac-
ticable.

I having said, " Your method is not altogether un-
like the plea made use of to excuse the late barbarous
usage of the protcstants in France, from being a per-
secution for religion, viz. That it was not a punish-
ment 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
thev have embraced, but the religion they have re-
jected. " 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 sun4 the punishments were punishments, and the
dragooning was dragooning. And if you think that
plea excused them not, I am of your mind. But never-
theless an of opinion, as I was, that it will prov<

A Third Letter for Toleration. 531

good a plea as yours ; which is what you argue against
in your next paragraph, in the words following, wherein
you examine the likeness of your new method to this
plea. You tell me, " I say, by your rule, the dissenters
(from the true religion, for you speak of no other)
must be punished (or, if I please, subjected to mode-
rate penalties, such as shall make them uneasy, but
neither destroy nor undo them) : for what?" Indeed I
thought by your first book you meant not for their re-
ligion, but to make them consider ; but here you ask
me " where it is you say that dissenters from the true
religion are not to be punished for their religion ? So
then, it seems in your opinion now, dissenters from
the true religion are to be punished," or, as you are
pleased to mollify the expression, for the thing is the
same, "subjected to moderate penalties for their re-
ligion." I think I shall not need to prove, to any
one but one of your nice style, that the execution of
penal laws, let the penalties be great or small, are pu-
nishments.

If therefore the religion of dissenters from the true,
be a fault to be punished by the magistrate ; who is to
judge who are guilty of that fault? Must it be the ma-
gistrate every where ; or the magistrate in some coun-
tries, and not in others ; or the magistrate nowhere ?
If the magistrate nowhere is to be judge who are dis-
senters from the true religion, he can nowhere punish
them. If he be to be every where judge ; then the king
of France, or the great Turk, must punish those whom
they judge dissenters from the true religion, as well as
other potentates. If some magistrates have a right to
judge, and others not; that yet, I fear, how absurd
soever it be, should I grant it, will not do your business.
For besides that they will hardly agree to make you
their infallible umpire in the case, to determine who of
them have, and who have not, this right to judge which
is the true religion ; or if they should, and you should
declare the king of England had that right, viz. whilst
he complied to support the orthodoxy, ecclesiastical
polity, and those ceremonies which you approve of; but
that the king of France, and the great Turk, had it

M M 2

532 A Third Letter for Toleration.

not, and so could have no right to use force on those
they judged dissenters from the true religion ; you
ought to bethink yourself what you will reply to one
that should use your own words : " If such a degree
of outward force, as has been mentioned, be really of
great and even necessary use, for the advancing of the
true religion and salvation of souls ; then it must b.
acknowledged, that in France and Turkey, &c. there
is a right somewhere to use it, for the advancing those
ends; unless we will say (what without impiety can-
not be said), that the wise and benign Disposer and
Governor of all things has not in France and Turkey
furnished mankind with competent means for the pro-
moting his own honour, and the good of souls."

You go on, and tell us they are to be punished, not
for following the light of their own reason, nor for
obeying the dictates of their own consciences, " but
rather for the contrary. For the lio;ht of their own
reason and the dictates of their own conscience (if
their reason and their consciences were not perverted
and abused) would undoubtedly lead them to the
same thing, to which the method you speak of is de-
signed to bring them ;" i. e. to the same thing to
which your reason and your conscience leads you. For
if you were to argue with a papist, or a presbyterian,
in the case, what privilege have you to tell him, that
his reason and conscience is perverted, more than he
has to tell you that yours is so? Unless it be this insup-
portable presumption, that your reason and conscience
ought to be the measure of all reason and conscience
in all others; which how you carl claim, without pre-
tending to infallibility, is not easy to discern.

The diversion you give yourself about the likeness
and unlikeness of two pleas, 1 shall not trouble myself
with ; since, when your lit of mirth was over, you were
forced to confess, That "as I have made your plea for
you, you think there is no considerable difference, as
to the fairness of them ; excepting what arises from
the different degrees of punishment, in the French
discipline and your method. Hut if the French plea
be not true: and thai which I make to he yours he

A Third Letter for Toleration. 533

not yours;" — 1 must beg your pardon, sir; J did dot

think it was your opinion, nor do I yet remember that
von any where said in your Argument, &c. that men
were to he punished for their religion ; but that it
was purely to make men " examine the religion they
had embraced, and the religion that they had rejected/*
And if that were of moment, I should think myself
sufficiently justified for this my mistake, by what you
say in your Argument, &c. from p. 6 to 12. But
since you explain yourself otherwise here, I am not
unwilling to take your hypothesis, as you from time to
time shall please to reform it. You answer then, that
" to make them examine is indeed the next end for
which they are to be punished." But what is that to
my question ? Which, if it be pertinent, demands for
what fault, not for what end, they are to be punished:
as appears even by my next words. " So that they are
punished, not for having offended against a law, i. e.
not for any fault ; for there is no law in England that
requires them to examine." This, I must confess,
wras to show, that here, as in France, whatever was pre-
tended, yet the true reason why people were punished
was their religion. And it was for this agreement,
that in both places religion was meant, though some-
thing else was talked of, that I said your plea was like
that made use of in France. But I see I might have
spared my pains to prove that you punish dissenters
for their religion, since you here own it.

You tell me, in the same place, I was impertinent in
my question ; which was this, " For what then are they
to be punished ?" that I demanded for what end, and
not for what fault, they are to be punished. In good
earnest, sir, I was not so subtile as to distinguish them.
I always thought that the end of all laws was to amend
those faults which were forbidden ; and that when any
one was punished, the fault for which he was punished
was the transgression of the law, in that particular
which was by the law commanded or forbidden ; and
the end of the punishment was the amendment of that
fault for the future. For example ; if the law com-
manded to hear, not hearing was the fault punished ;

534 A Third Letter for Toleration.

and the end of that punishment was to make the of-
fenders hear. If the law commanded to examine, the
fault punished, when that law was put in execution,
was not examining \ and the end of the punishment,
to make the offenders examine. If the law commanded
conformity, the fault was non-conformity ; and the end
of it to make men conform.

This was my apprehension concerning laws, and ends
of punishments. And I must own myself still so dull
as not to distinguish otherwise between " the fault for
which men are to be punished, and the end for which
they are to be punished ;" but only as the one is past,
the other future. The transgression, or fault, is an
omission or action that a man is already guilty of; the
end of the punishment, that it be not again repeated.
So that if a man be punished for the religion he professes,
I can see no other end for which he is punished, but
to make him quit that religion. No other immediate
end I mean ; for other remote ends, to which this is
subordinate, it may have. So that if not examining the
religion which men have embraced, and the religion
they have rejected, be not the fault for which men are
punished ; I would be glad you would show me how it
can be the next end, as you say it is, of their being
punished. And that you may not think my dulness
gives you a labour without ground, I will tell you the
reason why I cannot find any other next end of punish-
ment, but the amendment of the fault forbidden ; and
that is, because that seems to me to be the end, the next
end, of any action ; which, when obtained, the action
is to cease, and not cease till it be attained. And thus,
I think, it is in punishments ordained by the law. When
the fault forbidden is amended, the punishment is to
cease, and not till then. This is the only way I have
to know the end or final cause for which any action is
done. If you have any other, you will do me a kind-
ness to instruct me. This it is which makes me con-
clude (and J think with me all those who have not had
the leisure ami happiness to attain the utmost refining
of the schools), that if their religion be the fault lor
which dissenters are punished, examining is not the end

// Third Letter /or Toleration. ooo

for which they are punished, but the change of their
religion: though examining may, perhaps, in some
men, precede their change, and help to it. But that is
not necessary. A man may change his religion without
it : and when he has changed, let the motive be what
it will, the end the law aims at is obtained, and the
punishment ceases. So, on the other side, if not hear-
ing, not examining, be the fault for which men are
punished; conformity is not the next end for which
they are punished, though it may perhaps, in some, be
a consequence of it ; but hearing and examining must
be understood to be the ends for which they are
punished. If they are not the ends, why does the
punishment cease when those ends are attained? And
thus you have my thoughts concerning this matter,
which perhaps will not be very pertinent, as mine have
not the good luck always to be to you, to a man of
nicer distinctions.

But let us consider your hypothesis as it now stands,
and see what advantage you have got to your cause by
this new explication. " Dissenters from the true re-
ligion are to be punished, say you, for their religion."
Why ? because it is a fault. Against whom ? Against
God. Thence it follows indeed, that God, if he pleases,
may punish it. But how will you prove that God has
given the magistrates of the earth a power to punish all
faults against himself? Covetousness, or not loving our
neighbour as ourselves, are faults or sins against God.
Ought the magistrate to punish these ? But I shall not
need to trouble you much with that question. This
matter, I think, will be decided between us without
going so far.

If the magistrate may punish any one for not being
of the true religion, must the magistrate judge what is
that true religion, or no ? If he must not, what must
guide him in the punishing of some, and not of others ?
For so it is in all places where there is a national religion
established by penal laws. If the magistrate be com-
missioned by the same law of nature (for that is all the
commission you pretend to) to judge what is the true
religion, by which he is authorized to punish those who

536 A Third Letter for Toleration.

dissent from it ; must not all magistrates judge, and
accordingly punish those who dissent from that, which
they judge the true religion, i. e. in effect, those who
dissent from theirs ? And if all magistrates have a power
to punish those who are not of their religion ; I ask you,
whether it be of more use or disadvantage to the pro-
moting true religion, and salvation of souls? And when
you have resolved that question, you will then be able
to tell me, whether the usefulness of it, which must be
determined by the greater good or harm it is like to do,
is such as to justify your doctrine about it, or the magi-
strate's use of it.

Besides, your making the dissenting from the true
religion a fault to be punished by the magistrate, puts
an end to your pretence to moderate punishments ;
which, in this place, you make use of to distinguish
yours from the French method ; saying, that " your
method punishes men with punishments which do not
deserve to be called so, when compared with those of
the French discipline. " But if the dissenting from the
true religion be a fault that the magistrate is to punish,
and a fault of that consequence, that it draws with it the
loss of a man's soul; I do not see how other magistrates,
whose duty it is to punish faults under their cognizance,
and by punishing to amend them, can be more remiss
than the king of France has been, and forbear declaring
that they will have all their people saved, and endeavour
by such ways as he has done to effect it : especially since
you tell us, that " God now leaves religion to the care
of men, under his ordinary providence, to try whether
they will do their duties in their several capacities
or not, leaving them answerable for all that may follow
from their neglect." In the correcting of faults, " malo
Dodo mains cuneus," is not only what is justifiable, but
what ia requisite. But of this more fully in another place.

In the next, place, I do not see how, by your method,
as you explain it here, the magistrate can punish any
one for not being of the true religion, though we should
grant him to have a power to doit; whilst you tell us,
that "your method punishes men lor rejecting the
t rue religion, proposed to them with sufficient evidence ;

A Third Letter for Toleration. 537

which certainly is a fault." By this part of your
scheme it is plain, that you allow the magistrate to pu-
nish none but those to whom the true religion is pro-
posed with sufficient evidence ; and sufficient evidence,
you tell us, " is such as will certainly win assent where-
ever it is duly considered." Now by this rule there
will be very few that the magistrate will have a right
to punish ; since he cannot know whether those who
dissent do it for want of due consideration in them, or
want of sufficient evidence in what is proposed ; unless
you mean by due consideration, such consideration that
always does bring men actually to assent ; which is in
effect to say nothing at all. For then your rule amounts
to thus much, " that sufficient evidence is such as will
certainly win assent wherever it is considered duly,"
h e* so as to win assent. This being like some of those
other rules we have met with, and ending in a circle ;
which after you have traced, you at last find yourself
just where you were at setting out ; I leave it to you
to own as you think fit : and tell you, if by duly con-
sidering, you mean considering to his utmost ; that
then, that which is proposed to one with sufficient evi-
dence to win assent, may not be so to another.

There are propositions extant in geometry, with their
demonstrations annexed ; and that with such sufficient
evidence to some men of deep thought and penetration,
as to make them see the demonstration, and give assent
to the truth : whilst there are many others, and those
no novices in mathematics, who, with all the considera-
tion and attention they can use, are never able to at-
tain unto it. It is so in other parts of truth. That
which hath evidence enough to make one man certain,
has not enough to make another so much as guess it to
be true ; though he has spared no endeavour or appli-
cation in examining it. And therefore, if the magi-
strate be to punish none but those who reject the true
religion, when it has been offered with sufficient evi-
dence; 1 imagine he will not have many to punish, if
he will, as he ought, distinguish between the innocent
and the guilty.

oSS A Third Letter for Toleration.

Upon your forwardness to encourage the magistrates
use of force in matters of religion, by its usefulness,
even so far as to pretend advantages from what yourself
acknowledge the misapplication of it, I say that " So
instead of disheartening from, you give encourage-
ment to the mischief; which upon your principle,
joined to the natural thirst in man after arbitrary
power, may be carried to all manner of exorbitancy,
with some pretence of right." To which your reply
is, That you " speak nowhere but of the use and ne-
cessity of force." What think you in the place men-
tioned, of the gain that you tell the sufferers they shall
make by the magistrate's punishing them to bring them
to a wrong religion ? You do not, as I remember, there
say, that force is necessary in that case ; though they
gaining, as you say, by it this advantage, " that they
know better than they did before where the truth
does lie," you cannot but allow, that such a misappli-
cation of force " may do some service, indirectly and
at a distance, towards the salvation of souls.'5

But that you may not think, whilst I had under con-
sideration the dangerous encouragement you gave to
men in power to be very busy with their force in mat-
ters of religion, by all the sorts of usefulness you could
imagine of it, however applied, right or wrong, that
I declined mentioning the necessity you pretend of
force, because it would not as well serve to the purpose
for which I mention its usefulness ; I shall here take
it so, that the reader may see what reason you had to
complain of my not doing it before.

Thus then stands your system : " The procuring and
advancing any way of the spiritual and eternal interests
of men is one of the ends of civil society." And
force is put into the magistrate's hands, as necessary
for the attaining those ends, where no other means are
left, " Who then upon your grounds may quickly rind
reason, where it suits his inclination, or serves his turn,
to punish men directly to bring them to his religion."
For if he may use force, because it is necessary, as being
the only means left to make men consider those reasons

A Third Letter Jor Toleration, 539

and arguments, which otherwise they would not consi-
der ; why may he not by the same rule use force, as the
only means left to procure men degrees of glory, which
otherwise they would not attain, and so to advance their
eternal interests ? For St. Paul assures us, that " the
afflictions of this life work for us a far more exceed-
ing weight of glory." So that whether the magi-
strate may not, when it may serve his turn, argue thus
from your principles, judge you : dissenters from my
religion must be punished, if in the wrong, to bring
them into the right way ; if in the right, to make them
by their sufferings gainers of a far more exceeding
weight of glory.

But you say, " unless it be as necessary for men to
attain any greater degree of glory, as it is to attain
glory, it will not follow, that if the magistrate may
use force, because it may be indirectly, &c. useful
towards the procuring any degree of glory, he may
by the same rule use it where it may be in that man-
ner useful towards the procuring a greater degree of
glory. But that there is the same necessity of men's
attaining a greater degree of glory, as there is of their
attaining glory, no man will affirm. For without
attaining glory, they cannot escape the damnation
of hell ; which yet they may escape, without any
greater degree of glory." One of the ends of a com-
monwealth is, say you, the advancing men's eternal in-
terests. The procuring greater degrees of glory, is the
advancing a man's eternal interest. The use of force to
make men suffer for the truth, what otherwise they
would not suffer, is as necessary for the attaining a higher
degree of glory, as using force to make men consider,
what otherwise they would not consider, is necessary
for the attaining any degree of glory. But you will say,
" Attaining glory is absolutely necessary, but the at-
taining any greater degree of glory, however desirable,
is not so necessary. Now if there be not the same
necessity of the one of these, as there is of the other;
there can be no pretence to say, that whatever is law-
ful in respect of one of them, is likewise so in respect
of the other." But there will always be a just pre-

540 A Third Letter for Toleration.

tence to say, if advancing the eternal interests of men
be one of the ends of a commonwealth, and that the
force in the magistrate's hands be necessary to the attain-
ing that end ; that then the magistrate is obliged to use
it, whether you will think that end absolutely neces-
sary, or as necessary as another, or no. I shall not here
trouble you again with your mistake about what is abso-
lutely necessary ; having taken notice of it in another
place. Only I shall desire you to show me, that the
attaining of glory is absolutely necessary, when next
time you have occasion to affirm it. Attaining of glory
is necessary in order to happiness ; and attaining a
greater degree of glory is necessary in order to greater
happiness : but neither of them is absolutely necessary,
but in order to their respective ends.

And now, though as you say, " you do not think
yourself bound to take notice of all that may be done
with some pretence of right :,J yet, I suppose, upon
cooler thoughts, when you have considered of what dan-
gerous consequence an argument, managed as yours is,
may be to the true religion,, and the sincere professors
of it ; and what occasion or encouragement it may give
to men in power, warmed with zeal, and excited by the
proper ministers of their own religion, to make a wrong
and exorbitant use of force in matters of religion ; you
will another time think yourself bound not to let it go
abroad again without some caution to the magistrate in
the use of it ; without one word of advice at least, that
since it is given him, as you say, only for promoting
the true religion, he should take care, and examine im-
partially whether what he employs it for be the one
only true religion : it being your opinion, whenever he
makes use of force in matters of religion, lor the pro-
moting any thing but that, he goes beyond his commis-
sion, injures his subjects, and endangers his own soul.

By this time, sir, I suppose you see upon what grounds
1 think you have not cleared those difficulties which
were charged by me on your method: and my reader
will see what, reason there was for those Imputations,
which, with so loud an outcry, you laid upon me of
unfair dealing; since there is not one oi' them which

A Third Letter for Toleration. 541

cannot be made e;ood to be contained either in your
book or in your hypothesis ; and so clearly, that I
could not imagine that a man who had so far consi-
dered government, as to engage in print, in such a con-
troversy as this, could miss seeing it as soon as men-
tioned to him. One of them which very much offends
you, and makes you so often tell me what I say is im-
pertinent, and nothing to the purpose, and sometimes
to use warmer expressions, is, that I argue against a
power in the magistrate to bring men to his own reli-
gion : for I could not imagine that, to a man of any
thought, it could need proving, that if there were a
commission given to all magistrates by the law of nature,
which obliged them to use force to bring men to the
true religion ; it was not possible for them to put this
commission in execution, without being judges what
was the true religion ; and then there needed no great
quickness to perceive, that every magistrate, when your
commission came to be put in execution, would, one
as well as another, find himself obliged to use force to
bring men to that which he believed to be the true re-
ligion. But since this was so hard for you to see, I now
have been at the pains to prove it, and thereby to clear
all those imputations. I shall not instance in any other :
they are all of a like kind. Only where you complain
I have not cited your words fairly, if you can showT that
I have done it anv where in this or the second letter,
to the advantage of my cause ; or to avoid any argu-
ment in them, not answered ; if you please to show it
me, I shall either let you see your mistake, or acknow-
ledge mine.

And now, whether you shall think what I have said
worth that consideration you promise, or take it all for
cavils and impertinencies, to me is very indifferent.
Enjoy, as you please, that short and easy way of answer-
ing. But if the party you wrrite for be, as you say, God,
and the souls of men ; it will require you seriously to
weigh your scheme, examine and put together the parts
of it ; observe the tendency and consequences; and, in
a word, consider things, and not words. For the party
of God and souls needs not any help from obscurity or

542 A Third Letter for Toleration.

uncertainty of general and equivocal terms, but may
be spoke out clearly and distinctly ; needs no retreat in
the round of equivalent, or the uncertainty of misap-
plied expressions, that may serve to amuse and deceive
the unwary, but instruct nobody; and, lastly, needs
no leave nor allowance from men of art, to direct both
subjects and magistrates to the examination of the Scrip-
tures, wherein God has revealed to the world the ways
and means of salvation. In doing of this, in a treatise
where you profess " the subject of your inquiry is only
what method is to be used to bring men to the true
religion,' ' the party you profess to write for would
have justified you against the rules of any lawful art ;
and no Christian man, of what art soever, would have
denied you that liberty ; and if I mistake not, the party,
you say you write for, demands it of you.

If you find, upon a review of the whole, that you have
managed your cause for God and the souls of men with
that sincerity and clearness that satisfies your own rea-
son, and you think may satisfy that of other men ; I
shall congratulate to you so happy a constitution. But
if all your magnified and necessary means of force, in
the way you contend for, reaches no farther than to
bring men to a bare outward conformity to the church
of England ; wherein you can sedately affirm, that it is
presumable that all that are of it are so upon reason and
conviction ; I suppose there needs no more to be said
to convince the world what party you write for.

The party you write for is God, you say. But if all
you have said aims or amounts to nothing more than
that the church of England, as now established by law,
in its doctrines, ceremonies, and discipline, should be
supported by the power of the magistrate, and men by
force be driven into it ; I fear the world will think you
have very narrow thoughts of God, or that that is not
the party you write for. It is true, you all along speak
of bringing men to the true religion. But to evidence
to you, that by the one only true religion you mean
only that of the church of England, 1 tell you, that,
upon your principles, you cannot name any oilier church
now in the world, (ami I again demand of you to do

A Third Letter for Toleration. 543

it) for the promoting whereof, or punishing dissenters
from it, the magistrate lias the same right to use force
as you pretend he has here in England. Till you there-
fore name some such other true church and true reli-
gion, besides that of England, your saying, that God
is the party you write for, will rather show that you
make bold with his name, than that you do not write
for another party.

You say too, you write not for any party, but the
souls of men. You write indeed, and contend earnestly,
that men should be brought into an outward conformity
to the church of England: but that they embrace that
profession upon reason and conviction, you are content
to have it presumable, without any farther inquiry or
examination. And those who are once in the outward
communion of the national church, however ignorant
or irreligious they are, you leave there unassisted by
your only competent means, force ; without which, you
tell us, the true religion,, by its own light and strength,
is not able to prevail against men's lusts, and the cor-
ruption of nature, so as to be considered as it ought,
and heartily embraced. And this dropped not from
your pen by chance ; but you professedly make excuses
for those of the national religion who are ignorant of
the grounds of it, and give us reasons why force can-
not be used to those who outwardly conform, to make
them consider so as sincerely to embrace, believe, and
obey the truth that must save them. But the reverend
author of the Pastoral Care tells you, p. 201, "party is
the true name of making converts, except they become
at the same time good men."

If the use of force be necessary for the salvation of
souls, and men's souls be the party you write for ; you
will be suspected to have betrayed your party, if your
method and necessary means of salvation reach no
farther than to bring men to outward conformity,
though to the true church ; and after that abandons
them to their lusts and depraved natures, destitute of
the help of force — your necessary and competent
means of salvation.

544 A Third Letter for Toleration.

This way of managing the matter, whatever you in-
tend, seems rather, in the fitness of it, to be for another
party. But since you assure us, you write for nothing
but God and men's souls, it can only be said you had
a good intention, but ill luck ; since your scheme, put
into the language of the country, will fit any national
church and clergy in the world, that can but suppose
itself the true ; and that I presume none of them will
fail to do.

You were more than ordinary reserved and gracious,
when you tell me, That "what party I write for,
you will not undertake to say." But having told me,
that my letter tends to the promoting of scepticism in
religion ; you thought, it is like, that was sufficient to
show the party I write for ; and so you might safely end
your letter with words that looked like civil. But that
you may another time be a little better informed what
party I write for, I will tell you. They are those who
in every nation fear God, work righteousness, and are
accepted with him ; and not those who in every nation
are zealous for human constitutions ; cry up nothing so
much as outward conformity to the national religion ;
and are accepted by those who are the promoters of it.
Those that I write for are those, who, according to the
light of their own consciences, are every where in earnest
in matters of their own salvation, without any desire to
impose on others ; a party so seldom favoured by any
of the powers or sects of the world ; a party that has so
few preferments to bestow; so few benefices to reward
the endeavours of any one who appears for it ; that I
conclude I shall easily be believed when I say, that
neither hopes of preferment, nor a design to recommend
myself to those 1 live amongst, has biassed my under-
standing, or misled me in my undertaking. So much
truth as serves the turn of any particular church, and
can be accommodated to the narrow interest of some hu-
man constitution, is indeed often received with applause,
and the publisher finds his account in it. But I think
I may say, truth, in its full latitude of those generous
principles of the Gospel, which so much recommend

A Third Letter for Toleration. 545

and inculcate universal charity, and a freedom from the
inventions and impositions of men in the things of God ;
has so seldom had a fair and favourable hearing any
where, that he must be very ignorant of the history and
nature of man, however dignified and distinguished,
who proposes to himself any secular advantage by
writing for her at that rate.

As to your request in the close of your letter, I hope
this will satisfy you, that you might have spared it ;
and you, with the rest of the world, will see that all I
writ in my former was so true, that you need not have
given me any caution for the future. As to the perti-
nence of what I say, I doubt whether I shall please you;
because I find by your last letter, that what is brought
by me to show the weakness, absurdities, or insignifi-
cancy of what you write, you are very apt to call im-
pertinent, and nothing to the purpose. You must par-
don me therefore, if I have endeavoured more to please
other readers than you in that point. I hope they will
find, in what I have said, not much beside the matter.
But to a man who, supposing himself in the right,
builds all upon that supposition, and takes it for an in-
jury to have that privilege denied him ; to a man who
would sovereignly decide for all the world what is the
true religion, and thereby empower what magistrates
he thinks fit, and what not, to use force ; to such a
man, not to seem impertinent, would be really to be
so. This makes me pleased writh your reply to so many
passages of my letter, that they were nothing to the
purpose : and it is in your choice whether in your
opinion any thing in this shall be so.

But since this depends upon your keeping steadily to
clear and settled notions of things, separate from words
and expressions used in a doubtful and undetermined
signification, wherewith men of art often amuse them-
selves and others, — I shall not be so unreasonable as to
expect, whatever you promise, that you should lay by
your learning to embrace truth, and own what will not
perhaps suit very well with your circumstances and
interest.

VOL. VI. N N

546

A Third Letter for Toleration.

I see my design not to omit any thing that you
might think looks like an argument in yours, has made
mine grow beyond the size of a letter. But an answer
to any one being very little different from a letter, I
shall let it go under that title. I have in it also endea-
voured to bring the scattered parts of your scheme into
some method, under distinct heads; to give a fuller
and more distinct view of them ; wherein, if any of the
arguments, which give support to your hypothesis,
have escaped me unawares, be pleased to show them
me, and I shall either acknowledge their force, or en-
deavour to show their weakness.

I am, Sir,

Your most humble servant,

Philanthropos.

June 20, 1692.

FOURTH LETTER

FOR

TOLERATION

N N 2

FOURTH LETTER

FOR

TOLERATION*.

Sir,

A fresh revival of the controversy formerly between
you and me is what I suppose nobody did expect from
you after twelveyears' silence. Butreputation,asufficient
cause for a new war, as you give the world to understand,
hath put a resolution into your heart, and arms into
your hands, to make an example of me, to the shame
and confusion of all those wTho could be so injurious to
you, as to think you could quit the opinion you had
appeared for in print, and agree with me in the matter
of Toleration. It is visible how tender even men of
the most settled calmness are in point of reputation,
and it is allowed the most excusable part of human
frailty; and therefore nobody can wonder to see a

* In answer to A Second Letter to the Author of the Three Letters
for Toleration. From the Author of the Argument of the Letter
concerning Toleration briefly considered and answered j and of the
Defence of it. With a Postscript, taking some Notice of Two Pas-
sages in The Rights of the Protestant Dissenters.

550 A Fourth Letter for Toleration.

report thought injurious laboured against with might
and main, and the assistance and cause of religion itself
taken in and made use of to put a stop to it. But yet
for all this there are sober men who are of opinion,
that it better becomes a Christian temper, that dis-
putes, especially of religion, should be waged purely
for the sake of truth, and not for our own : self should
have nothing to do in them. But since as we see it
will crowd itself in, and be often the principal agent,
your ingenuity in owning what has brought you upon
the stage again, and set you on work, after the ease
and quiet you resolutely maintained yourself in so many
years, ought to be commended, in giving us a view of
the discreet choice you have made of a method suited
to your purpose, which you publish to the world in
these words, p. 2 : " Being desirous to put a stop to a
report so injurious, as well as groundless, as I look
upon this to be, I think it will be no improper way of
doing it, if I thus signify to you and the reader, that I
find nothing more convincing in this your long letter
than I did in your two former ; giving withal a brief
specimen of the answerableness of it : which I choose
to do upon a few pages at the beginning, where you
have placed your greatest strength, or at least so much
of it as you think sufficient to put an end to this con-
troversy."

Here we have your declaration of war, of the grounds
that moved you to it, and of your compendious way to
assured victory ; which I must own is very new and
very remarkable. You choose a few pages out of the
beginning of my Third Letter; in these, you say, " I
have placed my greatest strength.'' So that, what I
have there said being baffled, it gives you a just triumph
over my whole long Letter; and all the rest of it being
but pitiful, weak, impertinent stuff, is by the overthrow
of this forlorn hope fully confuted.

This is called answering by specimen. A new way,
which the world owes to your invention ; an evidence
that whilst you said nothing you did not spare thinking.
And indeed it was a noble thought, a stratagem which

A Fourth Letter for Toleration. 551

I believe scarce any other but yourself would have
found out in a meditation of twice twelve years, how
to answer arguments without saying a word to them,
or so much as reciting them; and, by examining six or
seven pages in the beginning of a book, reduce to no-
thing above three hundred pages of it that follow. This
is indeed a decisive stroke that lays all flat before you.
Who can stand against such a conqueror, who, by barely
attacking of one, kills a hundred? This would certainly
be an admirable way, did it not degrade the conqueror,
whose business is to do ; and turn him into a mere
talking gazetteer, whose boasts are of no consequence.
For after slaughter of foes, and routing of armies by
such a dead-doing hand, nobody thinks it strange to
find them all alive again safe and sound upon their
feet, and in a posture of defending themselves. The
event, in all sorts of controversies, hath often better
instructed those who have, without bringing it to trial,
presumed on the weakness of their adversaries. How-
ever this which you have set up, of confuting without
arguing, cannot be denied to be a ready way, and well
thought on to set you up high, and your reputation
secure in the thoughts of your believing readers, if that
be, as it seems it is, your business; but, as I take it,
tends not at all to the informing their understandings,
and making them see the truth and grounds it stands
on. That, perhaps, is too much for the profane vulgar
to know ; it is enough for them that you know it for
them, and have assured them that you can, when you
please to condescend so far, confound all that any one
offers against your opinion. An implicit faith of your
being in the right, and ascribing victory to you, even in
points whereof you have said nothing, is that which
some sort of men think most useful; and so their fol-
lowers have but tongues for their champion to give him
the praise and authority he aims at, it is no matter whe-
ther they have any eyes for themselves to see on which
side the truth lies. Thus, methinks, you and I both find
our account in this controversy under your manage-
ment; you in setting your reputation safe from the
blemish it would have been to it that you were brought

552 A Fourth Letter for Toleration.

over to my opinion ; and I in seeing (if you will forgive
me so presumptuous a word) that you have left my cause
safe in all those parts you have said nothing to, and not
very much damaged in that part you have attacked, as
I hope to show the indifferent reader. You enter upon
your specimen, p. 2, by minding me that I tell you,
" That I doubt not but to let you see, that if you will
be true to your own principles, and stand to what you
have said, you must carry some degrees of force to all
those degrees which in words you declare against, even
to the discipline of fire and faggot." And you say,
" if I make my word good, you assure me you will
carry a faggot yourself to the burning what you have
written for so unmerciful and outrageous a discipline:
but till I have done that, you suppose the discipline you
have endeavoured to defend may remain safe and un-
hurt, as it is, in its own nature, harmless and salutary
to the world."

To promise fairly is then the part of an honest man,
when the time of performance is not yet come. But it
falls out unluckily here, for you who have undertaken,
by answering some parts of my Second Letter, to show
the answerableness of the whole, that instead of answer-
ing, you promise to retract, " if I make good my word,
in proving upon your own principles you must carry
your some degrees of force to fire and faggot."

Sir, my endeavours to make my word good have
lain before you a pretty competent time: the world is
witness of it, and will, as I imagine, think it time for
you, since you yourself have brought this question upon
the stage, either to acknowledge that I have made my
word good, or, by invalidating my arguments, show that
I have not. He that after a debt of so many years only
promises what brave things he will do hereafter, is
hardly thought upon the Exchange to do what he ought.
The account in his hand requires to be made up and
balanced; and that will show, not what he is to pro-
mise, but, if he* be a fair man, what he is to perform.
If the schools make longer allowances of time, and
admit evasions for satisfaction, it is tit you use your pri-
vilege, and take more time to consider; only I crave

A Fourth Letter for Toleration. 553

leave in the mean while to refer my reader to what I
have said on this argument, Chap. iv. of my Third
Letter, that he may have a view of your way of answer-
ing by specimen, and judge whether all that I have there
urged be answered by what you say here, or what you
promise here be ever like to be performed.

The next sample you give to show the answerableness
of my Letter, is not much more lucky than the former ;
it may be seen, pp. 3 and 4, where you say, that I tell
you, p. 119, " That you have altered the question ;"
for it seems, p. 26, you tell me the question between us
is, " Whether the magistrate has a right to use force
to bring men to the true religion ? Whereas, p. 76, you
yourself, I say, own the question to be, whether the
magistrate has a right to use force in matters of reli-
gion?" "Which affirmation of mine, you must take leave
to tell me, is a mere fiction ; for neither p. 76, nor any
where else, do you own the question to be what I say
you do."

" And as to using force in matters of religion (which
you say are my words, not yours), if I mean by it the
using force to bring men to any other religion besides
the true, you are so far from owning the question to
be, whether the magistrate has a right to use force for
such a purpose, that you have always thought it out
of question, that no man in the world, magistrate or
other, can have any right to use either force, or any
other means that I can name, to bring men to any false
religion, how much soever he may persuade himself
that it is true."

" It is not, therefore, from any alteration, but from
the true state of the question, that you take occasion,
as I complain without cause, to lay a load on me, for
charging you with the absurdities of a power in the
magistrates to punish men, to bring them to their reli-
gion." " But it seems, having little to say against what
you do assert, you say, I find it necessary myself to
alter the question, and to make the world believe that
you assert what you do not ; that I may have some-
thing before me which I can confute."

55 4s A Fourth Letter for Toleration,

In this paragraph you positively deny that it is any
where owned by you as the question between us, " Whe-
ther the magistrate has a right of using force in matters
of religion ?" Indeed, these words are not as they are
cited in p. 76 of your former Letter; but he that will
turn over the leaf may, in p. 78, read these words of
yours, viz. that " You refer it to me, whether I, in
saying nobody has a right, or you, in saying the magi-
strate has a right to use force in matters of religion,
have most reason 1" though you positively tell me,
" that neither p. 76, nor any where else, do you own
the question to be what I say you do." And now let
the reader judge between us. I should not perhaps
have so much as taken notice of this, but that you, who
are so sparing of your answer, that you think a brief
specimen upon some few pages of the beginning of my
Letter sufficient to confute all I have said in it, do yet
spend the better part of two pages on this; which, if I
had been mistaken in, it had been of no great conse-
quence ; of which I see no other use you have but to
cast on me some civil reflections of your fashion, and
fix on me the imputation of fiction, mere fiction ; a
compliment which I shall not return you, though you
say " using force in matters of religion'9 are my words,
not yours. Whether they are your words or not, let
p. 78 of your former Letter decide ; where you own
yourself to say, that <c the magistrate has a right to use
force in matters of religion." So that this, as I take it,
is a specimen of your being very positive in a mistake,
and about a plain matter of fact, about an action of
your own ; and so will scarce prove a specimen of the
answerableness of all I say in my Letter, unless we must
allow that truth and falsehood are equally answerable,
when you declare against either of them.

The next part of your specimen we have, pp. 4, 5,
where you tell me that I undertake to prove, that " if
upon your grounds the magistrate be obliged to use force
to bring nun to the true religion, it will necessarily fol-
low, that every magistrate, who believes his religion to
be true, is obliged to use force to bring men to his,""

^ >>

A Fourth Letter for Toleration. 555

" Now because this undertaking is so necessary for
me, and my whole cause seems to depend upon the
success of it, you shall the more carefully consider
how well I perform it : but before you do this it will
be fit to let me know in what sense you grant my
inference, and in what sense you deny it. Now that
every magistrate, who upon just and sufficient grounds
believes his religion to be true, is obliged to use some
moderate penalties, (which is all the force you ever
contended for) to bring men to his religion, you
freely grant, because that must needs be the true reli-
gion ; since no other can, upon such grounds, be be-
lieved to be true. But that any magistrate, who upon
weak and deceitful grounds believes a false religion to
be true (and he can never do it upon better grounds),
is obliged to use the same, or any other means, to
bring men to his religion ; this you flatly deny, nor
can it by any rules of reasoning be inferred from what
you assert."

Here you tell me you grant my inference, in this
sense, viz. " That every magistrate, who upon just and
sufficient grounds believes his religion to be true, is
bound to use force to bring men to it."

Here you grant that every magistrate, without know-
ing that his religion is true, is obliged, upon his be-
lieving it to be true, to use force to bring men to it ;
indeed you add, " who believes it to be true upon just
and sufficient grounds." So you have got a distinc-
tion, and that always sets off a disputant, though many
times it is of no use to his argument. For here let me
ask you, who must be judge, whether the grounds upon
which he believes his religion to be true be just and
sufficient? Must the magistrate himself judge for him-
self, or must you judge foi\him ? A third competitor in
this judgment I know not where you will find for your
turn. If every magistrate must judge for himself, whe-
ther the grounds upon which he believes his religion to
be true are just and sufficient grounds, your limita-
tion of the use of force to such only as believe upon just
and sufficient grounds, bating that it is an ornament to
your style and learning, might have been spared, since

556 A Fourth Letter for Toleration.

it leaves my inference untouched in the full latitude I
have expressed it concerning every magistrate ; there
not being any one magistrate excluded thereby from an
obligation to use force to bring men to his own reli-
gion, by this your distinction. For if every magistrate,
who upon just and sufficient grounds believes his reli-
gion to be true, be obliged to use force to bring men to
his religion, and every magistrate be himself judge,
whether the grounds he believes upon be just and suf-
ficient ; it is visible every magistrate is obliged to use
force to bring men to his religion ; since any one, who
believes any religion to be true, cannot but judge the
grounds, upon which he believes it to be true, are just
and sufficient ; for if he judged otherwise, he could not
then believe it to be true. If you say, you must judge
for the magistrate, then what you grant is this, That
every magistrate who, upon grounds that you judge to
be just and sufficient, believes his religion to be true, is
obliged to use force to bring men to his religion. If
this be your meaning, as it seems not much remote
from it, you will do well to speak it out, that the ma-
gistrates of the world may know who to have recourse to
in the difficulty you put upon them, in declaring them
under an obligation to use force to bring men to the
true religion ; which they can neither certainly know,
nor must venture to use force to bring men to, upon
their own persuasion of the truth of it; when they have
nothing but one of these two, viz. knowledge, or be-
lief that the religion they promote is true, to deter-
mine them. Necessity has at last (unless you would have
the magistrate act in the dark, and use his force wholly
at random) prevailed on you to grant, that the magi-
strate may use force to bring men to that religion which
he believes to be true ; but, say you, " his belief must
be upon just and sufficient groululs.,, The same ne-
cessity remaining still, must prevail with you to go one
Step further, and tell me whether the magistrate himself
must be judge, whether the grounds, upon which he
believes his religion to be true, be just and sufficient;
Or whether you are to be judge for him. If you say the
first, my inference stands good, and then this question, I

A Fourth Letter Jbr Toleration. 557

think, is yielded, and at an end. If yon say you are to
be judge for the magistrates, I shall congratulate to the
magistrates of the world the way you have found out
for them to acquit themselves of their duty, if you will
but please to publish it, that they may know where to
find you ; for in truth, sir, I prefer you, in this case,
to the pope ; though you know that old gentleman at
Rome has long since laid claim to all decisions of this
kind, and alleges infallibility for the support of his
title; which indeed will scarce be able to stand at Rome,
or any where else, without the help of infallibility. But
of this perhaps more in the next paragraph.

You go on with your specimen in your next para-
graph, p. 5, which I shall crave leave of my reader to
set down at large, it being a most exact and studied
piece of artificial fencing, wherein, under the cover of
good words, and the appearance of nice thinking, no-
thing is said ; and therefore may deserve to be kept, not
as a specimen of your answering, — for, as we shall see,
you answer nothing, — but as a specimen of your skill in
seeming to say something where you have nothing to
answer. You tell me that I say, p. 120, that " I sup-
pose that you will grant me (what he must be a hard
man indeed that will not grant) that any thing laid
upon the magistrate as a duty, is some way or other
practicable. Now the magistrate being obliged to use
force in matters of religion, but yet so as to bring
men only to the true religion ; he will not be in any
capacity to perform this part of his duty, unless the
religion he is to promote be what he can certainly
know, or else what it is sufficient for him to believe
to be the true : either his knowledge, or his opinion,
must point out that religion to him, which he is by
force to promote. Where, if by knowing, or know-
ledge, I mean the effect of strict demonstration ; and
by believing, or opinion, any sort of assent or per-
suasion, how slightly soever grounded: then you must
deny the sufficiency of my division ; because there is
a third sort or degree of persuasion, which, though
not grounded upon strict demonstration, yet in firm-
ness and stability does far exceed that which is built

558 A Fourth Letter for Toleration.

upon slight appearances of probability ; being grounded
upon such clear and solid proof as leaves no rea-
sonable doubt in an attentive and unbiassed mind :
so that it approaches very near to that which is pro-
duced by demonstration ; and is therefore, as it re-
spects religion, very frequently and familiarly called
in Scripture not faith or belief only, but knowledge,
and in divers places full assurance, as might easily
be shown, if that were needful. Now this kind of
persuasion, this knowledge, this full assurance, men
may, and ought to have of the true religion : but
they can never have it of a false one. And this it
is that must point out that religion to the magistrate,
which he is to promote by the method you contend
for."

Here the first thing you do is to pretend an uncer-
tainty of what I mean by " knowing or knowledge, and
by believing or opinion." First, As to knowledge, I
have said " certainly know." I have called it " vision;
knowledge and certainty; knowledge properly so called."
And for believing or opinion, I speak of believing with
assurance ; and say, that believing in the highest de-
gree of assurance is not knowledge. That whatever
is not capable of demonstration is not, unless it be
self-evident, capable to produce knowledge, how well
grounded and great soever the assurance of faith may
be wherewith it is received. That I grant, that a strong
assurance of any truth, settled upon prevalent and well-
grounded arguments of probability, is often called
knowledge in popular ways of talking ; but being here
to distinguish between knowledge and belief, to what
degrees of confidence soever raised, their boundaries
must be kept, and their names not confounded ; with
more to the same purpose, p. 1#0, 121; whereby it is
so plain, that by knowledge 1 mean the effect of strict
demonstration, and by believing or opinion, I mean
any degree of persuasion even to the highest degree of
assurance, that I challenge you yourself to set it down
in plainer and more express terms. But nobody can
blame you for not finding your adversary's meaning,
It it be ever so plain, when you can find nothing to

A Four tli Letter for Toleration. 559

answer to it. The reason therefore which you allege
for the denying the sufficiency of my division is no
reason at all. Your pretended, reason is, because there
is c< a third sort or degree of persuasion, which, though
not grounded upon strict demonstration, yet in firm-
ness and stability does far exceed that which is built
upon slight appearances of probability," &c. Let it
be so, that there is a degree of persuasion not grounded
upon strict demonstration, far exceeding that which is
built upon slight appearances of probability. But let
me ask you what reason can this be to deny the suf-
ficiency of my division, because there is, as you say, a
third sort or degree of persuasion ; when even that
which you call this third sort or degree of persuasion
is contained in my division ? This is a specimen indeed,
not of answering what I have said, but of not answer-
ing, and for such I leave it to the reader. " A degree
of persuasion, though not grounded on strict demon-
stration, yet in firmness and stability far exceeding that
which is built upon slight appearances of probability,
you call here a third sort or degree of persuasion."
Pray tell me which are the two other sorts ; for know-
ledge upon strict demonstration is not belief or per-
suasion, but wholly above it. Besides, if the degrees
of firmness in persuasion make different sorts of per-
suasion, there are not only three, but three hundred sorts
of persuasion ; and therefore the naming of your third
sort was with little ground, and to no purpose or tend-
ency to an answer; though the drawing in something
like a distinction be always to the purpose of a man
who hath nothing to answer, it giving occasion for
the use of many good words, which, though nothing to
the point, serve to cover the disputant's saying nothing,
under the appearance of learning, to those who will not
be at the pains to examine what he says.

You say, " every magistrate is by the law of nature
under an obligation to use force to bring men to the
true religion." To this I urge, that the magistrate
hath nothing else to determine him in the use of force,
for promotion of any religion one before another, but
only his owrn belief or persuasion of the truth of it.

560 A Fourth Letter for Toleration.

Here you had nothing to do, but fairly to grant or
deny; but instead thereof you first raise a groundless
doubt, as I have shown, about my meaning, whereof there
could be no doubt at all to any one who would but read
what I had said ; and thereupon having got a pretence
for a distinction, you solemnly tell the world "there is
a third sort of persuasion, which, though not grounded
on strict demonstration, yet in firmness and stability
does far exceed that which is built upon slight ap-
pearances of probability, leaving no doubt, approach-
ing near to knowledge, being full assurance." Well,
the magistrate hath a " persuasion of firmness and sta-
bility, has full assurance;" must he be determined by
this his full assurance in the promoting of that reli-
gion by force, of whose truth he is in so high a degree
of persuasion so fully assured? " No, say you, it must
be grounded upon such clear and solid proof as leaves
no reasonable doubt in an attentive and unbiassed
mind." To which the magistrate is ready to reply,
that he, upon his grounds, can see no reasonable doubt ;
and that his is an attentive and unbiassed mind ; of all
which he himself is to be judge, till you can produce
your authority to judge for him ; though, in the con-
clusion, you actually make yourself judge for him.
11 It is such a kind of persuasion, such a full assurance
must point out to the magistrate that religion he is to
promote by force, which can never be had but of the
true religion ;" which is in effect, as every one may
see, the religion that you judge to be true, and not the
religion the magistrate judges to be true. For pray tell
me, must the magistrate's full assurance point out to
him the religion which he is by force to promote; or
must he by force promote a religion, of whose truth he
hath no belief, no assurance at all ? If you say the first
of these, you grant that every magistrate must use force
to promote his own religion ; for that is the religion
whereof he has so full assurance, that he ventures his
eternal state upon it. Ay, say you, that is for want of
attention ; and because he is not unbiassed. It is like
he will Bay the same of you, and then you are quits.
And that he should by force promote that religion which

A Fourth Letter for Toleration. .OGl

he believes not to be true, is so absurd, that I think
you can neither expect it, nor bring yourself to say it.
Neither of these therefore being answers that you can
make use of, that which lies at the bottom, though you
give it but covertly, is this, " that the magistrate ought
by force to promote the religion that you believe with
full assurance to be true." This would do admirably
well for your purpose, were not the magistrate entitled
to ask, " who made you a judge for him in the case ?"
and ready to retort your own words upon you, that it
is want of attention and unbiassedness in you, that
puts your religion past doubt with you upon your
proofs of it. Try when you please with a Bramin, a
Mahometan, a papist, Lutheran, quaker, anabaptist,
presbyterian, &c. you will find, if you argue with them
as you do here with me, that the matter will rest here
between you, and that you are no more a judge for
any of them than they are for you. Men in all re-
ligions have equally strong persuasions, and every one
must judge for himself; nor can any one judge for
another, and you least of all for the magistrate ; the
ground you build upon, that "firmness and stability of
persuasion in the highest degree of assurance leaves
no doubt, can never be had of a false religion" being
false ; all your talk of full assurance pointing out to
the magistrate the true religion that he is obliged by
force to promote, amounts to no more but his own re-
ligion, and can point out no other to him.

However, in the next paragraph you go on with
your specimen, and tell me, " Hence appears the im-
pertinency of all I discourse, p. 143, 144, concerning
the difference between faith and knowledge : where
the thing I was concerned to make out, if I would
speak to the purpose, was no other but this, that there
are as clear and solid grounds for the belief of false
religions as there are for the belief of the true : or,
that men both as firmly and as rationally believe and
embrace false religions as they can the true. This, you
confess, is a point, which, you say, when I have well
cleared and established it, will do my business, but
nothing else will. And therefore my talk of faith and

vol. vi. o o

56L2 A Fourth Letter for Toleration.

knowledge, however it may amuse such as are prone
to admire all that I say; will never enable me, before
better judges, from the duty of every magistrate to
use moderate penalties for promoting the true re-
ligion, to infer the same obligation to lie upon every
magistrate in respect of his religion, whatever it be."

Where the impertinency lies will be seen when it is
remembered, that the question between us is not what
religion has the most clear and solid grounds for the
belief of it; much less whether "there are as clear and
solid grounds for the belief of false religions as there
are for the belief of the true," i. e. whether falsehood
has as much truth in it as truth itself? a question
which, I guess, no man, but one of your great perti-
nency, could ever have proposed : but the question
here between you aad me, is what must point out to
the magistrate that religion which he is by force to
promote, that so he may be able to perform the duty
that you pretend is incumbent on him by the law of
nature ; and here I proved, that having no certain, de-
monstrative knowledge of the true religion, all that
was left him to determine him in the application of
force, (which you make the proper instrument of pro-
moting the true religion) for the promoting the true
religion, was only his persuasion, belief, or assurance of
the true religion, wrhich was always his own; and so in
this state the religion, which by force the magistrates
of the world must of necessity promote, must be either
their own or none at all. Thus the argument standing
between us, I am apt to think the world may be of
opinion, that it had been pertinent to your cause to
have answered my argument, if you had any thing to
answer; which since you have not done, this specimen
also of the facility, wherewith you can answer all I
have said in the third Letter, may be joined to the
former, and be a specimen of something else than
what you intended it. For in truth, sir, the endea-
vouring to set up a new question, absurd in itself, and
nothing at all to the purpose, without offering any
thing to clear the difficulty you were pressed with,
will to un< riding readers appear pertinent in one

A Fourth Letter for Toleration. 563

who sets himself up for an arrant Drawcansir, and is
giving specimens of himself, that nothing can stand in
his way.

It is with the same pertinency, that to this proposi-
tion, "that there are as clear and solid grounds for
the belief of a false religion as there are for the belief
of the true," you join this following as an equivalent,
" Or that men may both as firmly and as rationally
believe and embrace false religions as they can the
true ;" and you would fain have it thought that your
cause is gained, unless I will maintain these two absurd
propositions, which my argument has nothing to do
with.

And you seem to me to build upon these two false
propositions.

I. That, in the want of knowledge and certainty of
which is the true religion, nothing is fit to set the ma-
gistrate upon doing his duty in employing of force to
make men consider and embrace the true religion, but
the highest persuasion and full assurance of its truth.
Whereas his own persuasion of the truth of his own re-
ligion, in what degree soever it be, so he believes it to
be true, will, if he thinks it his duty by force to pro-
mote the true, be sufficient to set him on work. Nor
can it be otherwise, since his own persuasion of his
own religion, which he judges so well grounded as to
venture his future state upon it, cannot but be sufficient
to set him upon doing what he takes to be his duty in
bringing others to the same religion.

II. Another false supposition you build upon is this,
that the true religion is always embraced with the
firmest assent. There is scarce any one so little ac-
quainted with the world, that hath not met with in-
stances of men most unmoveably confident, and fully
assured in a religion which was not the true. Nor is
there among the many absurd religions of the world,
almost any one that does not find votaries to lay down
their lives for it : and if that be not firm persuasion
and full assurance that is stronger than the love of life,
and has force enough to make a man throw himself
into the arms of death, it is hard to know what is firm

o o 2

564 A Fourth Letter for Toleration.

persuasion and full assurance. Jews and Mahometans
have frequently given instances of this highest degree
of persuasion. And the Bramins' religion in the East
is entertained by its followers with no less assurance
of its truth, since it is not unusual for some of them to
throw themselves under the wheels of a mighty chariot,
wherein they on solemn days draw the image of their
God about in procession, there to be crushed to death,
and sacrifice their lives in honour of the God they be-
lieve in. If it be objected, that those are examples of
mean and common men; but the great men of the
world, and the heads of societies, do not so easily give
themselves up to a confirmed bigotry: I answer, The
persuasion, they have of the truth of their own religion,
is visibly strong enough to make them venture them-
selves, and use force to others upon the belief of it.
Princes are made like other men ; believe upon the
like grounds that other men do ; and act as warmly
upon that belief, though the grounds of their persuasion
be in themselves not very clear, or may appear to
others to be not of the utmost solidity. Men act by
the strength of their persuasion, though they do not
always place their persuasion and assent on that side
on which, in reality, the strength of truth lies. Reasons
that are not thought of, nor heard of, nor rightly ap-
prehended, nor duly weighed, make no impression on
the mind : and truth, how richly soever stored with
them, may not be assented to, but lie neglected. The
only difference between princes and other men herein
is this, that princes are usually more positive in matters
o/ 'religion, but less instructed. The softness and plea-
sures of a court, to which they are usually abandoned
when young, and affairs of state which wholly possess
them when grown up, seldom allow any of them time
to consider and examine that they may embrace the
true religion. And here your scheme, upon your own
supposition, has a fundamental error that overturns it.
For you affirming that force, your way applied, is the
necessary and competent means to bring men to the
true religion; you leave magistrates destitute of these
necessary and competent means of being brought to

A Fourth Letter for Toleration. 565

the true religion, though that be the readiest way, in
your scheme the only way, to bring other men to it,
and is contended for by you as the only method.

But further, you will perhaps be ready to reply, that
you do not say barely, that men may not as firmly, but
that they cannot as firmly and as rationally, believe and
embrace false religions as they can the true. This, be
it as true as it will, is of no manner of advantage to
your cause. For here the question, necessary to be
considered in your way of arguing, returns upon you,
who must be judge whether the magistrate believes and
embraces his religion rationally or no? If he himself
be judge, then he does act rationally, and it must have
the same operation on him as if it were the most ra-
tional in the world : if you must be judge for him,
whether his belief be rational or no, why may not others
judge for him as well as you? or at least he judge for
you, as well as you for him ; at least till you have pro-
duced your patent of infallibility and commission of
superintendency over the belief of the magistrates of
the earth, and shown the commission whereby you are
appointed the director of the magistrates of the world
in their belief, which is or is not the true religion? Do
not think this said without cause; your whole discourse
here has no other tendency, but the making yourself
judge of what religion should be promoted by the ma-
gistrate's force ; which, let me tell you by the way,
every warm zealot in any religion has as much right
to be as you. I beseech you tell me, are you not per-
suaded, nay, fully assured, that the church of England
is in the right, and all that dissent from her are in the
wrong ? Why else would you have force used to make
them consider and conform? If then the religion of
the church of England be, as you are fully assured, the
only true religion, and the magistrate must* ground his
persuasion of the truth of his religion on such clear
and solid proofs as the true religion alone has, and no
false one can have ; and by that persuasion the ma-
gistrate must be directed in the use of force, (for all
this in effect you say, in the sixth and beginning of the
seventh page ;) what is this but covertly to say, that it

560 A Fourth Letter for* Toleration.

is the duty of all magistrates to use force to bring men
to embrace the religion of the church of England?
Which, since it plainly follows from your doctrine, and
I think you cannot deny to be your opinion, and what
in effect you contend for ; you will do well to speak it
out in plain words, and then there will need no more
to be said in the question.

And now I desire it may be considered, what advan-
tage this supposition of force, which is supposed put
into the magistrate's hands by the law of nature to be
used in religion, brings to the true religion, when it
arms five hundred magistrates against the true religion,
who must unavoidably in the state of things in the
world act against it, for one that uses force for it. I
say that this use of force in the magistrate's hand is
barely supposed by you from the benefit it is like to
produce ; but it being demonstration, that the preju-
dice that will accrue to the true religion from such
an use of force is five hundred times more than the
advantage can be expected from it ; the natural and
unavoidable inference from your own ground of bene-
fit is, that God never gave any such power to the ma-
gistrate ; and there it will rest till you can by some
better argument prove the magistrate to have such a
power : to which give me leave to add one word more.

You say the magistrate is obliged by the law of na-
ture to use force to promote the true religion: must he
stand still and do nothing till he certainly know which
is the true religion? If so, the commission is lost, and
he can never do his duty; for to certain knowledge of
the true religion he can in this world never arrive.
May he then act upon "firm persuasions and full as-
surance, grounded upon such clear and solid proofs as
the true religion alone has, and no false one can have?"
And then indeed you have distinguished yourself into
a sale retreat, lor who can doubt but your third sort
or degree of persuasion, if that be your meaning, will
determine the magistrate to the true religion, when it
is grounded on those which are the proofs only of the
true religion; which if it be all that you intend by
your full assurance, (which is the title you give to this

A Fourth Letter for Toleration. 567

your third sort or degree of persuasion) I must desire
you to apply tins in answer to my argument. I say,
magistrates in general have nothing to determine them
in their application of force but their own persuasion;
and your answer is, the magistrates of the true religion
have their own persuasion to determine them ; but of
all the other magistrates, which are above a hundred,
1 might say a thousand to one, you say nothing at all ;
and thus, by the help of a distinction, the question is
resolved. I say the magistrates are not in a capacity
to perform their duty, if they be obliged to use force
to promote the true religion, since they have nothing
to determine them but their own persuasion of the
truth of any religion ; which, in the variety of religions
which the magistrates of the world have embraced,
cannot direct them to the true. Yes, say you, their
persuasion, who have embraced the true religion, will
direct them to the true religion. Which amounts at
last to no more but this, That the magistrate that is in
the right, is in the right : a very true proposition
without doubt ; but whether it removes the difficulty I
proposed, any better than begging the question, you
were best consider. There are five hundred magistrates
of false religions for one that is of the true ; I speak
much within compass : it is a duty incumbent on them
all, say you, to use force to bring men to the true re-
ligion. My question is, how can this be compassed by
men who are unavoidably determined by the persuasion
of the truth of their own religion ? It is answered, they
who are of the true religion will perform their duty.
A great advantage surely to true religion, and worth
the contending for, that it should be the magistrate's
duty to use force for promoting the true religion, when
in the state of things that is at present in the world,
and always hitherto has been, one magistrate in five
hundred will use force to promote the true religion,
and the other four hundred ninety-nine to promote
false ones :

But perhaps you will tell me, That you do not allow
that magistrates, who are of false religions, should be
determined by their own persuasions, which are " built
upon slight appearances of probability; but such as

5()H A Fourth Letter for Toleration.

are grounded upon clear and solid proofs," which the
true religion alone has. In answer to this, I ask, Who
must be judge whether his persuasion be grounded on
clear and solid proofs ; the magistrate himself, or you
for him ? If the magistrate himself, then we are but
where wre were ; and all that you say here, with the
distinction that you have made about several sorts of
persuasion, serves only to lead us about to the same
place : for the magistrate, of what religion soever,
must, notwithstanding all you have said, be deter-
mined by his own persuasion. If you say you must be
judge of the clearness and solidity of the proofs upon
which the magistrate grounds the belief of his own re-
ligion, it is time you should produce your patent, and
show the commission whereby you act.

There are other qualifications you assign of the proof,
on which you tell us "your third sort or degree of
persuasion is grounded ; and that is such as leaves no
reasonable doubt in an attentive and unbiassed mind:"
which unless you must be judge what is a reasonable
doubt, and which is an attentive and unbiassed mind,
will do you no manner of service. If the magistrate
must be judge for himself in this case, you can have
nothing to say to him ; but if you must be judge, then
any doubt about your religion will be unreasonable,
and his not embracing and promoting your religion
will be want of attention and an unbiassed mind. But
let me tell you, give but the same liberty of judging for
the magistrate of your religion to the men of another
religion, which they have as much right to as you have
to judge for the magistrate of any other religion in the
points mentioned ; all this will return upon you. Go
into France, and try whether it be not so. So that your
plea for the magistrate's using force for promoting the
true religion, as you have stated it, gives as much
power and authority to the king of France to use it
against his dissenting subjects, as to any other prince in
Christendom to use it against theirs, name which you
please.

The fallacy in making it the magistrate's duty to
promote by force the only true religion lies in this, that
you allow yourself to suppose the magistrate, who is of

A Fourth Letter for Toleration. 569

your religion, to be well-grounded, attentive, and un-
biassed, and fully and firmly assured that his religion
is true ; but that other magistrates of other religions
different from yours are not so : which, what is it but
to erect yourself into a state of infallibility above all
other men of different persuasions from yours, which
yet they have as good a title to as yourself?

Having thus advanced yourself into the chair, and
given yourself the power of deciding for all men which
is, and which is not the true religion ; it is not to be
wondered that you so roundly pronounce all my dis-
course, p. 143, 144, "concerning the difference between
faith and knowledge, to be impertinency;" and so ma-
gisterially to tell me, " that the thing I was there con-
cerned to make out, if I would speak to the purpose,
was no other but this, that there are as clear and as
solid grounds for the belief of false religions as there
are for belief of the true : or, that men may both as
firmly and as rationally believe and embrace false re-
ligions as they can the true."

The impertinency in these two or three pages I
shall leave to shift for itself in the judgment of any in-
different reader; and will only, at present, examine
what you tell " I was concerned to make out, if I
would speak to the purpose."

My business there was to prove, That the magistrate
being taught that it was his duty to use force to pro-
mote the true religion, it would thence unavoidably
follow, that not having knowledge of the truth of any
religion, but only belief that it was true, to determine
him in his application of force; he would take himself
in duty bound to promote his own religion by force ;
and thereupon force would inevitably be used to pro-
mote false religions, upon those very grounds upon
which you pretend to make it serviceable only to the
true ; and this, I suppose, I have in those pages evi-
dently proved, though you think not fit to give any
other answer to what 1 there say, but that it is im-
pertinent, and I should have proved something else ;
which you would have done well, by a plain and clear
deduction, to have shown from my words.

570 A Fourth Letter for Toleration.

\The two following leaves of the copy are either lost

or mislaid,]

After this new invention of yours, " of answering by
specimen," so happily found out for the ease of your-
self and other disputants of renown, that shall please to
follow it ; I cannot presume you should take notice of
any thing I have to say: you have assumed the privilege,
by showing your strength against one argument, to
pronounce all the rest baffled ; and therefore to what
purpose is it to offer difficulties to you, who can blow
them all off with a breath ? But yet to apologize for
myself to the world, for being of opinion that it is not
always from want of consideration, attention, or being
unbiassed, that men with firmness of persuasion em-
brace, and with full assurance adhere to, the wrong
side in matters of religion ; I shall take the liberty to
offer the famous instance of the two Reynolds's, bro-
thers, both men of learning and parts; whereof the
one being of the church of England, and the other of
the church of Rome, they both desiring each other's
conversion to the religion which he himself was of,
writ to one another about it, and that with such ap-
pearance of solid and clear grounds on both sides, that
they were wrought upon by them : each changed his
religion, and that with so firm a persuasion and full an
assurance of the truth of that which he turned to, that
no endeavours or arguments of either of them could
ever after move the other, or bring him back from what
he had persuaded him to. If now J should ask to which
of these two full assurance pointed out the true re-
ligion ; you no doubt, if you would answer at all, would
say, To him that embraced the church of England, and
a papist would say the other: but if an indifferent mail
were asked whether this full assurance was sufficient
to point out the true religion to either of them, he
must answer, No ; for if it were, they must necessarily
have been both of the same religion.

To sum up then what you answer to my saving, " It
cannot be the magistrate's duty to use force to promote
the true religion, because lie is not in a capacity to per-
form that duty ; for not having a certain knowledge,

A Fourth Letter for Toleration. 5^1

but only his own persuasion, to point out to him which
is the true religion, if he be satisfied it is his duty to use
force to promote the true religion, it will inevitably
follow, that he must always use it to promote his own."
To which you answer, That a persuasion of a low de-
gree is not sufficient to point out that religion to the
magistrate which he is to promote by force ; but that a
"firmness and stability of persuasion, a full assurance,
is that which is to point out to the magistrate that re-
ligion, which he is by force to promote/' Where if by
firmness and stability of persuasion and full assurance,
you mean what the words import ; it is plain you con-
fess the magistrate's duty is to promote his own religion
by force ; for that is the religion which his firm per-
suasion and full assurance points out to him. If by
full assurance you mean any thing but the strength of
persuasion, you contradict all that you have said about
firmness and stability, and degrees of persuasion ; and
having in that sense allowed the sufficiency of my di-
vision, where I say, "knowledge or opinion must point
out that religion to him, which he is by force to promote,"
retract it again, and instead thereof, under the name
of full assurance, you substitute and put in true re-
ligion ; and so firmness of persuasion is in effect laid
by, and nothing but the name made use of: for pray
tell me, is firmness of persuasion, or being of the true
religion, either of them by itself sufficient to point out
to the magistrate that religion which it is his duty to
promote by force ? For they do not always go together.
If being of the true religion by itself may do it, your
mentioning firmness of persuasion, grounded on solid
proof that leaves no doubt, is to no purpose, but to
mislead your reason ; for every one that is of the true
religion does not arrive at that high degree of per-
suasion that full assurance which approaches that
which is very near to that which is produced by de-
monstration. And in this sense of full assurance,
which you say men may have of the true religion, and
can never have of a false one, your answer amounts
to this ; that full assurance, in him that embraces the
true religion, will point out the religion he is by force

572 A Fourth Letter for Toleration,

to promote : where it is plain, that by fulness of as-
surance you do mean not the firmness of his persuasion
that points out to him the religion which he is by force
to promote, (for any lower degree of persuasion to him
that embraces the true religion would do it as certainly,
and to one that embraces not the true religion, the
highest degree of persuasion would even in your opi-
nion do nothing at all) but his being of the true re-
ligion, is that which alone guides him to his duty of
promoting the true religion by force. So that to my
question, how shall a magistrate, who is persuaded that
it is his and every magistrate's duty to promote the
true religion by force, be determined in his use of force;
you seem to say his firm persuasion or full assurance of
the truth of the religion he so promotes must determine
him ; and presently, in other words, you seem to lay the
stress upon his actually being of the true religion. The
first of these answers is not true; for I have shown, that
firmness of persuasion may and does point out to ma-
gistrates false religions as well as the true : and the
second is much what the same, as if to one, who should
ask what should enable a man to find the right way
who knows it not, it should be answered, the being in
it. One of these must be your meaning, choose which
you please of them ; if you have any meaning at all in
your sixth, and beginning of the seventh page, to which
I refer the reader ; where, if he find nothing else, he
cannot fail to find a specimen of school-play, of talking
uncertainly in the utmost perfection, nicely and arti-
ficially worded, that it may serve for a specimen of a
masterpiece in that kind ; but a specimen of the an*
swerableness of my Letter will require, as I imagine, a
little more plain dealing. And to satisfy readers, that
have not attained to the admiration of skilfully saying
nothing, yon must directly inform them, whether firm-
QeSfl of persuasion be or be not sufficient in a magistrate
to enable him to do his duty in promoting the true
religion by force ; or else this you have pitched on will
scarce be a sample of the answerableness of all 1 have
said.

But you stand positive in it, and that is like a master,

A Fourth Letter for Toleration. 573

that it cannot be inferred from the magistrate's being
obliged to promote by force the true religion, that
every magistrate is obliged to promote by force his own
religion ; and that for the same reason you had given
before, more perplexed and obscurely, viz. " Because
there is this perpetual advantage on the side of the true
religion, that it may and ought to be believed on clear
and solid grounds, such as will appear the more so, the
more they are examined: whereas no other religion
can be believed so, but upon such appearances only as
will not bear a just examination."

This would be an answer to what I have said, if it
were so that all magistrates saw the preponderancy of
the grounds of belief, which are on the side of the true
religion ; but since it is not the grounds and reasons of
a truth that are not seen, that do or can set the ma-
gistrate upon doing his duty in the case, — but it is the
persuasion of the mind, produced by such reasons and
grounds as do affect it, that alone does, or is capable
to determine the magistrate in the use of force, for
performing of his duty, — it necessarily follows, that if
two magistrates have equally strong persuasions con-
cerning the truth of their religions respectively, they
must both be set on work thereby, or neither; for
though one be of a false, and the other of the true re-
ligion, yet the principle of operation, that alone which
they have to determine them, being equal in both, they
must both be determined by it; unless it can be said,
that one of them must act according to that principle,
which alone can determine, and the other must act
against it ; that is, do what he cannot do, — be deter-
mined to one thing, by what at the same time deter-
mines him to another. From which incapacity in ma-
gistrates to perform their duty by force to promote the
true religion, I think it may justly be concluded, that
to use force for the promoting any religion cannot be
their duty.

You tell us, it is by the law of nature magistrates are
obliged to promote the true religion by force. It must
be owned, that if this be an obligation of the law of
nature, very few magistrates overlook it; so forward

574 A Fourth Letter Jo?* Toleration.

are they to promote that religion by force which they
take to be true. This being the case, I beseech you
tell me what was Huaina Capac, emperor of Peru,
obliged to do ? who, being persuaded of his duty to
promote the true religion, was not yet within distance
of knowing or so much as hearing of the Christian re-
ligion, which really is the true (so far was he from a
possibility to have his belief grounded upon the solid
and clear proofs of the true religion.) Was he to pro-
mote the true religion by force ? That he neither did
nor could know any thing of; so that was morally im-
possible for him to do. Was he to sit still in the neglect
of his duty incumbent on him ? That is in effect to
suppose it a duty and no duty at the same time. If,
upon his not knowing which is the true religion, you
allow it not his duty to promote it by force, the question
is at an end : you and I are agreed, that it is not the
magistrate's duty by force to promote the true religion.
If you hold it in that case to be his duty; what remains
for him to do, but to use force to promote that religion
which he himself is strongly, nay, perhaps to the
highest degree of firmness, persuaded is the true ?
Which is the granting what I contend for, that, if the
magistrate be obliged to promote by force the true re-
ligion, it will thence follow, that he is obliged to pro-
mote by force that religion which he is persuaded is
the true ; since, as you will have it, force was given
him to that end, and it is his duty to use it ; and he
hath nothing else to determine it to that end but his
own persuasion. So that one of these two things must
follow, either that in that case it ceases to be his duty,
or else he must promote his own religion ; choose you
which you please # * * * * *

INDEX

TO THE

SIXTH VOLUME.

A.

Articles (of the church of England)
the 13th argued from against
force in religion, 397

the 17th argued from to the

same purpose, 521

Athanasius's Creed, of the damna-
tory sentence in it, 410

Atheism, charged by some, upon all
who differ from them, 414

' is not to be tolerated by

magistrates, 416

B.

Bentley, (Dr.) his judgment of the
cause of infidelity, 469

Briars. Vid. Thorns.

G.

Careless of their salvation, such
not to be neglected, 125,296

Castration, as justly to be used by
the magistrates to make chaste,
as force to promote religion, 81

Ceremonies, of the Jews, were beg-
garly elements, and much more
those which are human, 157

Christians, some so called are of
different religions, 55

Christianity, prevailing without
force, a mark of its truth, 63, 64

Church, what it is, 13, 26

1 ■ ' none born a member of it,

13

the power of it, 32

1 has no authority to perse-
cute, 34

■ magistrates have no power

to enforce its decrees, 30, 33

is to determine indifferent

circumstances of worship, 32

■■ magistrates have not

power to prohibit in it what is
lawful in the commonwealth, 34

Civil interests, what they are, 10

the duty of magistrates to se-
cure them, ibid,

576

Index.

Clergy, their office sufficient, with-
out other employments, 172
Commonwealth, what it is, 10

end of it, not to force

men in religion, but to free them
from such force, ibid,

no necessity to exclude

Jews, &c. from it, to prevent the
seduction of Christians, 235, &c.
Conformity (in religion) and not
conviction, is the end of penal
laws, 73

— — — men may be brought to
it, without true religion, 339,

340
no ground to presume it

is always upon conviction, 340
whether it be from rea-

son and conviction, or not, can-
not be certainly known, 339, 340
some things required to

it, hard to be understood, 410,

411

Consideration to force men to it

impracticable, 242, 243

■ conformists may need

punishment to bring them to it,

as much as dissenters, 244

it is hard to understand,

whether penal laws are designed
to bring men to it, 389

Vid. Examination.

Conscience, none can be saved by
acting contrary to it, though it
be erroneous, 28

laws contrary to it, must

be passively submitted to, by
private men, 44

a man sins, by acting

contrary to it, though it be mis-
guided, 146
Creeds ought not to be imposed by
the magistrate, 152

D.

Dissenters should not be punished,
t<> make them consider, more
than others, [)(\

ought to be convinced a

church is true, before they con-
form to it, 261

Dissenters to punish them for not

considering, is to punish them

without law, 87

1 if they must be punished,

it is hard to set bounds how far,

262, &c.

the severity formerly used

against them in England, 286

—288
how long it is pretended

they must be punished, 293, &c.
Divisions. Vid. Sects and Schism.

E.

Evidence, which may be sufficient
for one, may not be so for
another, 297

men are incompetent

judges, what is sufficient to
every one, 299

Examination (of religion) force no
proper means to lead to it, 96

many conformists, as well

as others, neglect it, 89

none can bejudicially prov-
ed to refuse it, 100

to punish a whole party, as

neglecting it, is absurd, 101

— — many are incapable of mak-
ing it strictly ibid.

how far it is neglected, must

be referred to the divine judg-
ment, 103
want of it, only pretended

for punishing dissenters, 129, &c.
punishment, for want of it,

would fall heavy upon many
churchmen, 131

the absurdity of using force

to promote it, 97, &C.

none but God can judge

when it is sufficient, 299, &&

the duty of magistrates as

well as others, 179, 180

F.

Faith, articles of it not to be im-
posed by human laws, 39

how it differs from knowledge

properly so called, 11 1

Index,

577

Flood (of Noah) idolatry generally

prevailed not soon after it, 4/0,

482

the true religion continued

above 2000 years after it, 472

Force is not capable to convince
the mind, 1 1

the use of it belongs only to

magistrates, ibid.

- Christianity flourished best
when without the help of it, 63,

64

not lawful, though it might

prove some way useful, 69

(in religion) usually preju-
dices men against it, 70

used only to produce confor-
mity, not conviction, 73

not necessary to make men

consider, 74

the use of it, for this end, is a

vain pretence, 75

is much more likely to bring

men to error than truth, 76

employed to make people

consider, is neither useful nor
just, 78

no warrant in Scripture for

using it, 82

no less necessary for confor-

mists than non-conformists, 94,

96
the uncertainty of the pre-

tended end for which it should
be used, 95

— — none have right to use it, 1 12

— should rather be used to drive
bad men out of the church, than
to bring any in, 1 15

— those who plead for the mo-
derate use of it should show
what bounds should be set to it,

142, &c.

— if some force may be used to
bring men to religion, more may
be used to advance them in it,

134

— no sovereign has authority to
use it toward another, 163

not necessary to promote reli-
gion, though religion be neces-
sary, 164, &c.

VOL. VI.

Force, not likely to advance the true
religion, but the contrary, 168

may be avoided by outward

conformity alone, 163, 323

unreasonably used to make

men judge more sincerely for
themselves, 177, 178

takes the care of men's souls

from themselves, 196, 197

magistrates not commission-

ed by the law of nature to use it,

202

— how parents are authorized to
use it, 206, &c.

— and masters, 206

— not using it, intimates not a
power given in vain, 214

— the use of it makes not men
good, nor secures God's blessing
to a nation, 221,378

bv the same rule a lesser de-

gree of it is needful, a greater
may be so, 262

— no proper means to remove
prejudices, 297

— concerning the end of its be-
ing used, 303, &c.

— it is equally just for one
church to use it as another, 333

the spiritual gain which suf-

ferers may reap, though it be
misapplied, a vain pretence, 367,

&c. 393

— kings being "nursing fathers,"
&c. no good argument for using
it, 370

• — its use, though designed to

bring men to truth, may bring

them to falsehood, 378, &c. 399

— is likely to lead far more into
error than truth, 378, 399, 407

— no proof that ever it has done
good, 380

— using it to make men consider
impertinent, 386

— the use of it cannot promote
real holiness, 390, 391

if it brings any to considera-
tion, it is only by accident, 392

it is most likely to prevail on

the loose and careless, 395
its unfitness to bring men to

v v

578

Index.

true religion, argued from the
13th article of our church, 397
Force, may require extraordinary
strength to withstand it, when
used to bring to a false religion,

400

may be equally used by all

magistrates who believe their re-
ligion true, 401, 402

it is absurd to use it, with-
out pretending to infallibility,

407, &c.

the want of it not at first sup-
plied by miracles, 442, &c.

is necessary (if at all) to

make ministers do their duty,

463

the use of it prevented not a

horrible apostasy in the Roman
empire, 483

has (as far as history informs

us) always been injurious to true
religion, 484, &c.

the use of it no Scripture-me-

thod for advancing religion, 497

H.

Heresy, wherein it consists, 55
imposers of their own inter-
pretations of Scripture, guilty of
it, 56
Human society, the preservation of
it is the magistrate's power, 10

no opinion contrary to

the safety of it should be tole-
rated, 45

I.

Idolaters may be tolerated, 35, 51,

&c.

why not tolerated by the

law of Moses, 37

their case was peculiar

among the Israelites, ibid.

Idolatry did not root out. the true
religion soon after the flood, 47 I ,

163

was probably firit intro-
duced by great men, I7."», fltc

the most likely original of

it was tyranny, 176

Indifferent things, the magistrate's
power about them, 30

not to be imposed in dU

vine worship, 31

some of them to be de~

termined by a church, 32

Job, the book of him probably writ-
ten by a Jew, 236

K.

Kings, their being called " nursing
fathers," how to be understood,

371
L.

Law, (of Moses) why idolatry was
punished by it, 37

foreigners not compelled to

observe the rites of it, 38

Legislative power, the end of it is
the outward good of society, 34,

&c.

Love, persecutions rising from it,
would rather be against wicked-
ness than opinions, 6, &c.

M.

Magistrates, their duty is to secure
civil interests, not the salvation
of souls, 10

care of souls only com-
mon to them with others, 1 1

are as liable to error in

religion as others, 12, 76

ought not to use force in

matters of religion, 4J0

have no authoritv to im-

pose ceremonies in the church,
29. — Nor to forbid those used
by others, 33
their power about indif-
ferent tilings, 30

may not punish all sins

against God, 3 I, &c.

are to punish only those

things which injure the society,

ID, &C.

by what means they are

brought to join with ehurelimen

in persecution, 53, 5 I

Index.

579

Magistrates have no commission to
punish errors in religion, 40

only a small number of

them of the true religion, 76

no advantage in commit-
ting the care of our souls to them,

76, 122
their using force to pro-
mote the true religion or their
own, is in effect the same, 128,

143, &c.

have no authority to

impose creeds, 153

are not to judge of truth

for other men, 173

have not more knowledge

of religion than others, 179
the apostle's saying,

(< We can do nothing against the
truth, but for it," not applicable
to them, 360

have not authority, like

parents or schoolmasters, to use
force, 205

discovering them to be

in the wrong adds little to find-
ing out the truth, 360, 361
ought to assist religion

by suppressing wickedness, 65,

66
are not commissioned by

the law of nature to use force in
religion, 205

Means (of salvation), no other
should be used than what God
has appointed, 81, 82

— — what are proper for promot-
ing religion, 82

those which are sufficient are

given to all, 113, &c.

the greatest part of the world

without them, if force be neces-
sary, 389, &c.

Ministers, (of religion) of what sort
they are, who want to have their
doctrines enforced, 151, 152

doing their duty aright,

would render force unnecessary,

526

Miracles never used to supply the
want of force, 454

— — — absurdly reckoued among
human means, 442

Miracles not wrought in the view
of all who were converted, 443

we have the same advantage

by them, as most had in the first
ages, ibid,

were continued (according

to church-history) after Christi-
anity was established by human
laws, 452, &c.

were not often repeated to

those who rejected the Gospel,

454, 455
will be always necessary,

supposing them so whenever men
neglect their duty, 459, &c.
were not a necessary means

of conviction in the apostles' time,

523, 526

N.

National religion, none such can
claim to be the true, exclusive
of others, 422

O.

Opinions merely speculative, ought
to be tolerated, 40

* contrary to human society,

are not to be tolerated, 45

Oppression is the great cause of civil
commotions., 47, 48

P.

Paganism, how zeal against it

should be expressed, 233, &c.

Penal laws, not designed to make

men consider, but conform, 387,

&c.

how a national religion

loses ground by the relaxation of
them, 467—469

whether atheism, &c. in-

crease by their relaxation, ibid.
Vid. Punishments.
Penalties. Vid. Force.
Persecution, what it signifies, 142

if it were designed for

saving souls, persons conforming
on it would be examined con-
cerning their convictions, 197

580

Index.

Persecution only useful to fill the
church with hypocrites, 373,

374
Vid. Force, Punishments.

Political societies, all advantages
which may be gained by them,
cannot be reckoned the end of
them, 117

Prejudices, not to be removed by
force, 297

Vid. Force.

Punishments (for errors in reli-
gion) are unjust, though mo-
derate, 62, &c.

not lawfully used to make

people consider, 73, 79, 94

. > human laws inflict them

not to make men examine,

the pretence for inflict-

ing them in France on the pro-
testants, 87
national churches need

them as much as dissenters, 94,

99
■ — if beneficial, it is unkind

to withhold them from any, 108
the difficulty of deter-

mining the due measures of them,

104, &c.
commonly least used,

where they are most needful,

99, 118
it is unjust to inflict

them, for enforcing things not
necessary, 248, &c.

the fault for which they

are inflicted points out the end
of them, 243, &c.

leaving the measures of

them to the magistrate's pru-
dence justifies the greatest, 28 1 ,

Sec.
admitting them as neces-

sary in matters of religion leads
to the sharpest severities, 10S,

&C.

prejudice the minds of

men against truth, 70

are designed only to

hung to outward conformity,

323, &c.
not inflicted by the apo-

stles to bring men to religion,
or make them consider, 437 —

439

R.

Religion is the same to all, who
have the same rule of faith and
worship, 326, &c.

if true, it prevails by its

own strength without force, 64
Vid. True religion.

Reynolds, a remarkable story of two
brothers of this name, 78

S.

Sacrament (of the Lord's supper)
how it has been prostituted by
buman laws, 73

who are to be blamed for

its prostitution, 342

Salvation (of souls) the care of it
belongs not to magistrates, as
such, 10, &c.

why the care of each man's

belongs only to himself. 23 — 25
not the design of penal

69

laws about religion,

pretending care of this for

using force in religion is preva-
rication, 351

Salvation impossible to be pro-
moted by forcing people in reli-
gious matters, 391, &c.

Scepticism, not justly chargeable
upon toleration, 414, 415

Schism, wherein it consists, 55

who are the chief causes of

it, 238, 239

Schoolmasters, their using force to
make their scholars learn, is no
warrant for usiug it in religious
matters, 206, 209

Scriptures are to be consulted as
our guide in religion, 353) flte.

contain all neeessarv means

of salvation, 519, 520

Sects (or divisions) who are the
Chief cause of them, -'AX, 239

» whether national churches

may not be such as well as others,

239, 240

Index.

581

Sedition, wherever it is practised,
should be punished alike, 51

Sins, several of them are not pu-
nishable by magistrates, 36

Society, every advantage which
may be attained by it, is not the
end of it, 213, &c.

Vid. Human.

Soul, the care of it belongs not to
magistrates, as such, 10

■ — — the care of men's own, bet-
ter left to themselves than to
others, 23, 28

Thorns and briars may be laid in
the way by Providence, but
should not by men, 162

Toleration (in religion) often vin-
dicated upon too narrow princi-
ples, 3

chief mark of the true

church, 5

is very agreeable to the

Gospel, and to reason, 9

■ is not inconsistent with

excommunication, 16, 17

should be mutually ex-
ercised by different churches,

17, 18

ought to be promoted by

church-officers, 20, 21

it is the duty of magi-
strates, 23
should not be extended

to all immoral practices, 33, 34
ought to be extended to

pagans and idolaters, 35, 52

to whom it may not be

extended, 45

all churches should pro-

fess it, as the foundation of their
liberty, 47

grantingit prevents dan-

gers from dissenting assemblies,

48

will cause all who enjoy

it to be watchful for the public
peace, 50,51

— should extend to all

Toleration, want of it produces dis-
turbances, upon account of reli-
gion, 53

truth is a gainer by it,

64, 65

is no cause of sects and

divisions, 414, &c.

« the pretended ill effects

of it refuted, ibid.

true religion in no dan-
ger to be lost by it, 466

— — is not the cause of ge-
neral corruption, 470, &c.

part of a fourth letter in

defence of it, 549

new way of answering

the third letter for it, 550

■ the answer only promises

instead of performing, 552

Translation (of the Bible) aremark
concerning the authority of the
English one, 496, 497

True religion of the highest concern
to all persons, 317

force no proper means to

bring men to it, 317, &c.

is dishonoured, by using

force for promoting it, 319

»- several persons may be of

it, though differing in some
things, 327, 328

all who suppose themselves

to be of it, have equal right to
impose on others, 419, &c.

no nations can lay claim to

it exclusive of others, 422

magistrates must know it,

before they can punish the re-
jectors of it, 425 — 428

■ lenity the best way of pro-
moting it, 433, 434
whether it can subsist with-

out actual miracles, or force,

435
it was not lost for want of

things lawful in common con-
versation, 51

force, in a few ages after the
flood, 471, &c.

Truth (of religion) the best way to
find it, is by a good life, 66

Tyranny, promoting it, was pro-
bably the first cause of idolatry,

476, &c.

582

Index.

U.

Unbelievers. Vid. Infidels.

Uniformity, (the act of) the de-
clared intention of it, 388

Unity, wherein that which Christ
prayed for consists, 237

— who are most guilty of break-
ing it, 238

Usefulness of things does not al-
ways render them lawful, 80

Usefulness, we are liable to judge
wrongly concerning it, 81, &c.

to argue from the law-
fulness of things is presump-
tuous, 82

W.

Worship, the law of nature ascribes
the power of appointing the
parts of it to God only, 156,

157

END OF VOL. VI,

Jvu

O

to

H

O

♦H
+•»
aS

U

o

H

S3

O >

O

2*

a>
o
c
o
o

a>

o -P
»-4

to

•H rH c^

£ oo to

University of Toronto
Library

DO NOT

REMOVE

THE

CARD

FROM

THIS

POCKET

Acme Library Card Pocket
LOWE-MARTIN CO. LIMITED

O to

^^===

LLI

CNJ

=5=

= 1—

o
o

UJ^=

^CO

>==

=o

_

— rt

C/J ^^=

*.

— u_

^==

===== i

o=

=x

o

Q =

— >-

»-==

-<

o>

<3.=

_J =
1-^

= UJ

1=0

f

->===

= <

*3-

cc

o>

Q

CO