the objection fuppofes, viz. that fchism and faction may be occafioned by fuch a liberty, yet it does not follow that men's natural right ought to be taken away, because some men have abused that right, as I have already fhewn.

If it fhould farther be objected, Secondly, that the allowing men to chufe their own religion leaves men at liberty to be of no religion, and confequently to be atheists, or deifts, or what they please, than which nothing can be more deftructive to human fociety; because atheism and infidelity take away all confcioufness of vertue and vice, which are the great fupports of fociety. Seeing then that the confcioufnefs of vertue and vice has a dependence upon the belief of a God, and the true religion; and feeing the non-consciousness of vertue and vice are deftructive of human fociety, it will follow, that the magiftrates care, for the welfare of the fcciety, obliges them not to tolerate, but to expel atheism and infidelity out of their dominions, and to oblige their people to the belief of a God, and to the practice of true religion.

I answer, the belief of a God, a providence, and a judgment to come, does not neceffarily make men vertuous, and thereby beneficial to fociety; and a want of faith, with respect to thefe, does not neceffarily make men vicious, and thereby hurtful to it; these having no neceffary connection with, or dependence upon each other. However, that the belief of the foremention'd propofitions may have an influence on men's prefent behaviour, and as fuch it may be beneficial to fociety, I think muft be allowed, and confequently that it is the duty of governours, to make ufe of the most proper means to expel atheism and infidelity out of their domirions; but that the taking away men's liberty in chufing their own religion, and obliging them, by punishment and perfecution, to embrace the religi

religion of their governours, is fuch a proper means, this I think may justly be dinied. For fuppofing a man be an atheift or deift in principle, human laws, with their punishments, have not a tendency, in the nature of the thing, to work fuch a man's conviction, but on the contrary they tend to barden and confirm him in his infidelity; because human punishments have nothing of reafon or argument in them, which are proper to work upon men's judgments, and therefore they are not a proper means to work the coviction of an unbeliver. Indeed they carry a terror along with them, and this works upon men's fears, and fo they become a proper means to reftrain men's diforderly appetites, and paffions. The fear of human punishment oftentimes reftrains men, where reafon and argument do not. Suppofe a man was fo covetous, that the principles of religion were not fufficient to restrain him from robbing his neighbour, yet the thoughts of an halter might. But fuppofing a man to be an atheift, can any perfon be fo weak as to think that the thoughts of an halter or a ftake would convince him that there is a God? no; fuch a conviction must be wrought by reafon and argument, which human punishment is deftitute of; confequently fuch punishment is not a proper means to expel atheism and infidelity; nay, it is fo far from it, that it rather tends to harden and confirm men in their errors; for he that is perfecuted for his opinion. is naturally led to conclude that his perfecutors make use of this method of force, because they are deftitute of reafon and argument, and because their caufe cannot be fupported, if left to ftand or fall by it, and from hence he infers, that he is in the right; and men generally use this as an argument of the goodness of their caufe, because, fay they, truth was always perfecuted; and when men have a bad caufe,.

which will not bear reafon and argument, then they fupply what is wanting of argument by force and violence. Indeed, punishment may make men conceal their opinions and principles, but they are never the more expelled by being concealed. An atheist is an atheist, whether he makes a publick profeffion of his principles or not. Besides, the forcing men to conceal their principles, in this cafe, is more hurtful than beneficial to fociety; because it naturally produces hypocrify, which is the most prejudicial to fociety of any vice whatfoever; for as an atheist has no expectation of a future reckoning, fo he can, with the greatest freedom, be guilty of the greatest hypocrify; and therefore whenever atheism is punishable by human laws, the atheist can (and will to serve his worldly intereft) put on the appearance of the most strict chriftian; and this profeffion puts it into his power to do a great deal of hurt to those whom chriftian charity difpofes to think him to be in reality. what he is in appearance, whereas if he had been left free in his profeffion, he would have wantea one (and perhaps the strongeft) temptation to be an hypocrite. It is much fafer dealing with a profeffed atheist than with a concealed one; because with the first, we watch and guard against the damage that we may be capable of receiving by him; but with the latter, who paffes under the covert of a christian, we are not apprized of our danger; and therefore men are often taken in the fnare be

fore they are aware. From which it appears, that the punishment of atheism itself is disadvantageous to fociety, and is rather a means to confirm the atheist in, than to convince him of his error. And tho' no man has a right to trifle with, or banter, and ridicule religion; yet every man has a right to be heard, when he speaks pertinently, foberly, and feriously; and there can be no greater

re

reflection upon chriftianity, than for its profeffors not to give their adverfaries fair play. First, to bind, and then to buffet them, is not fair fighting with, and conquering of, but trampling upon an adverfary, and yet this is the cafe. Chriftian first stop unbeleivers mouths by human laws, and then infult them as vanquished enemies. Chriftianity is not fo weak and indefenfible as this practice fuppofes it to be; for when force and perfecution were engaged against christianity, and it had no other weapons to fight with but reafon and good argument, then it prevailed to the converting of the world: but now that reafon is made to take the lower ground, and force and violence to take place of it, infidelity prevails. Reason and argument are like the two hands of Mofes, when they are lifted up, Ifrael prevails; but when they are made to give place to violence and force, then Amalek prevails. Oh, that our Aaron and Hur would hold up thefe hands of Moses! then fhould our Ifrael prevail, to the utter destruction of the Amalekites. Christianity hath ftrength fufficient to deal with its adverfaries when they ftand upon even ground; Why then should chriftians act the part of cowards, in taking fo unmanly an advantage of their oppofers? not that 'tis a real advantage to the cause of christianity, that infidelity is perfecuted; nay, in this lies its adverfaries great ftrength, because this gives them occafion and opportunity of boating to the world, that they have what they really have not, viz, that they have ftrength of argument on their fide, but are prohibited the ufe of it; that christianity's beft defence is human laws; and that if they ftood upon an equal foot, they should come off with victory. this advantage they take to perfwade people that truth is on their fide, If therefore magiftrates would expel atheism and

infidelity out of their dominions, the only means to effect it, is to allow them to propose their opinions, and their arguments and reasons for thofe opinions, with the utmost freedom and as this would set the difpute upon an equal foot, without any advantage to either party, fo it would give men, of understanding and judgment, an occafion and opportunity of examining the arguments offered on the infidels fide, and of fhewing the weaknefs and inconclufiveness of them, and confequently of working their conviction, or at least it would ftop their mouths, and prevent the spreading of infidelity.

If it fhould be farther objected, thirdly, that the good Kings of Ifrael and Judah made laws for the establishing of the Jewish religion; and that it was foretold by the Propheth Ifaiah of the chriftian church, that kings fhould be ber nurfing fatkers, and queens her nurfing mothers, as in Ifaiah xlix. 23.

Answer, That the good Kings of Ifrael and Judah made laws for the punishment of evil doers, and for the protecting and defending of good people in the practice of their duty, is no more than what their office called for; but that they compelled people to the profeffion of the Jewish religion, which were contrary-minded which is the cafe under confideration) is more eafily taken for granted than proved. But fuppofing they did, this is no good argument to prove that it ought to be, because they practifed it; for if the rule of what ought to be, fhould be taken from what good men have practifed, as this rule would be very uncertain, in itself, fo it would oblige us to practife the worst of actions. As to what the Prophet Taich foretold, that kings Thould be

nurfing