are what will not abide examination; and therefore they fly from it, and seek to human laws for fanctuary and propagation. How many errors are there in the Church of Rome, which probably would foon vanish, were they not defended and propagated by human laws? whereas truth loves the light, and comes to the light, and fubmits herself to every man's examination. Truth will bear examination, and thrives by it, and never fuffers more than when she is furrounded with darkness. Truth is best guarded and propagated by free examination, and has no need of propagation by human laws, becaufe fhe can better recommend herself without them; and therefore the allowing all men a liberty to examine and judge for themselves, has not a tendency, in itself to pervert men's minds, as the objection fuppofes.

;

Anfwer, thirdly, allowing that fuch a liberty opens a door to all forts of errors, as the objection fets forth, yet it does not follow that therefore it ought to be taken away; it being very unreasonable and unjust to infer, that because fome men have mifapplied and abufed their property, therefore all property must be taken away: fuch kind of reasoning as this would deprive all mankind of every priviledge and comfort they enjoy, yea, even of life it felf: to allow men the ufe of fpeech, opens a door to lying, perjury, flander, blafphemy, and a multitude of other diforders of the tongue; and therefore 'tis neceffary (according to this fort of reafoning) that the use of speech fhould be taken away from fociety. Eating and drinking opens a door to gluttony and drunkenness, to riots and diforders, and a great many evil things; and therefore eating and drinking ought to be allowed only to those who are the governours of fociety, who are fuppofed to have a better command of their appetites than to abuse their liberty, as aforefaid. But fuch kind of reafoning as this is monstrous. Every man ought to be fecure in the enjoyment of his property, and if men, at any time, abuse their liberty, they are accountable to God for that abuse and fo far as fuch an abuse affects the fociety to which they belong, fo far they are accountable for it to that fociety. And therefore, fuppofing that a man should fo far mifapply his property in the prefent cafe, as to draw any wrong conclufions in his reafoning upon any fubject, and should be led into an error hereby, and fhould likewife propofe that error as a truth to others, together with the grounds and reafons upon which he affents to it, in fuch a cafe, he ought, in reafon, not only to be tolerated herein, but alfo to be protected and fecured in the ufe of this his natural property (provided he is not injurious to the perfonal character or property of others, or the common rights of mankind) because truth is what every man has an equal right to, and intereft in, and what every man has a natural right to be an advocate for: and therefore every man ought in reason to be fecure, both in his enquiries after truth, and in his offering his arguments and reafons for what he judges to be fo: and tho he mistakes herein, he ought not to be perfecuted for his error, but to be protected in the enjoyment of his property. If his error leads him to practise that which is hurtful to fociety, then the government is to reftrain and keep him from such practices: and as this is a fecuring the property of others, which he would invade, so it is not an invafion of his property, because no man hath a right and

pro

property to invade the right and property of others, tho he should be never fo trongly perfuaded that he has; his error makes no alteration in the cafe: and therefore, tho he is to be protected in his examining and judging for himself, and tho he ought to determine his practice from his own, and not from other men's judgments of things, yet he is not to be protected in, but prevented from invading the right and property of others.

Again, As man is made a free accountable creature, and as he is accountable to God, who is the author of his being, and as his happinefs or mifery depend upon the good or bad ufe he makes of his liberty, in his approving or disapproving himself to God, and as it his natural underived right to examine and judge for himself, what is truth, and what is error in every cafe, except his liberty be restrained, either by the light of nature, or divine revelation; fo it is his natural right to chufe for himself that way and method of ferving God, and recommending himself to his favour, which, upon a thorough examination, appears to him to be moft agreeable to God's will (which we commonly call religion) I fay, that it is the natural and underived right of every man to chufe his own religion, because his own eternal happiness or mifery depend upon that choice. This is as much his natural right, as his right to his natural life. This is a right that he can never forfeit, as he may fome other natural rights. The natural right to life may be forfeited, as he that invades the life of his neighbour forfeits his own life, to the fociety to which he belongs. Gen. ix. 6. He that sheddeth man's blood, by man fhall his blood be shed; but a man's right to chufe his own religion, is what he can never forfeit: and as this is the natural right of every man, fo it is the business of government, not only to tolerate, but to keep every man in the quiet poffeffion of this his natural property, and to defend and guard him from every injury which he is liable to, in the ufe and enjoyment of it. So likewife on the other fide, if governours should be so far from fecuring the people, committed to their care, in the enjoyment of this their natural property, that on the contrary they chufe a religion for their people, and require them to fubmit to their choice, and perfecute those that do not; this is a very great invafion of men's natural property, and is highly criminal in any government, and has moft fatal confequences attending it; because if a falje religion happens to be established, it is propaated as far as the power of the establishers can extend it, and is continued down from generation to generation.

If it fhould be objected, firft, that fuch liberty would throw all things into confufion, by opening a door to fchifm and faction, and therefore fuch a liberty ought not to be allowed. Anfier, The aforefaid liberty hath no fuch tendency, because such a liberty is a friend, and not an enemy to peace and unity: there is nothing in the nature of the thing which can more tend to the peace and unity of any fociety, nor to the fecurity of any government, than for every one of that fociety to have the free ufe and enjoyment of all their rights and properties, and to be fecured from every invader; whereas on the other fide, when men's rights and properties are invaded, it is very difficult for them to be eafy under fuch oppreffions, and this lays a foundation for fchifm and fac

N

tion:

tion: and tho, to avoid the persecution which attends refusing to submit to the established religion, men do play the hypocrite for a time; yet when time and opportunity ferve, they are apt to caft off the yoke from their neck, and that often proves very fatal both to the governours and to the fociety. But allowing what the objection fuppofes, viz. that fchifm 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 fome men have abused that right, as I have already

shewn.

If it should farther be objected, fecondly, that the allowing men to chufe their own religion leaves men at liberty to be of no religion, and confequently to be atheifts, 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 fociety, 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 anfwer, 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 refpect to thefe, does not neceffarily make men vicious, and thereby hurtful to it; thefe 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 must be allowed, and confequently that it is the duty of governours, to make use of the most proper means to expel atheism and infidelity out of their dominions; but that the taking away men's liberty in chufing their own religion, and obliging them, by punishment and perfecution, to embrace the religion of their governours, is fuch a proper means, this I think may justly be denied. For fuppofing a man be an atheist 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 harden and confirm him in his infidelity; because human punishments have nothing of reason or argument in them, which are proper to work upon men's judgments, and therefore they are not a proper means to work the conviction of an unbeliever. Indeed they carry a terror along with them, and this works upon men's fears, and fo they become a proper means to restrain 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 stake would convince him that there is a God? no; fuch a conviction must be wrought by reafon and argument, which human punishment

5

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 supported, if left to ftand or fall by it, and from hence he infers, that he is in the right; and men generally ufe this as an argument of the goodness of their cause, 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 atheift, whether he makes a publick profeffion of his principles or not. Befides, 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 whatsoever; 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 atheifm is punishable by human laws, the atheist can (and will to ferve his worldly intereft) put on the appearance of the most ftrict 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 wanted one (and perhaps the ftrongeft) temptation to be an hypocrite. It is much fafer dealing with a profefed 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 chriftian, we are not apprized of our danger; and therefore men are often taken in the fnare before they are aware. From which it appears, that the punishing of atheism itself is difadvantageous 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 reflection upon christianity, 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. Chriftians first stop unbelievers mouths by buman 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 againft chriftianity, 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 these hands of Mofes! then should N 2

our

our Ifrael prevail, to the utter deftruction of the Amalekites. Chriftianity 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 caufe of chriftianity, that infidelity is perfecuted; nay, in this lies its adverfaries great ftrength, because this gives them occafion and opportunity of boasting 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 use of it; that christianity's best defence is human laws; and that if they stood upon an equal foot, they should come off with victory: this advantage they take to perfuade 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 reafons for those opinions, with the utmost freedom: and as this would fet the dispute 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 weakness and inconclufiveness of them, and confequently of working their conviction, or at least it would ftop their mouths, and prevent the fpreading of infidelity.

If it should 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 Prophet Ifaiah of the chriftian church, that kings fhould be her nurfing fathers, and queens ber nurfing mothers, as in Ifaiah xlix. 23.

Anfwer, 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 easily 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 practise the worst of actions. As to what the Prophet Ifaiah foretold, that kings fhould be nurfing fathers, and queens nurfing mothers to the Chriftian church, this cannot, in reafon, be fuppofed to intend any more than that kings and queens fhould take Chrift's people into their protection; and defend and fecure them, even as a nurfe doth her child, from every evil that they are expofed to, upon the account of their profeffion; but it will not follow from hence, that they were to make men christians by force and violence, or to destroy the common rights of

mankind.

TREA