lic, or with the natural rights and liberties of mankind in fociety; will it from hence follow, that all opinions are of this nature, which this author might think fit to call religious, or which he might imagine his own intereft to be concerned in? Or is there no difference between religion and civil policy? 'Tis plain that he can either find out no fuch diftinction, or does not care to own it; and must therefore be very dull, or something worfe: For,

Thus, in the civil ftate of things, and in "matters temporal, a man may poffibly be of

opinion, that all things are by nature common, "and ought to continue fo; and there have not "been wanting those who have entertained fuch "notions: But where property is fettled by the "laws of the land, if he should invade that of "another, the law may call it felony, and he be

hanged for a thief." But how perfectly abfurd and fenfeless is this comparison! If this man's opinions in religion, are his property, he ought to be fecured and defended in the full and free poffeffion of them, even by law, where it is neceffary; as it is the business of the law to guard and fecure every man's property: But muft I be forced to espouse an opinion, because it is his property? Or is it not enough that he is left in the full and free poffeffion of it himself? Is his intereft to govern and direct my opinions, or to determine my understanding, judgment, and confcience? But I

maintain

maintain opinions which are inconfiftent with his property; why then I am to be punished for maintaining any fuch opinions, this being neceffary to guard his property. But does he not here fee, that it can be only the outward profeffion of any fuch opinions that can be punished, and not the opinions themfelves which the law cannot poffibly alter? The defign of the law, it seems, is to make us wife and honeft, just and good; and fo to fecure true religion: But why may I not yield all poffible obedience to law, and yet be of no religion at all? A man profefles to believe tranfubftantiation; this profeffion is inconfiftent with his being a dignitary in the church: Let him therefore fupprefs this belief, or pretend to believe the contrary, and then he is as good a church of England man, and as legally establifhed, as this author himself. But he that would fay this, would be wicked and abominable: It be fo. But then who is it that tempts men to may this wickedness, and lays them under the strongest worldly motives to difguife their religion for intereft, and to profess what they do not, or cannot, believe? And here this writer will doubtlefs wash his hands in innocency, whoever elfe may be guilty.

What, therefore, this author calls encouraging. religion, fecuring an uniformity of worship, &c. is encouraging men only to profefs one and the fame religion, and unite in a common outward form,

without

without being of any religion at all: For how can true religion be encouraged or promoted by fuch a prostitution of conscience?

The author of the Letter from the Temple had faid, "If the constitution of the church of "England is fuch that whoever maintains li

berty, private judgment, the fupreme autho"rity of fcripture and reason, and a right in all "to a toleration, by that becomes an enemy to

it; that fuch a conftitution ought not to be "preferved." One would take the confequence here to be very plain and neceffary, that if, by any laws now in being, the conftitution of the church is fuch, that a man must be an enemy to this conftitution, who fhould maintain liberty, private judgment, the fupreme authority of fcrip. ture and reafon, and a right in these matters to a toleration; that then, upon this fuppofition, fuch laws ought to be altered, and the conftitution mended.

This is fo plain, fo natural and neceffary an inference, that this author, tho' he could not deny it; yet cannot affirm the contrary, but upon the fuppofition mentioned before, that the laws in being are infallible, and not to be altered.

But did the parliament ever pretend to fet up for infallibility? or to make a fet of laws that ought never to be altered? Did they ever cut themselves off from the right of correcting or reftraining any abuses which might poffibly arise from

the

the exercise of power? The author throws himfelf into fuch convulfions upon this, that I shall spare him the confufion of being laughed at, so much as he ought to be.

But this daring author, who would not have any body dare to write against him, yet dares to represent the bishops themselves as under a ftate of perfecution, by the act of Pramunire, and the king's letter miffive. I fhall here quote the author's own words; and then, with a few obfervations, leave the reader to judge of their only true and natural construction.

Page 52, 53. "The admitting into holy or"ders, the ordaining of priests and deacons, is "a religious matter; confcience is therein great"ly concerned, and they must lay hands fudden"ly on no man, Though the author of the "Letter contends, that in all religious matters

they ought to judge for themselves, without being fubject to penalties or inconveniences; "yet if, upon the crown's nomination, almost "the whole bench of bifhops (for the cafe ne

ceffarily implies, that there are not a fufficient "number left to do it) fhould decline to con"fecrate the perfon appointed, and humbly re"monftrate to his majefty, that they could not "in confcience act therein, what is then to be << done! They are to be called a cabal of bishops ❝and one of the most severe laws is to be put << in the most severe manner in execution against

❝ them,

"them, and they are to be fubjected to a Præ"munire, by 25 Hen. VIII. That is, they shall "be put out of the king's protection, shall forfeit "their lands, goods and chattles, and be im"prifoned during the king's pleasure; and if that "be not fufficient, it is left to the confideration of "abler perfons, to think of a proper cure for so "dangerous a diftemper. What can there be more "fevere, unless it be fire and faggot?

The author of the Letter, therefore, could have little reason to complain of the want of toleration out of the church, while the church itfelf is left under so grievous a perfecution as this.

If this be not a matter of confcience and religion, there can be no fuch thing as confcience or religion; and therefore let God and the world. judge between men under this Parallel. But furely this Parallel advocate here forgot himself a lit、 tle, or otherwife he would never have reprefented it as a perfecuting power still legally retained in the crown, to maintain its fupremacy over the spiritual part of the legislature; especially after he had fixed his idea of the conftitution to the laws in being. But does not this Law-in-being man, here fet himself up as a conftitution mender? Can he think these laws in being to be right? Or that the church ought not to have more power, as well as other people more grace? But 'tis very plain, that the præmunire and letter miffive, at the reformation, were thought abfolutely