Where I say that ‘force may indirectly and at a distance do some service, etc.’ you say you do not understand what I mean by ‘doing service at a distance towards the bringing men to salvation, or to embrace truth, unless perhaps it be what others, in propriety of speech, call by accident’. But I make little doubt but all other men that read the place, do well enough understand what I mean by those words; even such as do not understand what it is to ‘do service by accident’. And if by doing service by accident, you mean doing it but seldom and beside the intention of the agent, I assure you that is not the thing that I mean when I say force may indirectly and at a distance do some service. For in that use of force which I defend, the effect is both intended by him that uses it, and withal, I doubt not, so often attained as abundantly to manifest the usefulness of it.

‘But be it what it will,’ say you, ‘it is such a service as cannot be ascribed to the direct and proper efficacy of force. And so,’ say you,