A Juſt Concern for Truth, and the Firſt Principles of the Chriſtian Religion, was the only Motive that engag'd me in the Examination of your Lordſhip's Docrines in a Former Letter to your Lordſhip. And the ſame Motive, I hope, will be thought a ſufficient Apology for my preſuming to give your Lordſhip the Trouble of a Second Letter.

Amongſt the Vain Contemptible Things, whereof your Lordſhip would create an Abhor⯑rence in the Layity, are, the Trifles and Niceties of Authoritative Benedictions, Abſolutions, Excommu⯑nications. ^* Again, you ſay, that to expect the Grace of God from any Hands, but his own, is to affront him—^†. And that all depends upon God and our ſelves; That Human Benedictions, Human Abſolutions, Human Excommunications, have nothing to do with the Favour of God.^‡

It is evident from theſe Maxims (for your Lordſhip aſſerts them as ſuch) that whatever In⯑ſtitutions are obſerved in any Chriſtian Society, [2] upon this Suppoſition, that thereby Grace is conferr'd thro' Human Hands, or by the Miniſtry of the Clergy, ſuch Inſtitutions ought to be con⯑demn'd, and are condemn'd by your Lordſhip, as trifling, uſeleſs, and affronting to God.

There is an Inſtitution, my Lord, in the yet E⯑ſtabliſh'd Church of England, which we call Con⯑firmation: It is founded upon the expreſs Words of Scripture, Primitive Obſervance, and the U⯑niverſal Practice of all ſucceeding Ages in the Church. The Deſign of this Inſtitution is, that it ſhould be a Means of conferring Grace, by the Prayer and Impoſition of the Biſhop's Hands on thoſe who have been already Baptized. But yet againſt all this Authority, both Divine and Hu⯑man, and the expreſs Order of our own Church, your Lordſhip teaches the Layity, that all Hu⯑man Benedictions are uſeleſs Niceties; and that to ex⯑pect God's Grace from any Hands but his own, is to affront him.

If ſo, my Lord, what ſhall we ſay in De⯑fence of the Apoſtles? We read (Acts 8. 14.) that when Philip the Deacon had baptiz'd the Sa⯑maritans, the Apoſtles ſent Peter and John to them, who having pray'd, and laid their Hands on them, they receiv'd the Holy Ghoſt, who before was fallen upon none of them; only they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jeſus.

My Lord, ſeveral things are here out of Que⯑ſtion; Firſt, That ſomething elſe, even in the Apoſtolical Times, was neceſſary, beſides Bap⯑tiſm, [3] in order to qualifie Perſons to become com⯑pleat Members of the Body, or Partakers of the Grace of Chriſt. They had been baptiz'd, yet did not receive the Holy Ghoſt, till the Apo⯑ſtles Hands were laid upon them. 2dly, That God's Graces are not only confer'd by means of Human Hands; but of ſome particular Hands, and not others. 3dly, That this Office was ſo ſtrictly appropriated to the Apoſtles, or Chief Governours of the Church, that it could not be perform'd by Inſpir'd Men, tho' empower'd to work Miracles, who were of an inferiour Order; as Philip the Deacon. 4thly, That the Power of the Apoſtles for the Performance of this Ordinance, was intirely owing to their ſupe⯑riour Degree in the Miniſtry; and not to any extraordinary Gifts they were endow'd with: For then Philip might have perform'd it; who was not wanting in thoſe Gifts, being himſelf an Evangeliſt, and Worker of Miracles: Which is a Demonſtration, that his Incapacity aroſe frorn his inferior Degree in the Miniſtry.

And now, my Lord, are all Human Benedi⯑ctions Niceties and Trifles? Are the Means of God's Grace in his own Hands alone? Is it wicked, and affronting to God, to ſuppoſe the contrary? How then comes Peter and John to confer the Holy Ghoſt by the Impoſition of their Hands? How comes it, that they appropriate this Of⯑fice to themſelves? Is the Diſpenſation of God's Grace in his own Hands alone? And yet can it be diſpens'd to us by the Miniſtry of ſome Perſons, and not by that of others?

[4] Were the Apoſtles ſo wicked, as to diſtinguiſh themſelves by a Pretence to vain Powers, which God had reſerv'd to himſelf? And which your Lordſhip ſuppoſes from the Title of your Pre⯑ſervative, that it is inconſiſtent with Common Senſe, to imagine that God would, or could have communicated to Men.

Had any of your Lordſhip's well-inſtructed Layity liv'd in the Apoſtles Days, with what Indignation muſt they have rejected this ſenſleſs Chimerical Claim of the Apoſtles? They muſt have ſaid, Why do you, Peter or John, pretend to this Blaſphemous Power? Whilſt we believe the Goſpel, we cannot expect the Grace of God from any Hands but his own. You give us the Holy Ghoſt! You confer the Grace of God! Is it not impious to think, that He ſhould make our Improvement in Grace depend upon your Mini⯑ſtry; or hang our Salvation on any particular Order of Clergymen? We know, that God is Juſt, and Good, and True, and that all depends upon Him and our ſelves, and that Human Be⯑nedictions are Triſles. Therefore whether you Peter, or you Philip, or both, or neither of you lay your Hands upon us, we are neither better nor worſe; but juſt in the ſame State of Grace as we were before.

This Repreſentation, has not one Syllable in it, but what is founded in your Lordſhip's Do⯑ctrine, and perfectly agreeable to it.

[5] The late moſt Pious and Learned Biſhop Beveridge has theſe remarkable Words upon Con⯑firmation: ‘How any Biſhops in our Age dare neglect ſo conſiderable a Part of their Office, I know not; but fear, they will have no good Account to give of it, when they come to ſtand before God's Tribunal ^*.’

But we may juſtly, and therefore I hope, with Decency, ask your Lordſhip, how you dare per⯑form this Part of your Office? For you have condemn'd it as Trifling and Wicked; as Trifling, becauſe it is an Human Benediction; as Wicked, becauſe it ſuppoſes Grace confer'd by the Hands of the Biſhop. If therefore any baptiz'd Perſons ſhould come to your Lordſhip for Confirmation, if you are ſincere in what you have deliver'd, your Lordſhip ought, I humbly conceive, to make them this Declaration.

Pray, my Lord conſider that Paſſage in the Scripture, where the Apoſtle ſpeaks of Leaving the Principles of the Doctrine of Chriſt, and going on unto Perfection; not laying again the Foundation of Repentance from dead Works, of Faith towards God, of the Doctrine of Baptiſms, and of Laying on of Hands, and of the Reſurrection of the Dead, and of eternal Judgment,(Heb. 6. 12.)

My Lord, here it is undeniably plain, that this Laying on of Hands (which is with us called Confirmation) is ſo fundamental a Part of Chriſt's Religion, that it is called one of the Firſt Principles of the Doctrine of Chriſt; and is placed amongſt ſuch primary Truths, as the Reſurrection of the Dead, and of Eternal Judg⯑ment.

St. Cyprian ſpeaking of this Apoſtolical Im⯑poſition of Hands, ſays, The ſame is now pra⯑ctis'd with us; they who have been baptiz'd in the Church, are brought to the Preſidents of the Church, that by our Prayer and Impoſition of Hands, they may receive the Holy Ghoſt, and be conſummated with the Lord's Seal.

And muſt we yet believe, that all Human Be⯑nedictions are Dreams, and the Impoſition of Hu⯑man Hands trifling and uſeleſs; and that to expect God's Graces from them, is to affront [7] him? Tho' the Scriptures expreſsly teach us, that God confers his Grace by means of certain particular Human Hands, and not of others; tho' they tell us, this Human Benediction, this Laying on of Hands, is one of the firſt Principles of the Religion of Chriſt, and as much a Founda⯑tion Doctrine as the Reſurrection of the Dead, and Eternal Judgment; and tho' every Age ſince that of the Apoſtles, has ſtrictly obſerv'd it as ſuch, and the Authority of our own Church ſtill requires the Obſervance of it?

I come now, my Lord, to another Sacred and Divine Inſtitution of Chriſt's Church, which ſtands expos'd and condemn'd by your Lord⯑ſhip's Doctrine; and that is, the Ordination of the Chriſtian Clergy; where, by means of an Human Benediction, and the Impoſition of the Biſhop's Hands, the Holy Ghoſt is ſuppoſed to be confer'd on Perſons towards conſecrating them for the Work of the Miniſtry.

We find it conſtantly taught by the Scriptures, that all Eccleſiaſtical Authority, and the Graces whereby the Clergy are qualified and enabl'd to exerciſe their Functions to the Benefit of the Church, are the Gifts and Graces of the Holy Spirit. Thus the Apoſtle exhorts the Elders to take heed unto the Flock, over which the Holy Ghoſt hath made them Overſeers, (Eph. 4. 7.) But how, my Lord, had the Holy Ghoſt made them Over⯑ſeers, but by the Laying on of the Apoſtles Hands? They were not immediately call'd by the Holy Ghoſt; but being conſecrated by ſuch [8] Human Hands as had been authorized to that pur⯑poſe, they were as truly call'd by him, and ſanctified with Grace for that Employment, as if they had receiv'd an immediate or miraculous Commiſſion. So again, St. Paul puts Timothy in mind, to ſtir up the Gift of God that was in him, by laying on of his Hands, (2 Tim. 2. 6.)

And now, my Lord, if Human Benedictions be ſuch idle Dreams arid Trifles; if it be affronting to God, to expect his Graces from them, or through Human Hands; do we not plainly want new Scriptures? Muſt we not give up the Apo⯑ſtles as Furious High-Church Prelates, who a⯑ſpir'd to preſumptuous Claims, and talk'd of conferring the Graces of God by their own Hands? Was not this Doctrine as ſtrange and unaccountable then, as at preſent? Was it not as inconſiſtent with the Attributes and Sovereignty of God at that time, to have his Graces paſs through other Hands than his own, as in any ſucceeding Age? Nay, my Lord, where ſhall we find any Fathers or Coun⯑cils, in the Primitive Church, but who own'd and aſſerted theſe Powers? They that were ſo ready to part with their Lives, rather than do the leaſt Dishonour to God, or the Chiriſtian Name, yet were all guilty of this horrid Blaſphe⯑my in imagining that they were to bleſs in God's Name; and that by the Benediction and Laying on of the Biſhop's Hands, the Graces of the Holy Ghoſt could be confer'd on any Perſons.

[9] Agreeable to the Sence of Scripture and An⯑tiquity, our Church uſes this Form of Ordina⯑tion: The Biſhop laying his Hands on the Perſon's Head, ſaith, Receive the Holy Ghoſt, for the Office and Work of a Prieſt in the Church of God, commit⯑ted unto thee, by the Impoſition of our Hands. From this Form, it is plain, Firſt, that our Church holds, that the Reception of the Holy Ghoſt is neceſſary to conſtitute a Perſon a Chriſtian Prieſt. 2dly, That the Holy Ghoſt is confer'd through Human Hands. 3dly, That it is by the Hands of a Biſhop that the Holy Ghoſt is confer'd.

If therefore your Lordſhip is right in your Doctrine, the Church of England is evidently moſt corrupt. For if it be diſhonourable and affronting to God, to expect his Grace from any Human Hands; it muſt of neceſſity be diſho⯑nourable and affronting to him, for a Biſhop to pretend to confer it by his Hands. And can that Church be any ways defended, that has e⯑ſtabliſh'd ſuch an Iniquity by Law, and made the Form of it ſo neceſſary? How can your Lordſhip anſwer it to your Layity, for taking the Character or Power of a Biſhop from ſuch a Form of Words? You tell them, it is affront⯑ing to God, to expect his Grace from Human Hands; yet to qualifie your ſelf for a Biſhoprick, you let Human Hands be laid on you, after a manner which directly ſuppoſes you thereby re⯑ceive the Holy Ghoſt! Is it wicked in them to expect it from Human Hands? And is it leſs ſo in [10] your Lordſhip, to pretend to receive it from Hu⯑man Hands? He that believes, it is affronting to God, to expect his Grace from Human Hands, muſt likewiſe believe, that our Form of Ordi⯑nation, which promiſes the Holy Ghoſt by the Biſhop's Hands, muſt be alſo affronting to God. Certainly, he cannot be ſaid to be very jealous of the Honour of God, who will ſubmit him⯑ſelf to be made a Biſhop by a Form of Words derogatory, upon his own Principles, to God's Honour.

Suppoſe your Lordſhip was to have been conſecrated to the Office of a Biſhop by theſe Words; Take thou Power to ſuſtain all things in Be⯑ing given thee by my Hands. I ſuppoſe, your Lord⯑ſhip would think it intirely Unlawful to ſubmit to the Form of ſuch an Ordination. But, my Lord, receive thou the Holy Ghoſt, &c. is as impious a Form, according to your Lordſhip's Doctrine, and equally injurious to the Eternal Power and Godhead, as the other. For if the Grace of God can only be had from his own Hands, would it not be as innocent in the Biſhop to ſay, Re⯑ceive then Power to ſuſtain all things in Being, as to ſay, Receive the Holy Ghoſt, by the Impoſition of my Hands? And would not a Compliance with ei⯑ther Form be equally unlawful? According to your Doctrine, in each of them God's Preroga⯑tive is equally invaded; and therefore the Guilt muſt be the ſame.

[11] It may alſo well be wonder'd, how your Lord⯑ſhip can accept of a Character, which is, or ought to be chiefly diſtinguiſh'd by the Exerciſe of that Power which you diſclaim, as in the Offices of Confirmation and Ordination. For, my Lord, where can be the Sincerity of ſaying, Receive the Holy Ghoſt by the Impoſition of our Hands, when you declare it affronting to God, to expect it from any Hands but his own? Suppoſe your Lordſhip had been preaching to the Layity a⯑gainſt owning any Authority in the Virgin Mary; and yet ſhould acquieſce in the Conditions of being made a Biſhop in her Name, and by re⯑cognizing her Power: Could ſuch a Submiſſion be conſiſtent with Sincerity? Here you forbid the Layity to expect God's Grace from any Hands but his; yet not only accept of an Of⯑fice, upon Suppoſition of the contrary Doctrine; but oblige your ſelf, according to the Sence of the Church wherein you are ordain'd a Biſhop, to act frequently in direct Oppoſition to your own Principles.

So that, I think, it is undeniably plain, that you have at once, my Lord, by theſe Doctrines condemn'd the Scriptures, the Apoſtles, their martyr'd Succeſſors, the Church of England and your own Conduct; and have hereby given us ſome reaſon (tho' I wiſh, there were no Occaſion to mention it) to ſuſpect, whether you, who al⯑low of no other Church, but what is founded in Sincerity, are your ſelf, really a Member of any Church.

[12] I ſhall now proceed to ſay ſomething upon the Conſecration of the Lord's Supper; which is as much expos'd as a Trifle, by your Lordſhip's Doctrine, as the other Inſtitutions. St. Paul ſays. The Cup of Bleſſing which we bleſs, is it not the Communion of the Blood of Chriſt? My Lord, is not this Cup ſtill to be bleſs'd? Muſt there not therefore be ſuch a thing as an Human Benediction? And are Human Benedictions to be all deſpis'd, though by them the Bread and Wine become Means of Grace, and are made the Spiritual Nouriſhment of our Souls? Can any one bleſs this Cup? If not, then there is a Difference be⯑tween Human Benedictions: Some are authori⯑zed by God, and their Bleſſing is effectual; whilſt others, only are vain and preſumptuous. If the Prayer over the Elements, and the Conſe⯑cration, be only a Trifle and a Dream; and it be offenſive to God, to expect they are conver⯑ted into Means of Grace by an Human Benedi⯑ction; why then did St. Paul pretend to bleſs them? Why did he make it the Privilege of the Church? Or, why do we keep up the ſame Solemnity? But if it be to be bleſs'd only by God's Miniſters, then how can your Lordſhip anſwer it to God, for ridiculing and abuſing Human Benedictions; and telling the World, that a particular Order of the Clergy are not of any neceſſity, nor can be of any Advantage to them. For if the Sacrament can only be bleſs'd by God's Miniſters; then ſuch Miniſters are as neceſſary, as the Sacraments themſelves.

[13] St. Paul ſays, the Cup muſt be bleſs'd: If you ſay, any one may bleſs it, then, though you contemn the Benedictions of the Clergy, you allow of them by every body elſe: If every bo⯑dy cannot bleſs it; then, you muſt confeſs, that the Benedictions of ſome Perſons are effectual, where others are not.

My Lord, the great Sin againſt the Holy Ghoſt, was the Denial of his Operation in the Miniſtry of our Saviour. And how near does your Lordſhip come to it, in denying the Ope⯑ration of that ſame Spirit, in the Miniſters whom Chriſt hath ſent? They are employed in the ſame Work that he was. He left his Authority with them; and promis'd, that the Holy Spirit ſhould remain with them to the End of the World; that whatſoever they ſhould bind on Earth, ſhould be bound in Heaven; and what⯑ſoever they ſhould looſe on Earth, ſhould be looſed in Heaven; that whoſoever deſpiſes them, deſpiſes Him, and Him that ſent him. And yet your Lordſhip tells us, we need not to trouble our Heads about any particular Sort of Clergy; that all is to be tranſacted betwixt God and our ſelves; that Human Benedictions are infigniſi⯑cant Trifles.

But pray, what Proof has your Lordſhip for all this? Have you any Scripture for it? Has God any where declar'd, that no Men on Earth have any Authority to bleſs in his Name? Has he any where ſaid, that it is a wicked, preſum⯑ptuous [14] Thing for any one to pretend to it? Has he any where cold us, that it is inconſiſtent with his Honour, to beſtow his Graces by Human Hands? Has he any where told us, that he has no Miniſters, no Embaſſadors on Earth; but that all his Gifts and Graces are to be receiv'd immediately from his own Hands? Have you any Antiquity, Fathers or Councils on your ſide? No: The whole Tenour of Scripture, the whole Current of Tradition is againſt you. Your Novel Doctrine has only this, to recommend it to the Libertines of the Age, who univerſally give into it, that it never was the Opinion of any Church, or Church-man. It is your Lord⯑ship's proper Aſſertion, That we offend God in expecting his Graces from any Hands but his own.

Now it's ſtrange, that God ſhould be offend⯑ed with his own Methods; or that your Lord⯑ſhip ſhould find us out a Way of pleaſing him, more ſuitable to his Nature and Attributes, than what he has taught us in the Scriptures. I call them his own Methods: For what elſe is the whole Jewiſh Diſpenſation, but a Method of God's Providence; where his Bleſſings and Judg⯑ments were diſpens'd by Human Hands? What is the Chriſtian Religion, but a Method of Salva⯑tion, where the chief Means of Grace are of⯑fer'd and diſpens'd by Human Hands? Let me here recommend to your Lordſhip, the excellent Words of a very Learned and Judicious Prelate on this Occaſion.

Your Lordſhip exclaims againſt your Adver⯑ſaries, as ſuch Romantick ſtrange ſort of Men, for talking of Benedictions and Abſolutions, and of the Neceſſity of receiving God's Ordinances from proper Hands: Yet, my Lord, here is an Excellent Biſhop, againſt whoſe Learnings Judg⯑ment and Proteſtantiſm, there can be no Objection; who ſays, if a Perſon have but the Uſe of his Reaſon, he will have nothing to object to any Ordinances of the Goſpel, which make the In⯑tervention of other Men neceſſary towards the Conveyance of them; ſince that has always been God's ordinary Method. The Biſhop does not ſay, it is neceſſary, a Man ſhould be a Great Divine to acknowledge it; ſo he be but a Reaſonable Man, he will allow it. Yet your Lordſhip is ſo far from being this Reaſonable Man, that you think your Adverſaries void both of Reaſon and common Senſe, for teaching it. You expreſsly exclude All Perſons from having any thing to do with our Salvation; and ſay, it wholly depends upon God and our ſelves.

[16] You tell us, that Authoritative Benediction is another of the Terms of Art uſed by your Proteſtant Adverſaries; in which they claim a Right, in one Re⯑gular Succeſſion, of Bleſſing the People ^*. An inge⯑nious Author, my Lord, (in the Opinion of many, if not of moſt of your Friends) calls the Conſecration of the Elements Conjuration ^†; your Lordſhip calls the Sacerdotal Benediction a Term of Art; too plain an Intimation, tho' in more remote and ſomewhat ſofter Terms, that in the Sence of a Certain Father of the Church, her Clergy are little better than ſo many Jug⯑glers.

Your Lordſhip ſays, If they only meant hereby to declare upon what Terms God will give his Bleſſings to Chriſtians, or to expreſs their own hearty Wiſhes for them, this might be underſtood. So it might, my Lord, very eaſily; and, I ſuppoſe, every body underſtands that they may do this, whether they be Clergy or Layity, Men or Women: For I preſume, any one may declare what he takes to be the Terms of the Goſpel, and wiſh that o⯑thers may faithfully obſerve them. But I hum⯑bly preſume, my Lord, that the Good Biſhop above-mention'd, meant ſomething more than this, when he ſpake of Ordinances, which make the Intervention of other Men neceſſary to our Salva⯑tion, and of God's diſpenſing his Bleſſings in virtue of them through their Hands.

[17] There is a ſuperſtitious Cuſtom (in your Lordſhip's Account it muſt be ſo) yet remaining in moſt Places, of ſending for a Clergyman to miniſter to ſick Perſons in imminent Danger of Death: Even thoſe who have abus'd the Clergy all their Lives long, are glad to beg their Aſſiſt⯑ance when they apprehend themſelves upon the Confines of another World. There is no reaſon, my Lord, to diſlike this Practice, but as it ſup⯑poſes a Difference between the Sacerdotal Prayers and Benedictions. and thoſe of a Nurſe.

We read, my Lord, that God would not heal Abimelech, tho' he knew the Integrity of his Heart, till Abraham had prayed for him. He is a Prophet, ſaid God, he ſhall pray for thee, and thou ſhalt live, (Gen. 20. 7.)

Pray, my Lord, was not God Juſt, and Good, and True, in the Days of Abraham, as He is now? Yet you ſee, Abimelech's Integrity was not available it ſelf. He was to be pardon'd by the Prayer of Abraham; and his Prayer was effe⯑ctual; and ſo repreſented, becauſe it was the Prayer of a Prophet.

Suppoſe, my Lord, that Abimelech had ſaid with your Lordſhip, That it is affronting to God, that we ſhould expect his Graces from any Hands but his own; that all is to be tranſacted between God and our ſelves; and ſo had rejected the Prayer of A⯑braham, as a mere Eſſay of Prophet-Craft; He had then acted with as much Prudence and Piety as [18] your Lordſhip's Layity would do, if you could per⯑ſuade them to deſpiſe Benedictions and Abſolutions, to regard no particular ſort of Clergy; but intirely depend upon God and themſelves, without any other Aſſiſtance whatever.

We read alſo, that Joſhua was full of the Spirit of Wiſdom; for Moſes had laid his Hands upon him, (Deut. 34. 9.) Was it not as abſurd, my Lord, in the Days of Joſhua, for Human Hands to bleſs, as it is now? Did there not then lie the ſame Ob⯑jection againſt Moſes, that there does now againſt the Chriſtian Clergy? Had Moſes any more Na⯑tural Power to give the Spirit of Wiſdom, &c. by his Hands, than the Clergy have to confer Grace by theirs? They are both equally weak and in⯑ſufficient for theſe Purpoſes, of themſelves, and equally powerful when it pleaſes God to make them ſo.

Again, when Eliphaz, and his Friends had diſ⯑pleaſed God, they were not to be reconciled to God by their own Repentance, or tranſact that Matter only between God and themſelves; but they were refer'd to apply to Job. My Servant Job ſhall pray for you; for him will I accept, (Job 42. 8.) Might not Eliphaz, here have ſaid, ſhall I ſo far affront God, as to think I can't be bleſs'd with⯑out the Prayers of Job? Shall I be ſo weak or ſenſeleſs, as to imagine, my own Supplications and Repentance will not ſave me; or that I need apply to any one but God alone, to quail⯑fie me for the Reception of his Grace?

[19] Again, The Lord ſpake unto Moſes, ſaying, ſpeak unto Aaron and his Sons, ſaying, on this wiſe ſhall ye bleſs the Children of Iſrael, ſaying unto them, The Lord bleſs and keep thee, &c. and I will bleſs them, (Numb. 6. 22.)

Again, The Prieſts of the Sous of Levi ſhall come near; for them hath the Lord thy God choſen to mini⯑ſter unto him, and to bleſs in the Name of the Lord, (Deut. 21. 5.)

Now, my Lord, this is what we mean by the Authoritative Adminiſtrations of the Chriſtian Clergy; whether they be by way of Benedicti⯑on, or of any other kind. We take them to be Perſons whom God has choſen to miniſter unto him, and to bleſs in his Name. We ima⯑gine, that our Saviour was a greater Prieſt and Mediator than Aaron, or any of God's former Miniſters. We are aſſur'd,, that Chriſt ſent his Apoſtles, as his Father had ſent him; and that therefore they were his true Succeſſors: And ſince they did commiſſion others to ſucceed them in their Office, by the Impoſition of Hands, as Moſes commiſſion'd Joſhua to ſucceed him; the Clergy who have ſucceeded the Apoſtles, have as Divine a Call and Commiſſion to their Work, as thoſe who were call'd by our Saviour; and are as truly his Succeſſors, as the Apoſtles themſelves were.

[20] From the Places of Scripture above mention⯑ed, it is evident; and indeed, from the whole Tenour of Sacred Writ, that it may conſiſt with the Goodneſs and Juſtice of God to depute Men to act in his Name, and be miniſterial towards the Salvation of others; and to lay a Neceſſity upon his Creatures of qualifying themſelves for his Fa⯑vour, and receiving his Graces by the Hands and Intervention of mere Men.

But, my Lord, if there be now any Set of Men upon Earth, that are more peculiarly God's Miniſters, than others; and thro whoſe Admini⯑ſtrations, Prayers, and Benedictions, God will accept of returning Sinners, and receive them to Grace; you have done all you can, to prejudice People againſt them: You have taught the Layi⯑ty, that all is to be tranſacted between God and themſelves; and that they need not value any particular ſort of Clergy in the World.

I leave it to the Great Judge and Searcher of Hearts, to judge, from what Principles, or up⯑on what Motives your Lordſhip has been induc'd to teach teſethings: But muſt declare, that for my own part, if I had the greateſt Ha⯑tred to Chriſtianity, I ſhould think, it could not be more expreſs'd, than by teaching what your Lordſhip has publickly taught. If I could re⯑joice in the Miſery and Ruin of Sinners, I ſhould think it ſufficient Matter of Triumph, to drive them from the Miniſters of God, and to put them upon inventing new Schemes of ſaving [21] themſelves, inſtead of ſubmitting to the ordinary Methods of Salvation appointed by God.

It will not follow from any thing I have ſaid, that the Layity have loſt their Chriſtian Liber⯑ty; or that no body can be ſav'd, but whom the Clergy pleaſe to ſave; that they have the arbi⯑trary Diſpoſal of Happineſs to Mankind. Was Abimelech's Happineſs in the Diſpoſition of A⯑braham, becauſe he was to be receiv'd by means of Abraham's Interceſſion? Or could Job damn Eliphaz, becauſe he was to mediate for him, and procure his Reconciliation to God.

Neither, my Lord, do the Chriſtian Clergy pretend to this deſpotick Empire over their Flocks: They don't aſſume to themſelves a Pow⯑er to damn the Innocent, or to ſave the Guilty: But they aſſert a ſober and juſt Right to recon⯑cile Men to God; and to act in his Name, in reſtoring them to his Favour. They receiv'd their Commiſſion from thoſe whom Chriſt ſent with full Authority to ſend others, and with a Promiſe that he would be with them to the End of the World. From this they conclude, that they have his Authority; and that in conſe⯑quence of it, their Adminiſtrations are neceſſary, and effectual to the Salvation of Mankind; and that none can deſpiſe Them, but who deſpiſe Him that ſent them; and are as ſurely out of the Covenant of Grace, when they leave ſuch his Paſtors, as when they openly deſpiſe, or omit to receive his Sacraments.

[22] And what is there in this Doctrine, my Lord, to terrifie the Conſciences of the Layity? What is there here, to bring the prophane Scandal of Prieſtcraft upon the Clergy? Could it be any ground of Abimelech's hating Abraham, becauſe that Abraham was to reconcile him to God? Could Eliphaz, juſtly have any Prejudice againſt Job, becauſe God would hear Job's Interceſſion for him? Why, then, my Lord, muſt the Chri⯑stian Prieſthood be ſo horrid and hateful an In⯑ſtitution, becauſe the Deſign of it is to reſtore Men to the Grace and Favour of God? Why muſt we be abus'd and inſulted, for being ſent upon the Errand of Salvation, and made Mini⯑ſters of eternal Happineſs to our Brethren? There is a Woe due to us if we preach not the Goſpel, or neglect thoſe miniſterial Offices that Chriſt has entruſted to us. We are to watch for their Souls, as thoſe who are to give an Ac⯑count. Why then muſt we be treated as arro⯑gant Prieſts, or Popiſhly affected, for pretending to have any thing to do in the Diſcharge of our Miniſtry, with the Salvation of Men? Why muſt we be reproach'd with Blaſphemous Claims, and Abſurd Senſeleſs Powers▪ for aſſuming to bleſs in God's Name; or thinking our Adminiſtrati⯑ons more effectual, than the Office of a common Layman?

But farther, to what purpoſe does your Lord⯑ſhip except againſt theſe Powers in the Clergy? from their common Frailties and Infirmities with the reſt of Mankind? Were not Abraham, and Job, [23] and the Jewiſh Prieſts, Men of like Paſ⯑ſions with us? Did not our Saviour command the Jews to apply to their Prieſts, notwithſtanding their Perſonal Faults, becauſe they ſat in Mo⯑ſes's Chair? Did not the Apoſtles aſſure their Followers, that they were Men of like Paſſions with them? But did they therefore diſclaim their Miſſion, or Apoſtolical Authority? Did they teach, that their Natural Infirmities made them leſs the Miniſters of God, or leſs neceſſary to the Salvation of Men? Their Per⯑ſonal Defects did not make them depart from the Claim of thoſe Powers they were inveſted with, or deſert their Miniſtry: But indeed, gave St. Paul Occaſion to ſay, We have this Treaſure in Ear⯑then Veſſels, (i.e. this Authority committed to mere Men) that the Excellency of it may be of God, and not of Men. The Apoſtle happens to differ very much from your Lordſhip. He ſays, ſuch weak Inſtruments were made uſe of, that the Glory might redound to God? Your Lordſhip ſays, to ſuppoſe ſuch Inſtruments to be of any Benefit to us, is to leſſen the Sovereignty of God, and in conſequence, his Glory.

Your Lordſhip imagines, you have ſufficiently deſtroy'd the Sacerdotal Powers, by ſhewing, that the Clergy are only Men, and ſubject to the common Frailties of Mankind. My Lord, we own the Charge; and don't claim any Sacerdo⯑tal Powers from our Perſonal Abilities, or to ac⯑quire any Glory to our ſelves. But, weak as we are, we are God's Miniſters; and if we are ei⯑ther afraid or aſham'd of our Duty, we muſt pe⯑riſh [24] in the Guilt. But is a Prophet therefore proud, becauſe he inſiſts upon the Authority of his Miſſion? Can't a Mortal be God's Meſſen⯑ger, and employ'd in his Affairs, but he muſt be inſolent and aſſuming, for having the Reſolution to own it? If we are to be reprov'd, for preten⯑ding to be God's Miniſters, becauſe we are but Men, the Reproach will fall upon Providence; ſince it has pleaſed God, chiefly to tranſact his Affairs with Mankind, by the Miniſtry of their Brethren.

Your Lordſhip has not One Word from Scrip⯑ture againſt theſe Sacerdotal Powers; no Proof, that Chriſt has not ſent Men to be effectual Ad⯑miniſtrators of his Graces: You only aſſert, that there can be no ſuch Miniſters, becauſe they are mere Men.

Now, my Lord, I muſt beg leave to ſay, that if the Natural Weakneſs of Men makes them in⯑capable of being the Instruments of conveying Grace to their Brethren; if the Clergy can't be of any Uſe or Neceſſity to their Flocks, for this Reaſon; then it undeniably follows, that there can be no poſitive Inſtitutions in the Chri⯑ſtian Religion, that can procure any Spiritual Advantages to the Members of it; then the Sa⯑craments can be no longer any Means of Grace. For, I hope, no one thinks, that Bread and Wine have any natural Force or Efficacy, to convey Grace to the Soul. The Water in Baptiſm has the common Qualities of Water, and is deſtitute of any intrinſick Power to cleanſe the Soul, or [25] purifie from Sin. But your Lordſhip will not ſay, becauſe it has only the common Name of Water, that therefore it cannot be a Means of Grace. Why then may not the Clergy tho' they have the common Nature of Men, be conſtituted by God, to convey his Graces, and to be miniſte⯑rial to the Salvation of their Brethren? Can God conſecrate inanimate Things to Spiritual Pur⯑poſes, and make them the Means of Eternal Happineſs? And is Man the only Creature that he can't make ſubſervient to his Deſigns? The only Being who is too Weak for an Omnipotent God to render effectual towards attaining the Ends of his Grace?

Is it juſt and reaſonable, to reject and deſpiſe the Miniſtry and Benedictions of Men, becauſe they are Men like our ſelves? And is it not as reaſo⯑nable, to deſpiſe the ſprinkling of Water, a Creature below us, a ſenſeleſs and inanimate Creature?

Your Lordſhip therefore, muſt either find us ſome other Reaſon for rejecting the Neceſſity of Human Adminiſtrations, than becauſe they are Human; or elſe give up the Sacraments, and all Poſitive Inſtitutions along with them.

Surely, your Lordſhip muſt have a mighty O⯑pinion of Naaman the Syrian; who, when the Prophet bid him go waſh in Jordan ſeven times, to the end he might be clean from his Leproſie, Very wiſely remonſtrated. Are not Abana and Phar⯑lPar, Rivers of Damaſcus, better than all the Waters of Iſrael?

[26] This, my Lord, diſcover'd Naaman's great Li⯑berty of Mind; and 'tis much this has not been produc'd before, as an Argument of his being a Free-Thinker. He took the Water of Jordan to be only Water; as your Lordſhip juſtly obſerves a Clergyman to be only a Man: And if you had been with him, you could have inform'd him, that the waſhing ſeven times was a mere Nicety and Trifle of the Prophet; and that ſince it is God alone who can work miraculous Cures, we ought not to think, that they depend upon any external Means, or any ſtated Number of re⯑peating them.

This, my Lord, is the true Scope and Spirit of your Argument: If the Syrian was right in deſpiſing the Water of Jordan, becauſe it was only [...]; your Lordſhip may be right in deſpiſing any particular Order of Clergy; becauſe they are but Men. Your Lordſhip is certainly as right, or as wrong, as he was.

And now, my Lord, let the common Sence of Mankind here judge, whether, if the Clergy are to be eſteem'd as having no Authority, becauſe they are mere Men; it does not plainly follow, that every thing elſe, every Inſtitution that has not ſome natural Force and Power to produce the Effects deſigned by it, is not alſo to be rejected as equally Trifling and Ineffectual.

[27] The Sum of the matter is this: It appears from many expreſs Facts, and indeed, from the whole Series of God's Providence, that it is not only conſiſtent with his Attributes; but alſo agree⯑able to his ordinary Methods of dealing with Mankind, that he ſhould ſubſtitute Men to act in his Name, and be Authoritatively employ'd in conferring his Grace and Favours upon Man⯑kind. It appears, that your Lordſhip's Argument againſt the Authoritative Adminiſtrations of the Chriſtian Clergy, does not only contradict thoſe Facts, and condemn the ordinary Method of God's Diſpenſations; but likewiſe proves the Sacraments, and every poſitive Inſtitution of Chriſtianity to be ineffectual, and as mere Dreams and Trifles, as the ſeveral Offices and Orders of the Clergy.

This, I hope, will be eſteem'd a ſufficient Con⯑futation of your Lordſhip's Doctrine, by all who have any true Regard or Zeal for the Chriſtian Religion; and only expect to be ſav'd by the Methods of Divine Grace propos'd in the Goſ⯑pel.

I ſhall now in a Word or two ſet forth the Sacredneſs of the Eccleſiaſtical Character, as it is founded in the New Teſtament; with a par⯑ticular regard to the Power of conferring Grace, and the Efficacy of Human Benedictions.]

[28] It appears therein, that all Sacerdotal Power as deriv'd from the Holy Ghoſt. Our Saviour himſelf took not the Minſtry upon him, till he had this Conſecration: And during the time of his Miniſtry he was under the Guidance and Direction of the Holy Ghoſt. Thro' the Holy Spirit he gave Commandment to the Apoſtles whom he had choſen. When he ordain'd them to the Work of the Miniſtry, it was with theſe Words, Receive the Holy Ghoſt. Thoſe whom the Apoſtles ordain'd to the ſame Function, it was by the ſame Authority: They laid their Hands upon the Elders, exhorting them to take care of she Flock of Chriſt, over which the Holy Ghoſt had made them Overſeers.

Hereby they plainly declar'd, that however this Office was to deſcend from Man to Man through Human Hands, that it was the Holy Ghoſt which conſecrated them to that Employment, and gave them Authority to execute it.

From this it is alſo manifeſt, that the Prieſthood is a Grace of the Holy Ghoſt; that it is not a Function founded in the Natural or Civil Rights of Mankind; but is deriv'd from the Special Authority of the Holy Ghoſt; and is as truly a poſitive Inſtitution as the Sacraments. So that they who have no Authority to alter the Old Sa⯑craments, and ſubſtitute New ones, have no Pow⯑er to alter the Old Order of the Clergy, or in⯑troduce any other Order of them.

[29] For why can we not change the Sacraments? Is it not, becauſe they are only Sacraments, and operate as they are inſtituted by the Holy Ghoſt? Becauſe they are uſeleſs ineffectual Rites without this Authority? And does not the ſame Reaſon hold as well for the Order of the Clergy? Does not the ſame Scripture tell us, they are equally inſtituted by the Holy Ghoſt, and oblige only by virtue of his Authority? How abſurd is it therefore, to pretend to aboliſh, or depart from the Settled Order of the Clergy, to make New Orders, and think any God's Miniſters, unleſs we had his Authority, and could make New Sacraments, or a New Religion?

My Lord, how comes it, that we cannot alter the Scriptures? Is it not, becauſe they are Di⯑vinely inſpir'd, and dictated by the Holy Ghoſt? And ſince it is expreſs Scripture, that the Prieſt⯑hood is inſtituted and authoriz'd by the ſame Ho⯑ly Spirit, why is not the Holy Ghoſt as much to be regarded in one Inſtitution, as in another? Why may we not as well make a Goſpel, and ſay, it was writ by the Holy Ghoſt, as make a New Order of Clergy, and call them His; or e⯑ſteem them as having any relation to him?

From this it likewiſe appears, that there is an abſolute Neceſſity of a ſtrict Succeſſion of Au⯑thoriz'd Ordainers, from the Apoſtolical Times, in order to conſtitute a Chriſtian Prieſt. For ſince a Commiſſion from the Holy Ghoſt is neceſſary for the Exerciſe of this Office; no one now can [30] receive it, but from thoſe who have deriv'd their Authority in a true Succeſſion, from the Apo⯑ſtles. We could not, my Lord, call our preſent Bibles the Word of God, unleſs we knew the Co⯑pies from which they are taken, were taken from other true ones, till we come to the Originals themſelves. No more could we call any True Miniſters, or Authoriz'd by the Holy Ghoſt, who have not receiv'd their Commiſſion by an unin⯑terrupted Succeſſion of Lawful Ordainers.

What an Excellent Divine would he be, who ſhould tell the World, it was not neceſſary that the ſeveral Copies and Manuſcripts, through which the Scriptures have been tranſmitted thro' different Ages and Languages, ſhould be all true ones, and none of them forg'd; that this was a thing ſubject to ſo great Uncertainty, that God could not hang our Salvation on ſuch Niceties. Suppoſe, for Proof of this, he ſhould appeal to the Scrip⯑tures; and ask, where any Mention is made of aſcertaining the Truth of all the Copies? Would not this be a Way of Arguing very Theological? The Application is very eaſie.

Your Lordſhip has not one Word to prove the uninterrupted Succeſſion of the Clergy a Triſte or Dream; but that it is ſubject to ſo great Un⯑certainty, and is never mention'd in the Scrip⯑tures. And to the Uncertainty of it, it is equally as uncertain, as whether the Scriptures be genuine. There is juſt the ſame ſufficient Hiſtorical Evi⯑dence for the Certainty of one, as the other. As to its not being mention'd in the Scripture, [31] the Doctrine upon which it is founded, plainly made it unneceſſary to mention it. Is it need⯑ful for the Scriptures to tell us, that if we take our Bible from any falſe Copy, that it is not the Word of God? Why then need they tell us, that if we are Ordain'd by Uſurping Falſe Pretend⯑ers to Ordination, not deriving their Authority to that end from the Apoſtles, that we are no Prieſts? Does not the thing it ſelf ſpeak as plain in one Caſe, as in the other? The Scriptures are only of uſe to us, as they are the Word of God: We cannot have this Word of God, which was written ſo many Years ago, unleſs we receive it from Authentick Copies and Manuſcripts.

The Clergy have their Commiſſion from the Holy Ghoſt: The Power of conferring this Commiſſion of the Holy Ghoſt, was left with the Apoſtles: Therefore the preſent Clergy can⯑not have the ſame Commiſſion, or Call, but from an Order of Men, who have ſucceſſively con⯑vey'd his Power from the Apoſtles to the preſent time. So that, my Lord, I ſhall beg leave to lay it down, as a plain, undeniable, Chriſtian Truth, that the Order of the Clergy is an Order of as neceſſary Obligation, as the Sacraments; and as unalterable as the Holy Scriptures; the ſame Holy Ghoſt being as truly the Author and Founder of the Prieſthood, as the Inſtitutor of the Sacraments, or the Inſpirer of thoſe Divine Oracles. And when your Lordſhip ſhall offer any freſh Arguments to prove, that no particular ſort of Clergy is neceſſary; that the Benedicti⯑ons and Adminiſtrations of the preſent Clergy [32] of our moſt Excellent Church, are Trifling Niceties; if I cannot ſhew, that the ſame Argu⯑ments will conclude againſt the Authority of the Sacraments and the Scriptures, I faithfully pro⯑miſe your Lordſhip to become a Convert to your Doctrine.

What your Lordſhip charges upon your Ad⯑verſaries, as an Abſurd Doctrine, in pretending the Neceſſity of one regular, ſucceſſive, and particular Order of the Clergy, is a True Chri⯑ſtian Doctrine; and as certain from Scripture, as that we are to keep to the Inſtitution of par⯑ticular Sacraments; or not to alter thoſe parti⯑cular Scriptures, which now compoſe the Canon of the Old and New Teſtament.

By Authoritative Benediction, we do not mean any Natural or Intrinſick Authority of our own: But a Commiſſion from God, to be Effectual Adminiſtrators of his Ordnances, and to bleſs in his Name. Thus, a Perſon who is ſent from God to foretel things, of which he had before no Knowledge or Notion, or to denounce Judgments, which he has no Natural Power to execute, may be truly ſaid to be an Authoritative Prophet; becauſe he has the Authority of God for what he does. Thus, when the Biſhop is ſaid to confer Grace in Confirmation; this is properly an Authoritative Benediction; becauſe he is then as truly doing what God has commiſſion'd him to do, as when a Prophet declares upon what Er⯑rand he is ſent.

[33] 'Tis in this Sence, my Lord, that the People are ſaid to be Authoritatively bleſs'd by the Re⯑gular Clergy; becauſe they are God's Clergy, and act by his Commiſſion; bacauſe by their Hands the People receive the Graces and Benefits of God's Ordinances; which they have no more Reaſon to expect from other Miniſters of their own Election, or if the Word may be us'd in an abuſive Sence, of their own Conſecration, than to receive Grace from Sacraments of their own Appointment. The Scriptures teach us, that the Holy Ghoſt has inſtituted an Order of Clergy: We ſay, a Prieſthood ſo authoriz'd, can no more be chang'd by us, than we can change the Scriptures, or make New Sacra⯑ments, becauſe they are all founded on the ſame Authority, without any Power of a Diſpenſation delegated to us in one Caſe more than in another. If therefore we have a mind to continue in the Covenant of Chriſt, and receive the Grace and Benefit of his Ordi⯑nances, we muſt receive them through ſuch Hands as he has authoriz'd for that Purpoſe, to the end we may be qualify'd to partake the Bleſſings of them. For as a True Prieſt can⯑not benefit us by adminiſtring a Falſe Sacra⯑ment; ſo a True Sacrament is nothing, when it is adminiſtred by a Falſe Uncommiſſion'd Mi⯑niſter. Beſides this Benediction which attends the Ordinances of God, when they are thus perform'd by authoriz'd Hands; there is a Be⯑nediction of Prayer, which we may juſtly think very effectual, when pronounc'd or diſpens'd by the ſame Hands.

[34] Thus when the Biſhop or Prieſt intercedes for the Congregation, or pronounces the Apoſto⯑lical Benediction upon them, we do not con⯑ſider this barely as an Act of Charity and Humanity, of one Chriſtian praying for ano⯑ther; but as the Work of a Perſon who is commiſſion'd by God▪ to bleſs in his Name, and be effectually miniſterial in the Conveyance of his Graces; or as the Prayer of one who is left with us in Chriſt's ſtead, to carry on his great Deſign of ſaving us; and whoſe Bene⯑dictions are ever ratify'd in Heaven, but when we render our ſelves, in one reſpect or other, incapable of them.

Now, my Lord, they are theſe Sacerdotal Prayers, theſe Authoriz'd Sacraments, theſe Com⯑miſſion'd Paſtors, whom the Holy Ghoſt has made Overſeers of the Flock of Chriſt, that your Lordſhip encourages the Layity to de⯑ſpiſe. You bid them contemn the vain Words of Validity or Invalidity of God's Ordinances; to heed no particular ſort of Clergy, or the pretended Ne⯑ceſſity of their Adminiſtrations.

Your Lordſhip ſets up in this Controverſie for an Advocate for the Layity, againſt the Arrogant Pretences, and Falſe Claims of the Cler⯑gy. My Lord, we are no more contending for our ſelves in this Doctrine, than when we inſiſt upon any Article in the Creed. Nei⯑ther is it any more our particular Cauſe, when we aſſert our Miſſion, than when we aſſert the Neceſſity of the Sacraments.

[35] Who is to receive the Benefit of that Com⯑miſſion which we aſſert, but They? Who is to ſuffer, if we pretend a Falſe one, but Our ſelves? Sad Injury, indeed, offer'd to the Layi⯑ty! That we ſhould affect to be thought Mi⯑niſters of God for their ſakes! If we really are ſo, they are to receive the Benefit; if not; we are to bear the Puniſhment.

But your Lordſhip comes too late in this glorious Undertaking, to receive the Repu⯑tation of it: The Work has been already, in the Opinion of moſt People, better done to your Lordſhip's hands. The Famous Author of the Rights of the Chriſtian Church, has carry'd this Chriſtian Liberty to as great Heights as your Lordſhip. And tho' you have not one Noti⯑on, I can recollect, that has given Offence▪ to the World, but what ſeems taken from that pernicious Book; yet your Lordſhip is not ſo juſt, as ever once to cite or mention the Au⯑thor; who, if your Lordſhip's Doctrine be true, deſerves to have a Statue erected to his Honour, and receive every Mark of Eſteem which is due to the greateſt Reformer of Re⯑ligion.

Did not mine own Eyes allure me, that he has caſt no Contempt upon the Church, no Re⯑proach upon the Evangelical Inſtitutions, or the Sacred Function, but what has been ſecon⯑ded by your Lnrdſhip, I would never have plac'd your Lordſhip in the ſame View with [36] ſo ſcandalous a Declaimer againſt the Ordinan⯑nances of Chriſt. Whether I am right or not, in this Charge, I freely leave to the Judgment of thoſe to determine, who are acquainted with both your Works. Yet this Author, my Lord, has been treated by the greateſt and beſt Part of the Nation, as a Free-thinking Infidel. But for what my Lord? Not that he has declar'd a⯑gainſt the Scriptures; not that he has rejected Revelation; (we are not, bleſſed be God, ſtill ſo far corrupted with the Principles of Infide⯑lity) but becauſe he has reproach'd every par⯑ticular Church, as ſuch, and deny'd all Obli⯑gation to Communion; becauſe he has expos'd Benedictions, Abſolutions and Excommunicati⯑ons; deny'd the Divine Right of the Clergy, and ridicul'd the pretended Sacredneſs and Ne⯑ceſſity of their Adminiſtrations, as mere Nice⯑ties and Trifles, tho' commonly in more di⯑ſtant, I was going to ſay, more decent Ways: In a word, becauſe he made all Churches, all Prieſts, all Sacraments, however adminiſtred, equally valid, and deny'd any particular Me⯑thod neceſſary to Salvation. Yet after all this prophane Declamation, he allows, my Lord, that Religious Offices may be appropriated to particular Men, call'd Clergy, for Order ſake only; and not on the Account of any peculiar Spiritual Advan⯑tages, Powers or Privileges, which thoſe who art ſet apart for them, have from Heaven ^*.

[37] Agreeable to this, your Lordſhip owns, that you are not againſt the Order, or Decency, or Sub⯑ordination belonging to Chriſtian Societies ^*.

But, pray, my Lord, do you mean any more by this, than the above-mention'd Author? Is it for any thing, but the ſake of a little external Order or Conveniency? Is there any Chriſtian Law that obliges to obſerve this kind of Order? Is there any real eſſential Difference between Per⯑ſons rank'd into this Order? Is it a Sin for any body, eſpecially the Civil Magiſtrate, to leave this Order, and make what other Orders he prefers to it? This your Lordſhip cannot reſolve in the Affirmative; for then you muſt allow, that ſome Communions are ſafer than others, and that ſome Clergy have more Authority than others.

Will your Lordſhip ſay, that no particular Or⯑der can be neceſſary; yet ſome Order neceſſary, which may be different in different Commu⯑nions? This cannot hold good upon your Lord⯑ſhip's Principles: For ſince Chriſt has left no Law about any Order, no Members of any par⯑ticular Communion need ſubmit to that Order; ſince it is confeſs'd by your Lordſhip, That in Religion no Laws, but thoſe of Chriſt, are of any Obligation. So that, tho' you don't diſ⯑claim all external Order and Decency your [38] ſelf, yet you have taught other People to do it if they pleaſe, and as much as they pleaſe.

Suppoſe, my Lord, ſome Layman, upon a Pretence of your Lordſhip's Abſence, or any other, ſhould go into the Dloceſs of Bangor, and there pretend to Ordain Clergymen; could your Lordſhip quote one Text of Scri⯑pture againſt him? Could you alledge any Law of Chriſt, or his Apoſtles, that he had broken? Could you prove him guilty of any Sin? No, my Lord, you would not do that; becauſe this would be acknowledging ſuch a thing as a Sinful Ordination; and if there be Sin⯑ful Ordinations, then there muſ be ſome Law concerning Ordinations: For Sin is the Tranſ⯑greſſion of the Law: And if there be a Law con⯑cerning Ordinations, then we muſt keep to the Clergy lawfully Ordain'd; and muſt confeſs, after all your Lordſhip has ſaid, or can ſay, that ſtill ſome Communions are ſafer than others.

If you ſhould reprove ſuch a one, as an Eng⯑liſhman, for acting in Oppoſition to the Engliſh Laws of Decency and Order; he would anſwer, That he has nothing to do with ſuch Trifles; That Chriſt was ſole Lawgiver in his King⯑dom; That he was content to have his King⯑dom as Orderly and Decent as Chriſt had left it; and ſince he had inſtituted no Laws in that matter, it was preſuming for others to take upon them to add any thing by way of Order or Decency, by Laws of their own: That as he had as much Authority from [39] Chriſt, to Ordain Clergy, as your Lordſhip, he would not depart from his Chriſtian Li⯑berty.

If he ſhould remonſtrate to your Lordſhip in theſe, or Words to the like effect, he would only reduce your Lordſhip's own Doctrine to Practice. This, my Lord, is pare of that Con⯑fuſion the Learned Dr. Snape has charged you with being the Author of, in the Church of God. And all Perſons, my Lord, whom you have taught not to regard any particular ſort of Clergy, muſt know (if they have the common Senſe to which you appeal) that then no Cler⯑gy are at all neceſſary; and that it's as lawful for any Man to be his own Prieſt, as to ſolli⯑cit his own Cauſe. For to ſay, that no particu⯑lar ſort of Clergy are neceſſary, and yet that in general, the Clergy are neceſſary, is the ſame as to ſay, that Truth is neceſſary to be believ'd; yet the Belief of no particular Truth is ne⯑ceſſary.

The next thing to be conſider'd, my Lord, is your Doctrine concerning Abſolutions. You begin thus: The ſame you will find a ſufficient Reply to their preſumptuous Claim to an Authoritative Abſolution. An infallible Abſolution cannot belong to fallible Men. But no Abſolution can be Authoritative, which is not Infallible. Therefore no Authoritative Ab⯑ſolution can belong to any Man living.^*

[40] I muſt obſerve here, your Lordſhip does not reject this Abſolution, becauſe the Claim of it is not founded in Scripture; but by an Argument drawn from the nature of the Thing: Becauſe you imagine, ſuch Abſolution requires Infallibi⯑lity for the Execution of it; therefore it can⯑not belong to Men. Should this be true, it would prove, that if our Saviour had really ſo intended, he could not have given this Power to his Miniſters. But, my Lord, who can ſee any Repugnancy in the Reaſon of the Thing it ſelf? Is it not as eaſie to conceive, that our Lord ſhould confer his Grace of Pardon by the Hands of his Miniſters, as by Means of the Sacra⯑ments? And may not ſuch Abſolution be juſtly called Authoritative, the Power of which is gran⯑ted, and executed by his Authority?

Is it impoſſible for Men to have this Authori⯑ty from God, becauſe they may miſtake in the Exerciſe of it? This Argument proves too much; and makes as ſhort work with every In⯑ſtitution of Chriſtianity, as with this Power of Abſolution.

For if it is impoſſible, that Men ſhould have Authority from God to Abſolve in his Name, becauſe they are not Infallible; this makes them equally incapable of being entruſted with any other Means of Grace; and conſequently, ſuppoſes the whole Prieſts Office to imply a di⯑rect Impoſſbility in the very Notion of it.

[41] Your Lordſhip's Argument is this: Chriſtians have their Sins pardon'd upon certain Conditi⯑ons; but Fallible Men cannot certainly know theſe Conditions; therefore Fallible Men cannot have Authority to Abſolve.

From hence I take occaſion to argue thus: Perſons are to be admitted to the Sacraments on certain Conditions; But Fallible Men can⯑not tell, whether they come qualified to receive them according to theſe Conditions; Therefore Fallible Men cannot have Authority to admi⯑niſter the Sacraments.

2dly, This Argument ſubverts all Authority of the Chriſtian Religion it ſelf, and the Rea⯑ſon of every inſtituted Means of Grace. For if nothing can be Authoritative, but what a Man is infallibly aſſured of; then the Chriſtian Religion cannot be an Authoritative Method of Salvation; ſince a Man, by being a Chriſtian, does not become infallibly certain of his Salvati⯑on: Nor does Grace infallibly attend the Parti⯑cipation of the Sacraments. So that tho' your Lordſhip has form'd this Argument only againſt this Abſolving Power; yet it has as much Force againſt the Sacraments, and the Chriſtian Re⯑ligion it ſelf. For if it be abſurd to ſuppoſe, that the Prieſt ſhould abſolve any one, becauſe he cannot be certain that he deſerves Abſolution; does it not imply the ſame Abſurdity, to ſuppoſe, that he ſhould have the Power of Adminiſtring the Sacraments, when he cannot be infallibly [42] rtain, that thoſe who receive them, are duly qualified? If a Poſſibility of Error deſtroys the Power in one Caſe, it as certainly deſtroys it in the other. Again, if Abſolution cannot be Authoritative, unleſs it be Infallible; then, it is plain, that the Chriſtian Religion is not an Authoritative Means of Salvation; becauſe all Chriſtians are not infallibly ſav'd: Nor can the Sacraments be Authoritative Means of Grace; becauſe all who partake of them, do not infalli⯑bly obtain Grace.

Your Lordſhip proceeds with your Layity by way of Expoſtulation: If they amuſe you with that Power which Chriſt left with his Apoſtles, Whoſe ſoever Sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whoſe ſoever Sins ye retain, they are re⯑tained unto them^*.

But why amuſe, my Lord? Are the Texts of Holy Scripture to be treated as only Matter of Amuſement? Or does your Lordſhip know of a⯑ny Age in the Church, when the very ſame Do⯑ctrine which we now teach, has not been taught from the ſame Texts?

Do you know any Succeſſors of the Apoſtles, that thought the Power there ſpecify'd, did not belong them? But however, your Lordſhip has taught your Layity to believe what we argue from this Text, all Amuſement; and told them, [43] They may ſecurely anſwer, that it is impoſſible for them to depend upon this Right as any thing certain, till they can prove to you, that every thing ſpoken to the Apoſtles, belongs to Miniſters in all Ages ^†. The Security of this Anſwer, my Lord, is founded upon this Falſe Preſumption, viz. That the Clergy can claim no Right to the Exer⯑ciſe of any Part of their Office, as Succeſſors of the Apoſtles, till they can prove, that every thing that was ſpoken to the Apoſtles, be⯑longs to them.

This Propoſition muſt be true; or elſe there is no Force or Security in the Objection you here bring for the Inſtruction of the Layity. If it is well founded, then the Clergy can't poſſi⯑bly prove, they have any more Right to the Exerciſe of any Part of their Office than the Layity. Do they pretend to Ordain, Confirm, to admit or exclude Men from the Sacraments? By what Authority is all this done? Is it not, becauſe the Apoſtles, whoſe Succeſſors they are, did the ſame things? But then, ſay your Lordſhip's well-inſtructed Layity, this is no⯑thing to the purpoſe: Prove your ſelves A⯑poſtles; prove, that every thing ſaid to the Apoſtles, belongs to you; and then it will be allow'd, that you may exerciſe theſe Powers, becauſe they exerciſed them: But as this is im⯑poſſible to be done; ſo it is impoſſible for you to prove, that you have any Powers or Autho⯑rities, becauſe they had them.

[44] And now, my Lord, if the Caſe be thus, what Apology ſhall we make for Chriſti⯑anity, as it has been practis'd in all Ages? How ſhall we excuſe the noble Army of Martyrs, Saints and Confeſſors, who have boldly aſſert⯑ed the Right to ſo many Apoſtolical Powers? Could any Men in thoſe Ages pretend, that e⯑very thing that was ſpoken to the Apoſtles, belonged to themſelves? Falſe then, was their Claim, and preſumptuous their Authority, who ſhould pre⯑tend to any Apoſtolical Powers, becauſe the A⯑poſtles had them; when they could not prove, that every thing that was ſpoken to the Apoſtles, be⯑longed to them.

Farther; to prove, that the above-mention'd Text does not confer the Power of Abſolution in the Clergy, you reaſon thus: Whatever con⯑tradicts the natural Notions of God, and the Deſign and Tenour of the Goſpel, cannot be the true Meaning of any Paſſage in the Goſpel: But to make the Ab⯑ſolution of weak and fallible Men, ſo neceſſary, or ſo valid, that God will not pardon without them; or that all are pardon'd, who have them pronounced over them, is, to contradict thoſe Notions, as well as the plain Tenour of the Goſpel^*.

[45] Be pleas'd, my Lord, to point out your Ad⯑verſary: Name any one Church of England Man that ever taught this Romantick Doctrine which you are confuting. Whoever taught ſuch a Ne⯑ceſſity of Abſolutions, that God will pardon none without them? Whoever declar'd, that all are pardon'd, who have them pronounc'd over them? We teach the Neceſſity and Validity of Sacraments; but do we ever declare, that all are ſav'd who receive them? Is there no Medium between Two Extreams? No ſuch thing, my Lord, as Moderation! Muſt every thing be thus Abſolute and Extravagant, or nothing at all?

In another Page, we have more of this ſame Colouring: But to claim a Right to ſtand in God's ſtead, in ſuch a Sence, that they can abſolutely and certainly bleſs, or not bleſs, with their Voice alone: This is the higheſt Abſurdity and Blaſphemy, as it ſuppoſeth God to place a Set of Men above himſelf; and to put out of his own Hands the Diſpoſal of his Bleſſings and Curſes^†.

If your Lordſhip had employ'd all this O⯑ratory againſt worſhipping the Sun or Moon, it had juſt affected your Adverſaries as much as this. For whoever taught, that any Set of Men could Abſolutely bleſs, or withold Bleſ⯑ſing, independent of God? Whoever taught, that the Chriſtian Religion, or Sacraments, or [46] Abſolution ſav'd People on courſe, or without proper Diſpoſitions? Who ever claim'd ſuch an Abſolving Power, as to ſet himſelf above God, and to take from him the Diſpoſal of his own Bleſſings and Curſes? What has ſuch extrava⯑gant Deſcriptions, ſuch Romantick Characters of Abſolution, to do with that Power the Clergy juſtly claim? Cannot there be a Neceſſity in ſome Caſes of receiving Abſolution from their Hands, except they ſet themſelves above God? Is God robb'd of the Diſpoſal of his Bleſſings, when in Obedience to his own Commands, and in virtue of his own Authority, they admit ſome as Members of the Church, and exclude others from the Communion of it? Do they pretend to be Channels of Grace, or the Means of Par⯑don, by any Rights or Powers naturally inhe⯑rent in them? Do they not in all theſe things conſider themſelves as lnſtruments of God, that are made miniſterial to the Edification of the Church, purely by his Will, and only ſo far as they act in Conformity to it? Now if it has pleas'd God to confer the Holy Ghoſt in Ordi⯑nation, Confirmation, &c. only by them, and to annex the Grace of Pardon to the Impoſiti⯑on of their Hands, on returning Sinners; is it any Blaſphemy for them to claim and exert their Power? Is the Prerogative of God injur'd, be⯑cauſe his own Inſtitutions are obey'd? Cannot he diſpenſe his Graces by what Perſons, and on what Terms he pleaſes? Is he depriv'd of the Diſ⯑poſal of his Bleſſings, becauſe they are be⯑ſtow'd on Perſons according to his Order, and in obedience to his Authority? If I ſhould [47] affirm, that Biſhops have the ſole Power to Ordain and Confirm, would this be robbing God of his Diſpoſal of thoſe Graces that at⯑tend ſuch Actions? Is it not rather allowing and ſubmitting to God's own Diſpoſal, when we keep cloſe to thoſe Methods of it, which him⯑ſelf has preſcrib'd?

Pray, my Lord, conſider the Nature of Sa⯑craments. Are not they neceſſary to Salvation? But is God therefore excluded from any Power of his own? Has he for that reaſon, ſet Bread and Wine in the Euchariſt, or Water in Baptiſm, above Himſelf? Has he put the Salvation of Men out of his own Power, becauſe it depends on his own Inſtitutions? Is the Salvation of Chriſtians leſs his own Act and Deed, or leſs the Effect of his own Mercy, becauſe theſe Sa⯑craments in great meaſure contribute to effect it? Why then, my Lord, muſt that Impoſition of Hands, that is attended with his Grace of Pardon, and which has no Pretence to ſuch Grace, but in obedience to his Order, and in virtue of his Promiſe, be thus deſtructive of his Prerogative? Where is there any Diminution of his Honour or Authority, if ſuch Actions of the Clergy are made neceſſary to the Salvation of Souls in ſome Circumſtances, as their waſhing in Water, or their receiving Bread and Wine? Cannot God inſtitute Means of Grace, but thoſe Means muſt needs be above Himſelf? They owe all their Power and Efficacy to his Inſtitution; and can operate no farther than the Ends for which he inſtituted them. How then is he De⯑thron'd for being thus obey'd?

[48] My Lord, you take no notice of Scripture; but in a new Way of your own contend againſt this Power, from the Nature of the Thing: Yet I muſt beg Leave to ſay, this Power ſtands upon as ſure a Bottom, and is as conſiſtent with the Goodneſs and Majeſty of God, as the Sa⯑craments. If the annexing Grace to Sacra⯑ments, and making them neceſſary Means of Sal⯑vation, be a reaſonable Inſtitution of God; ſo is his annexing Pardon to the Impoſition of Hands by the Clergy on returning Sinners. The Grace or Bleſſing receiv'd in either Caſe, is of his own giving, and in a Method of his own preſcribing. And how this ſhould be any Inju⯑ry to God's Honour, or Affront to his Majeſty, cannot eaſily be accounted for.

The Clergy juſtly claim a Power of Recon⯑ciling Men to God, from expreſs Texts of Scri⯑pture; and of delivering his Pardons to penitent Sinners. Your Lordſhip diſowns this Claim, as making Fallible Men the Abſolute Diſpenſers of God's Bleſſings, and putting it in their Power to damn and ſave as they pleaſe. But, my Lord, nothing of this Extravagance is included in it. They are only entruſted with a Conditional Pow⯑er; which they are to exerciſe according to the Rules God has given; and it only obtains its Effect when it is ſo exercis'd. Every inſtituted Means of Grace is Conditional; and is only then effectual, when it is attended with ſuch Cir⯑cumſtances, as are requir'd by God. If the Cler⯑gy, thro' Weakneſs, Paſſion or Prejudice, ex⯑clude [49] Perſons from the Church of God, they injure only themſelves. But, my Lord, are theſe Powers nothing, becauſe they may be ex⯑ercis'd in vain? Have the Clergy no Right at all to them, becauſe they are not Absolutely infallible in the Exerciſe of them?

Can you prove, my Lord, that they are not neceſſary, becauſe they have not always the ſame Effect? May not that be neceſſary to Sal⯑vation, which is only effectual on certain Con⯑ditions? Is not the Chriſtian Religion neceſ⯑ſary to Salvation, tho' all Chriſtians are not ſav'd? Are not the Sacraments neceſſary Means of Grace, tho' the Means of Grace obtain'd there⯑by is only Conditional? Is every one neceſſa⯑rily improv'd in Grace, who receives the Sacra⯑ment? Or is it leſs neceſſary, becauſe the ſa⯑lutary Effects of it are not more univerſal? Why then muſt the Impoſition of Hands be leſs neceſſary, becauſe the Grace of it is Conditi⯑onal, and only obtain'd in due and proper Cir⯑cumſtances? Is Abſolution nothing, becauſe if witheld wrongfully, it injures not the Perſon who is deny'd it; and if given without due Diſpoſitions in the Penitent, it avails nothing? Is not this equally true of the Sacraments, if they are deny'd wrongfully, or adminiſtred to unprepar'd Receivers? But do they therefore ceaſe to be ſtanding and neceſſary Means of Grace?

[50] The Argument therefore againſt this Power, drawn from the Ignorance or Paſſions of the Clergy, whereby they may miſtake or pervert the Application of it, can be of no Force; ſince it is as Conditional as any other Chriſtian Inſtitution. The Salvation of no Man can be endanger'd by the Ignorance or Paſſions of any Clergyman in the Uſe of this Power: If they err in the Exerciſe of it, the Conſequences of their Error only affect themſelves. The Admi⯑niſtration of the Sacraments is certainly entruſt⯑ed to them: But will any one ſay, that the Sa⯑craments are not neceſſary to Salvation; becauſe they may, through Ignorance or Paſſion, make an ill Uſe of this Truſt?

There is nothing in this Doctrine to gratifie the Pride of Clergymen, or encourage them to Lord it over the Flock of Chriſt. If you could ſuppoſe an Atheiſt or a Deift in Orders; he might be arrogant, and domineer in the Exer⯑ciſe of his Powers: But who, that has the leaſt Senſe of Religion, can think it matter of Tri⯑umph, that he can deny the Sacraments, or re⯑fuſe his Benediction to any of his Flock? Can he injure or offend the leaſt of theſe; and will not God take Account? Or, if they fall through his Offence, will not their Blood be re⯑quir'd at his Hands?

[51] Neither is there any thing in it that can en⯑ſlave the Layity to the Clergy; or make their Salvation depend upon their Arbitrary Will. Does any one think his Salvation in danger, be⯑cauſe the Sacraments (the neceſſary Means of it) are only to be adminiſtred by the Clergy? Why then muſt the Salvation of Penitents be en⯑danger'd, or made dependent on the ſole Plea⯑ſure of the Clergy, becauſe they alone can reconcile them to the Favour of God? If Per⯑ſons are unjuſtly denied the Sacraments, they may humbly hope, that God will not lay the Want of them to their Charge. And if they are unjuſtly kept out of the Church, and denied Admittance, they have no Reaſon to fear, but God will, notwithſtanding, accept them, pro⯑vided they be in other reſpects proper Objects of his Favour.

But to proceed, your Lordſhip ſays, The A⯑poſtles might poſſibly underſtand the Power of Remitting and Retaining Sins, to be that Power of Laying their Hands upon the Sick^*.

Is this Poſſible, my Lord? Then it is poſſible, the Apoſtles might think, that in the Power here intended to be given them, nothing at all was in⯑tended to be given them. For the Power of Healing the Sick, was already confer'd upon them. Therefore if no more was intended to [52] be given them in this Text, it cannot be inter⯑preted, as having entitled them properly to any Power at all.

2. The Power mention'd here, was ſomething that Jeſus promis'd he would give them Hereaf⯑ter: Which plainly ſuppoſes, they had it not then: But they then had the Power of Healing; therefore ſomething elſe muſt be intended here.

3. The Power of the Keys has always been look'd upon as the higheſt in the Apoſtolical Order. But if it related only to the Power of Healing, it could not be ſo; For the Seventy, who were inferiour to the Apoſtles, had this Power.

4. The very Manner of Expreſſion in this Place, proves, that the Power here intended to be given, could not relate to Healing the Sick, or to any thing of that nature; but to ſome Spiritual Power, whoſe Effects ſhould not be Viſible; but be made good by virtue of God's Pro⯑miſe. Thus, Whomſoever ye ſhall heal on Earth, I will heal in Heaven, borders too near upon an Abſurdity. There is no occaſion to promiſe to make good ſuch Actions as are good already, and have antecedently produc'd their Effects. Per⯑ſons who were reſtor'd to Health, to their Sight, or the Uſe of their Limbs, did not want to be aſſured, that the Apoſtles, by whom they were reſtored, had a Power to that End; the Exer⯑ciſe of which Power, prov'd and confirm'd it ſelf. [53] There was no need therefore of a Divine Aſ⯑ſurance, that a Perſon who was healed, was actu⯑ally healed in virtue of it. But when we con⯑ſider this Promiſe, as relating to a Power whoſe Effects are not viſible; as the Pardon of Sins, the Terms whereby it is expreſt, are moſt proper: And it is very reaſonable to ſuppoſe God promi⯑ſing, that the Spiritual Powers exercis'd by his Miniſters on Earth, though they do not here produce their viſible Effects, ſhall yet be made good and effectual by him in Heaven.

Theſe Reaſons, my Lord, I ſhould think, are ſufficient to convince any one, that the Apoſtles could not poſſibly underſtand theſe Words in the Sence of your Lordſhip.

Let us now conſider the Commiſſion gi⯑ven to Peter. Our Saviour ſaid to him, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the Gates of Hell ſhall not prevail againſt it: And I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; and whatſoever thou ſhalt bind on Earth, ſhall be bound in Heaven; and whatſoever thou ſhalt looſe on Earth, ſhall be looſed in Heaven.

Now, my Lord, how ſhould it enter into the Thoughts of Peter, that nothing was here in⯑tended, or promiſed by our Saviour, but a Pow⯑er of Healing; which he not only had before, but alſo many other Diſciples, who were not Apoſtles? I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; that is, according to your Lordſhip, I will give thee Power to heal the Sick. [54] Can any thing be more contrary to the plain obvious Sence of the Words? Can any one be ſaid to have the Keys of the Kingdom of Hea⯑ven, becauſe he may be the Inſtrument of reſto⯑ring People to Health? Are Perſons Mem⯑bers of Chriſt's Kingdom, with any regard to Health? How then can He have any Powers in that Kingdom; or be ſaid to have the Keys of it, who is only empower'd to cure Diſtem⯑pers? Could any one be ſaid to have the Keys of a Temporal Kingdom, who had no Temporal Power given him in that Kingdom? Muſt not he therefore who has the Keys of a Spiritual Kingdom, have ſome Spiritual Power in that Kingdom?

Chriſt has told us, that his Kingdom is not of this World. Your Lordſhip has told us, that it is ſo foreign to every thing of this World, that no Worldly Terrors or Allurements, no Pains or Pleaſures of the Body, can have any thing to do with it. Yet here your Lordſhip teaches us, that He may have the Keys of this Spiritual Kingdom, who has only a Power over Diſeaſes. My Lord, are not Sickneſs and Health, Sight and Limbs, Things of this World? Have they not ſome relation to Bodily Pleaſures and Pains? How then can a Power about Things wholly confin'd to this World, be a Power in a Kingdom that is not of this World? The Force of the Argument lies here: Our Saviour has aſſur'd us, that his Kingdom is not of this World: Your Lordſhip takes it to be of ſo Spiritual a Nature, that it ought not, nay, that it cannot be encou⯑rag'd [55] or eſtabliſh'd by any Worldly Powers. Our Saviour gives to his Apoſtles the Keys of this King⯑dom. Yet you have ſo far forgotten your own Doctrine, and the Spirituality of this Kingdom, that you tell us, He here gave them a Temporal Power of Diſeaſes; though He ſays, they were the Keys of his Kingdom which he gave them. Suppoſe any Succeſſor of the Apoſtles ſhould from this Text pretend to the Power of the Sword, to make People Members of this Kingdom: Muſt not the Anſwer be, that he miſtakes the Power, by not conſidering, that they are only the Keys of a Spiritual, not of a Temporal Kingdom, which were here deliver'd to the Apoſtles.

I humbly preſume, my Lord, that this would be as good an Anſwer to your Lordſhip's Doctrine, as to Theirs, who claim the Right of the Sword. till it can be ſhewn that Health and Sickneſs, Sight and Limbs, do not as truly relate to the Things of this World as the Power of the Sword.

If this Power of the Keys muſt be underſtood, only as a Power of inflicting or curing Diſeaſes; then the Words, in the proper Conſtruction of them, muſt run thus: Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, i. e. a peculiar Socie⯑ty of Healthful People, and the Gates of Hell ſhall never prevail againſt it; i. e. They ſhall always be in a State of Health. I will give unto Thee, the Keys of this Kingdom of Heaven, i. e. Thou ſhalt have the Power of inflicting and curing Diſtem⯑pers; and whatſoever thou ſhalt bind on Earth, ſhall be [56] bound in Heaven, i.e. on whomſoever thou ſhalt inflict the Leproſie on Earth. He ſhall be a Leper in Heaven; and whatſoever thou ſhalt looſe on Earth, ſhall be loos'd in Heaven, i. e. whomſoever thou ſhalt cure of that Diſeaſe on Earth, ſhall be perfectly cur'd of it in Heaven.

This, without putting any Force upon the Words, is your Lordſhip's own Interpretation; which ex⯑poſes the Honour and Authority of Scriptures as much as the greateſt Enemy to them can wiſh. If our Saviour cou'd mean by theſe Words, only a Power of healing Diſtempers; or if the Apoſtles un⯑derſtood them in that Sence, we may as well be⯑lieve, that when He ſaid, His Kingdom was not of this World, that he meant, it was of this World; and that the Apoſtles ſo underſtood him too.

But however, for the Benefit and Edification of the Layity, your Lordſhip has another Interpre⯑tation for them: You ſay, if they (the Apoſtles) did apply this Power of remitting Sins to the certain Ab⯑ſolution of particular Perſons, it is plain, they could do it upon no other Bottom but this; that God's Will, and good Pleaſure, about ſuch particular Perſons was infal⯑libly communicated to them.

Pray my Lord, how, or where is this ſo plain? Is it plain, that they never baptiz'd Perſons, till God had infallibly communicated his good Pleaſure to them about ſuch particular Perſons? Baptiſm is an In⯑ſtitution equally Sacred with this other, and puts the Perſon baptiz'd in the ſame State of Grace, that Abſolution does the Penitent. Baptiſm is de⯑ſign'd [57] for the Remiſſion of Sin. It is an Ordi⯑nance to which Abſolution is conſequent, but I ſuppoſe, Perſons may be baptiz'd without ſuch Infallible Communication promiſed, as your Lordſhip contends for. If therefore it be not neceſſary for the Exerciſe of Abſolution by Baptiſm, why muſt it be neceſſary for Abſolution by the Impoſition of Hands?

Can Paſtors without Infallibility, baptize Hea⯑thens, and abſolve, or be the Inſtruments of abſol⯑ving them thereby from their Sins? Are they not as able to abſove Chriſtian Penitents, or re⯑ſtore thoſe who have Apoſtatiz'd? If Human Knowledge, and the common Rules of the Church, be ſufficient to direct the Prieſt to whom he ought to adminiſter the Sacraments; they are alſo ſufficient for the Exerciſe of this other Part of the Sacerdotal Office.

But your Lordſhip proceeds thus: Not that they themſelves Abſolved any.

No, my Lord, no more than Water in Bap⯑tiſm of it ſelf purifies the Soul from Sin. This Baptiſmal Water, is, notwithſtanding neceſſary or the Remiſſion of our Sins.

Again you ſay, Not that God was oblig'd to bind and looſe the Guilt of Aden, according to their De⯑clarations, conſidered as their own Deciſions, and their own Determinations ^*. No, my Lord; who⯑ever. [58] ever thought ſo? God is not oblig'd to confer (race by the Baptiſmal Water, conſider'd only as Water; but He is, conſider'd as his own Inſtitution for that End and Purpoſe. So, if theſe Decla⯑rations are conſider'd only as the Declarations of Men, God is not obliged by them: But when they are conſider'd as the Declarations of Men whom he has eſpecially Authoriz'd to make ſuch Declarations in his Name, then they are as effectual with God, as any other of his Inſti⯑tution's whatever.

I proceed now to a Paragraph that bears as hard upon our Saviour, as ſome others have done upon his Apoſtles and their Succeſſors; where your Lordſhip deſigns to prove, that though Chriſt claim'd a Power of remitting Sins Him⯑ſelf, or in his own Perſon, yet that he had re⯑ally no ſuch Power.

You go upon theſe Words: If we look back upon our Saviour himſelf, we ſhall find, that when he de⯑clares that the Son of Man had Power upon Earth to forgive Sins, even He himſelf either meant by it, the Power of a miraculous Releaſing Man from his Affli⯑ction; or if it related to another more Spiritual Sence of the Words, the Power of declaring, that the Man's Sins were forgiven by God^*.

[59] The Words of our Saviour, which we are to look back upon, are theſe: Whether is it eaſier to ſay, thy Sins are forgiven thee; or to ſay, ariſe, take up thy Bed and walk? But that ye may know, the Son of Man hath Power on Earth to forgive Sins, (Mark 2. 9, 10.) As if he had ſaid, ‘Is not the ſame Divine Authority and Power requir'd? Is it not a Work as peculiar to God, to per⯑form miraculous Cures, as to forgive Sins? The Reaſon therefore, why I now chuſe to declare my Authority, rather by ſaying, Thy Sins are forgiven thee, than by ſaying, Ariſe and walk, was, purely to teach you this Truth, that the Power of the Son of Man is not con⯑fin'd to Bodily Cures; but that he has Power on Earth to forgive Sins.’

This, my Lord, is the firſt obvious Sence of the Words; and therefore I take it to be the True Sence. But your Lordſhip can look back upon them, till you find, that Chriſt has not this Power, though he claims it expreſsly; but that he only intends a Power of doing ſome⯑thing or other, which no more imports a Power of forgiving Sins, than of remitting any Tem⯑poral Debt or Penalty.

If our Bleſſed Saviour had intended to teach the World, that he was inveſted with this Power, I would gladly know, how he muſt have ex⯑preſs'd himſelf, to have ſatisfy'd your Lordſhip that he really had it? He muſt have told you, that he had not this Power; and then poſſibly, [60] your Lordſhip would have taught us, that he had this Power. For no one can diſcover any Rea⯑ſon why you ſhould deny it him; but becauſe he has in expreſs Words claim'd and aſſerted it. I hope, your Lordſhip has not ſo low an Opini⯑on of our Saviour's Perſon, as to think it unrea⯑ſonable in the Nature of the Thing, that He ſhould have this Power. Where does it contra⯑dict any Principle of Reaſon, to ſay, that a King ſhould be able to pardon his Subjects? Since there is no Abſurdity then in the Thing it ſelf; and it is ſo expreſsly aſſerted in Scripture; it is juſt Matter of Surprize, that your Lordſhip ſhould carry your Reader from a plain conſiſtent Sence of the Words, to either this or that Something or o⯑ther, the Origin whereof is only to be ſought for in your Lordſhip's own Invention; rather than not exclude Chriſt from a Power which he declar'd he had, and declar'd he had it for this very Reaſon, that we might know that he had it. Our Saviour has told us, that the Way to Hea⯑ven is narrow. Your Lordſhip might as reaſona⯑bly prove from hence, that he meant, it was broad, as that he did not mean he could forgive Sins, when he ſaid, that ye may know, that the Son of Man hath Power on Earth to forgive Sins.

Your Lordſhip has rejected all Church Authori⯑ty, and deſpis'd the pretended Powers of the Clergy, for this reaſon; becauſe Chriſt is the ſole King, ſole Lawgiver, and Judge in his King⯑dom. But, it ſeems, your Lordſhip, notwith⯑ſtanding, thinks it now time to depoſe him: And this ſole King in his own Kingdom, muſt [61] not be allow'd to be capable of pardoning his own Subjects.

This Doctrine, my Lord; is deliver'd, I ſup⯑poſe, as your other Doctrines, out of a hearty Concern and Chriſtian Zeal for the Privileges of the Layity; and to ſhew, that your Lord⯑ſhip is not only able to limit as you pleaſe, the Authority of Temporal Kings; but alſo to make Chriſt himſelf ſole King, and yet no King, in his Spiritual Kingdom. For, my Lord, the Kingdom of Chriſt is a Society, founded in order to the Reconciliation of Sinners to God. If therefore Chriſt could not pardon Sins, to what End could he either erect, or how could he ſupport his Kingdom, which is only in the great and laſt Deſign of it, to conſiſt of Ab⯑ſolv'd Sinners? He that cannot forgive Sins in a Kingdom that is erected for the Re⯑miſſion of Sins, can no more be ſole King in it, than he that has no Temporal Power, can be ſole King in a Temporal Kingdom. Therefore your Lordſhip has been thus mighty ſerviceable to the Chriſtian Layity, as to teach them, that Chriſt is not only ſole King, but no King in his Kingdom.

This is not the Firſt Contradiction your Lordſhip has unhappily fallen into, in your At⯑tempts upon Kingly Authority. Not is it the Iaſt; which I ſhall preſume to obſerve to the Common Senſe of your Layity.

[62] Again, in this Account of our Bleſſed Sa⯑viour, your Lordſhip has made no difference between Him and his Apoſtles, as to this Abſolving Authority. For you ſay, the Great Commiſſion given to them, imply'd either a Power of Releaſing Men from their Bodily Afflictions; or of declaring ſuch to be par⯑don'd, whom God had aſſur'd them that he had pardon'd: And this is all that you here allow to Chriſt himſelf.

Your Lordſhip's calling him ſo often King, and ſole King, &c. in his Kingdom, and yet making him a Mere Creature in it, is too like the Inſult, and deſign'd Sarcaſm of the Jews, who, when they had nail'd him to the Croſs, writ over his Head, This is the King of the Jews.

But to proceed: Your Lordſhip proves, That our Saviour had not the Power of forgiving Sins; becauſe His Way of Expreſſion was. Thy Sins are forgiven thee. This was plainly to acknowledge, and keep up that True Notion, that God alone forgiveth Sins.

Let us therefore put this Argument in Form. Chriſt has affirm'd, that he had Power to for⯑give Sins: But his Way was, to ſay, Thy Sins are forgiven thee: Therefore Chriſt had not Power to forgive Sins. Q. E. D.

[63] It is much, your Lordſhip did not recommend this to your Layity as another Invincible Demonſtration. For by the help of it, my Lord, they may prove, that our Saviour could no more heal Diſeaſes, than forgive Sins. As thus; Chriſt indeed pretends to a Power of Healing Diſeaſes; but his uſual way of ſpeaking to the diſeas'd Perſon, was, Thy Faith hath made Thee whole; therefore He had not the Power of Healing Diſeaſes. The Argument has the ſame force againſt one Power, as againſt the other. If He did not forgive Sins, becauſe he ſaid, thy Sins are forgiven Thee; no more did He heal Diſeaſes, becauſe he ſaid, thy Faith hath, made Thee whole.

I have a Claim of ſeveral Debts upon a Man: I forgive him them all, in theſe Words, Thy Debts are remitted Thee. A Philoſophical Wit ſtands by, and pretends to prove, that I had not the Power, of remitting theſe Debts; becauſe I ſaid, Thy Debts are remitted Thee. What can come up to, or equal ſuch profound Philoſophy, but the Divinity, of one who teaches, our Saviour could not forgive Sins, becauſe He ſaid, Thy Sins are forgiven Thee?

But your Lordſhip ſays, the Reaſon why our Saviour thus expreſſed Himſelf, Thy Sins are forgiven Thee, was plainly to keep up that true Notion, that God alone forgiveth Sins. There⯑fore, my Lord, according to this Doctrine, our Saviour was oblig'd not to claim any [64] Power that was peculiar or appropriated to God, alone. For if this be an Argument, why He ſhould not forgive Sins, it is alſo an Argument, that He ought not to claim any other Pow⯑er, any more than this; which is proper to God, and only belongs to Him. But, my Lord, if He did expreſs himſelf thus, that he might not lay Claim to any thing that was peculiar to God, how came He in ſo ma⯑ny other Reſpects, to lay Claim to ſuch things, as are as truly peculiar to God, as the Forgiveneſs of Sins? How came He in ſo many Inſtances to make Himſelf equal to God? How came He to ſay, Ye believe in God, be⯑lieve alſo in me? And that Men ſhould Worſhip the Son, even as the Father? That He was the Son of God; That he was the Way, the Truth, and the Life?

Are not Evangelical Faith, Worſhip and Truſt, Duties that are ſolely due to God? Does He not as much invade the Sovereign⯑ty of God, who lays claim to theſe Duties, as He that pretends to forgive Sins? Did not Chriſt alſo give his Diſciples Power and Au⯑thority over Devils and Unclean Spirits, and Power to heal all manner of Diſeaſes? [65] Now, if Chriſt did not aſſume a Power to forgive Sins, becauſe God alone could forgive Sins, it is alſo as unaccountable, that He ſhould exerciſe other Authorities and Powers which are as ſtrictly peculiar to God, as that of forgiving Sins. As if a Perſon ſhould diſown that Chriſt is Omniſcient, becauſe Omniſcience is an Attribute of God Alone; and yet confeſs his Omnipotence, which is an Attribute equally Divine.

But farther, my Lord: Did our Saviour thus deſignedly expreſs himſelf, leaſt He ſhould be thought to aſſume any Power which was Di⯑vine, then it is certain (according to this Opi⯑nion) that if He had aſſumed any ſuch Power, or pretended to do what was peculiar to God, he had been the Occaſion of miſleading Men in⯑to Error. For if this be a plain Reaſon, why He expreſſed himſelf ſo as to diſown this Power, it is plain, that if He had own'd it. He had been condemn'd by this Argument, as teaching falſe Doctrine.

Now if this would have been interpretatively falſe Doctrine in Chriſt, to take upon Himſelf any thing that was peculiar to God, the Apoſtles were guilty of propagating this falſe Doctrine. For there is ſcarce any known Attribute or Power of God, but they aſcribe it to our Savi⯑our. They declare him Eternal, Omnipotent, Omniſcient, &c. Is it not a true Notion, that God alone can Create, and is Governour of the Univerſe? Yet the Apoſtles expreſly aſſure us of Chriſt, that all things were created by Him, and [66] that God hath put all things in Subjection under his Feet. 'Tis very ſurpriſing, that your Lordſhip ſhould exclude Chriſt from this Power of for⯑giving Sins, tho' he has expreſly ſaid He could forgive Sins, becauſe ſuch a Power belongs only to God; when it appears thro' the whole Scri⯑pture, that there is ſcarce any Divine Power which our Saviour himſelf has not claim'd, nor any Attribute of God, but what his Apoſtles have aſcrib'd to him. They have made Him the Cre⯑ator, the Preſerver, the Governour of the Univerſe, the Author of Eternal Salvation to all that obey him; and yet your Lordſhip tells us, that He did not pretend to forgive Sins, becauſe that was a Power peculiar to God.

Here is then (to ſpeak in your Lordſhip's ele⯑gant Style) an immoveable Reſting-Place for your Laity to ſet their Feet upon; here is an Argu⯑ment that will laſt them for ever; They muſt believe that our Saviour did not forgive Sins, becauſe this was a Power that belong'd to God, tho' the Scri⯑ptures aſſure us that every other Divine Power belong'd to Chriſt. That is, they muſt believe, that tho' our Saviour claim'd all Divine Powers, yet not this Divine Power, becauſe it is a Divine Power. And, my Lord, if they have the com⯑mon Senſe to believe this, they may alſo believe that tho' our Saviour took human Nature upon him, yet that he had not a human Soul, becauſe it is proper to Man. They may believe, that any Perſon who has all Kingly Power, cannot remit or reprieve a Malefactor, becauſe it is an Act of Kingly Power to do it; or that a Biſhop cannot [67] ſuſpend any Offender of his Dioceſe, becauſe it is an Act of Epiſcopal Power to do it. All theſe Reaſons are as ſtrong and Demonſtrative as that Chriſt, who claim'd all Divine Powers, could not forgive Sins, becauſe it was a Divine Power.

Laſtly, In this Argument your Lordſhip has plainly declar'd againſt the Divinity of Chriſt, and rank'd him in the Order of Creatures. Your Lordſhip ſays, Chriſt did not forgive Sins, be⯑cauſe it is God alone who can forgive Sins; as plain an Argument as can be offer'd, that in your Lordſhip's Opinion, Chriſt is not God: For if you believ'd him, in a true and proper Senſe, God, how could you exclude him from the Power of forgiving Sins, becauſe God alone can forgive Sins? It is inconſiſtent with Senſe and Reaſon to deny this Power to Chriſt becauſe it is a Divine Power, bat only becauſe you believe him not to be a Divine Perſon. If Chriſt was God, then he might forgive Sins, tho' God alone can forgive Sins: But you ſay, Chriſt cannot forgive Sins, becauſe God alone can forgive Sins; therefore it is plain, that according to your Lordſhip's Doctrine, Chriſt is not truly, or in a proper Senſe, God.

Here, my Lord, I deſire again to appeal to the Common Senſe of your Laity; let them judge betwixt the Scriptures and your Lordſhip. The Scriptures plainly and frequently aſcribe all Di⯑vine Attributes to Chriſt: They make him the Creatour and Governour of the World; God over all, bleſſed for ever. Yet your Lordſhip [68] makes him a Creature, and denies him ſuch a Power, becauſe it belongs only to God.

You your ſelf, my Lord, have allow'd him to be abſolute Ruler over the Conſciences of Men; to be an arbitrary Diſpenſer of the Means of Salva⯑tion to Mankind; than which Powers, none can be more Divine: And yet you hold, that he can⯑not forgive Sins, becauſe Pardon of Sin can only be the Effect of a Divine Power.

Is it not equally a Divine Power, (even ac⯑cording to your Lordſhip) to rule over the Con⯑ſciences of Men, to give Laws of Salvation, and to act in theſe Affairs with an uncontroulable Power, as to forgive Sins?

My Lord, let their Common Senſe here diſ⯑cover the Abſurdity (for I muſt call it ſo) of your New Scheme of Government in Chriſt's Kingdom. Chriſt is abſolute Lord of it, (according to your ſelf) and can make or unmake Laws relating to it; can diſpenſe or withold Grace as he pleaſes in this Spiritual Kingdom, all which Powers are purely Divine, yet you ſay he cannot forgive Sins, tho' every expreſs Power which you have allow'd him over the Conſciences of Men, be as truly a Divine Power as that of forgiving Sins. Has not Chriſt a proper and perſonal Power to give Grace to his Subjects? Is he not Lord over their Conſciences? And are not theſe Powers as truly appropriated to God? And has not your Lord⯑ſhip often taught them to be ſo, as that of For⯑giveneſs of Sins? Is it not as much the Prerogative [69] of God to have any natural intrinſick Power, to confer Grace, or any Spiritual Benefit to the Souls of Men, as to forgive Sins? Has not your Lord⯑ſhip deſpis'd all the Adminiſtrations of the Cler⯑gy, becauſe God's Graces can only come from himſelf, and are only to be receiv'd from his own Hands? The Concluſion therefore is this, either Chriſt has a Perſonal intrinſick Power to confer Grace in his Kingdom, or he has not; if you ſay he has not, then you are chargable with the Colluſion of making him a King in a Spiritual Kingdom, where you allow him no Spiritual Power: If you ſay he has, then you fall into this Contradiction, that you allow him to have Di⯑vine Powers, tho' he cannot have Divine Pow⯑ers; that is, you allow him to give Grace, tho' it is a Divine Power, and not to forgive Sins, be⯑cauſe it is a Divine Power. My Lord, I wiſh your Laity (if there be any to whom you can render it intelligible) much Joy of ſuch profound Divinity. Or if there are others who are more taken with your Lordſhip's Sincerity, I deſire them not to paſs by this following remarkable In⯑ſtance of it: Your Lordſhip has here as plainly declar'd, as Words can conſequentially declare any thing, that you do not believe Chriſt to be God, yet profeſs your ſelf Biſhop of a Church, whofſe Liturgy in ſo many repeated Teſtimonies declares the contrary Doctrine, and which obli⯑ges you to expreſs your Aſſent and Conſent to ſuch Doctrine. My Lord, I here call upon your Sincerity, either Declare Chriſt to be Perfect God, and then ſhew why he could not forgive Sins, or Deny him to be Perfect God, and then ſhew how [70] you can ſincerely declare your Aſſent and Conſent to the Doctrines of the Church of England.

This, my Lord, has an Appearance of Preva⯑rication, which you cannot, I hope, charge upon any of your Adverſaries; who if they cannot think, that to be ſincere is the only thing neceſſary to re⯑commend Men to the Favour of God, yet may have as much, or poſſibly more Sincerity, than thoſe who do think ſo.

Before I take leave of your Lordſhip, I muſt take Notice of a Reſting-Place, a ſtrong Retreat a laſting Foundation, i. e. a Demonſtration in the ſtricteſt Senſe of the Words, that all Church-Communion is unneceſſary.

Your Lordſhip ſets it out in theſe Words.

Pray, my Lord, what is this wond'rous Curi⯑oſity of a Demonſtration, but the common Caſe of an erroneous Conſcience? Did the ſtricteſt Con⯑tenders for Church-Communion ever teach, that [71] any Terms are to be comply'd with againſt Con⯑ſcience? But its a ſtrange Concluſion to infer from thence, that there is no Obligation to Communion, or that all Things are to be held indifferent, becauſe they are not to be comply'd with againſt one's Conſcience.

The Truths of the Chriſtian Religion have the ſame Nature and Obligation, whatever our Opini⯑ons are of them, and thoſe that are neceſſary to be believed, continue ſo, whither we can perſwade our ſelves to believe them or not. I ſuppoſe your Lordſhip will not ſay, that the Ar⯑ticles of Faith and neceſſary Inſtitutions of the Chriſtian Religion, are no otherways neceſſary, than becauſe we believe them to be ſo, that our Perſwaſion is the only Cauſe of the Neceſſity; but if their Neceſſity be not owing merely to our belief of them, then it is certain that our Diſ⯑belief of them, cannot make them leſs neceſſa⯑ry. If the Ordinances of Chriſt, and the Ar⯑ticles of Faith are neceſſary, becauſe Chriſt has made them ſo, that Neceſſity muſt continue the ſame, whether we believe and obſerve them or not.

So that, my Lord, we may ſtill maintain the neceſſity of Church-Communion, and the ſtrict obſervance of Chriſt's Ordinances, notwith⯑ſtanding that People have different perſwaſions in theſe Matters, preſuming that our Opinions can no more alter the nature or neceſſity of Chriſt's Inſtitutions, than we can believe Error into Truth, Good into Evil, or Light into Darkneſs. I ſhall [72] think my ſelf no Heretick againſt the Nature of Things, tho' I tell a Conſcientious Socinian, that the Divinity of Chriſt is neceſſary to be believed, or a Conſcientious Jew, that it is neceſſary to be a Chriſtian in order to be ſaved. But if your Lordſhips Demonſtration was accepted, we ſhould be oblig'd to give up the neceſſity of every Doctrine and Inſtitution, to every Diſ⯑believer that pretended Conſcience. We muſt not tell any Party of People, that they are in any danger for being out of Communion with us, if they do but follow their own Perſwa⯑ſion.

Your Lordſhip's Invincible Demonſtration pro⯑ceeds thus.

We muſt not inſiſt upon the Neceſſity of joyning with any particular Church, becauſe then Conſcientious Per⯑ſons will be in Danger either way; for if there be a Neceſſity of it, then there is a Danger if they do not joyn with it, and if they comply againſt their Conſci⯑ences, the Danger is the ſame.

What an inextricable Difficulty is here! How ſhall Divinity or Logick be able to relieve us!

Be pleas'd my Lord, to accept of this Solu⯑tion in lieu of your Demonſtration.

I will ſuppoſe the Caſe of a Conſcientious Jew; I tell him that Chriſtianity is the only covenan⯑ted Method of Salvation, and that he can have no Title to the Favour of God, 'till he profeſſes [73] the Faith of Chriſt. What, replies he, would you direct me to do? If I embrace Chriſtianity againſt my Conſcience, I am out of God's Fa⯑vour, and if I follow my Conſcience, and con⯑tinue a Jew, I am alſo out of his Favour. The Anſwer is this, my Lord; The Jew is to obey his Conſcience, and to be left to the uncovenan⯑ted, unpromiſed Terms of God's Mercy, whilſt the Conſcientious Chriſtian is entitled to the expreſs and promiſed favours of God.

There is ſtill the ſame abſolute neceſſity of believing in Chriſt, Chriſtianity is ſtill the only Method of Salvation; tho' the ſincere Jew can⯑not ſo perſwade himſelf; and we ought to de⯑clare it to all Jews and Unbelievers whatſoever, that they can only be ſav'd by embracing Chriſti⯑anity. That a falſe Religion, does not become a true one; nor a true one falſe, in Conſe⯑quence of their Opinions; but that if they are ſo unhappy, as to refuſe the Covenant of Grace, they muſt be left to ſuch Mercy as is without any Covenant. And now, my Lord, what is be⯑come of this mighty Demonſtration? Does it prove that Chriſtianity is not neceſſary, becauſe the Conſcientious Jew may think it is not ſo? It may as well prove, that the Moon is no larger than a Man's Head, becauſe an honeſt ignorant Countryman may think it no larger.

Is there any Perſon of Common Senſe, who would think it a Demonſtration, that he is not obliged to go to Church, becauſe a Conſcienti⯑ous Diſſenter will not? Could he think it leſs [74] neceſſary to be a Chriſtian, becauſe a ſincere Jew cannot embrace Chriſtianity? Could he take it to be an indifferent Matter, whether he believed the Divinity of Chriſt, becauſe a Conſcientious Socinian cannot? Yet this is your Lordſhip's in⯑vincible Demonſtration, that we ought not to inſiſt upon the neceſſity of Church-Commu⯑nion, becauſe a Conſcientious Disbeliever cannot comply with it.

A ſmall Degree of Common Senſe, would teach a Man that true Religion, and the Terms of Salvation muſt have the ſame obligatory Force, whether we reaſon rightly about them or not; and that they who believe and practice accor⯑ding to them, are in expreſs Covenant with God, which entitles them to his Favour; whilſt thoſe who are ſincerely Erronious, have nothing but the ſincerity of their Errors to plead, and are left to ſuch Mercy of God, as is without any Promiſe. Here, my Lord, is nothing frightful or abſurd in this Doctrine, they who are in the Church which Chriſt has founded, are upon Terms which entitles them to God's Favour; they who are out of it, fall to his Mercy.

But your Lordſhip is not content with the Terms of the Goſpel, or a Doctrine that only ſaves a particular Sort of People; this is a nar⯑row View, not wide enough for your Notions of Liberty. Particular Religions, and particular Covenants, are demonſtrated to be abſurd, becauſe particular Perſons may Diſ-believe, or not ſub⯑mit to them.

[75] Your Lordſhip muſt have Doctrines that will ſave all People alike, in every way that their Perſwaſion leads them to take: But, my Lord, there needs be no greater Demonſtration againſt your Lordſhip's Doctrine, than that it equally fa⯑vours every way of Worſhip; for an Argument which equally proves every Thing, has been ge⯑nerally thought to prove nothing; which hap⯑pens to be the Caſe of your Lordſhip's Impor⯑tant Demonſtration.

Your Lordſhip indeed only inſtances in a par⯑ticular Perſon, Mr. Nelſon; but your Demonſtrati⯑on is as ſerviceable to any other Perſon who has left any other Church whatever. The Conſcien⯑tious Quaker, Muggletonian, Independant, or Socini⯑an, &c. have the ſame right to obey Conſcience, and blame any Church that aſſumes a Power of cenſuring them, as Mr. Nelſon had; and if they are cenſur'd by any Church, that Church is as guilty of the ſame Hereſie againſt the Nature of Things, as that Church which cenſur'd Mr. Nel⯑ſon, or any Church that ſhould pretend to cen⯑ſure any other Perſon whatever.

I am not at all Surpriz'd, that your Lordſhip ſhould teach this Doctrine, but its ſomething ſtrange, that ſuch an Argument ſhould be ob⯑truded upon the World as an unheard of De⯑monſtration, and that in an Appeal to common Senſe. Suppoſe ſome Body or other in defence of your Lordſhip, ſhould take upon him to demonſtrate to the World, that there is no ſuch Thing as [76] Colour, becauſe there are ſome People that can't ſee it; or Sounds, becauſe there are ſome who don't hear them; He would have found out the only Demonſtrations in the World that could equal your Lordſhips, and would have as much reaſon to call thoſe Hereticks againſt the Nature of Things, who ſhould diſ-believe him, and inſiſt upon the reality of Sounds, as your Lordſhip has to call your Adverſaries ſo.

For, is there no neceſſity of Church-Commu⯑nion, becauſe there are ſome who don't con⯑ceive it? Then there are no Sounds, becauſe there are ſome who don't hear them; for it is certainly as eaſie to believe away the Truth and Reality, as the Neceſſity of Things.

Some People have only taught us the innocency of Error, and been content with ſetting forth its harmleſs Qualities; but your Lordſhip has been a more hearty Advocate, and given it a Power over every Truth and Inſtitution of Chriſtiani⯑ty. If we have but an erronious Conſcience, the whole Chriſtian Diſpenſation is cancell'd; all the Truth and Doctrines in the Bible are De⯑monſtrated to be unneceſſary, if we do not be⯑lieve them.

How unhappily have the ſeveral Parties of Chriſtians been diſputing for many Ages, who if they could but have found out this intelligible Demonſtration, (from the Caſe of an erroneous Conſcience) would have ſeen the abſurdity of pretending to neceſſary Doctrines, and inſiſting [77] upon Church-Communion; but it muſt be acknow⯑ledged your Lordſhip's new invented Engine for the Deſtruction of Churches; and it may be expect⯑ed the good Chriſtians of no Church will return your Lordſhip their Thanks for it.

Your Lordſhip has thought it a mighty Ob⯑jection to ſome Doctrines in the Church of Eng⯑land, that the Papiſts might make ſome Advan⯑tage of them: But yet your own Doctrine de⯑fends all Communions alike, and ſerves the Jew and Socinian, &c. as much as any other ſort of People. Tho' this ſufficiently appears, from what has been already ſaid, yet that it may be ſtill more obvious to the Common Senſe of every one, I ſhall reduce theſe Doctrines to Practice, and ſuppoſe for once, that your Lordſhip intends to convert a Jew, a Quaker, or Socinian.

Now in order to make a Convert of any of them, theſe Preliminary PROPOSITIONS are to be firſt laid down according to your Lord⯑ſhip's Doctrine.

Some Propoſitions for the Improvement of true Religion.

Propoſition I. That we are neither more or leſs in the Favour of God, for living in any parti⯑cular Method or Way of Worſhip, but purely as we are ſincere. Preſerv. page 90.

Propoſ. II. That no Church ought to unchurch another, or declare it out of God's Favour. Preſerv. p. 85.

[78] Propoſ. III. That nothing loſes us the Favour of God, but a wicked Inſincerity. Ibid.

Propoſ. IV. That a conſcientious Perſon can be in no Danger for being out of any particular Church. Preſerv. page 90.

Propoſ. V. That there is no ſuch Thing as any real Perfection or Excellency in any Religion, that can juſtify our adhering to it, but that all is founded in our Perſonal Perſuaſion. Which your Lordſhip thus proves, When we left the Popiſh Do⯑ctrines, was it becauſe they were actually corrupt? No; The Reaſon was, becauſe we thought them ſo. Therefore if we might leave the Church of Rome, not becauſe her Doctrines were corrupt, but be⯑cauſe we thought them ſo, then the ſame Rea⯑ſon will juſtify any one elſe, in leaving any Church, how true ſoever its Doctrines are; and conſequently there is no ſuch Thing, as any real Perfection or Excellency in any Religion con⯑ſider'd in it ſelf, but it is right or wrong according to our Perſwaſions about it. Preſerv. page 85.

Propoſ. VI. That Chriſt is ſole King and Law⯑giver in his Kingdom, that no Men have any Power of Legiſlation in it; that if we would be good Members of it, we muſt ſhew our ſelves Subjects of Chriſt alone, without any Regard to Man's Judgment.

Propoſ. VII. That as Chriſt's Kingdom is not of this World, ſo when Worldly Encouragements [79] are annexed to it, theſe are ſo many Diviſions againſt Chriſt and his own expreſs Word. Serm. page 11.

Propoſ. VIII. That to pretend to know the Hearts and Sincerity of Men, is Nonſenſe and Abſurdity. Serm. page 93.

Propoſ. IX. That God's Graces are only to be receiv'd immediately from himſelf. Serm, p. 89.

Theſe, my Lord, are your Lordſhips own Pro⯑poſitions, expreſſed in your own Terms without any Exaggeration.

And now, my Lord, begin as ſoon as you pleaſe, either with a Quaker, Socinian, or Jew; uſe any Argument whatſoever to convert them, and you ſhall have a ſufficient Anſwer from your own Propoſitions.

Will you tell the Jew that Chriſtianity is ne⯑ceſſary to Salvation? He will anſwer from Propoſ. I. That we are neither more or leſas in the Fa⯑vour of God, for living in any particular Method or way of Worſhip, but purely as we are Sincere.

Will your Lordſhip tell him, that the Truth of Chriſtianity is ſo well aſſerted, that there is no Excuſe left for Unbelievers? He will anſwer from Propoſ. V. That all Religion is founded in per⯑ſonal Perſuaſion; that as your Lordſhip does not believe that Chriſt is come, becauſe he is actually come, but [80] becauſe you think he is come; ſo He does not disbelieve Chriſt becauſe he is not actually come, but becauſe he thinks he is not come. So that here, my Lord, the Jew gives as good a reaſon why he is not a Chri⯑ſtian, as your Lordſhip does why you are not a Papiſt.

If your Lordſhip ſhould turn the Diſcourſe to a Quaker, and offer him any Reaſons for Em⯑bracing the Doctrine of the Church of England, you can't poſſibly have any better Succeſs; any one may ſee from your Propoſitions, that no Argument can be urg'd but what your Lordſhip has there fully anſwered. For ſince you allow nothing to the Truth of Doctrines, or the Ex⯑cellency of any Communion as ſuch, it is de⯑monſtrable that no Church or Communion can have any Advantage above another, which is abſolutely neceſſary in order to perſuade any ſenſible Man to exchange any Communion for another.

Will your Lordſhip tell a Quaker that there is any Danger in that particular Way that he is in?

He can anſwer from Propoſ. lſt, 3d, and 4th. That a Conſcientious Perſon can't be in any Danger for being out of any particular Church.

Will your Lordſhip tell him that his Religion is condemned by the Univerſal Church?

He can anſwer from Propoſ. 2d, That no Church ought to unchurch another, or declare it out of God's Favour.

[81] Will you tell him that Chriſt has inſtituted Sacraments as neceſſary Means of Grace, which he neglects to Obſerve?

He will anſwer you from Propoſ. IX. That God's Graces are only to be received immediately from him⯑ſelf. And to think that Bread and Wine, or the ſprinkling of Water is neceſſary to Salvation, is as abſurd, as to think any Order of the Clergy, is neceſſary to recommend us to God.

Will your Lordſhip tell him that he diſpleaſes God, by not holding ſeveral Articles of Faith, which Chriſt has required us to believe?

He can reply from Propoſ. III. That nothing loſes us the Favour of God but a wicked Inſincerity. And from Propoſ. V. That as your Lordſhip be⯑lieves ſuch Things, not becauſe they are actually to be believ'd, but becauſe you think ſo; ſo he disbelieves them, not becauſe they are actually falſe, but becauſe he thinks ſo.

Will your Lordſhip tell him he is inſincere?

He can reply from Propoſ. VI. That to aſſume to know the Hearts and Sincerity of Men, is Nonſenſe and Blaſphemy.

Will your Lordſhip tell him that he ought to conform to a Church eſtabliſh'd by the Laws of the Land?

[82] He can anſwer from Propoſ. VIII. that th [...] very Eſtabliſhment is an Argument againſt Con⯑formity, For as Chriſt's Kingdom is not of this Worl [...] ſo when Worldly-Encouragements are annexed to it, the [...] are ſomany Deciſions againſt Chriſt, and his own ex⯑preſs Words. And from Propoſ. VII. That ſeeing Chriſt is ſole King and Lawgiver in his Kingdom, an [...] no M [...]n have any Power of Legiſlation in it, they wh [...] would be good Members of it, muſt ſhew themſelve [...] Subjects to Chriſt alone, without any Regard to Man's Judgment.

I am inclin'd to think, my Lord, that it is now demonſtrated to the common Senſe of the Laity, that your Lordſhip cannot urge any Ar⯑gument, either from the Truth, the Advantage, or Neceſſity of embracing the Doctrines of the Church of England. to either Jew, Heretick, or Schiſmatick, but you have help'd him to a full Anſwer to any ſuch Argument, from your own Principles.

Are we, my Lord, to be treated as Popiſhly af⯑fected for aſſerting ſome Truths, which the Pa⯑piſts join with us in aſſerting? Is it a Crime in us not to drop ſome neceſſary Doctrines, becauſe the Papiſts have not dropt them? If this is to be popiſhly affected, we own the Charge, and are not for being ſuch true Proteſtants, as to give up the Apoſtles Creed, or lay aſide the Sacraments, becauſe they are receiv'd by the Church of Rome. I cannot indeed charge your Lordſhip with being well affected to the Church of Rome or of England, [83] [...] the Jews, the Quakers, Or Socinians, but this I [...]ave demonſtrated, and will undertake the De⯑ [...]nce of it, that your Lordſhips Principles equally [...]rve them all alike, and don't give the leaſt Ad⯑ [...]antage to one Church above another, as has [...]fficiently appeared from your Principles.

I will no more ſay your Lordſhip is in the In⯑ [...]ereſt of the Quakers, or Socinians, or Papiſts, [...]han I would charge you with being in the In⯑ [...]ereſt of the Church of England, for as your Do⯑ [...]trines equally ſupport them all, he ought to ask [...]our Lordſhip's Pardon, who ſhould declare you [...]ore a Friend to one than the other.

I intended, my Lord, to have conſidered an⯑other very obnoxious Article in your Lordſhip's Doctrines, concerning the Repugnancy of temporal Encouragements to the Nature of Chriſt's Kingdom; [...]ut the Conſiſtency and Reaſonableneſs of guard⯑ [...]ng this Spiritual Kingdom with human Laws, [...]as been defended with ſo much Perſpicuity and Strength of Argument, and your Lordſhip's Ob⯑jections ſo fully confuted by the judicious and learned Dean of Chicheſter, that I preſume this Part of the Controverſie is finally determined.

I hope, my Lord, that I have delivered no⯑thing here, that needs any Excuſe or Apology to the Laity, that they will not be perſwaded, thro' any vain Pretence of Liberty, to make themſelves Parties againſt the firſt Principles of Chriſtianity; or imagine, that whilſt we con⯑tend for the poſitive Inſtitutions of the Goſpel, [84] the Neceſſity of Church-Communion, or the Excellency of our own, we are robbing them of their natural Rights, or interfering with their Privileges. Whilſt we appear in the Defence of any part of Chriſtianity, we are engag'd for them in the common Cauſe of Chriſtians. and I am perſwaded better things of the Laity, than to be⯑lieve that ſuch Labours will render either our Perſons or Profeſſions hateful to them. Your Lordſhip has indeed endeavoured to give an in⯑vidious Turn to the Controverſie, by calling upon the Laity to aſſert their Libertys, as if they were in Danger from the Principles of Chriſtianity. —But, my Lord, what Liberty does, any Lay⯑man loſe, by our aſſerting, that Church-Com⯑munion is neceſſary? What Privilege is taken from them by our teaching the Danger of certain Ways and Methods of Religion? Is a Man made a Slave becauſe he is caution'd againſt the Prin⯑ciples of the Quakers, againſt Fanaticiſm, Popery, or Socinianiſm? Is he in a State of Bondage, becauſe the Sacraments are neceſſary, and none but Epi⯑ſcopal Clergy ought to adminiſter them? Is his Freedom deſtroy'd becauſe there is a particular Order of Men appointed by God to miniſter in Holy Things, and be ſerviceable to him in re⯑commending him to the Favour of God? Can any Perſons, my Lord, think theſe things breaches upon their Liberty, except ſuch as think the Commandments a Burden? Is there any more Hardſhip in ſaying, thou ſhalt keep to an Epiſcopal Church, than thou ſhalt be bap⯑tiz'd? Or in requiring People to receive parti⯑cular Sacraments, than to believe particular [85] Books of Scripture to be the Word of God? If ſome other Advocate for the Laity, ſhould, out of Zeal for their Rights, declare that they need not believe one half of the Articles in the Creed; if they would but aſſert their Liberty, He would be as true a Friend, and deſerve the ſame Applauſe, as he who ſhould aſſert the Ne⯑ceſſity of Church-Communion, is inconſiſtent with the natural Rights and Liberties of Man⯑kind.