^''^•'Pip^il*^ 
 
 v1 
 
 
 
 ■ ^rSf 
 
 ,'**v 
 
 fl 
 
 II. 
 
Sec 
 
 DnisioQ 
 
 Scttioa '1 I io 
 
I 
 
 / 
 
 J -2 
 
4. 
 
 ^•/•ricalSft!!: 
 
 REP LY^ 
 
 TO T H E -^^^^ 
 
 Bilhop of ^^iVGO. 
 
 ANSWE 
 
 T O T H E 
 
 REPRESENTATION 
 
 O F T H E 
 
 COMMITTEE 
 
 O F 
 
 CONVOCATION. 
 
 Humbly addrefs'd to his Lordfhip. 
 By WILLIAM^LAW, M. A. 
 
 LONDON^ 
 
 Printed for William and John Innys at the 
 Prince's Arms at the Weft-End of St. PanV% 
 Church-yard. 171 9 
 
THE 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Uf the Nature of the Church. Page 6 
 
 Of Church Authority, p. r^ 
 
 A remarkable Evafion of his Lordjhifs, in 
 Relation to Church Authority, p. 90 
 
 Of Excommunication, p. 1 1 1 
 
 Of Church Authority y as it relates to ex- 
 ternal Communion, p. i i^s 
 
 Of Sincerity and private Judgment, p. 193 
 Of the Reformation. p. %i^ 
 
 My 
 
( I ) 
 
 ■■^■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■M—— — — M int -nwiM ■BMBajiBit— M 
 
 M Y L O R D, 
 
 Beg leave to trouble your Lord- 
 lliip and the World once more 
 with my Remarks upon the Do- 
 (Slrines you have lately deliver- 
 ed. Your Sermon and Trefer- 
 'vative I have already confider'd in the mod 
 impartial manner I could ; and ihall now ex- 
 amine your Anlwer to the Reprefentattou of 
 the Learned Committee^ both as it is an An- 
 fwer to that, and as it contains Opinions 
 contrary to the fundamental Articles of Chri- 
 ftianiry, 
 
 I have left need of excufing to your Lord- 
 ihip this third Addrefs, fmce you can fo eafi- 
 ly acquit your felf from the Trouble of ma- 
 king any Reply to whatever comes from me. 
 It leems I have too fraall a Reputation to de- 
 ferve your Notice ; but if the T>ean of Chi- 
 chefter injonld but declare for the T)oiirines 
 
 B deli^ 
 
( 2 ) 
 
 delivered in ?ny Letters^ and put but a lit- 
 tle of bis Refutation upon ' the ijjtte^ theuy 
 you lay, you iL'ould fubmit to the Employ- 
 ment of ail Anlvvcr |. 
 
 My Lord, I readily confefs that I have 
 neither Reputation nor Learnings nor any 
 Title to recommend me to your Lcrdfliip's 
 Notice ; but I muft own that I thought the 
 .) very want of thefe would, in your Opinion, 
 qualify me to make better Enquiries into Re- 
 ligious Truths, and raife your Efteem of me 
 as a Correfpondent in thefe Matters. For you 
 expreffly declare, that if Learning or Litera- 
 ture is to be interefted in this ^Debate, then 
 the moji learned Man has certainly a Title 
 to be the "Vniverfal Judge *. So that no 
 Man ought to ihew any Regard to Learnings 
 as a ^lalification in religious Difputes, un- 
 lefs he will own that the moft learned Man 
 has a Title to be a Pope, or as you exprefs it, 
 the ^Vniverf hi Judge . Yet your Lordlhip in 
 ipight of this Proteftant Do6i;rine fo lately 
 delivered, has defpifed and overlooked all my 
 Opinions in Religion merely for my want of 
 CharaEfer and Lear^ting^ and has promis'd 
 to undertake the needle fs Task of examining 
 thofe Opinions with another Gentleman mere- 
 ly upon account of his Chara^er and Repu- 
 tation. So that tho' it is perfed; Popery, 
 and making the moft learned Man the uni- 
 
 t Anfw. to Cond'it. of our Saviour vindicated, p. 112.. 
 * Anfiv. to IXepr, p. 99. 
 
 . vcrfal 
 
( 3 ) • 
 
 verfiil Judge, to allow any thing to Learning; 
 yet your Lordfliip is fo true a Trotejiant^ 
 and pays (b great a Regard to Learning, that 
 you will not fo much as examine a Dodlrine 
 with a Perlbn of no Character for Learning. 
 
 Again you fay; Nothing has been feen to 
 admintfler fo many T>oubts and 'Differences 
 (in Religion) as Learning *, and that none 
 are feen to be lefs fectire froyn Error than 
 learned Men. 
 
 Now ic \s> not ftrange, ray Lord, that af- 
 ter this noble Declaration ^.^v^viSk. Learnings as 
 the grearefl: Caufe of Doubcs and Differences, 
 this extraordinary Preference given to Igno- 
 rance^ as a more likel}^ Guide to Truth, you 
 fliould defpife any one as below your Notice 
 in religious Difputes, becanle he wants that 
 Learning which fo blinds the Underftanding ? 
 Can you afcribe thus much Honour to Learn- 
 ing, which in your Opinion does fo much 
 Dilhonour to Religion ? Will you mterefi 
 thofe Qiialities in this Debate, which if they 
 are allowed to have any Intercft in it, will 
 make the Man of the greatefl: Abilities the 
 ^niverfal Judge. 
 
 Again, As a farther Reafon why you have 
 taken no notice of me, you fay, as confide- 
 rable a JVr'ttcr as Mr. Law is ; / hope the 
 Committee^ as a Body, are much more conff- 
 derable in the Dean's Eyes ; / am fure , 
 
 * Llid. p. 98. 
 
 ^z they 
 
( + ) 
 
 tfj^y are in mine : And the Dean himfelfl 
 have thought a much more confidcrahle IV ri- 
 ter than Air, Law, and fo haue Ipciit all my 
 time upon Him and the Committee, 
 
 Now, my Lord, tho' I readily acknowledge 
 this to be exceeding true, and have lb tar at 
 lead a juft Opinion of my lelf, as to be afraid 
 to be compared to much leis Perfons thar> 
 the Dean, or any of the learned Committee, 
 yet, my Lord, this Reafon, which, if urgd 
 by any one elfe, might pais for a good one, 
 cannot be urg'd by you, without contradict- 
 ing a principal Dodtrine m.aintain'd in your 
 Anfwer to the Reprefentation. For there 
 you bid us look into the 'Topijh Countries ; 
 and fee whether one illiterate honeft Man be 
 not as capable of judging for himfelf in Re- 
 ligion^ as all their learned Men united \ e- 
 ven fupfofing them met together in a Gene- 
 ral Council, with all fojjible Marks of So- 
 lemnity and Grandeur *. 
 
 Here we fee a Perfon merely for his w^ant 
 of Literature made as good a Judge in Re- 
 ligion, as a General Council of the moft 
 learned Men, ailing with the utmoft Solem- 
 nity. We lee a Council in its utmoft Per- 
 ftcSion contemptuoufly compar'd to, and e- 
 ven made lels confiderable than a private il- 
 literate Perfon. And this we may fairly fup- 
 pofe was intended to fliew your Contempt of 
 
 * Anfiv, to Repr. p. 98. 
 
 the 
 
( 5 ) 
 
 the Englijh Convocation, But a few Weeks 
 after, when you had another Defign in your 
 Head, you tell us to this purpolc, that you 
 diiregarded the Writings of a fingle Perfon of 
 no Figure in the learned World, to pay your 
 Refj^ed: to the Committee as a Body^ which^ 
 O'S fnch^ is much more confiderable in your 
 ^jes. So that here an illiterate Perfon is 
 made a great Judge in Religion in regard to 
 to a Body of learned Men, becaufe he is illi- 
 terate ; and here that lame Perfon is made of 
 no Confideration in Points of Religion in re- 
 gard to a Body of learned Men, merely be- 
 caufe he is private and illiterate. 
 
 It will be of no Advantage to your Lord- 
 iliip, to fay that you have only reply'd to 
 phe T>ean^ in relation to me ; in the fame 
 Words that he us'd to you, in relation to 
 Mr. Sykes. 
 
 For, my Lord, that Reply might be pro- 
 per enough from the Dean, if he judg'd right 
 of Mr. Sykes's Performance ; it being very 
 reafonable to overlook an Adverfary that has 
 neither Truth, Abilities, or Reputation tofup- 
 port his Caufe. 
 
 But tho' this might be right in the Dean, 
 who pays a true Regard to the Authority and 
 Learning of great Men, yet it cannot be de- 
 fended by your Lordfliip. For tho' m^ Learn- 
 ing or Reputation were ever fo low, they are 
 fo far from unqualifying me for religious En- 
 q^iiries, that if you would fincerely fland to 
 
 what 
 
( o 
 
 what you have faid, yon ought, for the want 
 of thefe very Accomplifhments, to efteem me 
 the more, and even chufe me out as a Corre- 
 Ipondent in this Debate. 
 
 But however, without any farther Regard 
 to the Opinion your Lordfliip has either of 
 me or my Abilities, I Ihall proceed to the moft 
 impartial Examination of your Book that I pof- 
 fibly can. 
 
 Of the Nature of the Church. 
 
 O begin with your Lordlliip's De- 
 fcript'ion of a Church ; The Num- 
 ber of Men ^ whether fmall or greats 
 whether difperfed or united^ who 
 truly and Jincerely are SubjeEis to Chrifi a- 
 lone in Matters of Salvation *. 
 
 The learned Committee calls this your Lord- 
 fliip's Defcription of a Church. 
 
 Your Lordlhip anfwers ; / wonder to hear 
 this caird my IDefcripion of A Church ; 
 whereas I pretend^ in thofe Words to de- 
 fcribe no other^ but The Univerfal Invifible 
 Church. It is a "Defcription^ not ofX Church, 
 in our modern way of ffeaking ; but of The 
 Church, the Invifible Church of Chrift f. 
 
 Serm. ^.11. j ^-^f'^v. to Repr. p. 70. 
 
 May 
 
(7 ) 
 
 May not we alfo wonder, my Lord, tha^' 
 you ihould fo dcfcribe The Church, that it 
 will not bear being call'd A Church ? If I 
 lliould fay it is a Dcfcription of no Church, 
 I have your Lordfliip's Confeffion, that ic is 
 not A Church ; io that it is fomething be- 
 twixt a Church and no Church, that x^^ it is 
 27?^ Church. 
 
 Suppofe, my Lord, fome body or other 
 fliould have a mind to be of your Church, if 
 he betakes himlelf to A Churchy he is wrong ; 
 you don't mean A Churchy but The Church. 
 Your Lordlhip owns that this is not a De- 
 Icription of a Church in the modern way of 
 fpeaking ; I humbly prefume to call upon your 
 Lordfliip to ihew that it is a Dcfcription ac- 
 cording to the ancient way of Ipeaking. To 
 call the Number of Believers the Invifibic 
 Church, is a way of fpeaking, no more to be 
 found in the Scriptures, than the Company 
 of Tr a- Adamites. 
 
 There \s no doubt of it an Livifible Church, 
 i. e. a Number of Beings that are in Covenant 
 with God , who are not to be feen by hu- 
 man Eyes ; and w^e may be faid to be Mem- 
 bers of this Invifible Churchy as we are en- 
 tituled to the fame Hopes and Expedtations. 
 But to call the Number of Men and Women 
 who believe in Chrift and obferve his Infti- 
 tutions, whether dilperfcd or united in this 
 vifible World, to call thefe The Invifible 
 Churchy is as falfc and groundlcfs as to call 
 
 them 
 
( 8 ) 
 
 them the Order of Angels^ or the Church of 
 Seraphims. The ProtelTion of Chriftians is 
 as vifible as any other ProfcflloD, and as much 
 declared by vifible external Ads. And it is 
 as proper to call a Number of Men pradtifing 
 Law or Thyfick^ an Invifible Society of 
 Lawyers and Vhyficlans^ as to call the Church 
 on Earth the Invifible Church. For all thole 
 Ads and Offices which prove People to be 
 Chriftians, or the Church of Chrift, are as vi- 
 fible and notorious, as thofe which prove 
 them to be of any particular fccular Employ- 
 ment. Would it be proper to call the Num- 
 ber of Infidels and Idolaters the Invifible 
 Church of the Devil ? Are they not vifibly 
 under the Dominion of the Powers of Dark- 
 nefs ? Are they not vifibly out of Chrift's 
 Church ? Muft it not therefore be as vifible 
 who is in this Church, as who is not in it ? 
 
 If any one Ihould tell us that we are to 
 believe Invifible Scriptures, and obferve In- 
 vifible Sacraments, he would have juft as 
 much Reafon and Scripture of his fide as your 
 Lordfliip has for thisDodrine. And it would 
 be of the fame Service to the World to talk 
 of xhQklnvifibilitteSy if the. Canon of Scrip- 
 ture was in dilpute, as to defcribe this Invi- 
 fible Church, when the Cafe is, with what 
 Vifible Church we ought to unite. 
 
 Our Saviour himfelf tells us, that the King- 
 dom of Heaven is like unto a Net that was 
 cajt into the Sea^ and gathered of every 
 
 kind\ 
 
(?) 
 
 kind\ which j "johen it was full^ they drew 
 to jhore and fat down^^ and gathered the good 
 into Vejfels^ hut cajt the bad away. And 
 then fays fo Jhall it be at the end of the 
 World *. 
 
 This, my Lord, is a Dcfcription of the 
 State of Chrift's Church given us by himfclf. 
 Is there any thing in this Defcriprion that 
 ihould lead us to take it for 2iV\Invifible King- 
 dom^ that confiftsof one particular fort of Peo- 
 ple tnvifhly united to Chrift? Nay, is it not 
 the whole Intent of this SimiHtude to teach us 
 the contrary, that his Kingdom \s> to confifl 
 of a Mixture of good and bad Subjedts lill 
 the end of the World ? The Kingdom of 
 Chrift is fiid here to gather its Members, as 
 a Net gathers all kinds of Fifli ; it is chiefly 
 compared to it in this refped, becaufe it gathers 
 of ^// kinds ; which I fuppoie is a fufltcicnt De- 
 claracion, that this Kingdom confifts of Subje<Ss 
 good and bad, as that the Net that gathers of 
 every kind of Filh, takes good and bad Fifh. 
 Let us fuppoie that the Church of Chrift ws^^ 
 this Invijible Number of People united to 
 Chrift by fuch internal invifible Graces ; is it 
 poftible that a Kingdom confifting of this one 
 particular fort of People invifibly good^ fliould 
 be like a Net that gathers of every kind of 
 Fifli ? If it was to be compared to a Net, ic 
 
 '^ Matth. 13. A-]. 
 
 C CHght 
 
{ JO ) 
 
 ought to be compar'd to iuch a Net, as gathers 
 only of one kincl,i;/;s. good Fifli, and then it 
 might rcprclent to us a Church that has but 
 one fort of Members. 
 
 But fmce Chrift, who certainly underftood 
 the Nature of his own Kingdom, has declar'd 
 that it is Hkc a Net that gathers of every kind 
 of FiJIo '^ it is as abfurd to fay, that it con- 
 iifts only of one kind of Perlbns fviz. the 
 invifibly good) as to fay, that the Net which 
 gathers of every kind^ has only of one kind 
 in it. Farther ; when it was full they drew 
 it to fhore^ and gathered the good into Vef 
 felsy but cajt the bad away ; fo Jhall it be 
 at the end of the World. Now as it was 
 the bad as well as the goodFifli which ifiird the 
 Net^ and the Church is compar'd to the Net 
 in this refpecS ; fo it is evident that bad Men 
 as well as good are SubjecSts of this Kingdom. 
 And I prefume they are Members of that 
 Kingdom which they fill up, as iurely as the 
 the Fifli muft be in the Net before they can 
 fill it. All thefe Circumftances plainly de- 
 clare that the Church or Kingdom of Chrift 
 lliall confift of a Mixture of good and bad 
 People to the end of the World. 
 
 Again ; Chrift declares that the Kingdom 
 tf Heaven is like to a certain King which 
 made a Marriage for his Son^ and fent his 
 Servants out into the High-ways, who ga- 
 ther' d together all as many as they founds 
 
 both 
 
{ " ) 
 
 both good and bad^ and the JVeddlng was 
 filU with Gnejis *. 
 
 Nothing can be rrtOvG evident than that the 
 chief Intent of this Parable is to ihevv that 
 the Church of Chrift is to be a Mixture of 
 good and bad People to the end of the World. 
 It is Hke a Feaji where good and bad Guefts 
 are entertained ; but can it be Hke fuch a Feajf 
 if only the hivifibly virtuous are Members of 
 it ? If the SubjecSts of this Kingdom are of 
 one invijible kind^ how can they bear any 
 Refemblance to a Feaji made up of all khtds 
 of Guefts ? Nay, what could be thought of, 
 more unHke to this Kingdom, if it was fuch 
 a Kingdom as you have reprelented it ? 
 
 How could our blefled Saviour have more 
 dire6Hy guarded againfl fiich a Defcription of 
 his Kingdom as your Lordfliip has given us, 
 than he has done in thefe Parables ? He 
 compares it to a Quantity of good and bad 
 Fifli in 2iNet^ to a Number of good and bad 
 Guefls at a Feaji. Are there any Words that 
 could more fully declare his Meaning to be, 
 that his Kingdom confifted of good and bad 
 Subjefts ? Could any one more diredlly con- 
 tradid: this Account of our Saviour, than by 
 faying that his Kingdom is an invifible King- 
 dom confifting of a particular fort of People 
 invifibly virtuous ? 
 
 C X Your 
 
( li ) 
 
 Your Lordihip profcfTes a mighty Regard 
 for the Scriptures, and a great Dillike lo all 
 Doctrines that arc nor delivered there ; pray, 
 my Lord, produce but fo much as one Text 
 of Scripture ; tell us rhe Apofile or Evange- 
 lift that ever declared xho. Number of Believers 
 whether difperfed or united on Earthy to be 
 the^niverjallnvifible Church \ ihevv us any 
 onePaflage in Scripture which teaches us, that 
 none are of the Church of Chriil, but thofe 
 who have luch Invifible Virtues^ and cannot 
 be known to be lb. 
 
 There \s as much Authority from Scripture 
 to prov^ that the Church is a Kingdom with- 
 out any Subjects, as that they are only of ir, 
 who have liich Invifible Graces. And it is as 
 ealy to prove from thofe facred Writings, that 
 neither Chrift or his Apoftles were ever Viji" 
 ble op Earth, as that the Number of People 
 on Earth who believe in Chrift conftitute the 
 Invifible Church. 
 
 In the Parables above mention'd it is out 
 of all doubt that our Saviour defcribes his 
 'Vniverfal Kingdom or Church: It is alfo 
 certain that the 'Vniverfal Invifible Church, 
 which you call ChrilVs Church, cannot be 
 this Vniverfal Church that is made up of 4 
 Mixture of good and bad Members. I there- 
 fore beg of your Lordihip to let us know 
 where Chrift has taught us, that he has two 
 Vniverfal Churches on Earth ; for if you 
 pc^nnot iliew that he has declared that he has 
 
 theft 
 
( 13 ) 
 
 thcfe two Univcrfal Churches, you muft al- 
 low that this which you have delcribed, is a 
 Church of your own ictting up, not only 
 without any Authority, but even againll the 
 cxprefsWord of Scripture. 
 
 Your Lordfliip fays that the Doctrines 
 which the Learned Committee have condemn- 
 ed, if they be of that evil Tendency, muft 
 be fo either zuith Regc&d to the Univerfal 
 Invifible Church, made up of all thofe who 
 Jincerely in their Hearts believe in Chrift ; 
 or with refpeEi to the Univerfal Vifible 
 Church made up of ally who in all Coun- 
 tries (whether fincerely or injincerely) open- 
 ly profefs to believe in Chrift ^ or with rejpedi 
 to fome particular Vifible Church *. 
 
 It may be juftly expefted, my Lord, that 
 you fliould Ihew us fome Grounds for this Di- 
 ftindlion. Where does our blefled Lord give 
 us fo much as the leaft Hint that he has 
 founded two Univerfal Churches on Earth ? 
 Did he defcribe his Church by halves when 
 he liken'd ii to a Net full of all kinds of Filh ? 
 Has he any where let us know that he has a- 
 nother Univerfal Kingdom on Earth befides 
 this, which in the Variety of its Members is 
 like a Net full of all forts of good and bad 
 Filh. 
 
 Let your Lordfhip,if y ou can,ftiew any Subtil- 
 ties in Topety which are more of human Invcn- 
 
 * Anfiv. t> Repr. p. 5. 
 
 tiop. 
 
( H) 
 
 tion, or more contrary to Scripture than this 
 refin'd Diftindion. The Opus Operatum in 
 the Sacraments, the temporal Satisfadtions for 
 Sins, Works of Superogation^ or any of the 
 niceft Arts oijefuitifm are not lefs founded 
 in Scripture than this nice Diftindlion, of in- 
 juring either the ^niverfal Invifihle^ or the 
 ^niverfal Vijibk', or a particular Vifihle 
 Church. For, my Lord, the Church ot Chrift 
 is as truly one and the fame Church, as the 
 Sacrament of Baprilm is one and the lame 
 Baptifm ; and he no more inftituted feveral 
 forts of Churches than he inftituted ieveral 
 Ji^inds of Bapriim. 
 
 Pray, my Lord, therefore be no longer an- 
 gry at Human Arts in Religion ; why may 
 not Popery have its Peculiarities in Doctrine 
 as well as your Lordfliip ; the Church oiRome, 
 with all its Additions and Corruptions, and 
 pompous Ornaments, is as much like the 
 Church as it was in the Apoflles Times, as 
 your Invtfible Church is like that which 
 Chrift declared to be his Church. When 
 they fet out the Church as Infallible^ they 
 do but reafon like your Lordfhip, when you 
 defcribe it as Inviflble. 
 
 That there are good and bad Church-men, 
 is paft all doubt ; but that People are of the 
 Church by means of invtfible Virtues^ is as 
 falle as that only good Men came to the Feaft 
 in the Gofpel. We are aflur'd that many are 
 calledj but few are chofen ; u e. that many 
 
 fliall 
 
( 15 ) 
 
 Ihall be made Members of Chrift's Church, 
 but few lliall be faved ; and who thcfc few- 
 are that truly work out their Salvation, may 
 be invijlble to us ; but thofc many that were 
 caird, that is, who were in the Church, tho' 
 they did not hve up to all the Intents of 
 Church-Communion, yet were as truly of 
 the Church, as the bad FiHi were really in 
 the Net. 
 
 But to proceed ; I fliall illuftratc this Reply 
 of your Lordiliip concerning an Univerfal 
 Vifible^ and Univerfal Invifble, and par- 
 ticiilar Vtfible Churchy with the following 
 Inftances. 
 
 Let us fuppofe any one was charg'd with 
 writing againft th^ Sacraments ; if he fliould 
 with your Lordfhip reply, that this Charge 
 againft him muft either relate to 'Vniverfal 
 Vijible Sacraments^ or ^niverfal Invijible 
 Sacraments ^ or particular Vijible Sacra- 
 ments^ he would have juft as much Scripture 
 or Reafon to lupport thatDiftincStion, as your 
 Lordfliip has for dividing the Church into "U- 
 niverfal Vijible and Quiver Jal Invijible, and 
 particular Vijible. For the ProfefTion of 
 Chriftianity, or Church-Memberfhip, is as ex- 
 ternal and vifible a thing, as the Sacraments 
 are external vifible Inftitutions. So that it 
 is as contrary to Scripture, and as mere an 
 human Invention to make Pretence of an T?- 
 niverjal Invtjible Church, when the Difpute 
 is concernijig Chrift's Church on Earth, as it 
 
 is 
 
( lO 
 
 is to have recourfe to Invljible Sacraments^ 
 if the Qiieftioii was concerning Chrijfs Sa- 
 craments. 
 
 They are both equally external and vifi- 
 ble ; and as the Sacraments may be received 
 without any l[5iritual Advantage, fo Perfbns 
 may be of the Church and yet not be fav'dw 
 And as the Sacraments are not lefs Sacra-^ 
 ments, tho' they may not convey the de- 
 fign'd Benefits to the Receiver ; * fo neither 
 are fuch a Number of People not of the 
 Church, tho' they do not obtain that Salva- 
 tion which is the intended Confcquence of 
 Church-Communion. 
 
 Your Lordfliip cannot give any one Rea- 
 fon for introducing this Diftindion with Re- 
 gard to the Church, which will not equally 
 hold for the fame Diftindion in Regard to 
 the Sacraments; and there is exactly the 
 fame ^akery zudFanaticiJm in one Dodlrine 
 as the other. 
 
 For as it is the Sacraments which chiefly 
 conftitute the Church., fo no 'DiJiinBions or 
 ^ivifions can with any tolerable Propriety be 
 apply 'd to the Church, but fuch as may be 
 alio apply'd to the Sacraments^ that confti- 
 tute the Church. And therefore the Terms 
 ^7iiverfal and Particulars Vifible and In- 
 'vifible^ have no more to do with Chrift's 
 Church which he has inftituted in this Worlds 
 than with the two Sacraments which he alfo 
 inftituted> Baj^tifm^ and the Supper of the 
 Lord. Again^ 
 
( n ) 
 
 Again, If any one was accus'd of writing 
 againft the Chrijlian Revelation ^ he might 
 aniwer with your Lordlhip, if this Accufation 
 be true, it mufl: be fo either with regard to 
 God's Univerfal Vifible Revelation in all 
 the Canonical Books, or with Regard to his 
 ^niverfal hivifible Revelation whereby he 
 Ipeaks inwardly to all Jincere People, or 
 with refped to fome particular Part of his 
 vifible Revelation. Let all the World judge 
 whether if a Perfon fo accus'd, fhould make 
 this Reply, it would not plainly appear, ei- 
 ther that he was a downright Enthujiaft^ or a 
 crafty Dealer in Cant and artificial Words. 
 I am fure your Lordlhip cannot Ihew that 
 you have more Authority to divide the 
 Church on Earth into %)niverfal Vifible and 
 ^niverfial Invifible^ and particular Vifibky 
 than he had to divide the Chriflian Revela- 
 tion into Vifible and Invifiible, Neither was 
 it lefs to the purpofe for fuch a one to talk 
 of Invifible Scriptures, if he was accus'd of 
 denying the Go^el ofSt.John. than it is for 
 your Lordfliip under your prefent Accufation 
 to have recourfe to the Invifible Church ; but 
 your Lordlhip will find no Advantage in this 
 Retreat. 
 
 Again ; Suppofe a Perfon was charg'd with 
 writing Treafon againft the Government, and 
 in his Defence Ihould thus diftinguilh ; 77?^ 
 Treafon that I am charg'd with againft the 
 Government, muft relate either to univerfal 
 
 D Govern- 
 
( i8 ) 
 
 Government in this World, or to Vniverfal 
 Government in the other JVorld^ or to fome 
 particular Government in this World. 
 
 It would be as ingcfiiious^ as fincere^ and 
 as pertinent for a Perfbn thus accused to talk 
 of Governments that had no relation to the 
 Cafe, but in his own Imagination ; as for 
 your Lordlliip in the prefent Difpute to talk 
 of Univerfal Vifihle^ and ^niverfal Inviji- 
 ble^ and particular Vifible Churches. For 
 befides this ; that there is no Foundation for 
 fiich a Diftindtion, yet if there was ftich an 
 Invifible Church, how is it poflible yourLord- 
 iliip Ihould hurt it ? How is it poffible the 
 Learned Committee fliculd mean to charge 
 you with injuring it ? They might as well 
 think your Lordfliip capable of forming aDe- 
 fign to arreft a Parry of Spirits^ as to attack 
 an Invifible Church that neither you nor they 
 know any thing of or where to find. 
 
 Your Lordfliip fairh, That if you have wn- 
 jujily laid any thing down in this T)efcrip' 
 tion of the Invifible Church , to the "Pre- 
 judice or Injury of any Particular Vijible 
 Church ; you acknowledge that it is your 
 part to anfwer for it *. 
 
 I believe it appears already that your Lord- 
 fliip has a great deal to anfwer for upon this 
 Head ; and I fliall now farther fhew that you 
 liave let up this hivifible Church in Oppofi- 
 
 Arifw. to Kep, p. 70. 
 
 tion 
 
( IS ) 
 
 tion to all other Churches whatever. This 
 will appear from the following Paflage in your 
 Sermon ; This Enquiry will bring us back to 
 the firfi^ which is the only true Account of 
 the Church of Chrifl or Kingdom of Chrift in 
 the Mouth of a Chriftian^ viz. the Number of 
 Men whether fmall or great *, &c. 
 
 We have your Lordfliip's Confefiion that 
 you only here pretend to defcribe the ^///-* 
 verfal Invifihle Church of Chrifl ; you alio 
 here plainly declare, that it is the only true 
 Account of Chrifl' s Church or Kingdom in 
 the Mouth of a Chriflian, 
 
 Is not this, my Lord, expreflly declaring 
 that any otJyer Account of Chrift's Church is 
 not a true one ; for you fay this is rhe only 
 true one ? Is it not directly affirming that 
 any other Defcription of Chrift's Church can- 
 not become the Mouth of a Chriftian ; for 
 you fay that this is the only true one in the 
 Mouth of a Chriflian ? So that if we call 
 the Univerfal Vifible Church, the Church of 
 Chrift, we give a falfe Account of Chrift's 
 Church, and fuch a one as is unfit for the 
 Mouth of a Chriftian. 
 
 Could your Lordfhip have thought of any 
 thing more Ihocking, than to fay that the De- 
 fcription of your Invtftble Church is the only 
 true Account of Chrift's Church, and fit for 
 the Mouth of a Chriftian, when our Savioux 
 
 P. 1 6. 
 
 Dx h^s 
 
( 20) 
 
 has given us a quite contrary Account of it 
 from his own Mouth ? He corapares it to a 
 Net full of good and bad Filh, to a Feaft 
 full of good and bad Guefts ; this furely, my 
 Lord, is not an Account of your hivijible 
 Church, where there are only Invifible Mem- 
 bers. Your Lord (hip cannot fay that Chrift 
 has here defcribed ih^LiviJible CImrch ; you 
 diredly fay that your Defcriprion of the Invi- 
 fible Church, is the only true Account of 
 Chrift's Church in the Mouth of a Chriftian ; 
 and confequently this Account which our Sa- 
 viour himfelf has given of his Church, (lands 
 condemn'd by your Lordfliip as a falfe Ac- 
 count of Chrift's Church unfit for the Mouth 
 of a Chriftian. I appeal to the common 
 Senfe of every Reader, whether I have laid 
 any thing to your Charge, but what your 
 own exprefs Words amount to. The Ihort is 
 this ; If Chrift has in thefe Parables defcrib'd 
 the Univerfal Church as Vifible, then it is 
 plain that this Account of Chrift's Church is 
 a falfe one in the Mouth of a Chriftian ; for 
 you fay your Account of the Invifible Church 
 is the only true Account ofChriJi's Church in 
 the Mouth of a Chrijtian ; fb that nothing 
 can fecure this Account which our Saviour ha's 
 given of his Church from your Lordlhip's 
 Ccnfure, but fliewing that it is the very fame 
 Account of the Invifible Church that you 
 have given ; which I believe is more than 
 your Lordfliip will undertake to prove; it 
 
 being 
 
( 21 ) 
 
 being as hard to prove that a Net full of good 
 and bad Filh, or a Feaft full of good and bad 
 Gucfts Ihould reprefent an Invifible Kingdom 
 of only one fort of Subjeds, as that the Net 
 and Fcaft, tho' both fttll^ fliould reprefent a 
 Kingdom that had not otie SubjecSt in it. 
 
 If a Fanatick fliouId defcribe the Chriftian 
 Sacraments, as Spiritual and Invifible Sa- 
 craments, and then affirm that that was the 
 only true Account of Chrijiian Sacraments in 
 the Mouth of a Chrifltan , could we charge 
 him with left than writing againft all Sacra- 
 ments but Invifible Sacraments ? It is juft 
 thus far that your Lordfliip has proceeded a- 
 gainft the External Vifible Church ; you 
 have declar'd the Invifible one to be the only 
 true Churchy fit to be (poke of by a Chri- 
 ftian, which I think is laying down a Pofition 
 highly injurious to the Vifible Church, fince 
 it is here condemned as falfe in the Mouth of 
 a Chriftian. 
 
 From all this it appears that iht Learned 
 Committee have juftly dislik'd your Lordfliip's 
 Defcription of the Church of Chrift, 
 
 Firfl ; As you defcribe' it as an Invifible 
 Church, diredly contrary to the Scripture Re- 
 prefentations of it, as given by our Saviour 
 himfelf 
 
 Secondly ; As it is in Dilparagement of the 
 Article of our Church, which gives quite a- 
 nother Defcription of the Church. 
 
 That 
 
 i 
 
{ 22 ) 
 
 That the Church defcrib'd iu tht Article 
 falls under your Lordfliip's Cenfure, is very 
 plaio. For you declare that yourDefcription 
 of the Invifible is the only true Account of 
 Chrift's Church ; therefore the Defcriptioii in 
 the Article cannot be a true one, becaule it is 
 different from yours, which is the only true 
 one. 
 
 Secondly ; You declare that you confider 
 the Church under this Defcription, viz, as 
 Invijiblcj becaufe every other Notion of it, 
 is made up of inconfiftent Images * : There- 
 fore the Account of the Church in the Arti- 
 cle is thus inconfiftent. 
 
 Now what does yourLordfliip anfwer here? 
 Only this, that the Article fpeaks of the 
 Vifible Church, and you [peak of the Invi- 
 fible one \, 
 
 This Anlvver, my Lord, proves the Charge 
 upon you to be juft. For fince you own 
 that you defcribe another Church than that 
 which is defcrib'd in the Article, and expreffly 
 affirm that your Account of this ocher Church 
 is the only true Account of Chrift's Church 
 in the Mouth of a Chrijtian ; you plainly 
 declare that the other Church is a falfe one 
 in the Mouth of a Chriftian. Yet your Lord- 
 fliip refts fatisfy'd with this Reply, as if you 
 had clear'd your felf by it. Whereas this is 
 the very Charge itfelf, That you have de- 
 
 * S(rm, p. 10. t Anfw. toKepr. p. 78. 
 
 fcrib'd 
 
{ 23 ) 
 
 fcrib'd the Church otherwife than it is in the 
 Article, and have call'd this different and nevj 
 Account of it the only true Account of it ; 
 and if it be the only true one, then that 
 which is given in the Article muft be a falle one. 
 
 Your Lordlliip goes on. The Article de- 
 clares what it is, that makes every fuch 
 Congregation^ the Vifible Church of Chrifi ; 
 and I defer ibe what it is that makes every 
 particular Man^ a Member of Chriffs Uni- 
 verlal Invifible Church. The Article de- 
 fcribes thofe outward Adts, which are necef 
 fary to make a Vifible Church ; and I de- 
 fcribe that inward Sincerity, and Regard to 
 Chriji himfelf which make Men Members 
 of the Invifible Church of Chriji. And where 
 is the ContradicStion contained in all this * ? 
 
 Suppoft, my Lord, any one fliould affirm 
 that there is a Sincere^ Invifible Bilhop of 
 Bangor^ who is the only true Bifliop oi Ban- 
 gor in the Mouth of a Chrifiian. Would 
 your Lordlhip think here was no Reflexion 
 intended upon your felf ? Would you think 
 this Account no ContradiEiion to youx Right 
 as Bifhop of Bangor ? Does your Lordlhip 
 believe liich an AUertion could come from a- 
 ny one that own'd your Right to your Bi- 
 fhoprick^ and was a Friend to you in it? 
 Would you imagine that nothing was meant 
 againft you, becaufe the other Bilhop was 
 
 * Anfvj. to Repr, p. 79. 
 
 m 
 
( 2+) 
 
 faid to be hivijible? Your Lordlhip can't 
 but know, that tho' he is faid to be Invifible, 
 yet if he is the only trueB'tjhop ^/Bangor in the 
 "Mouth of a Cbrijlian^ then any other Bifliop 
 oi Bangor, whether V'tfible or Inv'tjible, muft 
 be a falfe one In the Month of a Chrijiian. 
 
 Thus it is your Lordfliip has dealt with 
 the Vifible Church ; you have fet another up 
 as the only true Church, and yet think all is 
 well ; that there is no Contradidion, becauft 
 you call this other an Invifible Church j 
 whereas if it be the only true Church, it 
 contradicts every other Church in the higheft 
 Senfe. And tho' it don't contradid: it as a 
 Vifible Chmchy yet it does as a 7>//^ Church, 
 which is of more Confequence. 
 
 Your Lord {hip here puts a Queflion in fa- 
 vour of the Vifible Church. Can it be fiif- 
 fofed by this learned Body, that a Mail's be- 
 ing of the Invifible Church of Chriji, is in- 
 confiftent with his joining himfelf with any 
 Vifible Church '''i 
 
 No, my Lord, it can't be fuppos'd. It 
 can't be fuppos'd by any Body that a Man's 
 being of the Invifible Church is inconfiftent 
 with his joining himfelf to the Royal So- 
 ciety or College of Thyficians. But pray, 
 my Lord, is this all that your Invifible Church 
 will allow of? Dare your Lord(hip proceed 
 no farther, than only to grant that it is no 
 
 Anfw. to Repr, p. 79. 
 
 Incon- 
 
( 25 ) 
 
 inconfiflency^ no Contradiction for a Member 
 of your hivifible Church to join wich any 
 Vtfiblc Church ? If you would fincerely ihcvv 
 that you have faid nothing to the Prejudice 
 of the Vifible Church, you ought to declare 
 that the Members of your Iiivifible Church, 
 may not only conjiftenlly]o\\\ with that which 
 is Vifible, but that it is their TDtity^ and that 
 they are obliged to join with it in order to be 
 of yours that is Invifible, For if you have 
 fer up an Invifible Church, which will excufe 
 its Members from being of any., that is Vifi- 
 ble, then you have plainly deftroyy it, by 
 •inaking it ufelefi. And it is but a poor Apo- 
 logy for it to fay there is no Inconjiftency in 
 joining with it, after you have made it need- 
 Jefs and unnecefTary to join with it. And it 
 xvill be pretty difficult to give a confijtent 
 Reafbn v/hy any Perfon Ihould join himfelf 
 to a needlcis Church. 
 
 Your Lordfhip has here made great Difco- 
 Veries of the Nature of your Invifible Churchy. 
 \vhich appears to have nothing vifible or ex^ 
 ternal in it. 
 
 For firft, you declare that the Article de- 
 fcribes one Church and you another. But 
 how does this appear ? How^ does your Lord- 
 fhip prove this ? i-''. Becailfe the Article de- 
 clares what it is that makes every fuch Con- 
 gregation the Vifible Church *. Now, my 
 
 Anfzv. toRepr. p. 70 
 
 E Lord, 
 
( 26 ) 
 
 Lord, if this {hews that the Article does not 
 defcribe ycur Church, then it is plain that 
 the Article here dcicnhcs fomething that does 
 not belong to your Church ; for if it equally 
 belonged to your Church, it could be noTroof 
 that it did not deiciibe your Church. But 
 you expreflly fay that it dcfcribes a different 
 Church from yours ; therefore it mufl: defcribe 
 fomethtng that does not belong to yours. 
 
 Now if that which makes any Congrega- 
 tion theVifible Church, be not neceffary to 
 make Perfons Members of your Church, it 
 follows that they may be Members of yours, 
 without being of any V'lfihle Church. 
 
 Again ; Another Pvcafon why the Article 
 does not defcribe your Invifible Church is 
 this ; Becau(e it defcribes thofe out"Ji'ardA6is^ 
 'which are neceffary to make a Vtfible Church, 
 Thefe outward Adts are, the Treachhig the 
 fure Word of God^ and adminifiring the Sa- 
 craments. Now, my Lord, feeing thefe out- 
 'ward A^s (hew that the Church here de- 
 Icrib'd is not your hivtfible Churchy does 
 not this evidently declare that fuch outward 
 A6ts, are not neceflary to your Church? 
 For if they did equally belong to both 
 Churches, and were alike neceffary to them, 
 how could they more defcribe one than ano- 
 ther ? But you fay, it is the mentioning of 
 thefe outward A^s^ that fliews that your In- 
 vifible Church is not defcrib'd ; therefore \t is 
 plain that you don't include thele outward 
 
 A£fs 
 
( 27 ) 
 
 Atts as cflential to your Invifible Church, 
 and confequently it is a Church to which nei- 
 ther public k IVorjhi}) y nor vl/ible Sacra- 
 ments are necejjary. For if rheie outward 
 Adls are nececeffary to yowx Invijlhle Church, 
 why does not your Lordfliip mention them as 
 Ihch ? You ov^n you defer ibe what it U that 
 wakes every particular Man a Member of the 
 luvifible Church ; yet you not only take no 
 notice of thefe outward A^s^ but lay that 
 the Article defcribes not your Church, bc- 
 caufe it mentions thefe outward Act s^ which 
 is a T>emonftration that thefe outward A£is 
 do not belong to your Church. 
 
 Farther ; When the Learned Committee 
 had charg'd your Lordihip with the OmifTion 
 of -preaching the Word and adminifring of 
 the Sacraments^ you anfwer, they might have 
 added^ He omits like wife the very public k 
 Trofeffion of Chriftianity. And is not the 
 Reafon plain ? becaufe I was not fpeaking 
 of the Vifible Church ; to which alone, as 
 fuchj vifible outward Signs, and verbal 
 'Frofeffions belong: but of the^niverfal In- 
 vifible Church *. 
 
 My Lord, the Reafon is very plain, and 
 
 it is as plain that is not a good Reafon. For 
 
 if the preaching of the Word, the admini- 
 
 firing of the Sacraments, and the publick 
 
 Profeffion of Chriftianity, be neceflary to 
 
 * Anfw, to Repr, p. 80. 
 
 E z make 
 
( 28 ) 
 
 make any one a Member of yotir Invtfible 
 Clmrch\ then there was as good Realon to 
 mention them in your Delcription, as if you 
 had been defcribing theVifiblc Church. 
 
 If they are not neceflary, then yon have 
 fet up a Church exclujive of the Vifible 
 Church. The Cafe (lands thus ; If thefc out- 
 ward A<fts be as necellary to make Perfons be 
 of the Tnvlfible as of the Vtjiblc Churchy 
 then they ought to come equally into the 
 Defcripcion of both Churches, being equally 
 necefTary to both : If you fay they are not 
 equally necelTary, then you muft allow that 
 there is no Neceffity that the Members of 
 your Church fliould be in any external Com- 
 munion. 
 
 It is therefore no Apology, to fay that you 
 defcribe the Invtfible Church, unlefs you will 
 fay that a Man may be of it without any out- 
 ward Jl^s^ or Communion with any Vifible 
 Church. If a Perfon may be of this Invijible 
 Church without h,aving any thing to do with 
 Vifible Sucraments^orWorfhip in aVifible Com- 
 munion, then you have an Excufe why you did 
 not mention thefe otttward Trofejfions in 
 your Defcription of the Church ; but if he 
 cannot be of this Invifible Communion with- 
 out oWerving thefe outward Ordinances^ 
 then it was as necefTary to mention thefe 
 outward Ordinances in your Account of this 
 Church, as if you had been defcribing a Church, 
 which confifted of nothing elfe but outward 
 Ordinances. So 
 
!( 29 ) 
 
 So that the fliort of the Cafe is this ; If 
 the Obfervation of external Ordinances be not 
 necefTary to make Men Members ofyonrlnviji'^ 
 ble Churchy then indeed there is a plain Reafon 
 why your Lordfliip fliould omit them; and it 
 is alfo plain that this Dodlrine fets afide the 
 Goipel, if this Invtfible Churchy the only 
 true Church in the Mouth of a Chrifttan^ 
 be excused from Gofpel Ordinances. But if 
 thefe external Ordmances be necefTary to con- 
 ftiture the Invifibie Church, then there was as 
 plain a Realbn to mention them, in the De- 
 icription of your Church, as if you had been 
 defcribing the Vtfible Church. 
 
 So thar if your Lordihip will give a good 
 plain Reafon why you have omitted thefe 
 outward A[is^ it muft be becaufe they don't 
 belong to it; for otherwife the calling it In- 
 vifibie is no Excufe, unlefs it has no occafion 
 for fuch outward Performances. 
 
 And indeed this has appeared to be your 
 Dodrine in ahiioft every Page, that you fct 
 up this Invifible Church in Oppofition to 
 Outward and Viable Ordinances. For you 
 all along {ti out the Oppofition or Difference 
 betwixt the Vifible and Invifible Church in 
 relped: to external Ordinances : Thus the 
 one is Vifible, becaufe to it alone belong ex- 
 ternal Signsy or verbal Trofeffions *. The 
 other is Invifible for the want of thefe. Yet 
 
 ^ Anfiv. toRepr, p. 8i. 
 
 this 
 
( 3o) 
 
 this Invifible Church thus deftitute, and even 
 neceflarily deftirute of external Ordinances, is 
 by you call'd, the only true Church in the 
 Mouth of a Chrijiian. 
 
 One may, I acknowledge, eafily conceive 
 ill one's Mind a Number of People, whole 
 Internal and Invifible Graces may entitle them 
 to the Favour of God ; and thefe may be 
 caird an Invifible Number^ or Congregation^ 
 or Church, becaufe it is Invifible to us where 
 it iSj or how great it is. But then, my Lord, 
 it is a great Miftake if this Invifible Church 
 is oppos'd to, or diftinguifli'd from the P^iji- 
 ble Church in refped: of external Ordinan- 
 ces. For in thefe things they are both equal- 
 ly obliged to be Vifible. And the Invifible 
 Church is not fo call'd, in Contradiftin^ion 
 to thofewho attend FT/Ji^/^ Communions, and 
 obferve external Ordinances, but in Contra- 
 diftin^iion to thofe who are invifibly bad, 
 and are not what their external Profeflion 
 promifcs. This is the only Number of Peo- 
 ple or Church, which the Invifible Church is 
 oppos'd to. For as the Invifible Church in- 
 tends a Number fo call'd, becaufe of their In- 
 vifible Graces; fo this Invifibly good Church 
 can be truly oppos'd only to the Invifibly bad 
 Church, or fuch as are not fuch Perfons in- 
 wardly, as they prcfefs to be outwardly. 
 
 But, contrary to this, your Lordihip has all 
 along confider'd and defcrib'd this Invifible 
 Church in Oppofition to the Vifible, and 
 
 made 
 
{ 3 1 ) 
 
 jriade thofc outward Ad:s which are necejfary 
 to the Vifible Church, (b many Marks to di- 
 ftinguilh it from that which is Invifible. Thus 
 you lay that you was not fpeaking of the 
 Vifible Church J to which alone, as fuchj 
 vifible outward Signs ^ or verbal VrofeJJions 
 belong : but of the "Vniverfal Invifible 
 Church *. 
 
 Here you plainly make external Signs ^ 
 and outward 'Profeffwns diftinguilh the Vifi- 
 ble from the Invifible Church ; whereas it is 
 woi Invifible in this refped:, as being with- 
 out thefe external Profeffions, or in Contra- 
 diflinElion to a Vifible Church ; but it is on- 
 ly Invifible in thole Graces, which human 
 Eyes cannot perceive. Thus they are faid to 
 be the Invifible Church, becaule they are a 
 Number of Men, who are fuch inwardly ^ as 
 they profefs to be outwardly. But this Ihews 
 that they cannot be lb call'd in Contradijiin- 
 Bion to outward Profeffions, fince they muft 
 have an outwardV,xokK\on themfelves before 
 they can be inwardly fincere in it ; and con- 
 fequently they are not oppos'd to, or diftin- 
 guilh 'd from a Number of outward Profef 
 fbrs, rbr this they are oblig'd to be themfelves, 
 but from a Number of outward Profeflbrs, 
 who are not fincere in what they outward- 
 ly profefs. 
 
 * Anf-jj. to Re!:r, p. 8r. 
 
 If 
 
( 32 ) 
 
 If 1 fiiould defcribe charitable Men to be 
 an Invtfible Church of PcxCons Jincerely well 
 affected to Mankind, and this in Contradi- 
 ftindbion to others who are externally chari- 
 table, and perform outward Aits of Love. 
 Or if I fliould defcribe chajle Men to be an 
 Innjifible Church of Perions inwardly chajie 
 and pure, and this in Contradiftindion to o- 
 thers externally chajie and vijibly pure as to 
 outward A^s% I lliould juft have the fame 
 Authority either from Reafbn or Scripture 
 to fet up thefe Inviftble Churches of chari- 
 table and chajie Men, in Oppofition to Per- 
 fbns outwardly charitable and chafte^ as your 
 Lordlhip has to fet up this invifible fincere 
 Church in Contradifcin Elton to the vifible ex- 
 ternal Church. For, firft, this Sincerity no 
 more makes a Church , than Charity and 
 Chajiity make a Church, or than Honejly 
 makes a Man a Member of a Corporation, or 
 an Officer in the Army ; thefe being private 
 perfonal Virtues, do not conftitutc a Church 
 ox Society^ but concern Men, as Men, in every 
 EftateofLife. 
 
 Secondly, Outward Ordinances, and Viji- 
 ble Profeflions are as neceffary to make Men 
 true Chriftian?, as outward k(ksoil^owQ^ and 
 external Puiity are neceffary to make Men 
 charitable or chajie. For Chriftianity as 
 truly implies external AEis and ^rofeffions^ 
 as Chaftity implies outward Purity. 
 
 Now, 
 
( 33 1 
 
 Now, my Lord, fuppofe the Q^ieftion was, 
 \vhechcr Adultery or Fornication or any o- 
 ther Impurity was lawful, and that the 
 World was divided upon this Controveriy ; 
 Would he not be an excellent Preacher of 
 Chaftity, that ihould nover tell us whether 
 any or all of thele were unlawful, but fliould 
 pretend to decide the Controveriy, by telling 
 the World, that chafte Men, is an luvijihle 
 Church of Perfons inwardly purcj and this 
 in Contradijiintiion to PerlouvS externally 
 pure ? Suppofe he fliould tell them that their 
 Title to Chaftity did not depend upon their 
 being or not being of the Number of any 
 outwardly pure or impure Perfons, but upon 
 their inward Purity; What Apology could 
 even Charity itfclf make for fuch a Teacher? 
 
 The Controverfy on fo6t is this ; Whether 
 external Communion with any fort of Fana- 
 ticks be lawful ? Whether it be as fafe to be 
 in one external vifible Communion as in a- 
 nother ? The World is divided upon this 
 Subjedt, and your Lordfliip comes in to end 
 the Controverfy. But how ? Is it by exa- 
 mining the Merits of the contending Parties ? 
 Is it by telling us what is right and what is 
 wrong in the different Comrhunions ? Is in 
 by teUing us that one external Commuivion is 
 better than another ? Is it by fliewing us that 
 any is dangerous ? Is it by dirediny us with 
 which we ought to join, or indeed that we 
 ought fo much as to join with any ? No : 
 
 F This 
 
{ 34 ) 
 
 This right and wrong, or good and bad in 
 external Communion.s the' it was the whole 
 ^uejtion^ is wholly skipt over by your Lord- 
 lliip ; and you preach up an Irrcifiblc Church 
 as the only true Church in the Month of a 
 Chriftian^ and this in Contrad'tjlinclion to all 
 Vtfible Churches : And only declare that 
 cur Title to God's Favour cannot depend up- 
 on our being or continuing in any particular 
 Method, but upon our Sincerity. 
 
 Your Lordfliip fays ; / have laid down a 
 ^efcription of the Univerfal Invifible Church 
 or Kingdom of Chrifl *. Your Lordiliip had 
 been as well employ'd if you had been paint- 
 ing of Spirits^ or weighing of Thoughts. 
 The main ^lefiion^ you lay, is whether this 
 T)efcription be true and juft f. 
 
 This, my Lord, is not the main ^lefiion-., 
 nor indeed does it concern us at all whether 
 your Lordihip is ingenious, or not, in this 
 Defcription. 
 
 For liippofc your Lordfliip had been de- 
 fcribing an Invifible King to the People of 
 Great Britain^ do you think the main ^le- 
 fiion amongft the Lords and Commons would 
 be, whether you had hit off the Defcription 
 well? No, my Lord, the main ^nefiion 
 would be, to what Ends and Purpoles you 
 had fet up iiich a King, and what Relation 
 the Subjedls of Great Britain had to him, 
 
 t Ihid. 
 
 whether 
 
( 35 ) 
 
 whether tliey might leave their Vifiblcy and 
 pay only an internal Allegiance to your In- 
 vijible King. If your Lordihip lliould far- 
 ther dcfcribc him as the only true King in the 
 Mouth of a Britain, I beheve it would be 
 thought but ^ poor Apology to appeal to your 
 fine Painting, that you had defcrib'd him jtiji- 
 ly^ and fet him out as Inviftble. The Appli- 
 cation is here very eaiy; it is a very trifling 
 Queftion, and only concerns your Lordlliip's 
 '^Parts^ whether your Delcription of your In- 
 vifible Church be jiift or not : but it is the 
 \Jk and the End of letting up this Church, 
 which is any Matter of Qucftion to us. Your 
 Lordihip might ered: as many Churches as 
 you pleafe, if you did it only for fpeculative 
 Amufernent^ and to try your AbiHties in fine 
 Drawing ; but if you pretend to unfettle the 
 Chriftian Church, by your new Buildings, or 
 to deftroy theDiftindlion between the Church 
 and Cofiventiclcy by youx Invijibles^ we mud 
 beg your Lordihip's Excule, and can no more 
 admire the Beauty or Juftnefs of your 
 fine Defcriptions, than you would admire a 
 juji 'Defcription of an Invifible "Diocefe^ if 
 it was let out in order to receive your Lord- 
 ihip. 
 
 You add ; But of this (Defcription) they 
 (the Committee) have not laid one word ; 
 bstt rather chofen to go off to an Article of 
 the Church of England, which defines not 
 the Unvverfal Invifible Church. And your 
 
 F z Lordihip 
 
( 3« ) 
 
 Lordlliip might as well obferve, that' they 
 have not (aid one word about Tlato's Re- 
 pibl'ick. For how they Ihould imagnie 
 that you was defcribing an Inv'tfible Church, 
 or if they did, why they Ihould trouble their 
 Heads with fuch a Delcription, is not eafily 
 conceived. 
 
 For, my Lord, if it was your primary In- 
 tention only to appear in Delence of an ^' 
 niver fal Inv'tfible Cburchj what can we con- 
 ceive in our Minds more furprizing ? What 
 can be more extraordinary than that aVifible 
 Bilhop at a V'tfible Court, iliould with fo 
 much Solemnity preach in Defence of a 
 Church which can neither be defended nor 
 injured ? Are there any Rights in your Invi- 
 fible Church which can po/Iibly be loft ? If 
 not, to wiiat purpofe does your Lord(hip 
 come in as a Defender ? Can the Sight of a- 
 ny Men find \t^ the Malice of any Men at- 
 tack it, or the Good-will of any Men fup- 
 port it ? No : Yet tho' it is as invifible as 
 the Cente?' of the Earth, and as much out of 
 our reach as xho, Stars j yet your Lordiliip 
 has very pathetically preached a Sermon and 
 publilh'd ibme Volumes, left this Invifible 
 C«hurch, which no body knows where to 
 find, fliould be run away with. 
 
 Should the fame Chriftian Zeal induce your 
 jLordihip to appear at fome other folem.n Oc- 
 cafion in the Caufe of the Winds ^ your Pains 
 would be as well employ'd ; for it would be 
 
 as 
 
{ 37 ) 
 
 as reafonablc to defire that they might rife 
 and blow where they lift, as that an Invifible 
 Church, no where to be known or found by 
 us at prefent, may not be injur'd. 
 
 If therefore i\\q. Learned Committee had fo 
 far forgot that Vifible Church of which they 
 are Members, as to have engag'd with your 
 Lordihip about your Invifible Churchy the 
 DUpiire would have been to as much purpofe, 
 as a Tryal in JVejiminjier-Hall about the 
 Tbilofopher's Stone. 
 
 But you complain that they rather chofe 
 to go off to an Article of the Church o? Eng- 
 land. My Lord , this is very hard indeed, 
 that they lliould go off to the Church o{ Eng- 
 land^ when you had an Invifible Church rea- 
 dy for them ; or that this Learned Body can't 
 difpure about Churches, but they muft needs 
 bring the Church of England xwio the Queftion. 
 Suppofe, as in the above-mention'd In- 
 ftance, your Lordfliip Ihould lay down Oifine 
 and jtift Defcription of your Invifible King of 
 Great Britain , a Number of Tories fliould, 
 inftead of examining the Truth of your De- 
 fcription , go off to the A^s of Settlement ^ 
 which declares a Vifible King oi Britain : This 
 would be to ufc your Lordihip juft as the 
 Learned Committee have done; who, in- 
 ftcad of dwelling upon the Beauty and Juft- 
 nefs of this Defcription, have gone off to an 
 old Article in the Church of England, which 
 indeed only defcribes an old-fafhion'd Vifible 
 
 Church, 
 
( 38 ) 
 
 Church, as Churches went in the Apoftlcs 
 Days: Thar is, a Congregation of faithful 
 Men^ in ^ujhich the pure IVord of God is 
 preach' dy and the Sacraments duly adrnini- 
 fired *. 
 
 I am of Opinion that: the Apojlolical 
 Church would not have thought themlelves 
 too hivifible to be thus delcrib'd, or that 
 this was too Vtfible a Dcfcription of the 
 Church of Chrift to take in its fincere Mem- 
 bers. 
 
 Whether therefore your Lordlhip has given 
 a true Defcription of the Invifible Church, 
 that is, a Church oi Thoughts and Seuti- 
 mentSy I fliall not confider, but thus much 
 I muft obferve, that it is a very talfe Defcrip- 
 tion; firft. as it pretends to deicribe THE 
 Church f, and the only true Church in the 
 Mouth of a Chrijiian. For the Church of 
 Chrift, as has been Ihewn, is as truly a Vi- 
 Jible external Society, as any Civil or Secu- 
 lar Society in the World : And it is no more 
 diftinguiili'd from fuch Societies by the hivi- 
 fibility , than by the Touth or Age of its 
 Members 
 
 The holy confecrated Elements differ from 
 common Bread and Wine^ but they don't fo 
 differ from it, as to ceafe to be as Vifible^ as 
 common Bread and Wine. Thus the Holy 
 Catholick Church, the Kingdom of Chrift, 
 
 Artie, 19. + Anfiv. to'Repr, p. 70. 
 
 differs 
 
( 39 ) 
 
 differs from worldly Societies and Kingdoms, 
 but not in point of Vifibiiity^ but in regard 
 to the Ends^ and Tnrpojes for which it is e- 
 reded, viz. the eiernal Salvation of Man- 
 kind. 
 
 Secondly, This Defcriprion contradidis the 
 nineteenth Article of the Church of England. 
 For tho' it is not fet up as another Vtfible 
 Church, fo as to contradid: it in point of Vi- 
 fibility^ yet feeing it is defcrib'd as THE 
 Church, and the only true Churchy it plainly 
 contradicts it in point of Truth ; for if ir be 
 the only true Church, every other muft be a 
 falfc one. 
 
 Thirdly, This Defcription is ?. mere fpecu- 
 lative ConjeEtttre^ a Creattire of the Imagi- 
 nation, which can ferve no Purpofes, but is 
 entirely foreign to the prefent Diipute, and 
 mull: be ^o to any Difpute which ever can a- 
 riie betvteen contending Communions. It no 
 more ferves to inform any one whether he 
 Ihould go to the Vifible Church or Vifiblc 
 Conventicle, than whether he iliould ftudy 
 the Law or Thyjick. It may indeed ferve 
 to make Perfons regardlels of any Vifible 
 Churchy but can be of no ufe to them, if 
 they defire to know with what Vifible Church 
 they ought to join. 
 
 It may now be worth our w^hile to obftrve 
 how your Lordlhip came by this Account of 
 Chrifl's Kingdom, which you fay is the only 
 true one. Jefus anfwered^ my Kingdom is 
 
 not 
 
( 40 ) 
 
 not of this M^orld^ is the Text to your Ser- 
 mon. You fay, you have chofen thefe Words 
 in which our Lord declares the Nature of 
 his Kingdom *. 
 
 Now, my Lord, one would imagine, that 
 you hereby mean, that our Lord has in thefe 
 Words declar'd what his Kingdom is ; for 
 without this, it cannot be true that he hath 
 declared the Nature of his Kingdom, Where- 
 as it is fo far from being true that he hath in 
 thefe Words declared what his Kingdom is, 
 that he has only, and that in one particular 
 RefpecSb, declared what it is not. If he had 
 faid that his Kingdom was not a Jewijh King- 
 dom, would this be declaring the Nature of 
 his Kingdom ? If a Perfon Ihould fay that his 
 BeUef was not the Belief of the Church of 
 England^ would he in thefe Words declare 
 the Nature of his Belief^ Would it not ftill 
 be uncertain whether he was an Arian or So- 
 cinian , or fomething different from them 
 both ? Thus our Saviour's faying that his 
 Kingdom is not of this Worlds no more de- 
 clares the Nature of his Kingdom, than a 
 Perfon by faying fuch a one was not his Son, 
 would in thefe PVords declare how many 
 Children he had. 
 
 My Kingdom is not of this Worlds are ve- 
 ry indeterminate Words, and capable of feve- 
 ral Meanings, if we confider them in them- 
 
 Strm. p. 10. 
 
 felves. 
 
( 40 
 
 felves. But as foon as wc confider them as 
 an Anfwer to a parriciilar Qiieftion, they 
 take one dcterminacc Scnfc. The Queftioii 
 was, whether our Saviour was the (Temporal) 
 King of the Jeivs ? Jefus anfiz'ered y iny 
 Kingdom is not of this JVorld. Now as 
 thclc Words may fignify no more than the 
 Denial of what was ask'd ; as there is nothing 
 in them that nccelTarily imphes more^ than 
 that he was not a King as xhtjewifl? or o- 
 ther Temporal Kings are ; as the Queftioa 
 extends the Aniwer no farther than this 
 Meaning ; lb if wc enlarge it^ or fix any o- 
 ther Meaning to it, it is all human Reafon- 
 ing, without any Warrrant from the Text. 
 
 Now, taking the Words in this Senfe^ what 
 a ftrange Conclufion is this that your Lord- 
 Ihip draws from it : That becaufe Chrift faid 
 his Kingdom was not a Temporal Kingdom^ 
 as the Jewifh and other Kingdoms were ; 
 therefore his Kingdom is Invifible. Is it de» 
 ny'd to be a Temporal Kingdom^ becaufe a 
 Temporal Kingdom is Vifible ? If not, it will 
 by no means follow, that it muft hchivifiblej 
 becaufe it is faid not to be Temporal. Muft 
 it be in every refped: contrary to a Temporal 
 Kingdom, becaufe it is faid not to be Tempo- 
 ral ? Then it muft have no Subjeds bccau!e 
 in Temporal Kingdoms there are Subjcfts - 
 then there muft be no King, becauic in Inch 
 Kingdoms there are Kings. I fuppofe the 
 Sacraments may in a very proper Seni<: be 
 
 G ' faid 
 
( 42 ) 
 
 faid to be not Temporal Injiitutions ^ tho' 
 they are as external and Vifible as any thing 
 in the World ; and confequcntly the Church 
 may be nor Temporal in a very proper Scnlc, 
 without implying that it raufi: therefore be/;/- 
 'vtjible. Indeed f cannot conceive how your 
 Lordihip could have thought ot a more odd 
 Conclufion, than this which you have drawn 
 from them. If you had concluded that be- 
 cauie Chrift's Kuigdom is not a Temporal 
 Kingdom, therefore its Members are all of an 
 Age ; it had been as well as to fay, there- 
 fore they are Invtfible. 
 
 Nothing can be more furprizing than to fee 
 your Lordlliip throughout your whole Ser- 
 mon defcribing this Kingdom, with all the 
 Accuracy and Exadncfs imaginable, and even 
 demon ftrathig every particular Circumftance 
 of its Nature, from this little Negative^ that 
 it is not a Temporal Kingdom. Your Lord- 
 lliip mufl: be very excellent at taking a Hinty 
 or you could never have found out \\\\^King- 
 dom of God fo exadly from fo fmall a Cir- 
 cumftance. It feems had this little Text been 
 all the Scripture that we had left in the World, 
 your Lordihip could have revealed the reft by 
 the help of it. For there is nothing that re- 
 lates to this Kingdom, or the Circumftances 
 of its Members, but you have purely by the 
 Strength of your Genius, unaflifted by any 
 other Scripture, prov'd and demonftrated from 
 this fingle Paffage. 
 
( 43 ) 
 
 If a Foreigner Ihould rell your Lordiliip 
 that his Houle in his own Counrry was not 
 as the Houfcs are in this Kingdom, would it 
 not be very wonderful in your Lordfliip, to 
 be able to demonftrate its Length and Breadth, 
 to tell how many Rooms there arc on a Floor, 
 and ^o deicribe every Beauty and Convenience 
 of the Strud:ure merely from having been told 
 that it was not like the Houies ia this King- 
 dom ? But it would not be more wonderful 
 than to fee your Lordihip deicribe the Na- 
 ture of Chrifl^s Kingdom, and explain every 
 Circumftance that concerns its Members, from 
 having been told this Negative Circumftance. 
 Nor indeed is it much to be wonder'd, feeing 
 you fer out upon this bottom, if you give as 
 falfe an Account of Chrift's Kingdom, as you 
 would do of an Houie, that you only knew 
 what it was not. 
 
 Again, you fay. As the Church of Chrijl 
 is the Kingdom of Chriji^ he himfelf is King ; 
 and in this it is imply d that he is himfelf 
 the file Law-giver to his Subje^s^ and 
 himfelf the fole Judge of their Behaviour 
 in the Affairs of Conlcience and Salvation *. 
 
 What a pretty fine-fpun Confequencc is 
 this, to be drawn from the above-mention*d 
 Text. Your Lordfhip here advances a mere 
 human Speculation founded upon no other 
 Authority, than the uncertain Signification 
 
 Serm. p. ii, 
 
 G z of 
 
( 44 ) 
 
 of the Words, Kifig and Kingdom ; you fay 
 it is in this imfiyd that becaufe Chriji is 
 King of his Kingdo7n^ he is file Law giver 
 to his Subjects. Pray, my Lord, why is \t 
 in this imply 'd? Do the Words, King and 
 Kingdom always imply the fame thing? Has 
 a King in one Kingdom the fame Powers, 
 which every King hath in another Kingdom ? 
 Has the King of England the fame Power, 
 which a K.rjg of France^ or any Sove- 
 reign hath in his Kingdom ? Would it be a^ 
 ny reafon why the King of England fliould 
 h^ file Law-giver to his Subjects, becaufe 
 there are Kings who are folc Law- givers to 
 their Subjects ? Now if the word. King , 
 does not neceflarily imply the fame Power in 
 every Kingdom, how can there be any Con- 
 clufion , that becaufe Chrift is King of his 
 Kingdom, he is fole Law-giver to his SubjecSts ? 
 Yet your Lordlhip's whole Argument is found- 
 ed upon this weak and falfe bottom, that the 
 word, Kingj is to be taken in one abfolute and 
 fix'd Senfc : For you expreflly fay it is /;/ 
 this imply'd, that becaufe he is King, he is 
 Ible Law-giver. Now it is impolTible it fhould 
 be imply'd in this, unlefs the word, King^ 
 always implies the fame Power : For if there 
 be any Difference in the Conftitutions of 
 Kingdoms, tho' they all have Kings, then it 
 is plain nothing certain as to the Nature and 
 Condition of any Kingdom can be drawn from 
 its having a King. But your Lordfhip has 
 
 deicriby 
 
( 45 ) 
 
 defcrib'd the Conflitution of Chrift's Kingdom, 
 the Circitoftanccs of its Subjed:^ and in ihofc 
 every thing that can concern it, as abfblute- 
 ly, and with as much Certainty, from Chrift's 
 being King of it, as if the word, Kuig., had 
 but one Meaning, or every King the fame 
 Power. 
 
 Again, you tell us ; The grojfejl Miftakes 
 in Judgment^ about the Nature of Chrift's 
 Kingdom or Church , have arifcn from 
 hence, that Men have argued from other 
 Vifible Societies^ and other Vifible Kingdoms 
 of this IVorld, to what ought to be Vifible 
 and Senfihle in his Kingdom. 
 
 Is it thus, my Lord ? Are all our grols Er- 
 rors owing to this way of Reaibning ? How 
 then comes your Lordlhip to fall into this 
 grofleft of Errors ? How come you to (late 
 the very Nature of Chrift's Kingdom from 
 the Confideration of Temporal Kingdoms, or 
 Abfolute Monarchies ? How come you to 
 argue from the Relation between a King and 
 his Kingdom, to what ought to be in Chrift's 
 Ipiritual Kingdom ? Are not Kings and King- 
 doms Temporal Inftitutions ? Is not the Re- 
 lation betwixt a King and his Kingdom a 
 Temporal Relation ? How then can you argue 
 from thefe Temporal Kingdoms to any thing 
 concerning Chrift's Kingdom ? Why will your 
 Lordlhip fall into lb grols an Error, as to af- 
 fert that Chrift muft be fok Law-giver to his 
 
 Subjects, 
 
( 40 
 
 Subjeds, becaufe there are fome Temporal 
 Kings who are lole Law-givers ro their Sub- 
 jed:s ? Is there any Conlequence in this Ar- 
 gument ? Nay, arc not all our Errors owing 
 to this miftakeu way of arguing ? 
 
 The only way to know the Conftitution 
 of this Kingdom, is not to reafon from what 
 is imply'd in the Words King and Kingdom^ 
 for they do not imply any fix'd^ or abjblute 
 Scnfc, but from the Laws and Inftitutious of 
 of it, whether they admit of or require the 
 Authority of under Magiftrates- Thus, if it 
 appears that Chrifl: has commiflion'd others 
 to ad; in his Name, to exercife Authority in ^ 
 his Kingdom, and govern his Subjects in* 
 iiich a manner as he has commiffion'd them 
 to govern ; Is it any Anfwer to this, to fay 
 that the Church is a Kingdom^ and Chrijt is 
 a Kiitgy and confeqttently fole Law-giver in 
 it? Is there nothing in this Text, IVhatfo- 
 ever ye jhall bind on Earth Jhall be bound 
 in Heaven^ &c. becaufe Chrifl is King of his 
 Church ? 
 
 The whole Scheme of all your Dodrines 
 is rais'd out of this UngleText, My Kingdom 
 is not of this World ; which certainly im- 
 plies no more, than if Chrifl: had faid, / am 
 not the Temporal King of th Jews, Let 
 lis therefore fee how your Lordlhip's Do- 
 (ilrines appear, if we bring them to the 
 Principle from v/hence you had them i As 
 
 thuSj 
 
( 47 ) 
 
 thus, Jcfiis is not the Temporal King of the 
 Jewsj therefore there is no fiich thing as 
 Church- Authority 5 no Obhgarion to join in 
 any particular Communion. Jefts is not 
 the Temporal King of the Jews ^ therefore 
 Abfolutions^ BenediBions^ and ExcG?nmnni- 
 cations are '^'Dreams and Trifles-^ therefore 
 no Succeflion or Order of Clergy is better than 
 another. 
 
 Jefiis is not the Temporal King of the 
 Jews^ therefore the Invijible Church is the 
 only true Church in the Month of a Chri- 
 flian ; therefore Sincerity alone, exclufive of 
 any particular Communion, is the only Title 
 to God's Favour. Now if the Papifts fliould 
 fay, Jefiis is not the Temporal King of the 
 Jews^ therefore there is a Purgatory ^ there- 
 fore we are to pray to Saints \ they would 
 Ihew as much true Logic k and T>ivinity^ as 
 your Lordfliip has fliewn in the Proof of 
 your Dodlrines from the above-mention'd 
 Text. And I dare fay, that every Reader of 
 this Controverfy knows that you have not 
 pretended to any other Proof from the Scrip- 
 tures for your Doftrine, than what your O- 
 ratory could draw from this fingle Text. 
 
 This therefore, I hope, every Reader will 
 obferve, that all which you have advanced a- 
 gainft the Univerfally Received Dodrines of 
 Chriftianiry, is only an Harangue upon this 
 fmgle Text, which every one's common Senfe 
 will tell him contains nothing in it, that can 
 
 poffibly 
 
( +8 ) 
 
 pcffibly determine the Caufe, which you are 
 engaged in. For who can imagine that it's as 
 well to be a fmcere Turk as a fincere Chri- 
 Jiian^ , or that a fmcere ^lakcr is as much 
 in the Favour of God as a fmcere Church- 
 man^ \hecaufe our bleffed Lord told Tilat^ 
 that his Kingdom was not of this World ; 
 and that in fuch a manner, and upon fuch 
 an occafton, as only to imply that he was 
 nor that King which he enquired after ? Who 
 can conceive that there is no particular Or- 
 der of the Clergy neccfTary, no NecefTity of 
 any particular Communion, no Authority in 
 any Church, nor any Significancy in the fa- 
 cerdotal Powers, for this reaibn, becaufe there 
 is a Text in Scripture, which denies that 
 Chrift was the Temporal King of the Jews. 
 
 Your Lordfhip has faid much of the Plain- 
 nels and Simplicity of the Gofpel, and of its 
 pecuUar Fitnefs to be judg'd ot^ by the ordi- 
 nary common Senfe of Mankind ; you have 
 alfo interpos'd in this Controverfy, to deli- 
 ver them from the Authority of the Church, 
 and turn them loofe to the Scriptures. But, 
 my Lord, if this Text, My Kingdom is not 
 of this Worlds which feems to common Senfe 
 to contain only the Denial of a particular 
 Queftion, contains, as you have pretended, 
 the whole Chriftian Religion ; and every o- 
 ther feemiftgly plain Part of the Golpel \s to 
 take its Meaning from this Paflage ; if it ht 
 thus, my Lord, what can we conceive more 
 
 myfte- 
 
( 49 ) 
 
 myfterious than the Scripture ? Or more un- 
 equal to the common, ordinary Senfe of 
 Men ? 
 
 For how fhould it come into a pLiin honed 
 Man's Head, that this Text, which is nothing 
 buc thcT)e7jial of a cert am ^iejiion^ fliould 
 be the Key to ail the reft of Scripture? How 
 iliould he know that the plaineft Texts in 
 Scripture were not to be underftood in their 
 apparent Meaning, buc in fome Senlc or o- 
 ther given them from this Text ? Thus, 
 when it is faid. Go ye and difciple all Na- 
 tions^ and lo 1 am "ui^ith you to the end of 
 the JVorld: The firft apparent Scnle of theie 
 Words is this, that as Chrift promised to be 
 with the Apoftlcs in the Execution of their 
 Office both as to Authority and T^o'-juer^ io 
 he promifes the fame to their SuccefTors, the 
 Bifliops, fince he could no otherwife be with 
 them to the end of the World, than by be- 
 ing with their SuccefTors, Now, my Lord, 
 how ihould an ordinary Thinker know that 
 this plain Meaning of the Words was to be 
 negledted, and that he was to go to the a- 
 bove- mentioned Text to learn to underftand, 
 or rather disbelieve them? For what is there 
 in this Text, My Kin^^dom is not of this 
 Worlds to Ihevv either that Chrift did not au- 
 thorize the Apoftles to ordain SuccefTors, who 
 Hiould have his Authority, or that theBifhops 
 alone, are not luch SuccefTors ? Is there aiiy 
 thing in this Text which can any way deter- 
 
 H mine 
 
( 50 ) 
 
 mine tlie Nature, the Neceffiry, or the Sig- 
 nificancy of iuch a Succeffion ? 
 
 Again it is laid, that There is no other 
 Name tuider Heaven given unto Men^ 'where- 
 by they mny be fav'd hut Jefm Chrijt. Now 
 how fliould a Man that has only common 
 Senle imagine, that he muft rejc6t this plain 
 Meaning of the Words, and believe that a 
 faicere Turk is as much in the Favour of G( d 
 as a fine ere Ch?-ijtian^ for this orly rcalon, 
 becaufe Chriji's Kingdom is not of this 
 IVorld? It muft no: be common ordinary 
 Senfc which can rcafon and difcovcr at this 
 rate. 
 
 Lailly, it is faid, JVhatfoevcr ye Jhall 
 bind on Earthy Jhall be bormd in Heaven^ &c. 
 Now how Ihali any one that has only fiber 
 Senfe find out, that there is nothing at all left 
 in this Text, that it only gave fimething or 
 other to the Apoftles ^ but gives no Au- 
 thority to any Perfons now, becaufe the 
 Kingdom ofChrifl is not of this World! 
 
 Our Saviour told his Difciples, that they 
 were not of this IVorld^ but is that an Ar- 
 gument that they therefore became immedi- 
 ately invifible ? Was neither St. Teter nor 
 St. ^auly &c. ever to be feen afterwards ? 
 Why then muft the Kingdom of Chrift be- 
 come immediately invifible becaufe it is laid 
 not to be of this World, any more than its 
 firft Members were Invifible, who were alfo 
 declared to be not of this f For Id? 
 
 Had 
 
( 51 ) 
 
 Had Sc. Teter or St. Taul no Vifible Po wci 
 and Aiichority over the Presbyters and Dea- 
 cons, bccaufe they izicre not of this IVorld? 
 If they had, why may not lome Perions have 
 Authority over others in ChrilVs Kingdom, 
 tho' it IS not of this IVorld? 
 
 For our blefled Lord's iaying that his Dill 
 ciples ivere not of this IVorld^ does as ftridl- 
 ly prove that St. 'Peter and St. 'Paul had no 
 diftind: Powers from Presbyters and Deacons, 
 as his laying, that his Kingdom was not of 
 this Worlds proves that there is no real or 
 necelTary Difference betwixt Bifiiops and 
 Presbyters in his Kingdom. And ic is as good 
 Logick , to lay the Dilciples of Chrift were 
 not of this World, therefore there was no 
 Nece[Ticy,that fome fhould have h^twApofiles^ 
 and others Presbyters^ &c. as to lay Chi ill's 
 Kingdom is not of this World, therefore there 
 is no Necellicy that fome Ihould be Bifliops 
 and others Presbyters in it. 
 
 I have been the more particular in exami- 
 ning the Text no your Sermon, and bringing 
 your Codtihics dole to it, that every Rea- 
 der who has coiumoM Scnle may be able to 
 perceive that they have no more Relation to 
 that Text from v/hich you w^ould be thought 
 to have them, than if you had deduced them 
 from the firft Vcrie in the firfl: Chapter of 
 Genejis. 
 
 And yet thus much every Reader muft 
 h^ve oblerv'd, that it is your Explication of 
 
 H z this 
 
( 52 ) 
 
 this Text alone, which has led you to con- 
 demn all that Authority, to cenlure all thofe 
 Inftituiions as T^reams and Trifles^ which the 
 holy Scriptures, and the firfl and pureft Ages of 
 Chriftiauicy, have taught us to efteem as fa- 
 cred in themfalves, being ordain'd by God ; 
 and of the greateft Benefit to us, being means 
 of obtaining his Grace, and Favour. 
 
 Thus far concerning the Nature of Chrift's 
 Church. 
 
 Of Church Authority. 
 
 Come now to confider what your 
 Lordlhip has delivered upon the Ar- 
 ticle of Church Authority^ as it is 
 inverted in the Governours of the 
 Church. And here I have little elfe to do, 
 but to clear it from thofe falfe Charaitersy 
 under which you have been pleas'd to de- 
 icribe it. 
 
 Thus you begin ; Jf there be an Authori- 
 ty in any to judge ^ cenfure^ or ptinift) the 
 Servants of another Mafter ^ in Matters 
 furely relating to Confcience and eternal 
 Salvation ; then Chriji has left behindjudges^ 
 over the Confcience s and Religion of his Veor 
 ple\ then theConfciences and Religion of his 
 Teopk are fubjeU to them 'whom he has lefi 
 
 Judges 
 
( 53 ) 
 
 Judges over them\ and then there is a 
 Right in fome Chrijiians to determine the 
 Religion and Confciences of others. And 
 what is more, if the "Decijions of any Men 
 can be made to concern or affeEi the State of 
 Chriji's Subje^s with regard to the Favour 
 of God, then the Salvation of fome Chri- 
 jiians defends upon the Sentence fafs'd by 
 others *. 
 
 Here is the 9um of what you have ad- 
 vanced from Reafon and the Nature of the 
 Thing againft the Authority of Church Go- 
 vernours ; which you would have pafs for a 
 ftrid:Proof^ that if they have any Authority in 
 Matters purely relating to Conjcience deriv'd 
 to them from Chrift, that then rheir Autho- 
 rity can damn or fave at pleaiure. 
 
 But, my Lord, in this fame ftrict way of 
 Reafoning, and by only ufing your own 
 Words, I will as plainly prove that a Father 
 hath not Authority even to fend his Children 
 of an Errand. 
 
 For, " If the Chriftian Religion authorifes 
 " a Father to judg€ the Servants of another 
 f' Mafter in Matters purely relating to Mo- 
 " tiony then Chrifl: has left behind him 
 " Judges over the Moition of his People, 
 " then the Motion of his People is fiibjeaed 
 " to them whom he has left Judges over it ; 
 
 and then there is a Right in fome Chrijiians 
 
 a 
 
 * Anfw. to Rtl>r. p. 1 7 . 
 
( 5+) 
 
 ^' to determine the Motion of others. And 
 " what is more, if the T^e terminations of 
 " any Men can concern or affed: the State 
 <' of Chrift's Subjeds with regard to Motion^ 
 " then rhe Lives of fome Chriftians depend 
 ^"^ upon the Determination paiVd by others ; 
 ^^ becaufe they may determine them to move 
 " from the top of a Precipice to the bottom. 
 
 Here, my Lord, I freely leave it to the 
 Judgment of common Senfe^ whether 1 have 
 nor in your own JVords prov'd \x. as abfurd 
 and unreafonable, that a Father Ihould have 
 any Power over his Son, lb as to fend him 
 of an Errand^ as to allow the Church to 
 have Authority in Matters of Confcience and 
 Salvation ; and the Confequence, according 
 to your Argument, is equally dreadful in both 
 Cafes : For 'tis as plain that if Fathers have 
 Authority- in Matters oi Motion ^ then they 
 may move their Sons to the bottom of a T^re- 
 cipice ; as that if the Church hath Authority 
 in Matters of Salvation^ then it may fave 
 or damn at picafare ; and it is as well prov'd, 
 that Fathers have no Authority in Matters of 
 Motion.^ becaufe they have no Authority to 
 command their Children to dejiroy themfelves, 
 as that the Church hath no Authority in 
 Matters of Confcience and Salvation^ becaufe 
 they have not an Authority to damn People 
 for ever : For there is the fame room for 
 degrees in the Authority of the Church, 
 which there is for degrees in the Authority 
 
 of 
 
( 55 ) 
 
 of Barents; ^nd it is as juftly concluded 
 that Tarents have no Authority in Matters 
 of any fartictflar Nature^ becaufc they have 
 not tinl'tmitcd Authority in things of that 
 particular Nature, as that the Church hath 
 no Authority in Matters of Confctefice and 
 Salvation^ becaufc it has not an abiolute un- 
 limited Authority in thefe Matters, 
 
 Yet this is the whole of your Argument 
 againfl: Church Authority^ that it cannot re- 
 late to Matters oi Confcicnce and Salvation, 
 becaufc an Authority in thefe Matters^ is an 
 abfo lute Authority over the Souls of others ; 
 which is juft as true, as if any one fliould de- 
 clare that a Father hath no Authority in 
 Matters purely relating to the Body of his 
 Son, becaufc an Authority in thefi Matters, 
 is an ahfolute Authority to difpole of his Bo- 
 dy as he pleafes. 
 
 Suppofe it ihould be faid that a Father 
 hath Authority over his Son in Civil Ajfairs^ 
 Will it be an Argument that he has no fuch 
 Authority, becaule he has nor all^ or an tin- 
 limited Authority in Civil Affairs ? Will it 
 be an Argument that he has no Authority in 
 /iich Matters, becaufc his Son it not "-juholly 
 and d'/^r/r^/y iubjedcd to him in liich Matters? 
 Has a Father no Right to chufe an Employ- 
 ment for his Son, or govern him in leveral 
 things of a Civil Nature, bccaufe he can't o- 
 blige him to refign his Title to his Eftate, or 
 take from him the Benefit of the Laws of xho^ 
 Land? If 
 
( s« ) 
 
 If h^ has an Authority in thefe Matters, 
 tho' not all^ why cannot the Governours of 
 the Church have an Authority in Matters of 
 Confcience^ tho* they have not all^ or an un- 
 limited Authority in Matters of Confcience ? 
 How does it follow that they have no fuch 
 Authority, becaufe Chriftians are not wholly 
 and abfolutely fubjedted to them in Jiich 
 Matters ? Why can there not be Bounds to 
 an Authority in Matters of Confcience^ as 
 well as Bounds to an Authority in Civil j^f 
 fairs ? And if a Father may have Autho- 
 rity over his Son in Civil j^ffairs^ tho' that 
 Authority is limited by ihcLa^^s of the Land, 
 and the iuperior Authority of the Civil Ma- 
 giflrate ; why may not the Church have an 
 Authority in Matters ofCoitfcience and Sal- 
 vation, tho' that Authority vs^ limited by 
 the Scriptures y and the lupreme Authority 
 of God ? 
 
 He therefore who concludes the Church 
 hath no Authority in Matters of Salvation^ 
 becaufe it cannot abfolutely fave or damn 
 People, reafbns ds Jiri6lly as he w^ho con- 
 cludes a Perlbn has no Authority in Civil Af- 
 fairs^ becaule he cannot grant or take away 
 Civil Trivileges of the highefl Nature. 
 
 What therefore your Lordlhip has thus lo- 
 gically advanced againft the Authority of the 
 Church, concludes with the fame Force a- 
 gainfl: all Authority in the World. For if the 
 Church hath no Authority in Matters of Con- 
 fcience, 
 
( 57 ) 
 
 fcience, for this dcmonfirative Rcafon^ bc- 
 caulc ir hath not an unlimited Authority irl 
 Matters of Ccnfcience -^ then it is alio de- 
 mGnjhated that no Pcrfons have any Autho- 
 rity in any particular Matters, becaufe they 
 have not an abjblure unbounded Authority in 
 thole particular Matters. 
 
 As thus ; A Trince hath no Authority to 
 oblige his Subjcds to make i^^r againft y//r^ 
 a People, becaufe he hath not an unlimited 
 Authority to oblige bis Subjects to fight 
 •where^ and ''juhen^ and with whom he pleafes. . 
 
 A Father hath no Authority over the 
 Ter/ons or Affairs of his Children^ becaufe 
 he cannot dilpofe of the Terfons and Affairs 
 of his Children in what manner he will. 
 
 Mafters have no Authority to command 
 thtAffiJiance of their Servant s^ becaufe they 
 cannot oblige them to affiji in a Rebellion or 
 Robbery. 
 
 Thus are all thcfe particular Authorities^ 
 as plainly confuted by your Argument ^ as 
 the Authority of the Church is confuted 
 by it. 
 
 But noWj my Lord, have neither Majlers^ 
 nor Fathers^ nor 'Princes^ any Authority ia 
 thefe particular Matters, becauie they have 
 no Authority to command at any rate^ or as 
 they pleafe in thefe Matters ? If they have, 
 why may not the Governours of the Church 
 have ah Authority in Matters ofConfcience, 
 tho' they cannot oblige Confcicncp at any 
 
 T rate^ 
 
( 58 ) 
 
 rate^ or as they picafc? Why may not they 
 have an Authority in Matters of Salvation, 
 tho* they have not Power abloluteiy to damn 
 or iavc V 
 
 Your Lordlhip would therefore have done 
 as much Juftice to Truth, and as much Ser- 
 vice to the World, '\'i\ inllead of calling Chri- 
 ftians from the Authority of the Churchy you 
 had publickly declared that neither Majiers^ 
 nor Fathers ^ nor Vrinccs^ have, properly 
 fpeaking^ any real Authoriry over their re- 
 ipe6bi\e Servants^ Sons^ 'SiwA.Suhjp^s^ and 
 that becaufe they arc none of them to be obeyed 
 but in fuch and fitch Circumftances, and up- 
 on certain luppos'd Conditions. For you have 
 plainly declared there is no Authoriuy in the 
 Church, that it has no Power of obliging, 
 becaufe we are only to obey upon Terms and 
 certain fiippos'd Conditions. If therefore 
 this conditional Obedience proves that there 
 is, properly fpeaking^ no Atitbority in the 
 Church, then that conditional Obedience of 
 Servants^ Sons^ and Subje^s^ proves that 
 neither their MajicrSy Fathers^ or Trincesj 
 have any Awthoxity properly /peaking. 
 
 You Jay ; If there be a Power in fome 
 O VER others in Matters of Religion^ fo 
 as to determine thefe others ; then all Com- 
 munions are upon an equal foot^ with- 
 out any regard to any intrinfick Goodnefs ; 
 or whether they be right or wrong; then 
 no Religion is 271 it felf preferable to ano- 
 ther^ 
 
iC 
 
 ( 55- ) 
 
 ther, but nil are alike with refpeEl to the 
 
 Favour of God *. 
 
 Now, my Lord, all this might, with as 
 
 much Truth, be laid of any other Authoritj^, 
 
 as of Church Authority. 
 
 As thus ; " If there be a Tower in the 
 
 " Trince^ or in fome over others in Matters 
 of JVar and Fightings fo as to determine 
 thofe others ; then all Wars and Fightings 
 " are upon an equal foot, without any re- 
 " gard to any intrinfick Goodnefs ; or whe- 
 ^' thcr they be right or wrong ; then no 
 *^ Wars or Fightings are in themfelves pre- 
 ^' ferable to others, but all are alike with re- 
 *-' Ipeit to the Favour of God. 
 
 And now, my Lord, what muft we fay 
 here ? Has the Prince no Right o^ T^ower to 
 command his Subjcdts ro wage War vith flich 
 a People? Or \\ he has this Powc v..er 
 them, does this make all Wars alike ? Does 
 this Authority leave nothing to the JuJ/ice 
 or Equity of Wars^ but make all Wars ex- 
 actly the fame with regard to the Favour of 
 God? 
 
 Does this Authority of the Trince make 
 all Engagements equally lawful to the Subject 
 that engages by his Authority ? Is he neither 
 more or lefs in the Favour of God, for what- 
 ever Caufe he fights in, becaufc he has the 
 Authority of his Prince ? Is it as pleafmg to 
 
 ■ I n — — _________ - I .. . . > ~ - 
 
 * Anfw. to Repr. p. 114. 
 
 I X God 
 
( 60 ) 
 
 God that under fuch Authority he fliould 
 make War upon xhcljiuccent^ plunder and ra- 
 vage the Fatherlefs and JP'ido'oi's^ as engage 
 ill the Caufe of Equity and Honour ? 
 
 Now, aiy Lord, if all Wars are not aHkc 
 to the Perions who are concern'd in them, as 
 to the Favour of God \ if there can be any 
 Cafes fuppos'd, where it is not only laizfuly 
 but honourable and glorious for Soldiers to 
 difobey the Orders of their Trince ; then it 
 is pad doubt, that Soldiers>y^^ and ought to 
 have fome regard to the Nature and juftice 
 of the Orders they have from their Prince. 
 
 But we have your Lordihip's AfTurance, 
 that if they may have any regard to ihtNature 
 and Jtifice of their Orders^ then there is an 
 end of all Authority^ and an eiid of all 
 'Tower of one Man over another in fuch 
 Matters, 
 
 So that you have as plainly confuted all 
 Authority of the Trince over his Soldiers m 
 Matters purely Military, as you have con- 
 futed all Authority of the Church in Matter., 
 ptrely of Confcience. For it is plain to eve- 
 ry Underftanding, that if there is an end of 
 all Authority in Religion, becaufe Perions may 
 have ibme regard to the intrinfick Coddnefe 
 of things *, that therefore there is an end of 
 all Regal Authority over Soldiers, if Sol- 
 ifliers may have any regard to the Na- 
 
 * Anfw. toKepr. p. ijr. 
 
 ture 
 
( 61 ) 
 
 Uive and Jufiice of their Military Or- 
 ders, 
 
 Your Argument againft Church Authority 
 confifts of two Parts ; the firjl Tart is ta- 
 ken from the Nature oi Author ity, and pro- 
 ceeds thus : If there be an Authority in 
 Matters of Confcience^ it mufl he an abfo- 
 lute Authority over Confcience ^ fo as to be 
 obey'd in all its Commands of what kindfoever% 
 which is as faHe as if it were faid, that if a 
 Father hath Authority over the Terfon of his 
 Son, then he hath an abfolute Authority to 
 do what he will with his Terfon ; or if he 
 hath Authority over his Son in Civil Affairs^ 
 then he hath an abfolute imlimited Authority 
 in the Civil A fairs of his Son. ^ 
 
 The other Tart of your Argument, is ta- 
 ken from the Nature of Obedience^ and pro- 
 ceeds in this manner : If Terfons may have 
 fome regard to the intrinfick Goodnefs of 
 things in Religion, then there is an end of 
 all Authority in Matters of Religion ; which 
 is as falfe as to fay that if a Soldier may 
 have fome regard to the Nature and Jujiice 
 of the Military Orders of his Trince ^ then 
 there is an end of all Authority of the Trince 
 over his Soldiers in Military Affairs ; or if a 
 Servant may have forrte regard to the Law- 
 fulnefs of the Commands of his Mafter, then 
 there is an end of all Authority of Matters 
 over their Servants as to fuch Matters. 
 
 So 
 
( 6'2 ) 
 
 So that if there be any fuch thing as Au- 
 thority either in Maftcrs^ or Fathers ^ or 
 "Princesy then both Tarts of your Argument 
 are coniuted ; for none of thcle have any o- 
 ther rhan a limited Authority, nor do their 
 relpedlive Servant s^ Sons^ or SahjeBs^ owt 
 ihem apy other a5iive Obedience, but fiich 
 as is conditional. 
 
 Now if it can be any way prov'd that O- 
 hedience to our Majiers ^ 'Parents^ and 
 Princes is a very great "Duty^ and T>ifO' 
 bedience a very great Sin ; tho' they can't 
 oblige us to acS: again ft the Laws of God or 
 the Laws qf our Country^ then it wiii fol- 
 low that Obedience to our Spiritual Gover- 
 vours may be a very great T^iity^ and Dilo- 
 bedience a very great Sin \ tho' they cannot 
 oblige us to fuhiiiic to their finful or unlaw- 
 ful Commands. 
 
 And if common Reafon, the Laws of God 
 and our Country be lufficient to dired: us, 
 where to flop in our aBive Obedience to 
 our Majters^ Fathers^ or Princes^ tho' they 
 have Authority from God to demand our O- 
 bedience; the fame Guides will with the 
 fame Certainty teach us where to Jiop in our 
 Obedience to the Authority of the Church, 
 tho' that Authority be fet over us by God 
 himfclf 
 
 Tho' this might be thought fufRcient to 
 fhew the Weakneis of your Arguments a- 
 gainft the Authority of the Church, yet I 
 
 iliall 
 
 ] 
 
[63 ) 
 
 fliall beg leave to examine them a little far* 
 ther in another manner. 
 
 You (ay the Authority which you deny, is 
 only an Authority in Matters relating pure-- 
 ly relating to Confcience and eternal Salva- 
 tion^ an Authority w hofe Laws and 2)<?fi/&;rfjr 
 ajfeti the State of Chriji's Subje(3:s with re- 
 gard to the Favour of God ; and the reafba 
 of your denying it is this, that if this Au- 
 thority, or Laivs^ or T)ecifions of Alen can 
 eoneern or ajfetl the State of Chriji's Sub- 
 jeBs "with regard to the Favour of God^ 
 then the eternal Salvation of fome Chrifti- 
 ans depends n^on the Sentence pafs'd by o- 
 thers *. 
 
 In order to lay open theWeaknefs of this 
 Reafbning, I Ihall ftate the Meaning of the 
 Proportions of which it confifts. 
 
 And, firft, I Juppofe an Authority may be 
 properly faid to affed: the State of People 
 with regard to the Favour of God, whea 
 their Obedience to liich an Authority pro- 
 cures his Favour, and their Contempt of it 
 raiies his Dilplealure ; and I believe that this 
 is not only a proper Senle, but the only pro- 
 per Senle which the Words are capable of. 
 
 It is certainly true that the Authority of 
 our bleffed Saviour, was an Authority which 
 affected the State of the Jevi's with regard 
 to the Favour of God ; but yet it no other- 
 
 Anfw, to Repr p iH. 
 
 wile 
 
wife affeded their State, than as their Obe- 
 dience to his Authority was pleafing to God, 
 and their Difobedience to it, the Caufe of his 
 farther Difpleafure. This is the oj^ly way in 
 which the Authority of Chrift affeded the 
 State of People with regard to the Favour of 
 God; and therefore is the 07/ly manner in 
 which any other Authority can be fuppos'd to 
 affed: Perfons with regard to the Favour of 
 God. 
 
 Secondly ; Any Things or Matters may 
 be properly faid to relate to Confc'ience and 
 eternal Salvatio7ty when the Oblervance of 
 them is a Means of obtaining Salvation, and 
 the NeglecSt of them, an Hindrance to our 
 Salvation. Thus Baptifm and the Supper of 
 the Lord, arc Matters relating to Confcience 
 and eternal Salvation^ but then they are on- 
 ly {o^ for this reafon, becaufe the partaking 
 of thefe Sacraments, is a Mean% of obtaiiajng 
 Salvation, and the Refufal of them, is an 
 .Hindrance of our Salvation. He therefore 
 who hath Authority in ftich things^ as by 
 our obferving of them we promote our Sal- 
 vation, and by our neglcding of them, we 
 hinder our Salvation, he has in the utmoft 
 Propriety of the Words, an Authority in Mat- 
 ters of Confcience and Salvation. 
 
 Hence it appears that it is not peculiar or 
 appropriate to the Authority of the Church 
 alone ^ to relate to Matters of Confcience and 
 eternal Salvation, but equally hzXovi^^ to every 
 
 other 
 
( ^5 ) 
 
 Other Authority which can be call'd the Or- 
 d inane e of God. 
 
 Now all lawful Authority, whether o^ Ma- 
 Jiersj Fathers, or Trinces^ is the Ordinance 
 of God, and the refpccftivc Duties of their 
 ServantSj Children, and Suhje^s^ are as tru- 
 ly Matters of Confcience and eternal Salva- 
 tion, as their Oblervance of any Part of the 
 Chriftian Religion is a Matter of Confcience 
 and eternal Salvation : And it is not more 
 their Duty to receive the Sacramcjit, or wor- 
 fliip God in any particular manner, than to 
 obey their refpedtive Governours ; nor doGS 
 it more concern or affc^ their State with re- 
 gard to the Favour of God, whether they 
 negled: thofe "Duties which particularly re- 
 gard his Service, or thofe Duties which they 
 owe to their proper Governours. So thac 
 Confcience and eternal Salvation is equally 
 ccrncern'd in both Cafes. 
 
 For things may as well be Matters of 
 Confcience and eternal Salvation, tho' they 
 are of a Civil or Secular Nature,' as the fofi- 
 tive Injlitutions of Chrift arc Matters of Con- 
 fcience and Salvation, 
 
 For Baptifm has no more of Religion \n 
 its own Nature, nor has of itfelf any moxc 
 concern with our Salvation, than any AcSion 
 that is merely Secular or Civil. But as Bap- 
 tifm by Inflitution becomes our Duty, and 
 fo is a Matter of Confcience and Salvation ; fo 
 when Actions "sx^x^Xy Secular and Indiferent^, 
 
 K ate 
 
(66) 
 
 are by a Lawful Authority made our T>7ity^ 
 they are as truly Matters of Confcie7ice and 
 Salvation, as any Parts of Reh'gion. 
 
 The Difference betwixt a Sfiritnal and 
 Temporal Authority does not confift in this^ 
 that one relates to Matters of Coitfcience and 
 Salvation, and concerns and affc^s our State 
 with regard to the Favour of God, and the 
 other does not; hut the Difference is this, 
 that one prefides over us in things relating to 
 Religion and the Service of God, the other 
 prefides over us in things relating to Civil 
 Life ; and as our Salvation depends as cer- 
 tainly upon our Behaviour in things relating 
 to Civil Life^ as in things relating to the 
 Service of God, it follows that they are both 
 equally Matters of Confcience and Salvation: 
 And as the Tem-poral Authority is the Ordi- 
 nance of God, to which we are to fub- 
 mit, not only for Wrath ^ but alfo for 
 Confcience fake^ it undeniably follows, that 
 this Temporal Authority as truly concerns 
 and ajfetts our State with regard to the Fa- 
 vour of God, as any Authority in Matters 
 furely relating to Religion. For fuch an Au- 
 thority could in no other Senfe affe^ our 
 State with regard to the Favour of God, than 
 by our Obedience or Difobedience to it ; but 
 our State with regard to the Favour of God 
 is as truly affected by our Obedience^ or O// 
 obedience to our Law^ful Sovereign, as by our 
 obferving or neglc^^ing any Duty in the 
 
 World; 
 
( 61 ) 
 
 World ; and confcquently the Temporal Au- 
 thority as truly affeHs our State wirh re- 
 gard to the Favour of God, as any Authority 
 in Matters of Religion. 
 
 Seeing therefore by an Authority in Mat- 
 ters of Confcience and Salvation^ by an Au- 
 thority which can affeB our State with re- 
 gard to the Favour of God, nothing more is 
 imply'd, than an Authority to which our O- 
 bedicnce is a 'Duty ^ and our Difobcdience 
 a Stn^ which is the Cafe of every Lawful Au- 
 thority ; Vi plainly appears, that all thole 
 frightful Confequences , thofe Dangers to 
 the Souls of Men which you have charg'd 
 upon fuch Church Authority-, are as truly 
 chargeable upon Majiers , Fathers , and 
 "Frmces^ and makes their feveral Authorities 
 as dangerous Powers over the Salvation of o- 
 thers, as the Authority of the Church. 
 
 Thus, when y.om Demonftr at ion proceeds 
 in this manner ; If there be an Authority in 
 fome over others in Matters purely relating 
 to Confcience and Salvation^ then the Sal- 
 vation of fome Teople will depend upon o* 
 thers. Which, if we fet in a true Light, 
 ought to proceed thus ; If there be an Au- 
 thority in Matters of Religion^ to which our 
 Obedience is a Duty^ and our Difobcdience 
 a Sin^ then the Salvation of fome People de^ 
 pends upon others. 
 
 But, my Lord, what a Sagacity muft he 
 have who can fee this difmal Coniequence ? 
 
 \\ z Who 
 
( «8 ) 
 
 Who can fee that Majiers^ Fathers^ and 
 Tr'tnces have a Power over the Souls of o- 
 thers either to damn or fave them, becaufe 
 Obedience to their Authority is a T>uty^ and 
 Difobedience a ^yi;/? 
 
 Your Lordfliip cannot here fay, that an 
 Authority in Matters purely relating to 
 Conjcience and eternal Salvation^ is not ex- 
 preis'd high enough, by being defcrib'd as an 
 Authority to ijvhich our Obedience is a 'Du- 
 ty, and our T>iJobedience a Sin. For, my 
 Lord, no Authority, however concerned in 
 things of the greatefl: Importance in Religion 
 and Salvation^ can po/Tibly be an Authority 
 of an higher Nature, than that Authority to 
 ^johich our Obedience is a T>uty^ and our 
 Dijobedience a Sin. It was in this Senfe a- 
 lone that the Authority of our Saviour him- 
 felf ajfe6ied the State of the Jews with re- 
 gard to the Favour of God ; his Authority 
 was of an high and concerning Nature to 
 them only for this reafbn, becaufe their Obe- 
 dience to it was their Duty, and their Difo- 
 bedience their Sin. 
 
 If we now confider this Authority in the 
 Church in this true Manner in which it ought 
 to be confider'd, your Lordfliip*s Argument 
 againfl: it, either proves a deal too much, or 
 nothing at all. 
 
 Thus, if the Confequence be juft, that if 
 it be Sin to difobcy the Church, then the 
 Church hath a Power of damning us ; then 
 
 it 
 
 I 
 
( 69 ) 
 
 it is as good a Confcquence m regard to o- 
 ther Authority ; as thus, It is a Sw to dtfi 
 obey our "Tarents^ therefore our T^arents 
 have a Tower of damning us ; it is a Sin ro 
 dilbbey our Trince^ therefore our Trince has 
 a Tower of damning us. Thefe Corlcqucnccs 
 are evidently as jtiji and triie^ as that other 
 drawn from Church Authority ; lo that nil 
 thole difmal Charges which you have fix'd 
 upon Church Authority^ arc as falle Accounts 
 of Vi-i as if you had afferted that every Fa- 
 ther^ or Mafter^ or T'rince^ who demands 
 Obedience from his Child^ Servant^ or Sub- 
 je£i in point of ^Duty^ or by declaring that 
 their Difobedience is a Sin^ does thereby 
 prove himfelf to be a Tope^ and to have the 
 Souls of others at his Dilpofal. For it is out 
 of all doubt, that if the Governours of the 
 Church by demanding Obedience to them in 
 point of T)uty^ or by declaring Difobedience 
 to be Sin^ do thereby afTert the Claims of 
 Topery^ and afTume a Power to difpole of the 
 Souls of the People ; that any other Autho- 
 rity which requires this Obedience as a "Du- 
 ty of Confcience, and forbids Difobedience as 
 Sin^ does thereby claim the Authority of the 
 Tope^ and pretend to a Power over the Souls 
 of others. 
 
 So that if your Lordfliip has deftroy'd 
 Church Authority, which pretends Obedience 
 to be a T)uty^ as a Topijl? Claim ; you have 
 alfo as certainly deftroy'd every other Au- 
 thority 
 
( 70) 
 
 thority which demands Obedience as a T>uty^ 
 as being equally a Topfh Trefumption, 
 
 Whenever therefore you Ihall pleafe to call 
 away Servants^ Children^ or Subje^s from 
 their relpe6tive Maflers^Fathers^ and Trincesy 
 you have as many "Demonjirations ready to 
 prove them all Tapifts^ if they will ftick by 
 their Obedience to them as a T)nty of Con fit- 
 ence^ and to prove their Governours allTopes^ 
 if they declare their Difobedience to htSin^ as 
 you have to prove Church Authority to be 
 a ^opijh Claim. And I muft beg leave to af- 
 firm, that they are as much mifled who fol- 
 low your Lordfliip againft the Authority or 
 the Church, as if they fliould follow you in 
 x\i^ fame Argument againft owning any Au- 
 thority of their Barents and Tr'tnces, 
 
 The Intent of all this is only to flievv, that 
 tho' there is an Authority in the Church to 
 which our Obedience is a "Duty and our Dif- 
 obedience a Sin (which is as high an Autho- 
 rity as can be claimed) yet this Authority 
 implies no more a frightful Power of dlfpo- 
 fing of our Souls, than any other Lawful Au- 
 thority, which it is a Sin to difbbey, implies 
 iuch a Power. 
 
 For where is the Danger to our Souls ? 
 How is our Salvation made fubjedt to the 
 Plealiire of our Church Governours, becaufe 
 God has appointed them to dired: us in the 
 manner of worfliipping him, and to prefide 
 over things relating to Rchgion, and made ic 
 
 our 
 
( 71 ) 
 
 our Duty to obey them? How does thfe 
 imply a dangerous Power over our Salvation ? 
 If we fin agaiuft this Authority, we endanger 
 our Salvation, as wc do by ncglcding ajiy o- 
 ther Ordinance of God ; and our Damnation 
 is no more eficd:ed by any Tower in the 
 Pcifbns, whom we may be damn'd for dif- 
 obeying, than a Perfon that is damn'd for kil- 
 ling his Father, is damn'd by any Tower of 
 his Father's. 
 
 Neither is it in the Power of the Gover- 
 nours in the Church, tho' they have Autho- 
 rity in Matters of Salvation, to make our Sal- 
 vation any more difficult to us, than if they 
 had no Jtich Authority. 
 
 For all their Injundtions mufl be either 
 Lawful or Unlawful \ if they are Lawful^ 
 then by our Obedience to an Ordinance of 
 God, we recommend our felves to the Favour 
 of God ; and fure there is no harm in this 
 Authority thus far. And if their Commands 
 are Unlawful, then by our not obeying 
 them, we ftill pleafe God, in chufing rather to 
 obey him than Men, where both cannot be 
 obey'd. And where, my Lord, is the Ter- 
 ror of this Authority fo much complained of? 
 How does this make our Salvation lie at the 
 Mercy of our Church Governours ? We are 
 ftill as truly fav'd "or damn'd by our own Be- 
 haviour, as tho' they had no /uch Authority 
 over US; and tho' we may make their Au- 
 thority the Occajlon of our Damnation, by 
 
 our 
 
( 72 ) 
 
 our rebelling againft ic. yet it is only in fuch 
 a manner as any one may make Bapt'tfm^ or 
 the Supper of the Lord, the Occajion of his 
 Damnation, by a prophane Refufal of them. 
 
 Upon the whole of this Matter, it appears, 
 firft, that when the Authority of the Church 
 is laid to be an Authority in Matters of Con* 
 fclence and Salvation^ or ^n Authority which 
 concerns and affe^s our State with regard to 
 the Favour of God ; that this is the only true 
 Meaning of thoie Propofitions, nj'iz,. an Au- 
 thor tty in Matters of Religion^ to which O- 
 bedience is a T>uty^ and T^ifobedicnce a Sin. 
 
 Secondly ; That this Authority to which 
 we are thws oblig'd^ is, as confident with our 
 working out our own Salvation, and no more 
 puts our Souls into the Difpofal of iiich Au- 
 thority, then our Salvation is at the Mercy of 
 our Barents and Trinces^ becaufe to obey 
 their Authority is a great T>uty^ and to dif- 
 ©bey it, a great Sin, 
 
 Your Lordihip has yet another Argument 
 againft Church Authority taken from the Na- 
 ture of our Reformation, which it feems can- 
 not be detemded, if there was then this Church 
 Authority we h^ve been pleading for. 
 
 Thus you fay ; If there be a Church Au- 
 thority^ I beg to know, how can the Refor- 
 mation itfelf be jujtiffd *. 
 
 ■ . I ' ■' ' ■■ !»• II S ■ ■ ■ ■ I I — ■ ' 
 
 My 
 
( 73 ) 
 
 My LorJ, I cannot but wonder this fliould 
 be a DifRcuity with your Lordlhip, who has 
 writ io famom a Treatifc to inform People 
 how they not only may^ but ought in point 
 of T)uty to get rid of a real Authority ; I 
 mean in your Defence o? Rcfljlance. 
 
 I fuppofe it is taken for granted, x.\\^x. James 
 the Second was King oiEngland^ that he had 
 a 7?^^^?/ Authority over all the People oiEng^ 
 land^y and that they all of what Station io- 
 ever were his Stibje^s ; yet granting this 
 Regal Authority in him, and this State of 
 Stibjeciton in all the People of England^ 
 your Lordihip knows how to fet ajide that 
 Government, and fet up anorficr Govern- 
 ment; and even to make it our T>uty as Me7i 
 and Trotejiants to kt up another Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 Now fince you know how to get rid of 
 this Authority in fo Chrijiian and Trotejlant 
 a manner, one can't but wonder how you 
 fliould be at a lofs to juftify thei?^/^r;;^^ri^^/, 
 without ibppofing that the Church at that 
 time had no Authority. 
 
 For did you ever juftify the Revolution^ 
 hzc^xxk James the Second had no Kingly Au* 
 thority^ or that the People of England were 
 not his Subje^s ? Nay, did you not defend 
 it upon the quite contrary Suppofirion, that 
 rho' James the Second had a Regal Autho- 
 rity, tho* all the People oi England were bis 
 Unbje^ls^ and had fwore to be his faithful 
 L Subjcds, 
 
( 7+ ) 
 
 Subje<3:s, yet in Ipighc of all thefe Confidera^ 
 tions, did you not affcrt that they not only 
 mighty but ought to {a. him aftde and chuie 
 another Governour in his ftcad ? 
 
 And yet after all this, you htow not how 
 to defend the Reformation^ it is a perfedlly 
 loft Caufe, and not a word to be laid lor XK^ 
 unlefs we fuppofe that there was no Atttho- 
 rity in the Church when we reformed from ir. 
 Surely if your LordAiip lov'd to defend the 
 Reformation^ as well as you lov'd to defend 
 xh^ Revolution^ you would not have ^o many 
 Reafons for one, and none for the other. 
 
 For fuppofing an Authority in the Church, 
 will not Tyranny^ Breach of Fundamentalsy 
 and unlawful Terms of Communion, defend 
 our Departure from a real Authority in the 
 Church 5 as well as any -Grievances or Op- 
 freffions will defend our leaving a real Au- 
 thority in the State ? 
 
 What a pitiful Advocate, what a Be-^ 
 trayer of the Rights of the People would 
 you reckon him, who iliould fay. If there 
 was any Regal Authority in James the Se- 
 condy if the Teople of England were his 
 Subjeds ; / beg to know^ how can the Re- 
 volution it fe If be jujliffd? 
 
 Yet juft luch an Advocate are you, juft 
 liich a Betrayer of the Reformation ^ you 
 can't defend it, it has no bottom to ftand up- 
 on ; and if there was any Authority in the 
 Church before the Reformation , you beg to 
 
 kmwy 
 
( 75 ) 
 
 hiO'Ui\ how the Reformation itfelf can be 
 jf^Pffd? 
 
 My Lord, I don't urge this to flievv either 
 that the Revolution and Reformation are e- 
 qualiy juilifiable, or that they both are to be 
 juftify 'd upon the fame Realbns ; but to fliew 
 that your Lordlhip from your own 'Princi- 
 f>les needed not to have wanted as good Rea- 
 sons for the Reformation-^ as you have pro- 
 duced for the Revolution^ even fuppofing the 
 Church of Rome had as real an Authority o- 
 ver us as James the Second had, and that we 
 were as truly in a Stare of Subjedtion to that 
 Church before the Reformation., as we were 
 in a Scare of Subjedion to that King before 
 the Revolution, 
 
 Again, you proceed thus ; For there was 
 then (at rhe time of the Reformation) a Church, 
 and an Order ^/Church-men, ve fed with all 
 fuch fptritual Authority^ as is of the Ej^ence 
 of the Church, There was therefore a Church 
 Aurhoriry to obHge Chriflians ; and a "Tower 
 in fome over others. What was it there- 
 fore to which we owe this very Church of 
 England * ? 
 
 Now, my Lord, I hope you will grant, 
 that juft at the time of the Revolution^ 
 " there was then a King., vefted with all luch 
 " Civil Authority as is of the Eflence of a 
 ^' King. There was therefore a Regal Au^ 
 
 * Anfw. to Rejir. p. ii8. 
 
 L x ^' thority 
 
( 7S ) 
 
 ^^ thority to oblige the People of England^ 
 '^ and a Power in one over others. What 
 " was it therefore to which we owe this ve- 
 ^' ry Revolution in Englandl 
 
 I fuppofe you will Iky that we owe it, not 
 ro any Want of Authority in the late King 
 James^ but to his Abiife of his Authority : 
 Why therefore is ic not as eafy to account 
 for the Reformation^ not from the IVant^ but 
 the Abnfe of Authority in the Church of 
 Rome ? Is it an Argument that the People of 
 England were no Subjects^ under no Go- 
 vernment, nor had any King^ becaufe they 
 would no longer fubmit to the OppreJJions 
 and Grievances of a late Reign, but afferted 
 their Liberties and appealed to the Conditi- 
 ons of the Original Contra^ ? 
 
 If not, why is it an Argument that the 
 Church had no Attthortty^ becaufe fome Years 
 ago the People of England would no longer 
 lubmit to the Corrupt ions ^ and unlawful In- 
 jundions of the Church ofRome^ but appeal'd 
 to the Scriptures^ and the Pradice of the 
 frfi and furefi Ages of Chriftianity ? 
 
 If your Lordfliip was fo entirely confiftent 
 with your felf as you tell us you are ; if you 
 never purfued an Argument farther than the 
 plain Reafon of it lead you; how is it pofTible 
 thnr you, who have fo ftrenuoufly defended 
 the Refill ance of People againft a Legal King"^^ 
 
 * Sev. Travis, p. 332,. 
 
 (fo* 
 
{ n ) 
 
 (for fb you expreffly call him) lliould declare 
 that our Separation from the Church of Rome 
 cannot be Jujii/y'd, without fuppofing that 
 the Church of Rome had never any Authority 
 over us ? 
 
 For fiippofing that Church had been really 
 our Sovereign in Affairs of Rehgion, is it not 
 ftrange that you, who have afferted that our 
 j^rejejit Settlement is owing entirely to the 
 taking up Arms^ and adhering to fuch as 
 ivere in Arms* againjt their Sovereign*, fliould 
 yet declare that our oppoling the Church of 
 Rome^ cannot be juftify'd but by fuppofing, 
 that flie never had xay Sovereignty over us? 
 
 Is it not yet ftranger, that you, who have 
 defended the Revolution by comparing it to 
 the Reformation^ fliould yet declare that the 
 Reformation cannot be juftify'd without "fup- 
 pofing that the Church of England was un- 
 der no Authority of the Church of Rome ? 
 
 For, my Lord, if the Church of England 
 had not been under the Authority of the 
 Church of Rome^ how could our oppofing 
 that Church be compared to the rejlfiing 
 of King James ? How could our Separation 
 from that Church be a Defence of our with- 
 drawing our Allegiance from King James^ 
 without fuppofing that the Church before that 
 Separation had as Real and Legal Authority 
 as that King had before the Revolution ? 
 
 * Ibid, p, 36<5. 
 
 Your 
 
( 78 ) 
 
 Your Words are thefe ; Why Jhould that 
 (i. e. Refiftance) be abfolutely and entirely 
 condemn' d^ as a damnable Sin^ any more than 
 Church Separation, by 'which we got rid of 
 ;^A^ Tyranny ^/Rome ? And again, all Church 
 Reformation , is not Church Deftrudtion ; 
 Why therefore muji all Refinance* be calld 
 Rebellion * ? 
 
 Now is it not very ftrange, my Lord, that 
 after this, you ihould affert that the Church 
 had no Authority before the Reformation ; 
 and that if it had any Authority, then our Se- 
 juration from it cannot be jujlify'd ? Is not 
 this very ftrange after you had ufed it as an 
 Argument to juftify the withdrawing of our 
 Allegiance from King James the Second ? 
 
 For let us fuppofe with you, that there was 
 no Church Authority at the time of the Re- 
 formation^ and then fee how excellent an Ar- 
 gument you have found out in Defence of the 
 Revolution^ which, upon this Suppofition, 
 muft proceed in this manner. 
 
 The Church of England might feparate 
 from the Church of Rome^ who had no Au- 
 thority over her ; therefore the People of 
 England might refift their Legal King, who 
 had a Regal Authority over them. Again, 
 the Clergy of England^ wh© were no Sub' 
 jeEis of the Church ol Rome^ might feparate 
 from that Church; therefore the People of 
 
 * Stv, Trails, p. 334. 
 
 England^ 
 
{19) 
 
 England^ who were SubjeEis to King James 
 the Second, might wihdraw xhcii Allegiance 
 from him. 
 
 Thus abfurd is your Argument made, by 
 fuppofmg that the Church had not as real 
 and rightful an Authority before the Refor- 
 mation^ as James the Second had before the 
 Revolution. 
 
 Farther ; Let us fuppofe with your Lord- 
 ihip, that if there was a real Authority in 
 the Church at the time of the Reformation^ 
 then the Reformation has no bottom^ but is 
 altogether unjujlifiahle ; let us fuppofe that 
 this Doctrine is true, and then fee how con- 
 fftently you have argued upon this Suppo- 
 fition. 
 
 You fay the Reformation cannot be jufti- 
 fy'd; it has no bottom to fland upon, if the 
 Church of Rome had a real Authority ; yet 
 this Oppofition^ which is fb entirely wrongs 
 becaule an Oppofition to Authority, is brought 
 by you as a parallel Cafe to prove that the 
 Refiflance againft the Authority of King 
 James was entirely right. This Reforma- 
 tion^ which if it was brought about againft 
 any Church Authority^ is iaid to be for that 
 ^ery Reafon without any bottom^ and to 
 have no Foundation^ is us'd by your Lord- 
 Ihip to point out the true Bottom and firm 
 Foundation of the Revolution. 
 
 And here let all the World judge whether 
 Reafin and Religion alone can induce any 
 
 one 
 
(So) 
 
 One to maintain the Truths the Jnfltce^ the 
 Honour^ the Chrijiianity of the Revolution, 
 as founded upon Refiftance to a Legal King ; 
 and yet condemn at the fame time the Refor- 
 mation^ as having neither 7?^/7/2;/> nor Truth, 
 »or Jujiice to fupport it, as founded upon a 
 Departure from a real Authority in the Church 
 of Rome. For Reafoii and Religion do as 
 plainly give leave to depart from the higheji 
 Authority in the Church, vi/hen the Laws of 
 God can't be obferv'd without departing from 
 it, as in any other Cafe ; and there is no 
 more NecefTity of fuppofmg or proving that 
 there was no rightful Authority in the Church, 
 to juftify our departing from it, than it is ne- 
 ceflary to prove fuch a Perfon not to be my 
 Father >^ or to have i\o Authority o\cr me, in 
 order to juftify my difbbcying his unlawful 
 Commands. 
 
 Again, your Lordiliip is farther at a lofs a- 
 bout the ReformatioHy which cannot pofiibly 
 be juftify'd , i^^ afterwards, an Authority in 
 Matters of Confcience and Salvation, be ftill 
 claim'd. 
 
 Thus you fay ; Nor can I ever tinder- 
 fiand, upon this bottom^ (viz. the claiming 
 filch Authority) what it was that could move 
 or juftify thofe^ who broke off from the Ty- 
 ranny of the Church /?/Rome ; unlefs it be 
 fufficient to fay., that it was only that Power 
 might change Hands *. 
 
 * An[w,toRe^. p. 48. HerC 
 
( 8i ) 
 
 Here your Lordfhip cannot conceive any 
 thing more unjuftifiable than the Reforma- 
 tion^ if Church Authority is dill to be kept 
 up ; nor can you upon this Claim affign any 
 other Pretence for reformings but onLy that 
 Power might change Hands. 
 
 Did your Lordfhip then never hear of the 
 Jufiice of removing one Authority, and let- 
 ting up another ? Can you think of no Cafe, 
 where Equity ^ Honour^ and T>7ity call'd up- 
 on a People to rejlft one Power, and yet 
 make another to fucceed ? 
 
 Now if this Pradlice can be equitable and 
 honourable, and is afTerted to be fo by your 
 Lordlhip, can it be conceiv'd that Reafon a- 
 lone fliould induce you to load tht Reforma- 
 tion with fo much Guilt and Injufiice^ to 
 condemn it as lo groundleft an Undertaking ; 
 becaufe tho' it fet afide the Tyrannical Au- 
 thority of the Church of Rome ^ yet it ajffert- 
 ed a true Church Authority, and made Obe- 
 dience to it neceflary to obtain the Favour of 
 God. 
 
 Suppofe (bme Friend to the Revolution^ 
 after hearing that the Trince of Orange was 
 proclaim'd King, and a Regal Authority fet 
 up, fliouId then have faid in your Lordlhip's 
 Words, / can never underfiand^ upon this 
 bottom^ what it was that could move or ju- 
 fiify thofe^ who broke off from the Tyranny 
 of the late King James ; unlefs it was fuf 
 
 M ficient 
 
•( 82 ) 
 
 fcient to fay^ that it ivas only that Power 
 mi^ht change Hands, 
 
 T appeal to your Lordfliipj whether any 
 thing could be more extravagant and finje- 
 lefs than fuch a Declaration as this from a 
 Friend to xht Revolution. 
 
 And as I freely appeal to the common Senfe 
 of every one, whether your o^wn "^Declaration 
 exprefs'd in the fame Words with regard to 
 the Reformatiofi^ fets you out to any better 
 Advantage in relation to that. 
 
 For it is full as good Senfe to fay, where 
 is the Jtijiice of the Revolution^ or what 
 Foundation has it in the Reafon of Things, 
 if there is ftill a King to be acknowledged, 
 and a Regal Authorky to be fubmitted to ; as 
 to call out for the Juftice^ and Equity^ and 
 Reafon of the Reformation^ if there is ftill a 
 Church Authority which we are oblig'd to 
 obey. And it is as certainly the Sha?ne and 
 Reproach and Injujiice of the Revolution^ 
 that a Government and i?^^^/ Authority is ftill 
 maintain'd, as it is the Shame, and Reproach^ 
 and Injujiice oixh(^Refor?nation^ that a Church 
 Authority is ftill aflerted. 
 
 And there was no more Neceffity in the 
 Nature or Reafon of the Thing, that the Re- 
 formation ihould difown all Authority pro- 
 perly fb call'd, in Matters of Religion, than 
 that the Revolution Ihould have rejedbed all 
 Authority properly fo call'd in Qivil Affairs. 
 
 Neither 
 
{ 83 ) 
 
 Neither does the Reformation any more con- 
 tradid itfelf, or undermine its own Founda- 
 tion, and give the Tapifls an Advantage o- 
 ver it, by claiming and afTcrting a Church 
 Authority^ than the Revolution contradidted 
 Itfelf, or confpir'd its own Ruin, by fetting 
 up a Khig^ and maintaining a Government m 
 the State. And it had been juft as wife as 
 prudent ^ and politick Management, if the 
 Revolution had fet up no Government, but 
 left every Man to himlelf in Civil Affairs ^ in 
 order to have prevented the Return of the 
 late King James ; as if the Reformation had 
 maintain'd no Church Authority, but left c- 
 very Perfon's Religion to himfelf, in order to 
 keep out Topery. And it is juft as much 
 Matter of Joy and Triumph to the Tapifisy 
 to fee this Authority aflerted in the Church 
 of England^ as it was Matter of Joy to the 
 late King James to find that a Regal Autho* 
 rity was fet up againft him. 
 
 But to go on ; your Argument, when put 
 in form, will proceed in this manner. 
 
 The Church of England departed from 
 the Authority of the Church oi Rome^ there- 
 fore we may lawfully depart from any Church 
 Authority. And again ; at the Reformation 
 we lawfully feparated from the Communion 
 of the Church of Rome^ therefore we may 
 as lawfully feparate from any particular 
 Communion, 
 
 Mx And 
 
(8+) 
 
 And now, my Lord, can any Argument 
 be more trifling, or draw more abiurd Con- 
 fequences after it, than this ? And yet, ab- 
 furd as it is, it is one of your befl, and which 
 you ieem to take great DeHght in ; thus 
 are we told in ahnoft every Page, that if we 
 we will (land by the Reafon and Jujiice of 
 the Reformation, we mud give up all Aiitho- 
 rlty in Matters of Religion ; and not pre- 
 tend to a Neceffity of being of any f articu- 
 lar Church, if we would juflify our leaving 
 the Romijf? Church. 
 
 But pray, my Lord, you have told us, that 
 the Peopfe of England oi all Stations did 
 lawfully and honourably^ &c. refift the late 
 King James ; but does it therefore follow 
 that they may as lawfully and honourably re- 
 fift KingG^^r^^? If nor, how does it follow 
 that becaufe we might jujily feparate from 
 the Church oi Rome^ therefore others may as 
 jtijily feparate from the Church oiEitgland? 
 
 Is it inconfiftent with the Principles of the 
 Revolution to 'declare Men Rebels^ becaufe it 
 was founded (as you affirm) upon Refiftance ? 
 If nor, why muft it be inconfiftent with the 
 Principles of the Church oi England, to declare 
 any People Schifmaticks^ becaufe ihe fepara- 
 ted from the Church oi Rome? Now if you 
 will fay that all who take ylrms at any time 
 againft a7iy King, are juftify'd by thofe, who 
 took Arms againft the late King James i 
 then you would have fome Pretence to make 
 
 our 
 
( 85 ) 
 
 our Separation from the Church of Rome a 
 Juftification of every other Separation in the 
 World. But fince you cannot lay this, but 
 have pretended to demonftrate the contrary, 
 that tho' fometimes Rejiftance is not Rebel- 
 Itouy yet fometimes Rejijiance certainly is 
 Rebellion^ you are particularly hard to the 
 Reformation^ to make it either unjuftifiable 
 in itfelf, or elfe to be a Jujiification of every 
 other pretended Reformation. 
 
 But however, as hard as you are upon the 
 Reformation in this Place, making it, confi- 
 der'd as a Separation^ a Defence of all other 
 Separations from the Church of England^ 
 yet you your felf, to fliew your equal regard 
 to both lides of a Contradidion, have aflert- 
 ed the contrary, and declar'd that as all Re- 
 jijiance is not Rebellion^ fo neither is all Se- 
 paration Schijm. 
 
 Now, I fuppofe, when you fay that all Re- 
 Jijiance is not Rebellion , it is certainly im- 
 ply'd that fome Rejiftance may be Rebellion ; 
 and like wife by declaring in the Jame man- 
 ner all Separation not to be Schijm^ it muft 
 as necefTarily be imply'd that Jome Separa- 
 tion may be Schijm. Here therefore yon 
 plainly teach us, that fome Separation may 
 be Schijm^ and fome Separation may not be 
 Schijm ; yet your prefent Argument is 
 founded upon the contrary Suppofuion, that 
 either all Separations are Lawfuly or none 
 
 are 
 
( S6 ) 
 
 arc Lawful \ for it is the conftant Complaint 
 \x\ every Chapter of your Book, that the 
 Church of England fliould afTert any Necef- 
 fity or Obligation upon others of conforming 
 to her, when fhe her felf deny'd the Neccfli- 
 ty of her conforming to the Church oiRome, 
 So that the Lawfulnefs or Jujiice of her Sefa- 
 ration from Rome^ is urg'd to ilievv the equal 
 Lawfulnefs 2inA Jtfiice of all Separations 
 trom the Church oi England % which Argu- 
 inent is plainly founded upon this Propofition, 
 that all Separations from any Churches, are 
 either equally Lawful^ or equally Unlawful, 
 Which is direftly contrary to this other Pro- 
 pofition, that fome Separation may be Schifm^ 
 and fome Separation may not be Schifrn, 
 Which Contradiction is juft as palpable, as if 
 you had faid, all Refiftance is not the Sin of 
 Rebellion ; yet all Refiftance is either equaU 
 ly lawful, or equally unlawful. 
 
 But to go on, you fay that all Refiftance 
 is not Rebellion, and for a Proof of it^ fay, 
 that all Church Separation is not Schifrn ; 
 which plainly implies, that there is at leaf 
 as much Difference betwixt fome Separations 
 from diiferent Churches, as there is betwixt 
 fome dLtmcdRefjiances againft different Kings. 
 Now if, according to your Lordihip, there is 
 as much Difference betwixt Refiftances , as 
 there is betwixt an Adtion that is a 7)utjyj 
 and an A6tion that is a Sin, and you have 
 
 proV'd 
 
( 87 ) 
 
 proved this Difference, by comparing thofe 
 Refiflances ro different forts of Separations^ 
 then it will neceflarily follow that there may 
 be, nay mud be, as much Difference betwixt 
 one Separation and another Separation^ as 
 there is betwixt one Ad:ion that is a T^uty^ 
 and another Adion that is a Sin. This be- 
 ing the true State of the Cale, your Lordlhip's 
 Argument in Defence of the Separatijls ta- 
 ken from our Separation from the Church of 
 Rome., will (land thus. 
 
 We feparated from the Church of Romey 
 becaufe fuch Separation was our T)uty^ there- 
 fore the Fanaticks may feparate from the 
 Church oi England^ the fiich Separation is 
 a Sin : Which is as rational an Argument, as 
 if it fliould be laid, iiich a one kill'd a Man 
 laijufiilly^ therefore any one elfe may kill a 
 Man unlawfully. For if fome Separation 
 may be a 'Duty, and fome Separation a Sin, 
 it is as ialfe and ridiculous to infer, that if 
 our Separation is juft, it juftifies all other Se- 
 parations; as to conclude, that becaufe we 
 may do our T)uty, others may tranfgrefs their 
 Duty, For there being manifeftly, and from 
 your own Acknowledgment, this great Diffe- 
 rence between one Separatioii and another Se- 
 paration, that one Separation in fuch Circum- 
 ftances, will no more juftify a Separation m 
 other Circumftances, than the Lawfulnefs af 
 killing a Man in fome Cafes, will prove it 
 lawful to kill a Man in all other Cafes. 
 
 Now 
 
(88 ) 
 
 Now if your Lordihip has any ^emonjira- 
 tlons ready, to flicw that Refijlance in Ibme 
 Circumftances is a Cbrijiian 'T>iity^ and Refijl- 
 ance in lome other Circumftances is a dam- 
 nable Sin \ and that it may be as great a Sin 
 to.refift lome Princes, as it is a Duty to re- 
 fifl: others ; if you can help us to any plain 
 Rule , any certain Signs to know an honeft 
 Chriftian Refifter^ from a Refljier who is a 
 Rebel and in danger of T)amnation ; I hope 
 there may be found as plain Rules to flicw 
 us who feparates lawfully^ and who feparates 
 unlawfully from any particular Church. If 
 you can give any Realbns why the late King 
 James might be refifl:ed then^ and yet fliew 
 it a Sin to refift King George now, it's 
 fomething ftrange that you can't find any 
 Reafons, why it was our ^uty to feparate 
 from the Church oi Rome then^ and yet fliew 
 it a Sin to feparate from the Church oi Eng- 
 land now. 
 
 For I would fuppofe at leaft, that thete is 
 as much Difference between feparating from 
 the Church oi England and feparating from 
 the Church of Rome^ as there is betwixt Re- 
 fift:ance againft a good King, and Refiftance 
 againft a Tyrannical Oppreflor ; and if there 
 be this Difference, then you muft allow, that 
 it is as falfe to argue from the Lawfulnefs of 
 feparating from one Church, to the Lawful- 
 nefs of ieparating from the other, as it would 
 be to argue, that becaufe oppreflive Tyrants 
 
 may 
 
( 89 ) 
 
 may be rcfiftcd, therefore juft and good Kings 
 may be rcfifted. I have been the longer iii 
 examining this Dodrinc in this particular 
 View in relation to Refiftance^ that it may be 
 feen with how much Truth you fay, you have 
 recom?7iended fucb Trmciples as ferve to e* 
 Jtablijh the Interefl of our common Country 
 and our common Chriftianity^ of human So- 
 ciety and true Religion^ upon one uniform, 
 fteady, and confident Foundation *. 
 
 For it is evident that thele Principles, if 
 put in Pracflicc, diredlly tend to the utter 
 Ruin of our common Country, and our com- 
 mon Chriftianity ; for I have Ihewn that all 
 the Arguments which you have advanced a- 
 gainfl: Church Authority, if they have any 
 Force, conclude with the fame Force againll 
 all forts of Authority in the World. 
 
 I lliall now proceed to a mod remarkable 
 evafive Denial of every thing you have faid 
 relating to Church Authority, from your 
 own Mouth. 
 
 * PrpX to Cc^-n. Kizht: of Suh'^e5i^ 
 
 N JR?^ 
 
{ 9^ ) 
 
 A Remarkable Evafton of your Lord- 
 Jhtfs m relation to Church Authority. 
 
 i^PS H E Learned Committee charg'd 
 your Lordihip with denying all An- 
 thor'tty to the Churchy and leaving 
 it without any Authority to Judge, 
 cenfiire^ or pinijh Offenders in the Affairs 
 of Confeience and eternal Salvation *. To 
 iupporc this Charge, they quoted thefe Words 
 of your Sermon ; Chrift is file Law giver to 
 his Snbje^Sy and himfilf file Judge of their 
 Behaviour in the Affairs of Conjcience and 
 Salvation ; in theje Joints he hath left be- 
 hind him no vifible human Authority. 
 
 Now how is it that your Lordihip has 
 dear'd your felf from rhis Charge ? Why tru- 
 ly by declaring, that by a Denial of all 
 Church Authority, yon only meant to deny 
 to the Governours of the Church a Power of 
 parting the irreverfible Sentence, or that ; 
 Chrift has left no vifible Authority here to 
 judge People at the laft Day. When you 
 talk'd fo much of Church Authority in Mat- ' 
 ters of Religion, and of a^i Authority left be- \ 
 hind, it was very reafonabie to think that 
 
 ^ipref. p. 4, 
 
 you 
 
( 91 ) 
 
 you was fj^caking of an Authority which re" 
 latcd to the Church in this World. But it 
 fccms, all you have deny^'d in relation to 
 Chinch Authority, is only this, that any 
 one but Chrift fhaJI pa/s the irrcver/ible Sen- 
 tence^ or judge us ar the lafl Day. 
 
 For you iay ; ^s Chrift is to fafs the ir- 
 reve7[flble Sentence^ thus he is judge alone. 
 And "ujhat I ajfir?ri of h'lm^ I deny of others 
 in the fame Senfe in which I affirm it of 
 him : And in no other Senfe can I be fup- 
 pos'd to deny itj becatife it anfwers no 'Tttr- 
 pfe *. 
 
 Therefore when you fay no Men have any 
 Authority in Affairs of Religion and Confer- 
 ence^ you only fay that no Men have Autho- 
 rity to pals the irreverfible Sentence at the 
 laft Day. For you declare that thus it is that 
 ChriO: alone is Judge, and you only deny that 
 of others^ which you affirm of him, and con- 
 fequently the only Authority which you de- 
 ny them, is that of judging the World at the 
 laft T)ay. 
 
 Strange ! my Lord, that after fb many ela- 
 borate Pages for Ecclefiaftical Liberty, fo ma- 
 ny Complements recciv'd for your ihccelsfu^ 
 Attacks upon Church Authority, that after 
 all, you fhould declare, that you have not fo 
 much as touch'd upon Church A^thorityy 
 but have only been labouring to demonftrate 
 
 * Anfw. to Repr. p. ^V 
 
 N ^ that 
 
( ?2 ) 
 
 that the Judgment of the Uijl T^ay is com- 
 mitted to Chrjjt alone. 
 
 Chrift^ you lay, is in no other Senfe Jndge 
 of the Behaviour ofChriJIians in thefe Vomts^ 
 than as their Condition mnji and ixjill be de- 
 termined by his Sentence. And when I de^ 
 ny this of Men^ I do not^ I cannot ^ mean to 
 deny this of them in any other Senfe .^ but 
 that in which I affirm it of Chrift *. 
 
 So that when you in plain Words feem to 
 deny all Authority in the Church, as by fay- 
 ing, that Chrift alone is Judge of the Beha- 
 viour of Chriftians^ in Matters of Religion^ 
 and that he has left behind him no vifible hu- 
 man Authority in thefe Toints ; and fuch 
 like Phrafes, as feem to ordinary Underftand- 
 ings to deny all Rule and Authority in the 
 Church ; you only mean, that no one but 
 Chrift is to pafs the Sentence at the laft Day. 
 This is the Ke^ your Lordfliip has given us 
 to your Writings, which indeed gives them 
 quite another Face, and makes them fuch a 
 Courfe oiArmifementSj as exceeds all which 
 have yet been feen in that kind ; as will ap- 
 pear from the following Particulars. 
 
 Thus when you fay, that in the Affairs 
 of Confcience and Salvation^ Chrift hath left 
 no vifible human Authority behind him. 
 The meaning is this, that Chrift hath left no 
 body behind him in this Worldy to pafs the 
 » — - — . . ^ . . 
 
 * An[vj. to R?pr. p. 46. 
 
 irre^ 
 
(S3 ) 
 
 irrevcrfible Sentence in the next JVorld^ 
 t. e. hach left no one to do that here, which 
 can not be done till hereafter. This is the 
 ftiblimcjl Scnfe whioh this PalTage \s capable 
 ofi from your own Conftrudioa. 
 
 Again, you fay, the Church of Chrift is 
 the Number of 'Perfons ''uvho are fincercly 
 and ijjillingly Subje&s to him as their Law^ 
 giver and jndge^\ which, according to this 
 new Key ^ is to be thus underftood ; The 
 Church of Chriji is the Number ofTerfons 
 "H'ho 'H'ill Jincerely and "uaillinqly fubmit to 
 the Sentence of Chriji at the lajl ^Day. For 
 you fay, we are to fubmit to him as our 
 Judge ; and you cxprefily fay, he is hi no 
 other Senfe judge of the Behaviour of Chri- 
 JiianSj than as he is to pafs the irreverfible 
 Sentence ; therefore if we are to be willingly 
 and Jincerely fubjed: to him as Judge, our 
 Obedience orSubjecSion to him as Judge, can 
 be no otherwife exprefs'd, than by our Sub- 
 mi/Iion to his Sentence then pronounced. 
 
 So that this Definition comes at lafl: to fig- 
 nify a Number of Perfons, who fincerely and 
 willingly fubmit, Ibme to be favy, and fome 
 to be daran'd at the lafl: Day ; for this will 
 be the EfTed of Chrifl:*s Sentence as Judge. 
 
 This is as found Divinity, as if I Ihould 
 define the Church of Chrift, to be a Number 
 
 p. 15. 
 
 of 
 
{ 9+) 
 
 of Terfons^ who Jincerely and willingly fub- 
 m'lt^ fome to live^ and feme to die. 
 
 Again, you fty, that your T>oRrines r^- 
 lating to the Authority of the Churchy \s 
 the very Foundation 07t which the Church of 
 England ftands ; and that they are fo ne- 
 cejfary for its Continuance ^ that without 
 them ifs impoffible to defend ifs Caufe a- 
 gainft the Roman Catholicks. 
 
 Now your Dodlrine concerning Church 
 Authority, you have over and over declared 
 to be only this, that Chrift alone jhall ]udge 
 the World at the lajl T>ay. For you ex- 
 preffly fay, that you deny the Church an Au- 
 thority of judging in no other Senfe^ than in 
 the Senfe in which you affirm it of Chrift. 
 
 Now, my Lord, how comes this Dodlrine 
 to be the Support of the Church oi England? 
 How can it poflibly have any relation to the 
 Merits of the Caufe ? Does it follow that the 
 Tope had no Legal Authority in England^ 
 that Tranfubftantiation is falfc, that Turga- 
 tory is a groundlefs Fidlion, and Trayers 
 to Saints are unlawful, becaufe Chrift alone 
 jhaU judge the IVorld? This is what you 
 have affirm'd of Chrift, this is all which you 
 have deny'd of Men ; and this Doftrine it 
 {eems about Church Authority , as you are 
 pleas'd to call it, is the only Support of the 
 Church oiEnglaiidy and the very Foundation 
 m which it Jiands, 
 
 A Rg- 
 
( ^5 ) 
 
 A Roman Catholick tells me that Tranftib^ 
 Jlantiatiou is true ; I anfwcr him no, that 
 cannot be, and that for this realbn, becaule 
 no Order of Men jfliall judge us at the lafl: 
 Day, Chrift alone Ihould do it. Could any- 
 thing be more extravagant, or more foreign 
 to the Purpofe, than l«ch an Anfvver as this 
 to a Roman Catholick ? And yet, according 
 to your Account of the Matter, this is the 
 only Anfwcr which can be defended. For 
 you have dcny'd no Authority to the Church, 
 but that which peculiarly belongs to Chrifl: 
 as judge at the laft 'Tiay ; and yet you 
 lay that your Doctrine relating to Church 
 Authority, is the very Foundation and Sup- 
 port of the Reformation. 
 
 Now \i this Dodlrine be our only Defence 
 againfl: the Church oi Rome^ and what alone 
 iupports us againfl: that Church, then the 
 Presbyterians^ the Independents^ ^takers ^ 
 and all forts oi Fanatic ks ^ who own this 
 Dodtrine, that Chrijt alone floall pafs the 
 lafl Sentence^ are by it as well defended a- 
 gainfl: the Church of England^ as ihe is a- 
 gainfl: the Church oi Rome ; fo that it makes 
 us as much wrong in regard to the T^ijfenters^ 
 as it makes us right in regard to the 'Papifls ; 
 and tho' it ihouid give us ViEiory over the 
 Tapifts^ yet it makes us .fall a Conqucfl: to 
 the Fanaticks. For it is certainly as proper 
 for a ^lakcr to reply to the Church o'i Eng- 
 land^ that his Reformation is jullify'd againll 
 
 the 
 
• ( ?o 
 
 the Authority of the Church o'i England^ be- 
 caufe Chrift alone Ihall judge the World at the 
 lafl Day ; as for the Church of England to 
 make that Anfwer to the Church of Rome. 
 
 Your Lordlhip fays, for you to deny 
 Church Authority in any other Senfe, an- 
 f-jiers no T^iirpofe. 'Pray, my Lord , what 
 Purpofc does this manner of denying an- 
 fwer ? Here \% a Dilpurc about Church Au- 
 thority, and the Powers of Ecclefiaftical Go- 
 vernours : your Lordlhip intcrpofes, and de- 
 clares that no Men flial) pafs the irreverjible 
 Sentence at the lajl T>ay. To what Pur- 
 pofe, my Lord, is this Declaration? Does 
 it ftrike any Light into the Controverfy, or 
 any way point out the Merits of the Caufe ? 
 Does this inform us whether there is any fuch 
 thing as Church Authority, or where it is 
 leated ? If two Families were trying their 
 Title to the fame Eftate, and the Judge 
 ihould pretend to determine the Matter, by 
 laying that God alone /V fols Proprietor of 
 all Things^ it would be as much to the Pur- 
 pofe, as to tell us in the Controverfy about . 
 Church Authority, that Chrijt alone Jhall 
 judge the World. Does this any way prove 
 that there is no human Authority in the 
 Church, or that Chriftians are no way con- 
 cern'd with it ? What an excellent Argument 
 is this ? Chriji alone ihall judge the World, 
 therefore no Men have a7iy Authority in Re- 
 ligion, thetefore it can no way affed: you 
 
 with 
 
( 97 ) 
 
 With regard to the Favour of God, whether 
 you liibmit or nor, to fuch human Autho- 
 rity ? 
 
 * Whether your Lordfliip is forced upon this 
 Method of explaining your felf, by any other 
 Motives than thofe of Sincerity and Convi- 
 ction, is what I iliall not prefume to fay ; but 
 I behevc, if a Pcrfon Ihould be calfd to ac- 
 count for laying the Ki/ig had no Right to 
 create Veers^ and Ihould afterwards defend 
 himlelf, by faying that he only meant he 
 could not create \w that Senfe, in which 
 God alone could create ; I am apt to think 
 fuch a Defence would be no great Recom- 
 mendation of his Sincerity. But, my Lord, 
 it would be as proper and as ingenuous for 
 a Perfon fo accus'd to make fuch a Defence, 
 or rather fuch an Efcape, as for your Lord- 
 Ihip, after the mofl expreft repeated Denials 
 of all Church Authority^ to declare that you 
 only meant to exclude it from pafling the 
 irreverfible Sentence at the laft Day. And 
 the Nature of Church Authority is as much 
 fettled and determined by this Declaration, as 
 the King's Power in his Kingdom, as to the 
 Creation of Teers^ is dcclar'd by faying that 
 God alone can create. 
 
 For is it any Afgumcnt that no Perfons have 
 any particular Authority to baptize others, to 
 admit to the holy Sacrament, and exclude un- 
 worthy Perfons from it, becaufe they are not 
 to judge the World at the laft Day V Is it a 
 
 O Proof 
 
( 98 ) 
 
 Proof that Bifliops have no Authority to or- 
 dain, to confirm ; no Commiffion from God 
 to take care of Religious Matters, and ice 
 that all Thinos in the Divine Service be done 
 decently and m order, becaufe Chrift alone is 
 to pals Judgment upon all at the lad Day V 
 Does it follow that Men are under no Church 
 Authority, but may chufe any Government, 
 or no Government as they pleale, becaufe 
 Chnft alone (hall call the World to Judgment ? 
 There is as much Logick in faying ih^t J efm 
 Chrift fuffered under 'Pontius 'Pilate^ there- 
 fore Bifliops have no more Authority than 
 Lay-men ; as to fay they have no Authority 
 in Religious Affairs, becaufe Chrift is to judge 
 the World. 
 
 Yet you fay this was the only proper 
 Senle in which you could be luppos'd to de- 
 ny it. Now, my Lord, I fliould have thought 
 it had been more to the Purpofe, to have 
 deny'd Church Authority in fome luch Senfe, 
 as It had been falfely claimed by fbme body 
 or other, that it might have been faid that 
 you had an Adverlary fome v/here or other. 
 But in this Matter, you have not fo much as 
 an Adverfary in this World ; for no one pre- 
 tends to be Judge, as Chrift is Judge, or fets 
 up the Authority of the Church in Oppofi- 
 tion to the laft Tribunal ; yet this is the on- 
 ly 7nanner of Judging, the only fort of Au- 
 thority, which you lay you have deny'd to 
 ethers; therefore you have only deny'd that 
 
 which 
 
( 99 ) 
 
 which was never clainVd ; you have only de- 
 ny'd thic which no more relates to Church 
 Jiiithority^ than it relates to Church Mnjick, 
 The T^Gpc himfclf neither pretends to pals 
 Sentence at the laft Day, nor that his Judg- 
 mcnrs here will have any Effcd: in the next 
 World ; bur conditionally, that is, clave non 
 errautc. Now this is not a Scnfe in which 
 Chrift alone is Judge, therefore it is not a 
 Senfe in which you have deny'd it to others. 
 So that notwithftanding this long elaborate 
 Treatile againft Church Tyranny and Popifli 
 Claims, To^ery itfelf is as fafc and found as 
 ever it was. For you have deny'd this Power 
 of Judging in no other Senfe ^ than as you 
 have affirm'd of Chrift, as he is to pafs the 
 laft irrever/ible Sentence at the Day of Judg- 
 ment ; but the Tope does not claim it in 
 that Senfe, therefore the Tapal Tower i$ 
 untouch'd by your Lordfliip. 
 
 Here I muft obferve how your Lordfliip 
 has evaded the great Points in Dllpute, both 
 concerning the Nature of the Church, and 
 Church Authority. When you was charg'd 
 with defcribing the Church contrary to Scri- 
 ptnre and the Article in the Church of Eng- 
 land ; your Anfwer was, that you had only 
 defcrib'd the Invifible Church ; which was 
 faying in other Words, that in a Difpute a- 
 mongft Vifible Churches^ and about Church- 
 Communion, you defcrib'd a Church which had 
 po relation to the Matter, nor ever can have to 
 
 O % any 
 
( lOO ) 
 
 any Difpute amongfl Chriftians. This, my 
 Lord, to ipeak tenderly of it, may be call'd 
 only an Eva/ion. 
 
 Again, as to Church Authority, yourLord- 
 fliip has been charg'd with denying it all, and 
 leaving it no right to judge or cenfure in the 
 AfK^'irs of Conlcience. Your Anfwer is this, 
 that you have only deny'd that Chrift has left 
 any Men here to judge us at the lail: Day. 
 That is, in a Controversy about the Exi/ie?tce 
 of Church Authority, the Extent and Obli- 
 gation of its Laws, you have only deny'd 
 iiich an Authority as no body claims, nor e- 
 ver will be execured till all Vifible Churches, 
 and Difputes about them, will' be at an end, 
 viz. the Day of Judgment. 
 
 This, my Lord, is another Evafion, and 
 that in the very chief Point in Difpute, where 
 Sincerity fnould have oblig'd you to have been 
 open, clear and expreft. But no fooner are 
 you touch'd upon this Point, but you fly in- 
 to the Clouds, and the very Dilfcnters them- 
 felves lofe fight of you. 
 
 Thus w^hen you had plainly (aid, that Chrift 
 hath left behind him no vifible human Ati- 
 thority in the Affairs of Confcience^ the Dif- 
 fenters might juftly think they had nothing 
 to be charg'd with for their Diibbedience to 
 Bilhops; they might well thmk that they 
 were left to any Government, or no Govern- 
 ment in Religion, as they plcas'd, fince Chrift 
 had left no vifible human Authority:, but then 
 
 how 
 
( loi ) 
 
 how mud they be aftonifli'd, my Lord, to 
 find that your Aflertion about Church Autho- 
 rity, docs uot at all relate to theChurch in this 
 IVorldj but to the Exercilc of a certain Au- 
 thority in the next Worlds after all Churches 
 on the Earth are at an end ? To find that you 
 have deny'd no Authority to any Men, but 
 that which peculiarly belongs to Chrift at 
 the laft Day : That is, that you deny'd no 
 Authority which ever w^as claim'd either by 
 Trotejlant or Topijh Churches, or indeed 
 which relates to the Church in this World? 
 
 Suppofe, when his Majefty was laft at 
 Hanover^ any one Ihould have afierted, that 
 the Regency had no Authority in Civil Mat- 
 ters ; would the Regency have thought it a- 
 ny Excufe, if he had faid that he only meant 
 they were not the Governours of Hanover ? 
 Yet, my Lord, it would be as proper an A- 
 pology for him who had deny'd the Power 
 of the Regency in Great Britain^ to fay he 
 only meant they had not the fupreme Power 
 in Hanover^ as for your Lordfhip, after a 
 Denial of all Viable Church Authority in this 
 World, to fay you only deny'd an Authority 
 to pafs the irreverfible Sentence in the next 
 World. 
 
 Thus has your Lordfliip left the Difpute, 
 and only pretended to deny that which no 
 body ever claim'd, viz, that any Men have 
 Authority to judge the World in ChrijVsfiead^ 
 or pafs the irreverfible Sentence at the laft 
 "Day, Your 
 
( 102 ) 
 
 Your Lordfliip is here apprehenfive, that 
 you fhall be charged with fi'^l^ting without an 
 Adv^rfary^ and therefore you point out fe- 
 vera I, and lay, / meant it againjl thofe who 
 are fo very free in declaring others ofChriffs 
 Snbjeifs out of Gods Favour ; and in obliging 
 Almighty God^ to execute the Sentences of 
 Men. 
 
 There has been indeed, my Lord, a Num- 
 ber of Men, ever fince Chriftianity appeared 
 in the World , who have been very free in 
 declaring Hereticks and Schifmaticks out of 
 God's Favour, and who have maintained that 
 thefe Hereticks and Schifmaticks, when cen- 
 fur'd by the Church, cannot be receiv'd into 
 God's Favour, but by their fiibmitting to, and 
 returning to the Church. But now, if your 
 Lord [hip means your Doitrine againft thefe, 
 you arc ftill without an Adverfary^ and might 
 as well mean it againft no Body ; for thefe 
 Men never pretended to Judge others iji 
 Chrijfs flead^ or to ere St an Ecclefiajtical 
 Authority in Oppojition to the Great Tribu- 
 nal^ which is the only Authority you pretend 
 to deny. 
 
 You go on ; If we had no fuch among fl 
 Trotejiants ; yet it might be pardonable to 
 guard 07ir People againjl the Trefumptions 
 of the Roman CathoHcks ; who ajfume to 
 themfelves that Tower of Judgment^ which 
 Chrift alone can have. 
 
 Surely 
 
( I03 ) 
 
 Surely your Lordlhip mufl: have (b great 
 an Averfion to Popery, that you never could 
 fo much as look into their Books ; for other- 
 wife I can't conceive how you fliould not 
 know, that x.\\q Roman Catholicks pretend to 
 no Power of Judging fb as to afFed: People, 
 but upon certain Conditions, as clave non er- 
 rante ; but I lijppolc this is not a Power of 
 Judging which belongs to our Saviour ; clave 
 non errante has no Place in his Judgments. 
 How then can your Lordfliip charge the Ta- 
 ^ijfs with afTuming his Power, when that 
 which they alTume, cannot be alcrib'd to him 
 without Blafphemy ? So that, my Lord, it 
 is juft as pardonable to guard your Peo- 
 ple againfl: thefe Prefumprions, as it is to a- 
 larm them with falfe and imaginary Dan- 
 gers. 
 
 Again you fay; But how lately is it^ 
 that "sjc have had Teople terrify' d with this 
 very Vrefttrnption^ even by l?roteftants ; and 
 the Terms of Church Tower ^ and the fpiri- 
 tiial fatal EffeEis of Church Cenfures made 
 ufe of to frighten Men into a feparate Com^ 
 munion ? 
 
 My Lord, I fliall not here enter into the 
 Merits of that Controverfy, which your Lord- 
 lhip here points at ; it being the Dodtrine it 
 felf which your Lordfliip blames, and not the 
 Mifapplication of it. Thus you cenfure them, 
 not becaufe they would draw People from a 
 true Church to a fal/e one, but becaufe they 
 
 pretend 
 
( 104 ) 
 
 pretend to frighten Men out of one Commu- 
 nion into another. This is your Lord (hip's 
 heavy Charvj,c againft them, that they fliould 
 pxefurac to talk ot the Differences of Com- 
 munions, and prefer one Communion to ano- 
 ther. So that whoever thinks any way of 
 Worfliip to be dangerous, and endeavours to 
 withdraw People from it, is here cenfur'd by 
 your Lordfliip, as pretending to judge in 
 Chrift's ftead, and fetring up an Authority in 
 Oppofition to the laft Day. 
 
 Your Lordfliip laith, it is with this very 
 7refitmption (viz, that they can pafs the ir- 
 reverfible Sentence) that thefe Men have en- 
 deavour' d to frighten Teo^le into a fejparate 
 Commtinion. If I fliould fay that it is upon 
 ^refumption that Chriil: never appeared in the 
 World, that your Lordfliip has deiiver'd your 
 late Doctrines, I fliould freely fubmit to the 
 Charge of Calumny ; and I am lure your 
 Lordfliip has ventur'd as far in faying that it 
 was with this ve?y Trefumption that thefe 
 Men dehver'd fuch Dodirines. And your 
 Lordfliip has as much reafon to charge them 
 with jdtheifin^ as with this very Trefmnp- 
 tion ; for they no more prefume to judge in 
 Chriji's ftead^ or pafs the irreverjible Sen- 
 tence^ than they prelume there is no God. 
 
 Your Lordihip has ftill, it feems, ano- 
 ther Adverlary, a late Writer (the Dean 
 of Chichefter) who has fpoben unwarily of 
 the Ejfehs of the fpiritual Tunifhments^ 
 
 the 
 
( I05 ) 
 
 the Church infliBs ^ being generally Ju- 
 fpended till the Offender comes into the a- 
 ther IV or Id *. 
 
 This firfl: Cenfure is very moded, carrying 
 it no farther than an tnrji\ary Expreffion ; but 
 prelently rhe Charge advances ; and^ you 
 iay, //' It be thus^ you confefs you think the 
 Condition of Chriftians much iz'orfe than the 
 Condition in ^-juhich St. Paul defiribes the 
 Heathens^ ^jjho are left to their own Coiifci- 
 ences and the right com Judgment of God. So 
 that at laft it comes to this, that the Dean 
 has taught luch Dodrine as makes it more 
 defirable to be a Heathen than a Chriftian. 
 
 Let us therefore try how this Charge \s 
 fupporced : The T>ean has faid, the Effe^s 
 of fpiritual Tunijhments are generally fu- 
 fpended till the Offender comes into another 
 World f ; therefore, fays your Lordfhip, the 
 Condition of Chriftians is much worfe than 
 that of Heathens^ and the reafoii is this, be^ 
 .c an fe Heathens are left to their own Confci* 
 ences and the righteous Judgment of God -^ lb 
 that if fpiritual Punifhments fignify any thing 
 to Offenders in the other World, or have a- 
 iiy Effect there ^ then fuch People are in 
 your Lordlliip's Judgment, not left to their 
 own Confciences and the righteous Judg- 
 ment of God. 
 
 Anfw. to Repr. p. 35. j Scr7n. p. 8. 
 
 P Pray, 
 
( loO 
 
 Pray, my Lord, how does it follow that rf 
 fpiritual Puniilimcats have any EfFcd; in the 
 other fForld^ that then Offenders are not 
 left to the righteous Judgme^it of God ? 
 
 Is it an Argument that People are not left ta 
 the righteous Judgment ofGod^ becauii rhey 
 are to be punilh'd in the other World? Or is 
 it an Argument that they are excluded from 
 God's righteous Judgment, becaufe they are 
 not punilh'd till they come thither ? I iliould 
 have thought it a plain Argument for the di- 
 xtGi contrary, and that one couid not give a 
 ftronger Proof that fiich Offenders were left 
 to the righteous Judgme?it of God^ than 
 by faying that the Effeds of fuch Punifh- 
 ments are not felt till the Offender comes 
 into the other World ; I iliould have thought 
 this a manifeft Declaration that the Offender 
 was to fall to the righteous Judgment ofGod^ 
 fmce he was not to feel any Punifliment till 
 he was fallen into God's Hands. If the T>ean 
 had intended to teach that Church Punifh- 
 ments have no Effed, but fuch as the righ- 
 teous Judgment of God gives them, how 
 could he have better flgnify'd his Intention^ 
 than by declaring that the Effects of fiich 
 ^unijhments are generally fnfpended till 
 the Offender comes into the other World'i 
 How could the TJean more expreffly guard 
 againft any horrible Apprehenfions of Church 
 Cenfures, or more diredlly refer the Caufc to 
 God, than he has here done? His Words 
 
 are 
 
( I07 ) 
 
 are a plain Declaration, that fuch Offenders 
 nuift fall to the right eons Judgment of God, 
 fincc they are to fall into his Hands be- 
 fore they feel the EfFeds of fuch Punillimenr. 
 
 If any dilcontcntcd Offender againft the 
 Church IhoLild tell me, that if the Ccnfures 
 of the Church can fignify any thing to him, 
 he lliould be glad to be a Heathen and have 
 his Fate amongft them ; would it not be ftif- 
 ficient Matter of Satisfaction to tell him, that 
 thcle Puniihments will have no Effect but in 
 the other World, where there can be no In- 
 juftice ; and that it is the fame God who judges 
 the Heathens, who will judge Chriftians? 
 
 Yet this Declaration, which is the only 
 Ground for SatisfacStion to Men of Conici- 
 ence, under the Ccnfures of the Church, is 
 by your Lordlhip pretended to be liich an E- 
 vil as to make us rather refign our Chrifti- 
 anity, than lubmit to it. This is all which the 
 "Dean has faid to make it more defirable to 
 be a Heathen than a Chriftian. 
 
 Suppofe, my Lord, the Matter had been 
 worded ftronger, and inftead of faying that 
 the EjfeEis of fpiritual Tunijhments are ge- 
 nerally fttfpended till the Offenders come m- 
 to the other IVorld^ ir had been faid, the 
 fpiritual Cenfures of tlic Church Ihall rife in 
 the Judgment and condemn Offenders. If it 
 had been thus exprefs'd, what Complaints 
 might you not have made againfl: fuch U7iwa- 
 ry Exprcflions ? What Cpjelties and Hard- 
 
 P z iliips 
 
( io8 ) 
 
 fliips might you nor have charged on fuch 
 Dod:rine ? And how advantagioufly might 
 you have compared the Fchcity of Hea- 
 tbenijm to fach Chrijtianity ? 
 
 But, my Lord, that 'TJiv'ine Terfoit who 
 has refcrv'd to himlelf the righteous Judgment 
 of the World, has ycr declared to a certain 
 Generation^ that the Men of Nineveh Ihall 
 rife up in the Judgment with them and con- 
 demn thcm^ becauje thofe repented at the 
 preaching ^/Jona?, but thefe did not, tho' 
 a greater than Jonas was with them *. 
 
 Now, my Lord, here Hes the fame Obje- 
 6tion againft this DocStrine, which there does 
 againft the "Deans. For is it not full as hard 
 that the Repentance of the Men oi Nineveh^ 
 or any where elfe, fhould have any EfTecSt 
 upon the Impenitent at the Day of Judgment, 
 as that the Cenfures of the Church ihould 
 have any Effed: upon Offenders in the other 
 World ? Is it not as cruel that the Impeni- 
 tent fhall have their Guilt aggravated by o- 
 ther People's /'^e'i^i:/?/;/^ ox Repent ance^ as by 
 other People's Cenfitres ? And would it not 
 be as proper here to fay, if this be Coy happy 
 they who never heard of Preaching or Re- 
 pentance^ as to fet forth the Happinefs of 
 Heathens^ becauie they are free from Church 
 Cenfures ? If the Sentence of the Church 
 will rife in judgment and condemn Offenders, 
 
 * Matih. II. 41. 
 
 then 
 
( lo? ) 
 
 then you fay (iich Perfbns do not fall to the 
 righrcous Judgment of God. But is not this 
 as true of the Men oi Nineveh^ that if they 
 iliall rife up in Judgment and condemn the 
 Impenitent, that then fuch Perfons are not 
 left to the righteous Judgment of God? 
 
 So that had you been one of our Saviour's 
 Hearers, you muft have been as much afto- 
 niihed at his Dodirine, as at the Dean's un- 
 itary ExfreJJion^ and have been oblig'd to 
 fay then, as you have faid now, that you 
 have fuch Notions of the Goodnefs of God, 
 and of his gracious T>efigns in the Go/pel^ 
 that you think it your i)uty to declare your 
 Judgment^ that the Stippofition is greatly 
 injurious to the Honour of God and of the 
 ^ofpel, and the thing itfelf impoffible to be 
 conceived *. 
 
 Your Lordlliip has here only advanced this 
 Argument againft the Significancy of Church 
 Cenfures^ bur any one elie may as juftly and 
 to as much Purpofe urge it againft every Part 
 of Chriftianity. 
 
 Thus it may ferve to prove that it u^ould 
 be better never to have had the Scriptures ; 
 for if any Texts of Scripture fliall rife in 
 Judgment and condemn thofe who disbelieved 
 them, or difregarded their Dodrine, then it 
 may be faid, much happier arc the Heathens, 
 who have nothing of this to fear from any 
 
 * An[xv, toRepr. p. 3(). 
 
 Scriptures, 
 
( no ) 
 
 Scriptures, but are left to their own Confii- 
 ences and the righteous Judgment of God. 
 
 Again ; As this Argument proves even 
 the Scriptures to be an Unhappinefs, fo will 
 it prove every Advantage in human Life to 
 be a Mifery. 
 
 For it is certain that the Examples of re- 
 ligious Men, the good Advice of our Friends^ 
 and the virtuous Commands of our Barents 
 and Governours, will, it^ neglecSted, affe6i our 
 Condition ; and tho', like the fpiritual Cor- 
 reCiions of the Church, they may not be felt 
 here, yet hereafter they will rile in Judgment 
 and condemn us. May I not here fay with 
 your Lordfliip, if the Cafe be thus \ if o- 
 ther People's JVifdom^ Virtue^ Advice or 
 Commands can affed; our State in the next 
 World, then more happy are thofe who ne- 
 ver faw a good or wife Man in their Lives, 
 and who have nothing to fear from the Ad- 
 vice or Commands of any, but are left to 
 their own Confciences and the righteous 
 Judgment of God. 
 
 So that you can't condemn the T>ean's 
 Dodrine as horrible^ without condemning it 
 as an horrible thing, that the Men of Nine- 
 *veh Ihould rife in Judgment and condemn the 
 impenitent Jews ; or an horrible thing that 
 the Light of the Gofpel^ the Blefings of 
 Chriftianity, and the Advantages of EducMoa 
 fhould have anyEffe6l in the next World upon 
 thofe, who defpifed them in this World. 
 
 Of 
 
{ "I ) 
 
 Of the Jnthority of the Churchy as it 
 relates to Rxcommtmkatton. 
 
 N order ro vindicate this Dodiine 
 thoroughly, and fliew upon what bot- 
 tom it is founded, I Ihall, as briefly as 
 I can, (late xh^ Nature and Intent of 
 fpiritual Punilhments, and ihew what EfFeds 
 they have upon Offenders in the other World; 
 from whence, I perfuade my felf^ it will farther 
 appear that fuch EfFedts do no more exclude 
 Perfons from the righteous Judgment of God, 
 than the Heathens are excluded from his righ- 
 teous Judgment. 
 
 Now that corrupt Members may be cut ofF 
 from Chriftian Communion, till by their A- 
 mendment they recommend themielves to a 
 Re-admiffion, is plain from Scripture. This 
 is even granted by your Lordfliip, that Chri- 
 Jiians may fet a Mark upon Notorious Offen- 
 ders, even by refufing to them the feculiar 
 Tokens and Marks of Chrijfian Communion^ 
 as "well as by avoiding their Company and 
 Converfation *. But then your Lordfliip maizes 
 no more of it, than a Right which all Chri- 
 ftians have to avoid an open^ wilful-, and 
 
 i9' 
 
 fcanda- 
 
( 112 ) 
 
 fcandalotis Sinner * ; fo that this Excommtt- 
 nkationy confide fd as a Church A6i^ is only 
 the fame Power in a Body or Society, of a- 
 voiding Perfons they abhor, which is the 
 common Privilege of every fingle Perfbn, 
 whether in or out of the Church, to ihun 
 thofe he diflikes. 
 
 And all the Excommunication you allow, 
 is this, that as private Perfons have a Right 
 to fliun and avoid thofe they diflike^ fo the 
 Church may exclude fiich Members as are dif- 
 approv'd of; and that this judging, or excom- 
 municating, is a Right equally inveftcd in all 
 Chriftians, and entirely without any EfFedt 
 tip-on the Perfbn excommunicated, {o as to 
 make his Condition either better or worfe be- 
 fore God. 
 
 I {hall therefore, my Lord, beg leave to 
 ihew that the Power of Excommunication, is 
 a Judicial To^xjer^ which belongs to parti- 
 cular Perfons, which they have a Right to ex- 
 erciiC from the Authority of Chrifl: ; and that 
 Perfons fo excommunicated are not to be 
 look'd upon, as Perfons who are only to be 
 abhorr'd and avoided by Chriftians, as any 
 Man may avoid thole he diflikes, but as Per-' 
 Ions who are to be avoided by Chriftians, be- 
 caufe they lie under the Sentence of God, and 
 are by his Authority turned out of his King- 
 dom. 
 
 * P. 43- 
 
 That 
 
( 113 ) 
 
 That Excommunication is a Power which 
 belongs only to particular Perlbns, will ap- 
 pear from the Nature of the Thing itfeif, as 
 it is an Exxlufion of Perfbns from the Chri- 
 flian Worihip ; for as only particular Men 
 can officiate in the Chriftian Worihip, and ad- 
 mit People into Communion ; ib only thofe 
 Perfons can refule the Sacrament, and ex- 
 clude Offenders from Communion. Nothing 
 can be more plain, than that rholc who caa 
 alone adminifter the Sacrament, can alone ex- 
 clude Men from it. 
 
 All Perlbns are admitted conditionally into 
 the Chriftian Covenant, and have only a Ti- 
 tle to the Benefits of it, or the ordinary 
 Means of Grace, as they perform the Condi- 
 tions of their Admiffion ; and thofe fame Per- 
 fons who have alone the Authority to admit 
 them into the Church upon thofe Conditions^ 
 have alone the Authority to exclude them for 
 Non-performance. And their A(3; of Exclu« 
 fion \^ as effe^tial towards the taking froiii 
 them all the Privileges of Chriftians , and as 
 truly makes them Aliens from the Kingdom 
 of God, as their Aft of Admiffion at firft en- 
 titled them to all the Benefits of Church- 
 Communion. For as they have as much Au- 
 thority to exclude fomc, as they have to ad- 
 mit others into the Church, the Authority 
 being the faiiie in both Cafes, it mud be Iti 
 both Cafes equally efFedual, 
 
( "4 ) 
 
 If your Lordfliip will fay that all People, 
 are equally qualify'd to admit Perlons into= 
 the Church, tlutjGo ye^ a?id haptife ail Na- 
 tions^ conferred the iaiue Powers on all Chri- 
 ftians; then indeed it mud be granted that 
 Excommunication, cf Exclufion from the 
 Church, is a Right equally iuvefted in alt 
 Chriftians. But as fure as Chrift gave pecu- 
 liar Powers to his Apoftles, as fure as they 
 kft particular Men to fucceed them in their 
 Powers, fo lure is it that only fuch Succeflbrs 
 can either admit or exclude Perlbns from 
 Chriftian Communion. 
 
 Secondly ; That Excommunkatron belongs 
 to particular Perfons, will appear from the In- 
 ftitution of it in Scripture. 
 
 //" thy Brother jhall trefpafi aga'mfi thecy 
 go and teil bun his Fault between thee and 
 him alone. But if he will not hear thee, 
 then take with thee one or two more. And 
 if he jhall negle6i to hear them^ tell it 
 unto the Church ; but if he negle[i to hear 
 the Churchy let him be unto thee as an Hea- 
 then Many and a Publican. Verily I fay 
 unto you , whatfoever ye jhall bind on 
 Earthy jhall be bound in Heaven \ and 
 whatfoever ye jhall loofe on Earthy jhall 
 be loofed in Heaven *. 
 
 Here, my Lord, is as plain an Inftitution 
 of Excommunication y as can well be con- 
 
 * Matth. l8. u, 
 
 fieiv% 
 
( JI5 ) 
 
 ^eiv'd, and he who can doubt of it, may 
 doubt whether Baptifm be infticutcd in Scrip- 
 ture. 
 
 Firft we may obfervc that here is an Au- 
 thbrity given to the Church over the Offen- 
 der, and that fii^h an Authority, as neither 
 belonged to private Men , either feparate or 
 united together ; for the Offender here had 
 firft been admoniflied, hy a fingle Per- 
 lon^ then by one or two morCj i. e. an inde- 
 finite Number, but ftill here is nothing grant- 
 ed but Admonition ; but as loon as he is 
 brought before the Church, there is an Au- 
 thority appears, and the Offender is to feel 
 its Sentence, let him ke unto thee as an 
 Heathen, 
 
 Secondly ; That this Authority did not 
 belong to the Church-, confider'd only as a 
 greater Number of Chriftians, but as it figni- 
 ty'd particular Perfons who had this Autho- 
 rity from Chrift^ for the Edification of his 
 Church. 
 
 For Chrift expreffly declares in the follow- 
 ing Verfe, that where two or three are 7net 
 together in his Name^ there is He in the 
 midji of them. 
 
 Here is the Defcription of that Church be- 
 fore whom the Offender was to be brought, 
 and vvhofe Authority Chrift promiles to lup- 
 pof t ; it is two or three met together in his 
 Name. 
 
 Q^% Now 
 
( .16 ) 
 
 Now the Church had nor this Authority- 
 over the Offender, confider'd as a Nnmbery 
 i. e. as two or three ; for we fee that the 
 Offender had been already before fuch a 
 Church ; he iiad been before two or three ; 
 and after Ncgleit of them, he was brought 
 before another two or threc^ met together /// 
 Chrijfs Name. Which is a plain Proof that 
 the Offx^ndcr was not ccnfur'd by the Church, 
 as it fignifies a Number of Chi iuians, but as 
 it implies particular Perfons ading in the 
 Name of Chrifl, and with his Authority. 
 
 Thirdly ; We may obferve that the Au- 
 thority here granted to the Church is a ///- 
 d'tclal Authority^ luch an Authority as affe^s 
 and alters the Co7iditton of the Perfon ex- 
 communicated, imply'd in thefe Words, let 
 h'nn be unto thee as an Heathen ; that is, as 
 the BiHiop of Oxford obferves, in the mo ft 
 natural and common Senfe of the Words y 
 they Jhould look tifon him no longer as a 
 Member of the Church , but place him a- 
 mongft Infidels * ; and again, as reduced in- 
 to the St ate of Heathens \. 
 
 Now unlefs it can be laid that a Perfon 
 who is turn'd out of the Kingdom of God, 
 and reduc'd into the State of Heathens, is in 
 the fame Condition which he was, when he 
 was in the Church, and had a Right to all 
 |:he Benefits of Communion ; unleis we can 
 
 •^ Chur. Gov. p. 351. I Ilid. p. 356. 
 
 fay 
 
( "7 ) 
 
 fay that a Pcifou thus rejected from the Means 
 of Grace, by the CommiJJJon of Chrift, is in 
 the fame Condition with him, who is conti- 
 nued in the Church by the fame CommiJJioji 
 of Chrift; it muft be allow'd that here is a 
 Judicial Power granted to the Church, and 
 liich as affcds the Condition of the Offender 
 in the Sight of God. 
 
 Fpurthly ; It is to be obferv'd that this 
 Authority of the Church is made Judicial by 
 the exprels Promile of God to ratify and con- 
 firm it. For after it is laid, /et him be unto 
 thee as aft Heathen^ it is declared that what- 
 foever they Jhould thus bind on Earthy Jhould 
 be bound in Heaven, 
 
 From all this, it plainly appears, that Ex- 
 communication is as truly a Divine Vojltive 
 ^iinijhment^ as Baptifm is a Divine Tojitive 
 BleJJlng ; and that the one as certainly ex- 
 cludes us from the Kingdom of God, as the 
 other admits us into ir. For fince here \s, as 
 plainly Chrift's ex'prefs Authority to take from 
 lome Men the ordinary Means of Grace, and 
 exclude them from the common Benefits of 
 Chriftianity , as there is his Authority to go 
 and baptife all Nations ; I defire to know 
 why one is not as truly a Divine Tojitive 
 Injlitution as the other ? Is not Chrift's Au- 
 thority as cffcdaal and fignificant in exclu- 
 ding, as in admitting Perlons into his King- 
 dom ? Is not that lame Power as able to 
 ;ake away the. Privileges of Clmrch-iMem- 
 
 bcrihip, 
 
( 118 ) 
 
 bcrfiiip, as it was at firfl: to grant them? 
 
 If therefore there be any Bleifing or Hap- 
 pinefs in our being admitted into the Church; 
 there muft be as much Mifery and Punilliment 
 in owx Ex clujion out of it. For as it impHes 
 the Lofs of all thofe Privileges and Favours 
 we were made Partakers of, by our Admiffioii 
 into the Church ; lb we mull needs be pu- 
 nilh'd in the lame degree that wc were 
 happy. 
 
 if therefore Bapttfm^ a Divine Tojicive In- 
 jiitution to admit us into the Privileges of 
 Chriftianity 5 makes any Alteration in our 
 Condition, as to the Favour of God, /. e, if 
 we are brought any nearer to God by Bap- 
 tifm, than we were before; then it plainly 
 follows Excommunication ^ a Divine Vojl^ 
 ttve htjittution^ which deprives us of all 
 thefe Privileges of Chriftianity ; and, as the 
 Bifhop of Oxford expreiTes it, reduces Of- 
 fenders into the State of Heathens ; muft 
 needs affc6l our Condition with regard to the 
 Favour of God. 
 
 For if there be any thing in Baptifm which 
 vs, juft Matter of Joy, there is Ibmething e- 
 qually Terrible in Excommunication ; which, 
 when rightly executed, as effedually makes 
 us Aliens from the Promifes of God, as Bap- 
 tifm, when rightly adminifter'd, makes us 
 Children of God, and Heirs of eternal Life. 
 So that he who can ridicule and expofe th.e 
 Terrors and Effe£fs of Excommunication, is 
 
 iii<3:ing 
 
( "9 ) 
 
 acting jufi as Chriftian a parr, as he who fleers 
 ac and del piles the Benefits and Advantages 
 of Bap't'ifrn. 
 
 Seeing therefore the Church hath as ex- 
 prels an Authority \o turn Ibme Men out of 
 the Church, as it hath to admit others into 
 it, it is as falfe an Account of Excommunica* 
 t'toHf ta make it only that common Right 
 which every Man has, to avoid thofe he dii- 
 hkcs ; as if it fliould be faid, that Adm'tJJion 
 into the Church byBaptilm, implies no more, 
 than that common Right which every Man 
 has to do Offices for thofe he likes. Now, 
 my Lord, is Baptiim to be adminiiler'd, be- 
 caufe Perlbns may do good Offices for one 
 another ? Is there a Power m the Church to 
 encreafe its Members, by admitting others 
 into Communion, for this reafbn, becaufe 
 People have a common Right to chufe their 
 Company ? If not^ my Lord, how comes the 
 Exclufion of Members to be nothing but a 
 common Right of avoiding thole we diflike ? 
 Are not Perfons excluded from all the Bene- 
 fits of their Admillion ? So that if there was 
 any Authority required for the AdmilTion of 
 Perfons into the Church, if this Authority 
 was only from God, it is certain that an Ex- 
 clufion from thefe Church-Privileges, cannot 
 be executed but by the fame Authority, which 
 firft granted them. For no Perfon can be de- 
 prived of any Privileges, but by that Power 
 which at firft granted them. 
 
 When 
 
( I20 ) 
 
 When therefore your Lordfliip recurs to 
 the common Right of Perfons to avoid, if 
 they can, thole they diflikc, \\\ order to ftate 
 the Nacitre of Excommunication ; it is jufl: as 
 much to the Purpofe, as if I fhould get a 
 Chymift to examine the natural Qualities of 
 Water, in order to (late the true Efficacy of 
 Baptifm : for Men no more adt by any 
 Powers of their own when they exckide Of- 
 fenders, than they baptife others into Com- 
 munion by their own Authority, or than Wa- 
 ter unites them to Chrift by its natural Qiia- 
 lities. 
 
 Yet your Lordiliip fets forth the Nature of 
 Excommunication, and the Right the Church 
 has to ky only from that common Rights 
 ivhich all Chrijiians have of avoiding if 
 they can thofe they dislike. Thus you fay, the 
 Church may excomnlunicare, becaufe every 
 'Per fin has a Right to judge ^ nay he cannot 
 help judging of the Behaviour of Men * 5 
 that every Man will judge him to be a Mur^ 
 therer^ who takes away his Neighbour's Life 
 unjujily. 
 
 This comes up as truly to the Nature of 
 Excommunication, and is as juft an Account 
 of it, as if any one iliould fet forth the Au- 
 thority of a Britilli Judge^ and fliew the Ex- 
 tent of his Judicial Power, by faying, he in- 
 deed may judge and condemn a Murtherer^ 
 
 P. 39. 
 
 for 
 
( I2J ) 
 
 For this is the Right of every Perfoh to judge, 
 and no one can help judging and condemning 
 a Murtherer. It is as confillcnt with Sehle 
 thus to fee out the Power of the Judge, as it 
 is with Rcafon and Scripture, to compare Ex- 
 communication to that private Power of 
 Judging and Thinking which every one 
 enjoys. 
 
 For, my Lord, can it be fuppos'd thdt when 
 our Saviour tells them^ that they ihould re- 
 jed: fiich a Perfoh out of the Church, and 
 look upon him as aii Heathen, and that hd 
 would bind, i. e. confirm their Sentence; 
 can it be luppos'd that he only meant they 
 might think 2nd Judge a wicked Pcribn to h(t 
 a wicked Perfcn, only in liich a manner as e- 
 very Man can't help Thinking and Judging ? 
 If our bieffed Lord only here intended this, 
 what occafion was there for his Promife to 
 ratify their Judgment ? What need is there 
 of an Affurance, that they ihali privately 
 judge, what they can't help privately judg- 
 ing ? Or indeed to what Purpofe is iny Pro- 
 mife at all made here, if nothing is to be ef- 
 fcd:ed ? \f this Sentence be only a private, 
 unauthorised Declaration, like the Opinion or 
 Judgment of private Men, what- room can 
 there be for this Ratification of our Saviour ? 
 If no Effcds arc intended in the Judgment 
 of the Churchj what can be the Meaning of 
 this Promilc ? Or rathqr, fiuce our Saviour 
 has here inftitutcd the Authority, and pro- 
 
( 122 ) 
 
 mis'd to ratify the Excrcife of it, how dares 
 any Chriftian to compare it to a private per- 
 lonal Power of Judging, or declare that it is 
 without any EffccSl: upon the Condition of 
 Chrillians ? For, my Lord, either fomcthing 
 is here promised to the Sentence of the Church, 
 or there is not ; if there is ibmething promised, 
 then the Sentence of the Church is no more 
 like the perfonal Sentence of private Men, 
 than the Power of a Judge is Hke the Power 
 of a private Man ; if you will fay there is 
 nothing here promised in thefe Words, wbat- 
 foever yc /hall bind on Earthy jhall be bound 
 in Heaven J &c. then you muft fay that there 
 is nothing at all meant in them ; for it is im- 
 pofnble to ihcw that they can have any o- 
 ther Meaning, than that of a Promife ; fo 
 that if no Promife is made, they are certain^ 
 ly fo many dead Letters. 
 
 Again ; That this is a Judicial Power, is 
 alfo evident from the Cafe of the inceftuous 
 Corhitbian^ St. Taul fays, what have I to 
 do J to judge them alfo which are without "i 
 Now the Apoftle could not have put thisQue- 
 ftion, if by Judging here had been meant no 
 Authority, but a private Power of judging 
 and thinking a Sinner to be a Sinner, for a 
 Man can no more help judging a Murtherer 
 to be a Murtherer, which is without the 
 Church, than if he were within the Church. 
 And it is as proper for us to judge and think 
 aright of thofe who are out of the Church, 
 
 as 
 
{ 123 ) 
 
 as of thofe who are within it. So that St. 
 Vatil could not mean, what have I to do to 
 think a Murtherer to be a Murtherer which 
 is without the Church, it being every Man's 
 Duty to think as truly of ail Things and Pcr- 
 fbns as he can. Seeing therefore he plainly 
 intimates that he had a Power of Judging in 
 the Church, which did not belong to hiai 
 out of the Church, it follows that this Power 
 was Judicial and Author it at t-ve ; for a pri- 
 vate Power of Judging and Thinking belongs 
 to every Man with regard to every thing. 
 
 We Ihall more eafily underftand what is 
 meant by ihcEffe^s of fpiritual Punifliments, 
 if we confider them under this Divifion. 
 
 Firft, Such as are the primary and intend- 
 ed Effcd:s ; iecondly, Such as are only the ac- 
 cidental EfFedts of them. 
 
 Now as to the primary and intended Effedts 
 of fpiritual Puniihments, they are thefe. 
 
 Firft, To preferve the Honour of God and 
 his Church , that ill Members being cut off^ 
 it might be prefented a glorious Churchy not 
 having Spot or Wrinkle^ or any fuch thing; 
 hut that It might be Holy -^ and iz)ithout 
 Blemijh *. 
 
 Secondly, To reform Offenders, and re- 
 claim them from their Vices; it is a Difci- 
 pline given to the Church for the Edification, 
 and not the DeftrucStion of its Members. 
 
 R z Thus 
 
( 124 ) 
 
 Thus Sr. Taul fays, the inccftuoiis C&rhu 
 thian was to be delivered over to Satatij 
 for the 'J)eftru6fion of the Flefljf^ that bis 
 Spirit wight be faved in the T)ay of the 
 Lord *. 
 
 Thirdly, To preferve the reft of the Church 
 from the ill Influence of their Example, and 
 that by fuch Puniihments exercis'd upon o- 
 thers, they might fear, and learn frojpi thence 
 not to offend. 
 
 Thefe are the intended Effeds of the Pu- 
 nidiraents which the Church inflicts, to pre- 
 ferve it a Holy Society, and fave the Souls 
 of its Members. 
 
 God Almighty has inftituted feveral Means 
 for the Advancement of Virtue, and the Salva- 
 tion of Mankind ; and amongft others, he haslet 
 up this Authority of the Church to promote 
 the fame Ends. It is his hun^ait^ ordinary 
 Means for the Prcfervation of his Church^; 
 and therefore as it cannot operate infallibly, 
 or affcd: People with a Divine Certainty, it 
 \^ only conditional, and is to prevail towards 
 the Salvation of Mankind, as far as human 
 and conditional Means can prevail. 
 
 And indeed \x is an Inftitution which has a 
 very natural Tendency to produce the Ef- 
 fc(3:s defign'd by it. For, confidering Chri- 
 ilianity as a Covenant with God, wherein our 
 Title to Happinefs depends upon our Ufe of 
 
 \ Cor. J. J. 
 
 the 
 
( 125 ) 
 
 the ordinary inftituted Means of Grace, no- 
 thing can more naturally induce us to live 
 worthy of iiich Means, than this Authority 
 in the Church to withdraw them upon our 
 Abufe, and expel us from the Terms of the 
 Covenant. Men would not dare to tranlgrefs, 
 when they law they could neither break the 
 Laws, nor corrupt the Faith of Chriftianity, 
 without being turn'd out of the Church, by 
 fuch a Power as Chrift hath fet up for that 
 PuFpofe, and with his Pfomife to make good 
 it's Decrees. They mud be very obftinate 
 Sinners who could be content to lie under a 
 Septence which as effectually takes from them 
 all Pretenfions to Chriftian Happinefs, as their 
 Baptifm entitled them to thole Pretenfions at 
 firft. 
 
 The chief Reafon why Sinners are gene- 
 rally fo little affcdted with the Horror of 
 their Condition, is becauie they look upon 
 their Punifliment at the future Judgment, as 
 a great dillance off; and fince they are 
 within the Church, and enjoy the ordinary 
 lyieans of Grace, they think they can repent 
 in time. But now Chrift, by inftituting this 
 Church Authority , has fuited his Difciplinc 
 to theWeaknefs and Frailty of our Nature ; 
 and they who are only to be affcd:ed with 
 Things prefent, have a prefent Judgment to 
 fear ; which, tho' it is only the Judgment of 
 Men, yet is the Judgment of fuch Men as 
 arg cpmrnifl|pn*d to pronounce it in Chrift's 
 
 Namc^ 
 
( 12^ ) 
 
 Name, and with his Promife to ratify and 
 confirm it. So that they have as much rea- 
 fon to look upon themftlves as effedlual- 
 ly caft out by God in that Sentence, as 
 they were receiv'd into Covenant with God 
 by Baptifm ; for there is the fame Divine Au- 
 thority to fupport them both. 
 
 As to thofe other Ejfe5is of fpiritual Pu- 
 nifliments in the other World, they are not 
 the intended, but accidental Efledts of fuch 
 Punifliments, which are brought upon Of- 
 fenders by their own wicked Behaviour under 
 them. 
 
 Thus the Salvation of Mankind \s> the pri- 
 mary intended Effe6i of Chriftianity ; yet it 
 may have fuch Effed: upon fbme Men by 
 their own Impiety in it, as to make it better 
 tor them if they had never heard of the Name 
 of Chrift. For Chriftianity may become fo 
 much a Puniihment to fome Perfons in the 
 other World, that their Condition may be lefs 
 tolerable than that of Sodom and Gomorrah, 
 But then this is not the intended EfFed of 
 Chriftianity, but an accidental EfFeit which 
 fuch Perfons bring upon themfelves ; who by 
 their own ill Condud turn a Mercy into a 
 Judgment, and makes that which was intend- 
 ed to fave them, the accidental Caufe of their 
 greater Ruin. 
 
 Thus it is with fpiritual Punifhments ; they 
 are the merciful Corredions of God intended 
 to prevent our future Miiery, but if difre- 
 
 garded, 
 
( 127 ) 
 
 gardcd, will certainly increafe it. This will 
 eafily explain what is meant by the EffeBs 
 of ipiritual Punifhments in the other World, 
 or how they are fufpended till the Offender 
 comes thither. Ic is not the dired: intended 
 Effecft of Church Punifhments to encreafe the 
 Mifery of Sinners, or damn them in the o- 
 ther World ; no more than it is the dired: ih- 
 tended Effed of Chriftianity to encreafe Peo- 
 ple's Damnation : But as Chriftianity, if a- 
 bus'd, will be the accidental Caule of their 
 greater Damnation who fo abule it ; fo the 
 Ccnfures of the Church , when defpis'd, will 
 have this accidental Effed, as to encreafe the 
 PuniQiment of thofe who fo defjoifed them. 
 This is the Nature of thofe Effeds w^hich 
 Ipiritual Punifliments will have upon the Im- 
 penitent in another World. 
 
 As for Inftance, a Perfon who is turn'd out 
 of the Church , may all this while be lufty 
 and ftrong, and flourifh in all the Advantages 
 of this Life ; but when he comes into the 
 ©ther World, he may then find that the fpi- 
 ritual Punilhment was a fore Evil, that it is 
 ratify'd by Chrift, has encreas'd his Guilt, and 
 will be Matter of Puniftiment for ever. 
 
 He will then find that the Cenfure of the 
 Church has encreas'd his Guilt in thefc Re- 
 Ipeds. 
 
 Firft, As it was a Judicial Sentence pro- 
 nounc'd by Chrift's Authority, and therefore 
 not to be defpis'd or negleded without great 
 
 Impiety ; 
 
( 128 ) 
 
 Impiety ; fo that let the Sinner have been 
 what he will before, when he continues in 
 his Sins in Contempt of this Tribunal fet up 
 in Chrifl:*s Name, his Guilt '\^ thereby ex- 
 ceedingly increased. 
 
 Secondly, As it is the moji powerful Means, 
 and the very utmoft which God can do to re- 
 claim, or even terrify Sinners from their Im- 
 piety, as it is the moft awakening Call to Re- 
 pentance, an Inftitution only le(s terrible than 
 the lafl: Judgment ; thofe who are not affedt- 
 ed with it, muft be rendered more odious in 
 the Sight of God, and made ripe for a feverer 
 Puniftiment. 
 
 Thefe, my Lord, are the EfTecfts of fpiri- 
 tual Punilhments in the other World ; it is 
 thus that they alter the Condition of Offen- 
 ders in the Sight of God in regard to his Fa- 
 vour. They are certainly under greater Dil^ 
 plealure, after they have defpis'd the Cenfures 
 of Church Authority , and have refiftcd an 
 InJtiUition, which is the laft pofliblc Means 
 to recover them. 
 
 In former Times God has been pleas'd to 
 lend his Trofhets to forwarn Sinners of their 
 Deftru(9:ion, as Jonah to the Men of Nine- 
 veh : But in the Chriftian Dilpenfetion, he 
 governs us by his ordinary Providence ; and 
 tho* he does not fend exprefs MefTengers to 
 recal Sinners, yet he has inftituted a ftandlng 
 Authority in his Church, to cenlure Offen- 
 der?, and give them up to Deftruc^ion in his 
 
 Name., 
 
( 129 1 
 
 Name, nnlcfs they immediately repent. And 
 what can we think more dreadful than a Scjz- 
 fence thus pronouric'd againft us by God's 
 Authority, and with his Promilb to con- 
 firm it ? 
 
 Was there any thing more awakening or 
 more dreadful in the Preaching of Jonahy 
 than in this Declaration ? Jonah coxM only 
 preach and declare, he could execute nothing 
 himlelf ; it was his being lent in God's Name^ 
 which created all the Terror, and was the 
 Motive to Repentance. Now tho' the Church 
 can only cenliire and declare, yet fmce it is 
 as truly commiflion'd to cenlure in God's 
 Name^ as Jonah was fent in God's Name^ 
 there is as much reafon to dread the Confe- 
 quences of negleding the Church, as of not 
 tepenting at the MefTage or Preaching of any 
 Prophet from God. 
 
 I muft now beg leave here, my Lord, to 
 lament an Ajjertton from the Hands of d 
 Chrijlian and Trotejiant Bijhop ; where yoa 
 declare, that the Excommunication of the 
 inccjinous Corinthian neither added to God's 
 ^ijpleafiire^ nor would the want of it have 
 at all diminijh'd it. Neither if he had 
 dyd in an impenitent Condition , would 
 that Sentence have had any Effe6i in the 
 nher PForld*, 
 
 * Anf-.v. ie Bepr, p. 3S 
 
 I this. 
 
( I50 ) 
 
 This, my Lord, plainly fuppofes that thcr^ 
 is neither Authority nor Advantage in Ex- 
 communication ; tor if there were, it is cer- 
 tain that our Abufe of it as an Advantage^!. 
 and our Contempt of it as an Authority^ mud 
 needs increafe our Guilt, and confequently 
 God's Difpleafure. Yet your Lordfliip here 
 reaches the World^^^that if the inceftuous Cor in- 
 thian^ tho' juftly cenfur'dj and that by an 
 Apoftle dircfting, and the whole Congrega- 
 tion joining, had dy'd impenitent, that Sen- 
 tence would have had no EffeB in the other 
 World. 
 
 Let us therefore fiippofe that fome great 
 Patron of Chriftian Liberty had gone to the 
 dilconfolate Corinthian^ forrowing under the 
 Sentence of the Church, and fliould endea- 
 vour to quiet him after this manner. 
 
 " Why do you difquietyour felf with vaJn 
 
 ^^' Fears about the Cenfure of the Church, 
 
 *^ which neither hath nor can have any Effedt 
 
 " upon your Condition as to the Favour of 
 
 "-' God, Let the Apoftle and Church be as 
 
 ^ fokmn as they pleafe in the Denuntiation ; 
 
 ^' let them in the Name of Chrift deliver you 
 
 ^^ over to Satan ; yet take Courage, and fear 
 
 ^ nothing from all this; for you may de- 
 
 ^^ pend upon iXij that, after all, you are but 
 
 •^^ juft where you was, before this Sentence 
 
 ^* was pafs'd. And if you die impenitent^, 
 
 ^^ you have no EfTeds of this Cenfure to fear 
 
 ^^ in the other Woj'Id. 
 
 Now 
 
( I3J ) 
 
 Now this is the Dodrine yoqr Lordfliip 
 has taught for the Confolation of thole who 
 arc, or arc likely to be under the Sentence of 
 the Church ; which if it be now found Do- 
 <3:rine, it was as proper to be told the Corin- 
 thian then, as it is for your Lordfliip to teach 
 ic now. And if your Lordlhip had liv'd 
 then, it would have been as proper to have 
 told the Corinthian^ as to telJ us now ; and 
 you mult have lain under the fame Chriftian 
 Neceflicy of delivering him from vain Fears, 
 which now conftrains you to iec ail at liberty 
 from the like Apprehenfions. 
 
 St. "Taul^ fpeaking of ihe Sentence pals'd 
 «pon the Corinthian^ fays. Sufficient to fuch 
 a Man^ was this Vunijhment *. Now, my 
 Lord, if it have nothing of the Nature of a 
 Punilhment^ if it has no Effedt where it is 
 inflided, if the Perfon faid to be punilh'd can 
 feel no EfFed: from it^ what ftrange Language 
 is this ? Can that be calfd a Punilhment, or 
 a fufficient Puniflimenr^ which can in no de- 
 gree be felt, w^hich produces no Effeds, or 
 makes no Alteration in the Perfon where it 
 falls ? 
 
 Again St. Taul tells us, that he had a- 
 mongfl: others which had corrupted the Faith, 
 delivered Hymeneus and j^lexander to Satan^ 
 that they might learn not to blafpheme |. 
 
 5 1 Cor, 1. t I ^''^' I. ip. 
 
 Si Now 
 
( 132 ) 
 
 Now if this Sentence can have no EfFed, if 
 it cannot fignify any thing to them, if they 
 are juft in the lame Condition after it, which 
 they were before, why ihould it teach them 
 not to blaiphcme? Why fliould a Sentence 
 which they had nothing to fear from make 
 them any longer afraid to conriniie in their 
 Errors V Here was therefore either a pious 
 Fraud made ufc of by the A pottle to fright 
 Men from their Herefies by fomerhing which 
 was in itfelf vain and infignificanr, or elfe 
 your Lordfliip has mightily miftaken the 
 Matter, in declaring that it is vain and infig- 
 nificant. The Apottlc plainly infljd-s ihele 
 Cenlurcs^ as a Terror to Offenders, and to 
 frighten them from continuing in rheir evil 
 Courfes ; but if] a^ you fay, Peribns be juft 
 in the fame Conditioti after this Sentence m 
 which they were before, if it has no Effed: 
 upon them, tho' they are rii;hrly cenfured, 
 and yet die impenitent, which is what you 
 exprellly fay of this Corinthian^ then it is plain 
 they are only pretended Terrors, and that 
 when the Apoftles ufe them as Much, they 
 muft be charged with uflng them as a pi(.us 
 Fraud. And it muft be own'd that your 
 Lordlhip has very frankly made the Dif- 
 covery. 
 
 But whoever has Piety enough to believe 
 thofe firft Ambaffadors of Chrift, will clear 
 them from fuch a Charge, and rather think 
 ^t poffible that you may miftake in your 
 ' '^"'-- Philo- 
 
( 133 ) 
 
 Philofophy, than they in their Divinity. - 
 To proceed ; You declare that tho' the in- 
 ceJiuQHs Corinthian had dyd in an iynpenitent 
 Condition^ the Sentence of the Church would 
 have had no Efe5i in the other World : By 
 which you muft mean, that it could not af- 
 fed his Condition there, fo as to increafe his 
 Puniihmcnt, and that becaufe the JV;/^^;/^^ 
 did not add to God's T)ifpleafure^ which he 
 incurs folely upon account of his ownBeha- 
 njiour^ and not the Sentence of Men *. As 
 thus, I luppofe, your Lordihip means, that 
 if an Adulterer is cenfur'd by the Church, h^ 
 is under God's Difpleafure Iblely on account 
 of his Adultery, and not more fo, on account 
 of the Sentence of the Church ; which can-^ 
 not make him more an Adulterer, or more 
 guilty in the Sight of God. It is for this rea- 
 lon that Church Cenlures are fo infignificant, 
 fo void of all EfFedl in the other World ; be- 
 caufe it is our Sins alone, and not the Sen- 
 tence of Men, which lofes us the Favour of 
 God. 
 
 Let us therefore, my Lord, fuppofe that 
 God himfelf had delivered this Sentence a- 
 gainft the Corinthian which the Church did, 
 your Lordfliip's Dodtrine would have procur'd 
 him the fame Bafe and Quiet, and taught him 
 to be no more concern'd about it, than if it 
 had been a mere Church Ccnfure, For it is 
 
 37. 
 
 as 
 
( 134 ) 
 
 as true in your Lordfliip's Senfe, that the Sen- 
 tence of God, did not add to his Difpleafurc 
 againft him, that he was not angry at him 
 becauie of his Sentence^ but upon account of 
 the Offender's Behaviour. But, my Lord, 
 will it therefore follovv, that there is nothing 
 to be dreaded in fuch a Sentence ? Will it 
 follow, that if the Perfon dies impenitent un- 
 der ity that it will have no Effcd: in the o- 
 ther World ? Would your Lordfhip go about, 
 and preach Liberty to Perfons under fuch a 
 Sentence, and aflure them that the Sentence 
 itfelf could have no Effed, thar they were 
 but juft where they were before it was pro- 
 nounced ? Would yon think it proper to de- 
 liver Men from (iich Apprehenfions, and per- 
 ftiade them that they are in no danger from 
 the Sentence of God ? And that becauie it is 
 not his own Sentence, but their Behaviour 
 which encreales his Difplealure. 
 
 This may perhaps appear ^ litrle too fliock- 
 • ing to fet up for an Advocate for the Laity 
 againft the Sentence of God ; but, my Lord, 
 if you was to do fo, you would have the fame 
 Argument to defend your felf againft any Ef- 
 fecSt in the Divine Sentence^ which you now 
 have againft any Effcd in theSenreucc of the 
 Church. It would be then as much to the 
 Purpofe to fay, that God is not difpleas'd 
 with them, on the account of his own Sen- 
 tenccj but purely for their own Behaviour ; 
 2iS it is to tell Offenders, that it is not the 
 
 Sentence. 
 
t 135 ) 
 
 Sentence of the Church, but their Behaviour 
 which brings them under the Divine Dil- 
 pleaiure. 
 
 I mud here therefore, my Lord, beg leave 
 to call this a Jtrifl '^Dcmonjiratmij that if 
 the Sentence of the Church is not to be 
 fear*d ; if ic hath no Effed:, becaufc it is not 
 the Sentence^ but our own Behaviour whicb 
 alone procures us rhc Divine Dilplcaiure ; if 
 this be true, \t\%T>€monjl ration^ that if God 
 himfeif was to pronounce this Church Sen- 
 tence, and turn Offenders out of Communion^ 
 that there would be nothing to be feared from 
 ity that ii could have no Ejfeft in the other 
 World ; for God's Dilpleaiure againft them, 
 would not be occafion^ by his own Sentence', 
 but by their Behaviour. So that was the 
 Difcipline of the Church in God^s own Hands, 
 and were he with his own Voice to threateo 
 Sinners, as the Church now doth, your Lord- 
 ihip would be as much oblig'd to comfort the 
 Laity againft any Apprebenfion of any EfFe<3: 
 from the Sentence itftlf, as you are now to 
 deliver them from the Fear of Man's Judg- 
 ment. 
 
 Again ; If the Sentence of the Church is 
 not to be dreaded, if it can have no Effe^ 
 in the other World, becaufe we incur the Di- 
 vine Difpleafure i'olely on account of our own 
 Behaviour ; then it is certain^that the Sen- 
 tence of Chrift himfeif at the laft: Day can 
 have no Effed in the other World. 
 
 If 
 
( I3« ) 
 
 if therefore any unwary Divine fliould eri- 
 deavour to alarm his Congregation vviih the 
 EjfeBs of Chrift's Sentence at the laft Day,- 
 your Lordfliip has taught any one to rejedt 
 the T>oBrine^ as greatly inpiriofis to the Ho- 
 nour of God ; and that fuch T^oEirine "juas 
 alfo impojjible in itfelf to be conctiv'd ^ he 
 might prelume jtri^ly to demonflrate *. 
 
 A Sentence which makes not a Tittle of 
 Alteration in the Condition of a Man^ in 
 the Eyes of God, with regard to his Favour 
 or "Difpleafure^ cannot he faid to have any 
 EffeEi in the other IV or la |. But the Sentence 
 ofChriJi at the laji T>ay is of this fort. 
 
 Therefore the Sentence of Chriji makes not 
 a Tittle of Alteration in the Condition of d 
 Man in the Eyes of God with regard to his 
 Favour or "Difpleafure, 
 
 That the Sentence of Chrifi makes no Al- 
 teration in the Condition of a Man with re- 
 gard to the Favour or T>iffleafure of God^ 
 is plain from hence ; that Men incur the 
 %)ivine T^ifpleafure foiely on account of 
 their own Behaviour. 
 
 Thus, my Lord, it is demonftratively cer- 
 tdn, that as you have argued againft the Ef- 
 fe6ls of the Church's Sentence in the other 
 World, you have taught any one to argue a- 
 gainft any Effed: in the Sentence of Chrift m 
 the next Worid ; and confequently it muft 
 
 4 be 
 
( '37 ) 
 
 be as uitit^nry Dodrinc, to frighten People 
 wirh the EfTcds of Chrift's Sentence, as to 
 terrify them with the Effedts of the Sentence 
 of the Church. And you have ofFered fuch 
 an Argument for the utter Infignificancy of 
 this Sentence, as would mike it cq'ially in- 
 fignificant, and void of all Effeit, th'/ it was 
 pronounced by God himfelf So that as much 
 as you often Iccm to expofe it as the Sentence 
 of ^.:;edk and fallible Men, yet your Argu- 
 ment does not rejed: it as a fallible Sentence, 
 but as it is a Sentence from havin;^ any Ef- 
 fed. So that if it was pronounc'd by God 
 himfell; it mud be as much without Effc^y 
 and every Sentence which ever can be pro- 
 nounced by God, mud be without any EfFecSt 
 as to his Favour or Difpleafure, becaufc that 
 is folely occafion'd by our own Behaviour. 
 Therefore an infallible Sentence can no 
 more have any Effcd:, than a fallible one, 
 becaufe it is our Behaviour alone which can 
 affed us. This, my Lord, will be of great 
 ufe to fome People, who will be glad to find 
 that they have no more Effeds to fear from 
 God's Sentence either in this World or the 
 next, than your Lordlliip has from the Church. 
 
 Again ; If there be no Effe6i in the Sen- 
 tence of the Church in the other World, be- 
 caufe our Behaviour alone incurs the Divine 
 Difpleafure, then nothing which God inflids 
 upon us here can have any Effect in the other 
 World. 
 
 T If 
 
( 138 ) 
 
 If therefore God's 'Judgments were vifibly 
 fallen upon fome 'Ti^v^v/ or Country^ and an 
 unwary Preacher Ihould rake occafion to ex- 
 cite them to a fpcedy Repentance, from the 
 fad Ejfc^s fuch Judgments would have in 
 the other World, if they had not their de- 
 fign'd Effcds in this, and declare that if they 
 dy'd impenitent under them in this World, 
 they would feci worfe Effe6fs of them in 
 the other World. 
 
 A Dilciple of your Lordlhip's might thus 
 
 reprove the Falfenefs and Cruelty of luch Do- 
 
 d:rine. " How can you terrify People with 
 
 *' fuch vain Fears about God's Judgments? Is 
 
 *' he provok'd againft us by his own Thunder 
 
 ^' and Lightning ? Do his own Judgments 
 
 ^' add any thing to his Diipleafure againfl: us? 
 
 ''- Can any thing but our own Sins and Be- 
 
 ^^ haviour create his Dilplealiire ? Therefore 
 
 *' we are certainly in the fame Condition, as 
 
 *' to that, which we were in before his Judg- 
 
 '' ments fell upon us ; and if we die impeni- 
 
 " tent under them, they can have no Ejfe6i 
 
 *^ in the other World. Falle then and greatly 
 
 " dilhonourable to God is your Dodlrine, 
 
 '• which luppofes any thing can have any 
 
 " EfFe6t of that kind, but our own Behavi- 
 
 *^ our. To alarm us therefore with the Ef- 
 
 ^^ feBs of fuch Judgments^ is to put falfe 
 
 " Fears into our Minds, and teach us to dread 
 
 " things which are impojjible ; for it is im- 
 
 *' poffible that any thing but our own Be- 
 
 " haviour 
 
( 139 ) 
 
 " haviour fliould incrcale our Punifliment. 
 
 Now, my Lord, is ic cruel and unwary 
 Dodtrine ro awaken Sinners under God's 
 Judgments to Repentance, from a Senle of 
 rhc ^juorf'e EjfeBs of thofc Judgments in the 
 other World, if they do not bring them to 
 Repentance in this ? If it is not, I defirc to 
 know why it is not as rcaibnabic to alarm 
 People with the Effects oi fpiritual Ttrnijh- 
 7nents^ if dilregarded, as with the Effed:s of 
 God's Judgments, if they are negledted ? 
 What is there in the Nature of the Thing, 
 why one Punifliment may have EfFed in the 
 other World, and not the other ? They are 
 both equally God*s Tunijhments^ intended 
 for the fame Ends. 
 
 When Perfons are rightly turn'd out of the 
 Church, and deny'd the ordinary Means of 
 Grace, they are as truly under God's [fecial 
 Judgment^ as a Country which is oppreis'd 
 with Famine or Tejiilence ; the one is his 
 injtitutedj ordinary Judgment to terrify Men 
 from Iniquity ; the other is his extraordinary 
 Judgment^ his miraculous Call to Repentance. 
 It is therefore as (bund a Chriftian Dodrine, 
 to fay, that if Perfons die impenitent under 
 God's extraordinary Judgment, that luch Judg- 
 ment will have no EffecS in the other World: 
 as to fay, that if the inceftuous Corinthian 
 had dy'd impenitent under the juft Sentence 
 of the Church, /. e. God's ordinary Judgment, 
 that fuch Sentence or Judgment would have 
 
 T X had 
 
( ho) 
 
 had no Effc<3: in the other World. And con- 
 fequcntly to endeavour to terrify Sinners -with 
 the Effcdis of God's Judgments in the other 
 World, if they difregard them hete, is as 
 much condemn'd by your Lordfhip, as the 
 Dean of Chichejter's Dod:rine concerning the 
 Ejfecls of fpiritLial Punilhments in the next 
 V/orld. 
 
 Laftly ; Our bleflcd Saviour told the Jews^ 
 ■that if he had not come^ they had not had 
 Sin ; but now they have no Cloak for their 
 Sin : Which plainly impHes 'that his coming 
 into the World alter'd their Condition as to 
 the Favour of God, becaufe it made them 
 more guiky in his Sight than they were be- 
 fore he came. Yet your Lordlhip's Argument 
 cgainft the EffeSfs of Church Puniflimenrs di- 
 redly denies this Do6iriue. For your Obje- 
 6:ion againft any EjfeBs in Church Tnnijh' 
 wentSj is full as ftrong againft any Effects in 
 Chrift's coming into the VVorld. And i^ Peo- 
 ple may be more guiky in the Sight of God, 
 after Chrid is come^ they may be "more guilty 
 after they have been cenfurd by the Church, 
 for the Reafon is the fame in both Cafes. For 
 there can be no Reafon given, why Chrift's 
 coming lliould affed: their Condition with re- 
 gard to the Favour of God, but that he had a 
 "-Divine MiJJion and was an Authoritative 
 Call to Repentance ; but this is equally true 
 of Excommunication^ that it is a TJivine In- 
 jlitution^ an Authoritative Call to Repen- 
 tance ; 
 
( HI ) 
 
 tance; therefore they muft cither both be al- 
 lovv'd to njfeEl People's Condition, with re- 
 gard to the Favour of God, or neither ; for the 
 Reaibn is exactly the lame in both Cafes. 
 
 If therefore a learned "^Pharijee feeing a re- 
 lenting Tnbltcan tonch'd with this Declara- 
 tion of our Saviour's, Ihould have reprov'd 
 him after this manner. 
 
 " You need not be concerned at this Per- 
 " fon's coming into the World, for his coming 
 '.' does not encreale God's Difplcafure againll 
 " you, which can iDnly be rais'd by your 
 " own Behaviour ; it is folely on account of 
 " that, that you can be out oiGo^^ Favour. 
 " Sinners are out of God's Favour, if this 
 " Perlbn had never come^ and his coming 
 " docs not add to God's Dilpleafure againft 
 ^' them ; neither if they die in an impenitent 
 '' Condition after he is come, will his coming 
 " have any EfFed: in the other World, where 
 ^* their Condition will not be determined by 
 " his comings but by their own Behaviour. 
 
 I ihould be glad, my Lord, to know what 
 you could have laid againft fuch a Declaration, 
 or how a Perfon who would have told the 
 inceftuous Corinthian^ that if he dy'd impe- 
 nitent under the Cenfiire of the Church, that 
 it would have no Effed: in the ether World, 
 could have any thing to objcd to the Pha- 
 rifee^ who tells the Ftiblican^ if he dy'd im- 
 penitent after Chrift's comings that his coming 
 Will have noEjfe^i in the other World. 
 
 The 
 
( H2 ) 
 
 The Tharifce has exactly the fame Reafon, 
 to tell the Tiibltcm^ that he was neither the 
 more, nor the Icfs, out of God's Favour for 
 Chrift's coming, than you have to tell the Co- 
 rinthmfj.y that he was neither the more^ nor 
 the lefs^ out of God's Favour for 'what "was 
 done by the Church. For the Ccnfurc here 
 was right and infailibie, and pals'd in the 
 Name and by the Authority of Chrifl:; it was 
 pafs'd by an Apoftle^ and you affi'-m that 
 Chr'ifi was in all that the Apofilcs did -^ 
 therefore it may be truly faid that Chnft him- 
 felf carne to the Corinthian in this Svnrer-ce, 
 it was his Authority z.x\^ IifairibUity which 
 cenfur'd hiai ; and yet you fay that if he 
 had dy'd impenitent under this Cenfure^ he 
 had been juft where he was before, and it 
 would have had no Effect in the other World. 
 
 Pray therefore, my Lord, let us know how 
 any one can be more guilty for Chrift's com- 
 ings or why it ihall have any EiTed: in the o- 
 ther World upon thofe who d^xz impenitent ? 
 A few Reafons againft tliis ^Pharifee^ would 
 be fo many Reaions againft your Lordlliip's 
 DocSlrine. For Chrift as truly cornes to Chri- 
 ftians in his Injiitutious, as he came to the 
 Jews in Perfon ; and it is as dangerous to 
 difregard him in the one Appearance, as in 
 the other. 
 
 This Account of Excommunication will, I 
 hope, be thought a fufficient Anfwer to your 
 Lordiliip's ftri(S Demonftration, that it has no 
 
 Effects 
 
( H3 ) 
 
 EffcBs in the other JVorlcl^ nor adds any 
 thing to God's T^ifpleafuvii. For from this 
 it appears, that when you fay, that fup^ojing 
 no Jiich Tunijhment irtjli^led upon a izncked 
 Chrijtian^ he is under theT>ifpleafure ofAl- 
 viighty God to an equal Degree, as he would 
 be if it vjcre infliEied * ; It is as falfe as to 
 fay that a wicked Jew was under the fame 
 Difplealure of God before Chrift came as 
 he was afterwards ; or that a Perfon impeni- 
 tent under an extraordinary Judgment^ is no 
 more out of God's Favour afterwards, than he 
 was before, or if God had never vifited him. 
 It is as falfe as to fay, that if God himfelf 
 was to pronounce the Sentence of the Church, 
 that Perfons under it would be juft in the 
 fame Degree of Favour they were before, or 
 that the Sentence of Chrift at the laft Day 
 will have no Effed. 
 
 The other Part of your Demonftration pro- 
 ceeds thus ; Excommunication has no EfFedJ:, 
 becaufe fuppofing it wrongfully inflicted up^ 
 on a Chriftian^ he is Jtill equally in the Fa- 
 vour of God \. 
 
 The whole of this Argument amounts to 
 this, that a right Cenfure of the Church hath 
 no EfFed:, becaufe a wrong one hath not. I 
 fliould think any one in a mighty want of 
 Proof, who fliouId fay that the Excommuni- 
 cation of the incefiuous Corinthian could 
 
 !P-37. tP-37. 
 
 have 
 
( H4- ) 
 
 havQ no Effect, becaufe the Excommunication 
 of fbmc virtuous Perfon will not have anyEf- 
 fed: ; yet this is your Lordlhip's Demonftra- 
 tion, that it can fignify nothing when it is 
 righf^ becatife it fignifics nothing when it is 
 wrong. 
 
 Is it an Argument, my Lord, that when a 
 Bullet flies thro' a Man's Head \t has no Ef- 
 fect upon him, becaufe it will have no Effed 
 if it mifs hira ? Is it a Proof that Motion 
 cannot produce Heat j becaufe Reji cannot 
 produce Heat ? 
 
 If not, how comes it to be an Argument 
 that a right Sentence hath no Effed:, becaufe 
 a wrong one hath not the fame Effed ? 
 
 A right Sentence is as oppofite to a wrong 
 one, as Motion is to Reft ; and it is as good 
 Senfe to fay Motion has no fuch Efl^ed, be- 
 caufe Reft has no fuch Efl^ed ; as to fay a 
 right Sentence has no Effed, becaufe a wrong 
 one has not the fame. 
 
 A right Sentence, is the only Excommuni- 
 cation, which Chrift hath inftituted, and to 
 which alone this Effed belongs ; but it is 
 ftrange Logick to infer, that this Inftitiition 
 can't have ftuch an Effed, becatife fomething 
 which Chrift hath not inftituted, hath not the 
 fame Effed. 
 
 A wrong Sentence is as truly a Breach and 
 Tranfgreftion of that Excommunication which 
 Chrift hath inftituted, as Adultery is z Breach 
 of the feventh Commandment; it is therefore 
 
 as 
 
( 1+5 ) 
 
 a^ abfurd ro fay, that Chaftity hath not fucb 
 an Effcd:, bccaulc Adultery hath not i\\q faine 
 Effcd: ; as to affirm that a right Sentence 
 hath not iiich an Eifcd:, bccaule a Violatioji^ 
 of that riglu Sentence hath not the fimc Effcd:. 
 Your Lordfliip's Argument is this, that the 
 Sentence hath not fiich an Effcd: in foJTie 
 Circumftances, becauie it hath not the fame 
 Etfed in ^//Circumftances : Which rciolves 
 itlelf into this Propofuion, That nothing can 
 produce any particular Effe^^ unlejs it pro- 
 duce the fame EjfeEt in all Cir cum fiances. 
 
 Your Lordihip might as well have calfd it 
 a ^emonflration againft all Effefls in thie 
 World, as againft the Effe^s of ipiritual Cen- 
 fures : For there is iiothing in the World, no 
 Powers either Natural^ Moral, or 'Political^ 
 which produce their Effeds but in iomc f^p- 
 po/d 7 ight Circumftances ; yet this Ecclefia- 
 fticai Power is demonjirated away by your 
 Lordfnip, becauie v: does not produce the 
 lame Etted in all Circumftances. 
 
 Farther ; If there is no Effcd in a right 
 Sentence of the Church, bccaufe there is no 
 E'Ted in a "jLTong one; then it will follow, 
 that there is no Efted in either of the Sacra- 
 ments when rightly receiv'd, becaufc they 
 want fuch Effed in Perfons who do not 
 rightly receive them. It may as often hap- 
 pen that the Sacraments are adminifter'd in 
 wrong Circumftances, and as void of that Ef- 
 fcd lor which they were intended, as any 
 
{ I4^0 
 
 wrong Sentence of the Church be pronounc'd.*/ 
 but does it therefore follow, that there is no' 
 Effeff in the Sacramcnrs, that they are empty 
 and ufelefs to thole who receive them rightly, 
 becaufc they are fo to thoic who receive them 
 otherwifc ? Your Lordlhip mufl either affirm 
 that the Sacraments have no Eifed, or that 
 the Ojpm oferatum is always effedual ; for 
 if you fay they have EfTccft, tho' not always, 
 then it is certain that the Sentence of the 
 Church may haveEffedl, tho* not ^/ze^'/yj. Whe- 
 ther your Lordfliip will own the Popifli Do* 
 d:rine of the Optics operatimiy or deny the Sacra- 
 ments to be Means of Grace, that is, to have 
 any Effc<Sl:, I can't tell ; but fure I am, if you do 
 not hold one of theleDod:rines, you mull: own 
 the Sacraments to have conditional Effects in 
 fippofed Circumftances, which will lufficient- 
 Jy confute your own Jiri^i TDcmonJlrationy 
 that Excommunication can have no Effedt, 
 becaufe it has it not in all Circumftances. 
 
 Again ; I prclumc it may very juftly be 
 faid, that the Chriftian Revelation harh fome 
 EffeB towards the Salvation of Mankind ; 
 but then it hath not this EfFed always and 
 ' in aU Cafes y. it is only elfecStuai upon certain 
 Conditions. Now if Excommunication can 
 have no EfFed, becaule it is not effcdtual 
 when it i.s wrongfully pronounced, then the 
 Chriftian Revelation can have no EfFed to- 
 wards faving thofe who embrace it as they 
 fliouldL, becaufe it has no fuch EfFcd on thole 
 
 who 
 
( 147 ) 
 
 who embrace it orhcrwile. The Reafon of 
 the Thing is the iamc in both Calcs, and 
 any one may as juftly (ct forth the Vanity and 
 Infignificancy of the Chrillian Revelation, be- 
 caufe it does not iivc all its Profcffbrs, as 
 your Lordlhip expoies the Weakness and Va- 
 nity of i'piritual Genfures, becaiiie they do not 
 abiblutely, and in all Caies, throw People cut 
 of God's Favour. 
 
 I hope I have here faid enough to vindi- 
 cate the Authority and EfFcdts of the Ipirituai 
 Punilhments of the Church againft all your 
 Lordlhip has advanced againft them. 
 
 I ihali mak<i an Obforvation or two more 
 upon this Headj and then proceed to the o- 
 ther Parts of your Anfwer. 
 
 You lay, the inceftuous Corinthian ''juas fie- 
 'ver the more or the lefs in God's Favour for 
 what was done by the Church *. This Do- 
 <3:rine I have aheady confuted, and Ihall now 
 only fet this Paflagc in another Light. Let us 
 fuppofe that you had faid, that no Alan is 
 more in God'^ Favour for being rightly bap- 
 tized by the Church. Now if a Perfon is 
 not more in God's Favour after he is rightly 
 baptiz'd by the Church than he was before, 
 then it's certain, that there is no need of Bap- 
 tiim by the Church ; for any thing is luftici- 
 ently prov'd needlels or uielefs in Religion, if 
 it neither procures nor lofes the Favour of 
 
 * Anfiv, to Repr p. 4^. 
 
 U z God. 
 
( 148 ) 
 
 God. This IS undeniably certain, that if vve 
 are not more in the Favour ot God for being 
 duly baptiz'd by the Church, than if we were 
 not baptiz'd at all, that then that Baptiim isi 
 a vfelcfs Trifle. 
 
 Now this is the Dodrine which your Lord- 
 fliip has taught ; for he that jays rhe tncejUwm, 
 Corinthian^ tho' juflly turn'd out of the 
 Church, vjas neither the more or the lefs in 
 God's Favour for what was done by the 
 Church \ fays likewifc that he who is duly 
 baptiz'd into Covenant with God by the 
 Church, is never the more or the Icfs in 
 God's Favour for being duly bapriz d by the 
 Church. For if it be a mere Trifie, and al- 
 together infignificant to us, as to the Favour 
 ofGod, to be turn'd our of the Church, by 
 fuch an Authority ; it mud be as mere a Tri- 
 fle to be admitted inro the Church by rhe 
 iame Authority. So that he who declares 
 the one, plainly declares the other: For this 
 is evidently plain, that ir nothing be lofl as 
 to the Favour of God, by cur being duly 
 turn'd out of the Church, that then nothing 
 is got as to the Favour of God, by our being 
 duly admitted into the Church. 
 
 For if our being in the Church was any 
 Step towards God's Favour, or rcnder'd us 
 more acceptable to him, thole Degrees of Fa- 
 vour and Acceptance mud be certainly loft, 
 by our lofmg that which was the Caule of 
 them. 
 
 He 
 
( ^49 ) 
 
 He therefore who afTerts it is a Trijle to 
 be turn'd out of the Church, mud alfo afTcrt, 
 that it is as fruitlefs and trifling a thing to be 
 admitted into the Church. So that all your 
 Lordihip's Raillery and Contempt thrown up- 
 on human Exccrnmimicatmis^ falls as diredtly 
 upon human Baft'tfms ; and makes them as 
 truly fruitlefs Trifles without any Advantage, 
 as it makes Excommunication a Trifle with- 
 out any Puniihment. 
 
 This therefore is the Sum of your new Re- 
 ligion, fct up out of pure Tendernefs to the 
 Laity, to deliver them from the Weight and 
 Burden oi Ordinances ; this is to be their Sup- 
 port againfl: human Excommunicationsy hu- 
 man BenediEiionsy human Baptifms^ 8cc. 
 that whether before or after Baptifm^ whe- 
 ther before or after Excommunication^ they 
 are ftill the fame Children of God. 
 
 Again, you fay, If it be fuppos'd (as it 
 fometimes is upon this Subje^J that a Ter- 
 fbn behaves himfelf under the moft unde- 
 ferx/d Cenfuresy with any degree of Impati- 
 ence^ Tridcj or Stubborncfs ^ and that this 
 difpleafeth Almighty God ; it is plain that 
 he incurs no fart of that T^ifpleafure^ upon 
 account of the Sentence of Men, but folely 
 upon the account of his own Behaviour ; it 
 being his own Behaviour alone ^ and not the 
 Sentence of Men^ which has any fuch Ef 
 feci. 
 
 Here, 
 
( ISO ) 
 
 HerCj my Lord, your Thilofophy is upoo 
 tiie ftretch, and rather than a Cbrijitan Infti- 
 ftution fliould have any Force or EffecS, you 
 have let it run fiich lengths, as to make even 
 the Ten Commandments as mere Trifles as 
 the Sentence of Men. 
 
 As for Inftance ; Suppofe a Perfon fliould 
 tell a Friend that he had a great liking to 
 Ibme of his Neighbour's Goods, but that the 
 eighth Commandment made him afraid to 
 take them from him ; if his Friend were but 
 a Mafter of your Thilofofhy^ he might foon 
 convince him of the Folly of fuch a Fear. 
 He might tell him, that if it be fuppos'd (as 
 it fometimes is fuffos'd in this Cafe) that 
 by his manner of taking Goods from his 
 Neighbour^ that he dtf^leafeth Almighty 
 God ; it is plain that he incurs no Tart of 
 that T>ifpleafure upon account of the Com- 
 mandme7it^ but folely upon the Account of 
 his own Behaviour ; it being his own Beha- 
 'viour alone ^ and not the Commandmejtt^ 
 which has any fuch Effect. He might alio 
 afTurehim, that tht Commandment itfelf q.'xvl' 
 not hurt him, that he is not more or Icfs in 
 God's Favour, for what that Commandment 
 fays^ but purely for what he himfelf does. 
 
 I now, my Lord, freely fubmit it to the 
 Judgment of common Senfe, whether your 
 profound Thilofophy does not as truly make 
 void and let afide the Force and Effcd of the 
 Commandment, as the Ejf^B of Excommu- 
 Qication. For 
 
( «5« ) 
 
 For it is plainly as reafonablc to tell a 
 Thief, that the eighth Commandment cannot 
 hurt him ; that if he deals, it is not the 
 Commandment, but his own Behaviour alone, 
 which will have any EfFed: ;■ as to declare 
 that an impenitent Offender is neither more or 
 lefs in the Favour of God for what is done by 
 the Church, becaufe even fuppofing God to 
 be angry at him for his Behaviour towards the 
 Sentence of the Church ; yet it is not the Sen- 
 tence, but his own Behaviour, which caules 
 the Divine Difpleafure ; therefore the Sen-- 
 tence, fays your Lordfliip, is a Trifle without 
 Effed. And therefore may it alfb be faid that 
 the eighth Commandment is' a Trifle without 
 Effed ; for it \s as true of the Command- 
 ment in this Senfe, and your Lordfhip is as 
 much oblig'd to fay that it is our Behaviour 
 againft the Commandment, and not the Com- 
 mandment itfelf^. which will raife God's Di{^ 
 pleafure ; as to fay it is our Behaviour under 
 the Sentence, aiid not the Sentence itfelfi 
 which brings God's Difpleafure upon us ; fo 
 that it is undeniably plain, that if for this 
 reafon the Sentence of the Church be a Trifle 
 without any Effed:, that for the fame reafon 
 the Commandment mufl be equally a Trifle, 
 and equally without any Effecfi. 
 
 And now, my Lord, need we not heed the 
 Commandments, becaufe it is not the Com- 
 mandments t^emielves which will have any 
 Ef&d; upon us ? Why then are wc to be ex- 
 
 liorrcdjv 
 
( 152 ) 
 
 iiorted, and preach'd up into a Contempt of 
 the Sentence of the Church, becaufe ir is not 
 the Sentence irielf will have any' EfFed upon 
 us ? Is it iafe to fin againft the Authority of 
 the Commandment, becaule it is not the Com- 
 mandment itielf which can puniih us ? If not^ 
 where is the Senfe, orRealon, or Chriflianity 
 of telHng us, that we need not heed the Sen- 
 tence of the Church, becaufe the Sentence itfelf 
 cannot puniih us ? 
 
 Suppole Ibme High- Church- man had writ a 
 Treatile againft SteaHng, and had carry'd the 
 Matter fo very far, as to talk of the fatal Ef- 
 fect: which the eighth Commandment would 
 have upon Offenders^ when it ihould rife up 
 in Judgment and condemn them. 
 
 Would your Lordlhip think your felf o- 
 blig'd, in regard to the Li^^r^ of thofe who 
 want other People's Goods^ to tell them that 
 indeed they ought to take care to a6t with 
 Sincerity in theit acquiring the temporal 
 Things of this Life, that they ought to con- 
 fider with the utmoft Impartiality the Nature 
 of Property, and the Conditions of that Ori- 
 ginal Contra^ J which firft fettled the Rights 
 and Bounds of it , and gave every Man a 
 Right in fuch or fuch a Part of the Things of 
 this Life ; but that if they Ihould through 
 Impatience of Want, or "Tride^ or any other 
 PafTion or Prejudice, make too free with their 
 Neighbour's Property, and fo difpleafe Al- 
 mighty God J w^ould you think your felf 
 
 oblig'd 
 
( '53 ) 
 
 oblig'd to tell them, chat the fatal EffeBs 
 of the eighth Commandynent^ and Vi% pretend- 
 ed rifing up in Judgment hereafter, is^ all Sham 
 and Banter ; and that however God may be 
 dilpleas'd wirh rhem, yet that Commandment 
 will have no Effe(3: upon them ? Would your 
 Love of Liberty, your Concern for the Laicy, 
 engage you to give fo much Comfort, and 
 picacii iuch Imooth things to fuch a Clafs of 
 People ? 
 
 Thus much may be fairly affirmed, that 
 you might as well deliver fuch a Ibrt of Peo- 
 ple from their Fear of the Commandment, as 
 endeavour to perfuadc impenitent Offenders not 
 to fear the Sentence of the Church. For as 
 the Guilt of Stealing is aggravated by being 
 contrad:ed againfl: the Authority of the eighth 
 Commandment ; fo the Guilt of Impenitence 
 is heightned, by a Continuance in it againft 
 that Authority in the Church , which is as 
 truly founded by'God to prevent the Growth 
 ef Siriy as the eighth Commandment was gi- 
 ven by God to prevent Stealing, So that he 
 who teaches Offenders to diiregard this Sen- 
 tence, which is authorized by God to awaken 
 and terrify them into Repentance, does the 
 fame as if he ffiould teach Thieves to dilre- 
 gard the eighth Cotnmandment , which was 
 given by God to affright People from 
 ilealing. 
 
 ■ If it Ihould be here objeded that there is a ve- 
 ry great difference betv/ixt the Duty we owe to 
 
 X the 
 
( 154 ) 
 
 the eighth Commandiiicnr, and our Duty to 
 the Sentence of the Church ; becaule the 
 Commandment is always right and the fame, 
 whereas the Church may err in its Sentence. 
 
 To this it rnay be ani\ver'd, that granting 
 all this, that the Church may fomctimes err 
 in its Sentence; yet i[ it is ever in the right, 
 if it ever can be a fault, or dangerous for Sin- 
 ners not to ihbmit to, and be corrected hy it, 
 this will condemn your Dod:rine, which fers 
 it out Gonftantly, and in all Circumftances, 
 as a Dream and Trifle, and without any 
 EfTed. 
 
 Secondly; Here is no room left for you to 
 plead the Uncertainty of the Church's Sen- 
 tence, in regard to the Certainty of the Com- 
 mandment ; becaufe you direcSly fet forth 
 your Doctrine in a Cafe (that of the inceftu- 
 ous Corinthian) where all was right and juft, 
 and yet declare that in that Cafe it was with- 
 out any Effe<3:s ; and that if the iaceftuous 
 Corinthian had continued impenitent under it, 
 and difregarded it as long as he had liv'd, it 
 had fignify'd no more to him than if it had 
 never been pronounced. And in this Cafe, 
 my Lord, and upon this Suppofition, that the 
 Authority judges and condemns fuch Sinners 
 as it ought to do, it is as abominable to tell 
 fuch that they have nothing to fear from the 
 Judgment of the Church, as to tell a Thief 
 that he has nothing to fear from the eighth 
 Commandment. And I here challenge all the 
 
 Reafon 
 
( 155 ) 
 
 Reafon which ever appcar'd againft rhc Do- 
 <il:rincs of Chriftianity, to ihcw me, why it 
 is not as agreeable to the Scripture to declare, 
 that if a Thief lives and dies in his Sins of 
 Steahng, that he has nothing to fear from 
 the eighth Commandment ; as to declare that 
 an impenitent Offender, x\\o' jujily cenfur'd 
 by the Authority of the Church, has nothing 
 to fear from fuch a Cenfure, tho' he lives and 
 dies in the Contempt of it. 
 
 Thirdly and laftly ; Tho' the Church may 
 fometimes err in its Authority, and the Com- 
 mandment is always right; yet your Dodlrine 
 ipakes it as reafonable to declare the Com- 
 mandment w ithout any Effe(9;, as to declare 
 the Sentence of the Church to be without a- 
 ny EfFed:. For you don't fay that Excom- 
 munication is a Trifle without any EffeSfj 
 bccaufe it is a Sentence which may ibmetimes 
 be wrong ; but becaufe, tho' we ihould dif- 
 pleafe God under the Sentence of the Church, 
 yet that Difpleafure would not have been oc- 
 cafiony by the Sentence, but by our Beha- 
 viour alone. And this Dodtrine plainly 
 makes all the Commandments as mere Trifles 
 and void of all Efl^eEiy as it makes the Sen- 
 tence of the Church fo. For it is as true in 
 your Senfe, and you are as much oblig'd to 
 fay, that if we fin againft the Commandments, 
 and incur the Difpleafure of God, that it is 
 not the Commandments , but our Behaviour 
 alone which caufes it : And fo the Command- 
 
 X X inent5 
 
{ t5« ) 
 
 v ciis 15 God hav<? no more to do with the 
 Favour of God, bat are as,^mcrc T>r earns 
 without any Eifed:, as the human Excoaimu.- 
 nications you have ib much cxpos'd. This, 
 my Lord, is a very compendious Confutation 
 fcoth of the Laiv and the Go/pel ; and is a 
 i^ood reafon, v;hy To many of thole who have 
 DO ngard for cither, but think Zeal in Reh- 
 ojona Mcannefs of Spirit, are yet great Zea- 
 lets for your Lordfliip's Opinions. 
 
 Of Church -j^Hihor'tty , as h relates to 
 external Comrmtniun, 
 
 
 ^^OUR LordHiip fays, I know of no 
 ^1 Church Authority to oblige Chrjii- 
 ' ans to external Communion^ nor 
 a7:y thing to determine them hut 
 ih}}r G^u Confctences *. But to fhcvv your 
 Dcftr'e- to be informed, your Lordlhip fre- 
 quently calls upan the Learned Committee to 
 declare what the Authority of the Church is. 
 It js fori; cliing ftrangc that you ihould have 
 bceii fb long writujg down the Authority of 
 tlic Church, and yet not* know what is meant 
 by Church Authority ; that you Ihould take 
 fo much, pains to oppolc (as you fay) only 
 
 * Anfzv. to Bepr, p, li-i. 
 
 abfolute 
 
(157 ) 
 
 ahfolute Authority, and yet not know whe- 
 ther there be any elic, or what Authority 
 you have left in the Church. It is yet fome- 
 thuig (banger that a R'ljhop of the Church 
 Ihould be frightening the Laity from a kind 
 of Church Authority which is not claimed o- 
 ver them, and yet be at the fame time pretcnd- 
 edly ignorant of what fort of Church Autho- 
 rity they are under. Here you have been 
 preaching againft that, which they are not 
 conccrn'd with ; but when you lliould tell 
 them what kind of Authority they are con- 
 cerned with, you have not one word of Inftru- 
 d:ion ; but call upon the Committee to de- 
 clare whether there be any fuch thing as 
 Church Authority which is not abfolute. My 
 Lord, if there be not, to what purpofe have 
 you fo often taken Refuge in the word Ab- 
 folute'^ Or where is the Honefly or Reafon 
 of faying you have not deny'd ^2^ Authority, 
 but only that which is abfolute^ if you be- 
 lieve there is no Authority but what is abfo- 
 lute? If therefore your Lordfliip has made 
 this Diftindion with any degree oi Sincerity -^ 
 if you intended any thing more by it, than 
 an artful playing with Words ; it plainly lies 
 at your Door to ihew what Authority you 
 have not touch'd ; and that in oppofing that 
 which is abfolute^ you neither have, nor in- 
 tended to oppofe all Authority and Jurifdi- 
 (Stion in Matters of Religion. But, inftead 
 of this, if the Learned Committee fhould ex- 
 plain 
 
( 158 ) 
 
 plain to your Lordlhip what that Autho- 
 rity is, which is not abfolute ; you only ven- 
 ture fo far as to fay, that if there is any Inch 
 Authority, you are^ for ought that you have 
 faid^ at liberty to declare for it *. Mighty 
 caurioufly exprefs'd, my Lord ! Had a CGur- 
 tier^ who rather intends to amufe than in^ 
 fp7'm^ and talk artfully than fiiicerely^ deli- 
 vered himfelf in fuch inconclufive Terms, it 
 had not been much Matter either of Wonder 
 or Complaint. But for o.BiJhop^ who makes 
 Sincerity to be of more worth than all the 
 Chrifiian Religion ; for this Bilhop, in a Caufe 
 which he declares himielf ready to die in ; in 
 fuch a Caufe, as is of the laft Confequence to 
 us all, as Alen^ Chrijiians, and Trotejlants ; 
 for this Biiliop to lay, if there be fuch an 
 Authority^ inftead of declaring whether there 
 is or not ; and to fay, he is at liberty to de- 
 dare for it, inftead of plainly faying whe- 
 ther he ought or not ; however confiftent it 
 may be with Sincerity, I am fiire it has too 
 much the Appearance of the conrrary. 
 
 For feeing you are chargd with denying 
 «!2// Authority in the Church, if you confulted 
 Plainnefs and Sincerity, if you regarded the 
 Information of the Vulgar, and the Peace of 
 the Church, which way could thefe Confide- 
 rations lead you to defend your felf ; but ei- 
 ther to lliew that there was a real Autho- 
 
 * Anl'vj. to Repr. p. 2,5. 
 
 rity 
 
( 159 ) 
 
 rity in the Church, which you had not op- 
 posed ; or eirc plainly to own that you had 
 deuy'd all Atiuoority^ becaufe all Authority 
 of every kind is to be deny'd ? But inftead 
 of declaring your felf openly and plainly for 
 the fake of Truth, Peace, and Sincerity, you 
 take Refuge in Words, and fecure your felf 
 behind a Cloud oiTroferlfs ^nAAb/olitteiys^ 
 to the Difturbance of honeft Minds, and to 
 the SaristacSion of the Prophane. 
 
 Since your Lordlhip calls out fo often to 
 be told what that Authority is which obliges 
 us to external Ccmmunion^ I fliall beg leave 
 to offer thefe following Confiderations upon 
 this Head, and hope they will fufficiently 
 both afTert and explain that Church Autho- 
 rity or Obligation which we are all under to 
 join in external Communion. 
 
 Your Lordlhip fays ; / know of no Church 
 Authority to oblige any Chrijtians to exter- 
 nal Communion ; 7ior any thing to determine 
 them^ but their own Confciences *. I fliall 
 therefore beg leave to obferve to your Lord- 
 fhip whac Authority there is to oblige All 
 Chriftians to external Communion ; and to 
 fhew, that they are no more leri: at liberty ia 
 this Matter, than they are at liberty to fteal 
 or murder. 
 
 I iuppolc it is not proper or true, to fay, 
 that you know of no Authority to obligo 
 
 ; p. Hi. 
 
 any 
 
• ( i^o ) 
 
 any Chriftiaiis, or any thing to keep them 
 from the Pradlice of Stealing, but their own 
 ConfcicnccS) becaule there is the exprels Au- 
 thority of God againfl: this Pradice. Now if it- 
 would be improper and falfe to lay this, bccaule 
 the Authority of God has fo plainly appeared 
 in it ; I iliall eafily prove, that it is as falfe 
 and improper to fay, that we have nothing 
 but our Confciences to determine tis in the 
 Cafe of external Communion, fince the Au- 
 thority of God \^ as exprels in obliging us 
 to this external Communion^ as in requiring 
 ns to be jufi: and honcft in all our Dealings. 
 
 I defire no more to he granted me here, 
 than that it \s ncceffary to be a Chriftian, and 
 that we are calfd upon by^the Authority of 
 God to embrace this Religion as nece/Tary to 
 Salvation. This, my Lord, is the exprefs 
 Dodrine of the Scriptures ; fo that I hope I 
 may prefume upon it, as granted by your 
 Lordfliip, that there is an A^urhority to oblige 
 People to be Chriftian^, and that this Autho- 
 rity makes it as neceflary, that they fliould 
 be Chriilians, as it is neceflary to obey God, 
 and conform to his Will. 
 
 Firft; If Chriftianity be a Method of Life 
 necelTary to Salvation, then are we nccelTari- 
 ly obli8,'d to external Communion; for we 
 can no other way appear to be Chriilians ei- 
 ther to our felves or others, but by this ex- 
 ternal Communion. A Perfon who lives m 
 a Cloyjtery may as well be taken for a Field 
 
 General^ 
 
{ I^I ) 
 
 General^ as he who is not in external Com^ 
 munion, for a Chriftian. For the Chrifiim 
 Rdigion is a Method of Worfliip diftinca from 
 all others, in thole Offices and Duties which 
 conftitute external Communion ; fo that if 
 you are fo far oblig'd to be a Chriftian, as to 
 lerve God differently from other People, you 
 are oblig'd to external Communion^ becaufe 
 that Service which diftinguiihes the Chriftian 
 Worlhipper from all other People, is fuch a 
 Service as cannot be performed but in an ex- 
 ternal Communion in fuch and luch Offices, 
 viz. Trofeffions of Faith ^ joint Trayers^ 
 and the Obiervance of the Sacraments. Ex- 
 ternal Communion is only another word for 
 the Profeffion of Chriftianity, becaufe the (e- 
 veral Duties and Obligations which concern 
 any one as a Chriftian, and diftinguii]-i him 
 from other People, are Duties which as necef- 
 farily imply external Conimttnion., as walking 
 implies Motion. Therefore to ask whether a 
 Chriftian be obHg'd to external Communion^ 
 is to ask whether a Perlbn who is oblig'd to 
 walk, be oblig'd to move. The fhort is this; 
 No Man can be a Chriftian, but by taking 
 upon him the Profeffion of Chriftianity ; the 
 Profeffion of Chriftianity is nothing elle but 
 external Communion with Chriftians ; there- 
 fore it is as necelFary to be in external Com- 
 munion, as to be a Chriftian. 
 
 I hope I need not prove to your Lordflifp, 
 
 that there is an Authority to oblige People to 
 
 . Y the 
 
( 1^2 ) 
 
 the Profeffion of ChriHianiry ; intending here 
 only to prove, thai the lame Authority o- 
 bhges us to external Communion. 
 
 Had your Lordlliip therctbre declared to 
 the World that you know of no Authority 
 to obhge People to be Chriftians, it had been 
 as innocent and trtte a Declaration as this you 
 have made concerning external Communion ; 
 there being plainly the fame Authority oblig- 
 ing us to the one, as to the other. For, my 
 Lord, what is imply-d in external Commu- 
 nion, but our communicating with our Fel- 
 low Chriftians in thofe Ad:s of Worfliip and 
 Divine Service which Chriftianity requires of 
 us ? And what Marks or Tokens can we fliew 
 of our Chriftianity, btit that we are of the 
 Number of thofe who are baptized into Chrift's 
 Church for the joint Worlhip of God in that 
 particular Service whfch the Chriftian Religion 
 has taught us ? So that if we prove our felves 
 Chriftians, we muft prove our felves in this 
 external Communion, becaufe to be a Chri- 
 ftian implies no more, than the being of the 
 Number of thefe who vifibly unite and join 
 in fuch A(5ts and Offices of Divine Worfliip as 
 are proper to Chriftians. If therefore there 
 be 710 Authority to oblige us to external Com- 
 munion, then no one is oblig'd to be a Chri- 
 ftian. 
 
 Secondly-; If there be no Authority to o- 
 blige, or any thing to determine Chrifl:ians 
 to external Comfnunion but their own Con- 
 
 • fcicnce?3 
 
( l«3 ) 
 
 fciences, then it is plain, it is as lawful for 
 all Chriftians to be their own Tricjis^ and 
 confine theralelves to a private Worlhip fcpa- 
 rate from every Chriftian in the World , as 
 to join ia external Communion. For where 
 there is no Authority or Obligation to deter- 
 mine our I radiice, there the thing muft needs 
 be indifferent ; and to do it or let it alone, 
 mufl: be equally idvvful. If there was no Au- 
 thority which obiig'd us to be baptiz'd, it 
 uould not only he lazvful to let it alone, but 
 idle ro trouble our Heads about it. The lame 
 is true of this external Communion ; if we 
 are under no Law concerning it, it is no 
 part of our T>uty either to do it, or let it 
 alone. 
 
 It cannot here be faid, that tho' we are not 
 oblig'd to external Communion with this or 
 that Church, yet we ought to join with lome 
 particular Peribns, and not worfhip God con- 
 ftantly by our lelves, and perform no Offices 
 with other People. For if we are oblig'd to 
 communicate with any one Perfon in the 
 World, we are to hold Communion with the 
 whole Church of Chrift. For we are not o- 
 blig'd to communicate with this or that parti- 
 cular Perfon on account of any Civil or-Na- 
 tural Relation, but as we are Chriftians^ and 
 from the Common Nature of our Chriftianity. 
 Since therefore our Obligation to communi- 
 cate with any particular Perfons does not arife 
 from any private particular Relation, but 
 
 Y z from 
 
( 1^4 ) 
 
 from the common Nature of our Religion ; 
 this docs equally oblige us to hold Commu- 
 nion with all Chriftiaus, as with any parti- 
 cular ChriftianSj they being all equally rela- 
 ted to us as Chriftians ; and confequently it 
 is as necefTary to hold Communion with the 
 external vifible Church, as with any particu- 
 lar Chviftian. From this alfo it is plain, that 
 it is as lawful to avoid Communion with e- 
 very particular Chriflian in the World, as to 
 refufe Communion with any found Part, of 
 the Church on Earth. 
 
 I beg of your Lordfliip to produce but one 
 Arpument why any two or three Ihould meet 
 t02,ether for the Service of God, which will 
 no^t equally prove it neceflary that Chriflians 
 ftiould join in external Communion. May it 
 ail be laid afide, my Lord ? Need there be 
 no more of this ajfembling our felves toge- 
 ther for performing of Duties, which we 
 thought we could not perform feparately ? 
 
 I have IhewQ in my fccond Letter, that 
 
 your Lordlhip cannot confidently with your 
 
 Principles urge any Reafons to any T>iffenters 
 
 to come over to the Church of England \ 
 
 and here, my Lord, it will appear, that you 
 
 have not one Argument againfl the Abfenters 
 
 from dll Tublick IVorJhtj^. For it would be 
 
 as odd and unreafbnable in your Lordihip to 
 
 offer any Argument to fuch 2xxAbfenter^ why 
 
 he fiiould join in fome Publick Worlhip, after 
 
 you have dcny'd any Authority which obliges 
 
 to 
 
( 165 ) 
 
 us to external Communion, as it would be 
 fot an Atbeift who had deny'd the NccefTity 
 of any Religion, to perluade a Man to be a 
 fine ere Mahometan. 
 
 If your Lordfliip fliould tell this Abfenter 
 from all Communions, that he ought to join 
 with fome Community or other in the Wor- 
 ihip of God; might he not fairly ask your 
 Lordfliip, how you came to tell the World that 
 you know of no Authority to oblige any Chri- 
 fians or any thing to determine them to ex- 
 ternal Communion ? Can any one be oblig'd 
 to join in Divine Service, who is not oblig'd 
 to external Communion ? Could any one 
 imagine that if he was not oblig'd to join in 
 external Communion, that it was not lawful 
 to ftay at home ? Could he think that when 
 your Lordiliip was declaring againft any O- 
 bligation to Church Communion, that you 
 meant he ought to join himfelf with fome of 
 the DilTenters ? Had your LordQiip plainly 
 declared that no Chriftian need read any Book 
 in the World, could you confidently with 
 your felf offer any Arguments why he fliould 
 read the Bible ? Yet this is as confiftent as 
 to defire any Perfon to communicate with 
 any Body of Chriftians, after you have plain- 
 ly difown'd any Obligation to external Com- 
 munion. 
 
 Tor whatever Arguments your Lordfliip can 
 offer to 2x\ Abfenter from all Publick Worlhip 
 may be anfwer'd in this manner. " Either 
 
 <' your 
 
( I^*^ ) 
 
 ^^ your Arguments for my joining with any 
 ^^ Chriftians, are invented by your felf, and 
 " of your own making, or they are not ; if 
 *^ they are Fidions of your Lord Ihips, andde- 
 *' ftitute of any Foundation in the Will or Aa- 
 ** thority of God, then they are vain and to 
 *' no Purpofc ; but that all fuch Arguments 
 *^ are mere Fidions and Inventions of your 
 " own, is plain from your Lordfhip's exprefs 
 « Declaration, that you knew of no Autbo- 
 « rtty or any thing to oblige or determine 
 ^ Chriftians to external Communion, \o that 
 " all the Arguments you can offer for my ex- 
 '' ternal Communion are declared by your felf 
 " to be fiich as are of no Attthor'tty^ or have 
 ^ any thing in them to determine me to ex* 
 " ternal Communion. 
 
 And indeed had your Lordfhip firft decla- 
 red that there was no fuch thing as Figure in 
 Bodies^ and then pretended to prove that the 
 World h rounds ic would be no more miracu- 
 lons, than firft to give our, that no Chriftians 
 are obliged to external Communion, and af- 
 teAvards take upon you to perfiiade any one 
 to join himfelf to Ibme Body of Chriftians. 
 Here therefore your Lordlliip has fo preach'd 
 up and advanced this Kingdom of Chrift, that 
 confiftently with your felf, you can t fo much 
 as require any one to be a vifible Member of 
 it, or offer the leaft Shadow of an Argum'ent 
 why an Abfentcr ihould rather go to fome 
 Church, than rruft to his own Religion at 
 
 home. 
 
( 1^7 ) 
 
 home. Your Lordfhip writ a Treatife fomc 
 Years ago on the Reafonablenefs of Conform 
 mity to the Church of England. But pray, 
 my Lord, where is the Reafonablenefs of 
 conforming, if we are under no Obligation to 
 conform ? Where is the Reafonablenefs of do- 
 ing that, which is not our "Duty to do ? 
 Where can be the Reafonablenefs of going 
 two or three Miles to Church for the fake of 
 external Communion, if there be no Attthori- 
 ty^ or any thijig to determine tis to extet nal 
 Communion ? Can it be reafonable to Ipend 
 our Time and fome part of our Wealth in ma- 
 king up liich Meetings, as God has not re- 
 quired at our Hands ? 
 
 Your Lordihip muft therefore either retrad 
 what you have faid, and allow that there is 
 an Authority to oblige us to external Com- 
 munion, or acknowledge that no Chriftiaas 
 are under any Obligations to ferve God in 
 any Communion, but may confine themfelves 
 to a private Religion, feparate from every o- 
 ther Chriftian in the World. That is, that 
 no one is obliged to worlhip God in the pub- 
 lick Affembly, or join with any one elfe ia 
 the Service of God. 
 
 Thirdly ; If there be no Authority to ob- 
 lige us to external Communion^ then iz may 
 well be queftion'd how your Lordihip can an- 
 fwer for your joining in external Communion 
 in the Church of England. Your Lordfliip 
 knows that the Comiounion of the Church of 
 
 England 
 
(1^8) 
 
 England gives great Offence to the Taftfl 
 and Trotejiant Diffenters of all kinds ; how 
 then can your Lordlhip juftify your doing 
 that, which you need not do, which gives io 
 much Scandal to fo many tender ConidtncQS ? 
 Will your Lordlhip be of a Church, though 
 it is this very Church Communion that is fo 
 very ofFenfive? Your Lordlhip knows that 
 the Animofities and Church Divifions amoneft 
 Chriftians is one of the mod fore Evils under 
 the Sun ; that all the Party Heats and Con- 
 troverfies is concerning whom we are to com- 
 municate with, and in Defence of particular 
 external Communions. Now, my Lord, what 
 Ihould that Chriftian do who is all Sincerity^ 
 who believes there is no Obligation to exter- 
 nal Communion, and who kcs that the fre- 
 tended NeceJJity of it , caules a)l the Diffe- 
 rence and Divifion amongfl Chriflians ? Can 
 that Jincere Perlon who believes and knows 
 all this, keep at the Head of a particular 
 Communion ? Can he fupport ib unnecejfary^ 
 fo needlefs an Evil ? Can that Jincere Perfon 
 be a Bijhop in that Communion, which (lands 
 diftinguifli'd from other external Communions, 
 chiefly as it is e^ifcopal Commtinion^ when he 
 allows there is no Neceflity of being in Com- 
 munion either with Bijhop or any body elfe ? 
 Could that Tofe be reckoned Jincere who 
 ihould declare that he knew of no Authority, 
 or any thing to determine him to exercife the 
 /^/^/ Powers, could he be a fincere Chriftian, 
 
 if 
 
( ^^9 ) 
 
 if he yet continued to exercife them to th^ 
 Scandal and Offence of ib many Chriftiaa 
 Countries ? If he could, fo might your Lord- 
 fhip for continuing at the Head of an exter- 
 nal Communion, which divides and difturba 
 Chriftian?, tho' you know of ;;<9 Authority to 
 oblige or any thing to determine yon to this 
 external Communion. 
 
 Surely your Lordlhip will have more Com- 
 pa/Iion at lad for your d'lffenting Brethren^ 
 more Concern for the Peace of ChrilVs King- 
 dom, than to keep up fuch unneccfTary Com- 
 munions, and difturb fo many weak Confcien- 
 ces by joining externally in the Church of 
 England-^ when you know of no Authority 
 or any thing to oblige yon to join with any 
 Body. 
 
 Suppofe the Peace of Great Britain was 
 miferably dcftroy'd by Tarty Rage and Dif- 
 pure about the Stars. Would your Lordiln'p 
 head one Party of Star gazers againft ano- 
 ther ? Would you join your felf to luch a vain 
 and ufclefs Caufe at the Expence of the pub- 
 lick Peace? Now, my Lord, if there be no- 
 thing to oblige us to external Cominunion^ 
 it is all a Trifle -^ and mere Star -gazing ; and 
 a Perfon who appears in the Caule and at the 
 Head of this external Communion, can be no 
 more a Friend to Chriftianicy, by keeping up 
 fuch an unneceflary Caufe of Divifion, than 
 he could be a good SubjecS, who fliould join 
 in the needlefs idle Quarrels of Star-gazing 
 
 Z ' Tarty^ 
 
C 170 ) 
 
 Tarty-men, In a word , if your Lordfliip 
 knows of any thing that obliges you to con- 
 tinue in the Church of England^ you ought 
 hot to have faid that you know of no Atitho- 
 rity to oblige^ or any thing to determine any 
 Chrijlian to external Communion : But if you 
 know of nothing that obhges you to conti- 
 nue in the Church of England^ then you 
 ought rather to leave it, than to bear a part 
 in lb needlefs a Community, and which gives 
 fo much Offence to all thole who diflike the 
 Terms of it. 
 
 Fourthly ; If there be no Authority to ob- 
 lige us to external Communion, how comes 
 there to be fuch a Sin as Schifm ? How comes 
 the Schifmatick^ or Divider of Communions^ 
 to be fo frequently in the Scriptures ranked 
 amongft the moft guilty Offenders ? 
 
 Can it be a Sin to be divided, unlels we are 
 under fome Obligation to be united ? 
 
 It has been always granted that Schifm \^ 
 the Separation of our felves from fuch a Com- 
 munion of Chridians as we ought to havp held 
 Communion with. Now if feparate Worihip 
 from any Chriftians in the World be the Sin 
 of Schifm^ then there muft be fome Law that 
 obliges thofe Schifmaticks to join with thofe 
 Chriftians, from whom they feparate, and 
 confequently there is an Authority which ob- 
 liges Chriftians to external Communion. 
 
 Your Lordfliip muft either ftiew that Schifhi 
 does not confift in refufing to communicate 
 
 with 
 
( 171 ) 
 
 vith fbme Chriftians, or that tho* it be the 
 damnable Sin of Schifm to refqfe Gonimunion 
 with feme Chriftians, yet there is no Autho- 
 rity to obhge us to external Communion with 
 any Chriftians; /. e. that though Schifm be a 
 Sin, yet it is the TranlgrclTion of no Law. 
 
 The Apoftle fays, Mark thofe ^uvho caufe 
 TDivifions contrary to the Traditmis ^H'loich 
 ye have learned of me^ and avoid them. My 
 Lord, what ftrange Language is this, if there 
 is nothing to obhge us to external Communi- 
 on ? If there is no Obligation to be united, 
 why muft they be marked who caufe Di/i- 
 fions? If there be no Authority that requires 
 external Communion at our Hands, why muft 
 thofe Pcrfons be avoided who prevent external 
 Communion ? 
 
 Either the Apoftle or your Lordfliip muft 
 be mightily miftaken ; the Apoftle tells us 
 that 'T)iviJions in the Church are contrary to 
 theDodrine which he had taught, and there- 
 fore there is the expreft Authority of the A- 
 poftle to oblige us to externa! Communion. 
 But your Lordfliip fays there is no Authority 
 to oblige us to this Duty, therefore you muft 
 either maintain that the Apoftle taught no liich 
 Dodtrine, tho' he iaid he had, or that there is 
 no Authority in his Dodlrinc to oblige us. 
 
 I iuppofe, my Lord, that the Apoftle by 
 Divifions here means external vifiblc T)ivl- 
 Jions^ becaule he bids them mark thofe who 
 caufe them, and avoid them ; for invifible 
 
 Z % incernal 
 
C 172 ) 
 
 internal Divifions can no more be mark'd^ or 
 invifible Sdhiimaticks avoided^ than we can 
 mark Peoples Thoughts, or lock out a Sprit, 
 If therefore the Divifion here fpoke of be ex- 
 ternal Divifion, then the Sin here condemned 
 is a Breach of external Communion, and con- 
 fequently we are here required by the Apoftle 
 to join in external Communion ; unlefs we 
 can fuppofe that the Apoftle could condemn 
 thofe who were exterrially divided-, without 
 meaning that they ought to be externally 
 ^united. 
 
 Fifthly ; If there be no Authority to ob- 
 lige us to external Communion, then there is 
 no Authority to oblige us to be baptized. For 
 Baptilm is an external vifible Ordinance of 
 God, which as plainly implies external Com- 
 munion with others, as any Contrad: in the 
 World implies Correfpondence with others. 
 And any Perfon might as well be obliged to 
 bargain and merchandize with others, with- 
 out being obliged to be concerned with q- 
 thers, as be obliged to be baptiz'd, without 
 being obliged to external Communion. 
 
 For as we cannot baptize our felves, this 
 ilievvs that the Chrifrian Religioh is not fuited 
 to the State of fingle independent Perfons, but 
 requires our external Communion to the Per- 
 formance of its Obligations. And as we can- 
 not be baptized by others, but by refigning 
 up our felves to the Obfervance of new Laws, 
 rhis plainly proves that the Perfon is baptized 
 
 into 
 
( 173 ) 
 
 into a State of Society and external Commu- 
 nion. That Baptifm does not leave the bapti- 
 zed Perfon to a feparate independent Wor- 
 Ihip 5 is very plain from the following In- 
 ftances. 
 
 The Church of England-, in the Office for 
 Baptifm, thus expreffes her felf : fVe receive 
 this Terfon into the Congregation of Chriji's 
 
 Flock , &c. Again , Seeing now- This 
 
 Terfon is regenerated and grafted into the 
 Body of Chrifi's Churchy &c. I iliould think 
 it very plain, my Lord, to every Reader, that 
 thefe Paflages fiiew that Baptifm neceflarily 
 implies external Communion, and puts it out 
 of the Power of every baptiz'd Perfon to re- 
 fufe external Communion, unlels he will 
 break through the Conditions of his Baptifiu. 
 For can we be received into the Congrega- 
 tion of Chriji's Flock^ without being obliged 
 to keep up this Congregation, or to perform 
 any Duties or Offices confider'd as a Congre- 
 gation or FJock ? Can we in any Senfe be con- 
 fider'd as a Congregation or a Flock, but in 
 in our* Communion in thofe Offices which 
 fhevv us to be Chrift's Flock ? Can we be faid 
 to be grafted into the Body of Chrift's Church, 
 if we are at liberty never to meet as a Church, 
 or ad: as a Church ? 
 
 The Apoftle fays, for by one Spirit 'we are 
 all baptized into one Body *. What can 
 
 * I Cor. 11. 13. 
 
 more 
 
( 174- ) 
 
 tnore manifeftly denote external Communion, 
 than this Account of Baptifin ? Can we be bap< 
 tiz'd into one Body, and not be obliged to adl 
 as a Body ? Can we aft as a Body, by run- 
 ning away from one another, and refufmg to 
 unite in that Service, into which we are bap- 
 tized ? I luppofe we are here to be confider'd 
 as a Chrijlian Body ; but how a Number of 
 People can be a Chriftian Body, who are 
 not united in Chriftian Worfliip, is hard to 
 conceive. 
 
 When therefore you declare that you know 
 of no Authority to obhge Chriftians to exter- 
 nal Communion, you defert the Doctrines of 
 Chrift, as plainly as if you faid, that you 
 know of no Authority which obliges People 
 to be baptiz'd. 
 
 Sixthly ; If there be no Authority to o^ 
 blige^ nor any thing to determine us to ex- 
 ternal Communion, then there is no Autho- 
 rity to oblige, nor any thing to determine us 
 to communicate in the blefled Sacrament of 
 the Body and Blood of Chrift. For if there 
 is any Law which obliges us to jojq exter- 
 nally in the Obfervance of this Inflitution^ 
 then- it is out of all doubt, that we are oblig'd 
 to external Communion. Now if you will lay 
 that there is no Law of God as to this Mat- 
 ter, then the thing itlelf muft needs be indif- 
 ferent, and private Mafs muft be allowed to 
 be as right and lawful, as a joint Communion 
 m the Holy Sacrament. Either therefore you 
 
 muft 
 
C 175) 
 
 muft defend private Mafsj or fliew fomc Au- 
 thority againft it ; if you can produce any 
 Authority againft it, then you produce an 
 Authority for external Communion, and con- 
 tradid: your other Declaration, where you 
 give out, that you don't know of any thing 
 to determine us to external Communion. 
 
 From all this it plainly appears what ki7id 
 of Authority that is, which obliges us to ex- 
 ternal Communion ; it is that fame Autho- 
 rity which obliges us to be baptis^^a^ to re- 
 ceive the Communion J to profefs the fame' 
 Faith, ro worihip God in the pubhck AfTcm- 
 blics, and to avoid rhe Sin o^ Sch'ifin\ or^ 
 in a word, that fame Authority which obl'i:>^*j 
 us to be Chriftians. 
 
 For all the Offices of Chriftian Woiiiup 
 and Devotion which conjlitiae external Com- 
 munion, are every one exprejjly required by 
 God; and therefore external Communion^ 
 which confifts only of rhefe Offices, is equal- 
 ly required by God. 
 
 And this Authority may be very juftly 
 caird Church Authority^ becaufe it arifes 
 from the very Nnturc of the Churchy becaufe 
 it is the hijllttition of the Church, from 
 whence this Obhgation to Communion arifeth. 
 For Chrift has inftituted this Church in order 
 to oblige Mankind to enter into it for the 
 Salvation of their Souls : As the Church 
 therefore is inftituted for this End, the Exift- 
 ffice of the Church lays an Obligation upon 
 
 all 
 
( I70 
 
 all, who have any Opportunity, of etitering 
 into it ; and this Obligation will laft as long 
 as the Church of Chrift fliall laft. The Ihort 
 is this ; God has inftitutcd an Order or So- 
 ciety of People, for the particular manner of 
 ferving and worlhipping him ; this Society is 
 not a voluntary one, which we may be Mem- 
 bers of, or not, as we pleafe ; but it carries 
 in its very Nature and Injittution an Autho- 
 rity obliging us all, as we hope for Happinefs, 
 to be Members of it ; we are oblig'd to be of 
 the Church, becaule Chrift has injiituted the 
 Church ; therefore it is the Injittution of the 
 Church, which lays us under an Obligation 
 of entering into it ; and this, and no other, 
 is that Church Authority which obliges all 
 People to external Communion. 
 
 Farther ; This may be very properly calFd 
 Church Authority, becaufe it was in the 
 Churchy or that Order of Men, which 
 Chrift had inftituted, before the Scriptures 
 were written. 
 
 When there was only this Order of Men, 
 before the Writings of the New Tejiament 
 were in being, there was then this Authority 
 arifmg from that injiituted Order of Men, 
 which obliged others to enter into Communion 
 with them ; therefore this Authority which 
 began with the Exiftence of the Church, and 
 flow'd from the very Nature of the Church, 
 may very juftly be call'd Church Authority. 
 
 Jf 
 
( 177 ) 
 
 if ic fliould be ask'd whether this Autho- 
 rity be abjolute ; I aniwcr, it is juft as abjo- 
 iutt\ as that Authorii:}': which obhgcs us to 
 be bapciz'd. Our Saviour has told us, that if 
 "we are not baptiz^'d^ we Jhall be daPifid: 
 Here therefore '\% an Authority for Baptifm ; 
 the Scripture has not iaid wheilier this be fo 
 abfoliiteLy obhging, that there is no room in 
 any Cale for a Dijpenlation ; therefore it is 
 no Cafe which concerns us. Now \\i(t Autho- 
 rity which obhgcs us to external Comniunioiu 
 is juft: upon the fwrne Terms ; the thing is as 
 plainly rcquir'd ^s Baptifm -, but whether in 
 any Cafes it will be dilpens'd with, is what 
 we have nothing to do with. If there be a- 
 ny Sincerity^ any JVeaknefs^ any Ignorance^ 
 or the JVaiit of any thing which will excufe 
 thole who refafe to be baptiz'd^ thofe fafne 
 Coufiderations may excufe the Refufal of ^x- 
 ternal Communion with the Church. 
 
 This, my Lord, is the Nature of that 
 Church Authority^ which obhgcs lo external 
 Communion ; it is that very fkme Authority 
 which obliges us to the Profcffion o^ Chrifti- 
 anity^ or to enter into Covenant with God. 
 For he who is Vl\ external Communion with 
 the Church of Chrift, is of the Church of 
 Chrift, or \w Covenant with God ; and he 
 who is not in external Coimminion, is not 
 of the Church of Chrili, nor in Covenant 
 with God ; and coniequently it is that fame 
 Authoiity which obliges U5 to be GhriflianS:* 
 
 A a ct 
 
( 178 ) 
 
 or in Covenant with God, which obliges us 
 to external Communion. 
 
 So that when you fay, you know of no 
 Church Authority to oblige^ or any thing to 
 determine People to external Communion^ it 
 is dircdly faying that you know of no Church 
 Authority to obhge, or any thing to deter- 
 mine them to the TrofeJJion of Chriftianity, 
 or to enter into Covenant with God. 
 
 If your Lordfliip ftiould here fay, that you 
 only meant, you know of no human Autho- 
 rity to oblige People to external Commu- 
 nion, iSc 
 
 To this it may be anfwer'd, that you might 
 as well have meant nothing at all by it, as 
 have meant this. For, 
 
 Firft ; Suppofe the Queftion had been, 
 whether there be any Authority, or what Au- 
 thority it \% which obliges People to be bap- 
 ti^'d\ and that in order to fettle this Point, 
 you had here declar'd, that you know of no 
 Church Atithority to oblige^ or any thing to 
 determine them to be baptiz'd^ but their own 
 Confciences. 
 
 Could it be thought, my Lord, after this, 
 that you had not deny'd all Authority for 
 Baptifm ? Could it be fuppos'd, that by this 
 Declaration , you only meant to deny, that 
 the Authority which obliges us to be baptiz'd, 
 is Human or Civil Authority ? Could any 
 one who only meant thus much exprefe him- 
 felf in this manner ? 
 
 Yet 
 
( ^19 ) 
 
 Yet thus it is that you have expreft'd your 
 felf in theDifpute concerning our Obligations 
 to cxrernal Communion, you k/iow of no 
 Ctmrch Authority to oblige^ or any thing to 
 determine People to it ; which makes it c- 
 qually abfurd to fuppofe, that you only deny 
 that our Obh'gation to external Communion 
 arifes from any human or civil Authority. 
 
 Secondly ; If you only meant to deny an 
 human or civil Authority in this Matter, 
 how came you not to fay fo ? How came 
 you not to tell us what T)ivine or Scrip- 
 ture Authority there is to oblige us ? Is it 
 not as proper and as neceflary in a Difpute 
 about this Authority, to declare the true and 
 right Authority, as to proteft againfl: the 
 wrong Authority ? But indeed nothing can 
 be more trifling than to lay, that you have 
 only deny'd any human or civil Authority in 
 this Matter. 
 
 For, my Lord, whoever imagined that our 
 Obligations to profefs Chriftianity, that is, to 
 be Members of Chrift's Church, could proceed 
 from any human Authority ? Human Autho- 
 rity may and ought to encourage us in the 
 Pradice of our Chriilian Duties ; but that 
 our Obligation to ferve God as Chriftians, 
 that is, in the external Communion of the 
 Church, Ihould arife from any human Autho- 
 rity, can be fuppos'd by none, but thofc 
 who imagine Chriftianity to be a Creature of 
 the State, 
 
 A a i Thirdly ; 
 
( i8o ) 
 
 Thirdly ; You not only fay that you know 
 of no Church Authority to oblige, but alfo 
 add thefe Words, fior any thing to determine 
 Teo^le to external Communion^ hit their 
 oivn Confciences. 
 
 Now, my Lord, if you only meant to de- 
 ny a human Authority in this Matter ; if 
 you intended to own a T>ivine Authority to 
 obHge us to -external Communion ; how come 
 you to exprefs your felf thus contrary to 
 your Meaning ? For if you believe there is 
 a Scripture or "Divine Authority which o- 
 bliges us to external Communion, furely this 
 Authority is fomething^ and has foine Right 
 to determine us to external Communion ; 
 yet you expreffly fay that you don't know 
 of any thing to determine Chriftians to ex- 
 ternal Communion. 
 
 If it was ask'd whether Chriftians are p- 
 blig'd to pray for their Enemies^ and you 
 Jhould anfvver, I don't know any thing to de- 
 termine them to pray for their Enemies ; 
 would it not htNonfenfCj and ContradiBion 
 after this Declaration, to fuppoie, that you ac- 
 knowledge that the Scriptures require Chri- 
 ftians to pray for their Enemies ? 
 
 But to fuppofe, that you acknowledge a 
 divine or Scripture Authority which obliges 
 to external Communion, after you have ex- 
 preffly declar'd that you don't know of any 
 thing to determine us to external Commu- 
 nion, is equally contradidory. 
 
 Laftly; 
 
( i8. ) 
 
 Laftly; You fay you don't know of any 
 thing to determine Chrijtians to external 
 Communion, but their own Confiiences, 
 
 Now this farther fliews that you deny all 
 T>ivine as well as Human Authority to de- 
 termine us to external Communion, For if 
 there was a Divine Law which required this 
 Pra(3:ice, we are no more left folely to our 
 own Confciences in this Pradice, than if it 
 was determin'd by an exprefs human Law. 
 For, 
 
 Can it be faid that the Jews had nothing 
 but their own Confciences to determine them 
 to abjiain from Blood? Can it be laid that 
 Chrijtians have nothing but their own Con- 
 fciences to determine them to receive the 
 Holy Sacrament ? If this cannot be laid, be- 
 caufe there is a Divine Law in both thele 
 Cafes ; then it is as falfe and abfurd to fay, 
 that there is nothing but our own Confci- 
 ences to determine us to external Commu- 
 nion, if there be a "Divine Authority which 
 requires this Practice. And conlequently 
 you have plainly deny'd all "Divine or 
 Scripture Authority for external Communion, 
 when you fay that you don't know of any 
 thing to determine People to external Com- 
 munion^ but their own Confciences. The 
 lliort is this ; if you will fay, that you own 
 a Divine and Scripture Authority which o- 
 bliges us to external Communion; and if you 
 *vill allov/ this Authority to be fomething, 
 
 then 
 
( 182 ) 
 
 then your Contradidion in this Matter is a« 
 palpable and grols as ever appear'd in any Wri- 
 tings; for you have expreflly faid, that you 
 don't know of any thing to determine us to 
 external Communion : But if you own a Scri- 
 pture Authority that obliges us to external 
 Communion , then your Contradid:ion pro- 
 ceeds thus, that you do know o? fome things 
 but you don't know of any thing to deter- 
 mine us tO' external Communion. If you will 
 not affert both Parts of this Contradidion, 
 then you muft (land to that which you have 
 afTerted, vi:^^. that you don't know oi' any 
 thing to determine us to external Commu- 
 nion, which I have already flievvn, is the 
 fame thing as declaring, you know of no Au- 
 thority, or any thing to determine People to 
 profels Chriftianity, or enter into Covenant 
 with God. But to proceed, 
 
 If you fliould fay that you don't deny an 
 Authority that obliges us to external Commu- 
 nion in general^ but only an Authority that 
 can oblige us to zny particular external Com- 
 munion. 
 
 To this I anfwer, that this is a groundleft, 
 falfe Diftindtion ; for our Obligation to exter- 
 nal Communion with the Church of Chrift in 
 general^ and our Obligation to external Com- 
 munion with this or that particular Church, 
 is exadlly one and the fame Obligation. 
 
 For we are not obliged to join with this or 
 xki2iX. particular Church, for zny private, par- 
 ticular 
 
'{ i83 ) 
 
 ticular Reafons, but becaufe we arc obliged 
 to be Chridians, or of the Church of Chrift. 
 And as no Ibund part of Chrift's Church, is 
 more his Church than another found parr, fo 
 if we feparare from any found part we are as 
 truly out of Chrift's Church, as if we had ft- 
 parated from every part. And we can give 
 no Reafons for feparating from fuch a part, 
 but fuch as will equally juflify our feparating 
 from every part of Chrift's Church ; and con- 
 lequently there can be no Realbns ofFer'd why 
 we iliould be Chriftians, or of the Church of 
 Chrift, but will equally oblige us to enter in- 
 to that particular part of Chrift's Church which 
 offers itfelf t6 us. For the whole Intent of 
 entering into this or that particular Church, 
 is only to be a Chriftian, or of the Church of 
 Chrift, and therefore '\i niiuft be one and the 
 lame Authority which obliges us to be Chri- 
 ftians, that obliges us aJfo to be of any f ar- 
 ticular Church. 
 
 There is a Scripture AuthorityyN)\\(:!t\o\>\\^^% 
 us to forgive our Enemies : Now it would be 
 as proper to fay, that though there is an Au- 
 thority which obliges us to forgive our Ene- 
 mies in general^ yet that Authority does not 
 cblige us to forgive our particular Ene- 
 mies, as to fay, that though we are obliged 
 to be of the Church of Chrift in general^ yet 
 we are not obliged to be of this or that par- 
 ticular part of Chrift's Church. 
 
 For 
 
{ i8+) 
 
 For the Church of Chrift in general;^ as trd- 
 ly confifts of thefe particular Tarts^ as our 
 Enemies m genera ly confift oi our particular 
 Enemies. 
 
 So that, as it is one and the fame Authori- 
 ty which obHges us to forgive our Enemies 
 that obHges us to forgive om particular Ene- 
 mies, fo it is one and the fame Authority that 
 obHges us to be Chriftians^ that obHges us 
 alfo to communicate with that particular 
 found part of Chrift's Church where we live. 
 
 There is therefore no room for this Diftin- 
 (Slion, to fuppofe, that though we may be ob- 
 liged to be of Chrift's Church, yet we are not 
 obHged to be of this or that /^ma//^r found 
 part of Chrift's Church ; it being fully as ab- 
 iurd as to fuppofe, that we may be obliged to 
 be Chriftians, and yet not be obliged to be 
 Chriftians. 
 
 When therefore you declare, that you know 
 of no Church Authority to oblige, or any 
 thing to determine us to external Commu- 
 nion^ it will be to no purpofe to fay, that 
 you don't mean Communion with the Church 
 of Chrift in general^ but only with any par- 
 ticular part of Chrift's Church ; for I have 
 Ihewn that this' Diftindion is falfe^ and fully 
 as abfurdy as to imagine, that we may be ob- 
 liged to obey Chrift's Commands in general^ 
 but not be obliged to obey his particular 
 Commands. 
 
 From 
 
( '85 ) 
 
 From what has been laid upon this Sub- 
 ject:, rhefe following Propoficions arc plainly 
 true : 
 
 Firfl: ; Thar as our cnrering inro any parri- 
 cuiar parr of rhe Church, implies our cnrering 
 inro rhe Church of Chrill, or in orherWords^ 
 our embracing Chriftianicy ; ir evidenrly fol-! 
 lows, rhar rhe /^/W^? Aurhoriry which requires 
 us ro embrace Cbrifliamty^ requires us alfo ro 
 enter into that found /^n' of Chrilt's Church 
 where vvc \\s(t. 
 
 Secondly; That this Authority does noc 
 arife from any human Laws, or the Power 
 which any Men in what Station foever have 
 over others, but is rhe Authority of God j 
 who has inftituted this Church, in order ro 
 oblige all Mankind ro enter into it. 
 
 Thirdly; That this Aurhoriry from GocJ^ 
 may be .very properly call'd Church Authori- 
 ty^ becaufe God manifefted rhis Authority to 
 the World by the Inflitiition of the Church, 
 becaufe it began with the Church, and flowed 
 from its very Narure ; Mankind being there- 
 fore obliged to enter into this Church, be- 
 caufe there was fuch a Church injtiiuted by 
 God. 
 
 Fourthly ; That this Account does not in 
 the Icafl make it either unjuff or improper^ 
 in owv fpirituat ov temporal GoycvnourSy to. 
 make Laws for our Conformity ro this or 
 that part of Chrift's Church; for rhough tlie 
 Authority w^hich makes it ncceflary that we 
 
 R b iliould 
 
( i8^ ) 
 
 fhould enter into Ibch a part of ChriR's 
 Church is from God, yet this no more ex- 
 cludes our Govei nours from requiring the fame 
 thhig by their Laws^ than they are excluded 
 from requiring us to oblerve any mordlT>u- 
 tics^ becaule the fame moraI'Diittes are made 
 necclTary by the Authority of God. And as 
 our Viobtion of any moral T>tities that arc 
 commanded, both by Divine and Human 
 Laws, receives an higher Aggravation, lb the 
 Guilt of oppofing any iound part of Chrift's 
 Church is enhanc'd, by our breaking through 
 the Laws both of God and Man. 
 
 Fifthly ; From this Account of the Autho- 
 rity which obliges us to external Communion, 
 it will be very eafy to diicover the JVeaknefs 
 and Fallacy of feveral of your Lordfliip's Ar- 
 guments upon this Matter. 
 
 Thus when you fay, It is evident that 
 there is no Choice of Judgment left to Chri- 
 JtiaJiSj where there is a fiiperior Authority 
 
 to oblige them\ that in Italy, or Spain, 
 
 or France, they are as much obliged by the 
 Chtirch Authority in Italy, Spain, or France, 
 as Chrijlians in England are obliged to a par- 
 ticular external Communion in England, by 
 any human Authority as fuch ifi England *. 
 
 Now, my Lord, what could you have 
 thought of lefs to the Purpofe, than thefe 
 Words thus put together ? For does any one 
 
 * Anfw. to Repr. p. 115. 
 
 fay, 
 
C 187 ) 
 
 lay, that our Obligarion co be of the Church 
 of England, ariles from any human Authority, 
 as fuch, in England'^ No, my Lord, x'i human 
 Auchoriry ihould not only defert rhe Church, 
 but make the fcverefl: Laws againfl: it, yet we 
 Ihould be ftill under the iirnc Necelliry of 
 communicating with it; bccaufe that NecciTi- 
 ty is mdepcndcnt ot human Laws, is I'oundcd 
 upon the Authority ot^ God, and conftantly 
 obliges in rhe Jlime TDegree^ let the Laws of 
 the State be what they will. 
 
 Granting therefore, my Lord, that the /??«- 
 j;?^;/ Authority, as Juch^ in France or S fain ^ 
 obliges the People of [thole Kingdoms to con- 
 form to thofe Churches, as truly as the Laws 
 of England oblige the People of England to 
 conform to the Church of England. What 
 follows ? Does it follow that therefore the 
 People of France or Sfain are as truly ob- 
 liged to ComiTiunion with rhe Church in thofe 
 Kingdoms, as the People o^ England are ob- 
 liged ro Communion with the Church in Eng- 
 land? No, this will by no means follow; for 
 fmce we liiould hold the fame Neceffity of 
 joining with the Epifcopal Church in Eng- 
 landj though all the human Laws in England 
 lliould forbid us, fmce we allow only an ac- 
 cidental and conditional Authority in humajt 
 Laws as they eftablifli any particular Reli- 
 gion, it follows, that in France and Spain^ &c. 
 they ought to pay the fame regard to human 
 Laws, and no more continue in their Church 
 B b i becauiii 
 
C i88 ) 
 
 becaufe it is cjiablljlfd^ than we ought to 
 leave our Church though it was perfccuttd. 
 The fliort is tlris: 
 
 The Omrch Authority which obliges us to 
 externa! Communion with zny particular pait 
 ef Chrifl's Church, is that fame divine Autho- 
 ricy which calls upon us to be baptiz:\i^ and 
 enrer into Covenant with God. 
 
 Now if human Laws, whether of Church 
 or State^ flrike in with this Authority, then 
 they oblige us , as they do in other Caies, 
 where they require us to do that, which the 
 Laws of God required before; but if human 
 LaW'S, whether of Church or State^ require 
 us to enter into fuch a Communion, as hath 
 nor the Authority of Chrift for it, or forbid 
 our joining with fuch a Communion as is a 
 true part of Chrift's Church, fuch Laws are 
 no more to be obferv'd, than if they had e- 
 ftablilh'd Idolatry^ or forbid the Worlbip of 
 the trfie God. For human Laws are not iup- 
 pofed to make it ourT)uty to enter into fuch 
 a Communion J but are apply 'd as proper 
 means to induce us to do that, which the 
 Laws of God had made it our T)uty to do 
 before. And it is undeniably tiue, that tho' 
 there Ihould be ever fo many human Laws to 
 command us to enter into any particular Com- 
 munion, that we muit not comply with fuch 
 Law- J unlefs it be in regard lo fuch a Com- 
 munion, as it was our T)uty to enter into, 
 tho^ no fuch human Laws were in being. 
 
 So 
 
( '8? ) 
 
 So that human Laws create no NeceJJity of 
 external Communion, any more than they 
 create the NeceJJity of praying to God ; but 
 they m'ay be apply'd as very proper means to 
 induce People to perform the "Duty of exter- 
 nal Communion, and to perform the Duty of 
 'Trayer to God. 
 
 The Qucftion therefore in any Country is 
 not this, whether the Laws either of their 
 Church or State require us to enter into fiich 
 a Communion, but whether it be Jiich a Com- 
 munion, as it would be our T>uty to enter 
 into, were there no human Laws to enjoin 
 it, whether it be a part of Chrift's Church, 
 which we are obh'ged to enter into on Pain 
 of everlafting Damnation. 
 
 When therefore you (ay, if the People of 
 England are obliged by an hitman Authority, 
 as Juch^ to enter into the Church of Eng- 
 land^ then the People of France^ Spam and 
 Italy^ are as truly obh'ged by the human Au- 
 thority there to enter into thofe particular 
 Communions ; you fay exceedingly true, but 
 so no more purpofe, than if you had made 
 the following Declaration. 
 
 If the People of England are oblig'd to 
 cnrer into Communion with the Church of 
 England hy ^\\y Military kwihonty^ as fuch-^ 
 then the People o^ France^ Spain^ and Italy\ 
 are oblig'd to Communion with the Churches 
 in Spain, France, and Italy^ by the Alili- 
 tary Authority, as fuch, in Spain, France, 
 and Italy, This, 
 
( I90 ) 
 
 This, my Lord, is as much to the Purpofe 
 as what you have faid ; for our Obligation 
 to enter into a particular Part of Chrift's 
 Church, is no more founded in any human 
 Laws, as Juch^ than in any Military Autho- 
 rity, as filch '^ but is founded in the Wiil of 
 God, who has infticured the Church on Ecirrh, 
 and made our Salvation depend upon our En- 
 trance into it. This is the Authority which 
 objiges, this is the Necejjity which lies upon 
 us, to enter into any Pare of ChrilVs Church. 
 
 If therefore you would Ihew, that in Spaiii<^ 
 or France^ &c. they arc under the fame Ne- 
 cefjity of being of the Cliurch in thofe King- 
 doms, which the People of England are of 
 being Members of the EptfcoPal Church in 
 Emjand\ you oughi to ihew that the £//<?- 
 bliji/d Church in SpaiUj or in Fraiice^ is as 
 truly a found Part of the Church of Chrift, 
 as the EflablijVd Church in England is a 
 found Part of the Church of Chrift ; uid that 
 the way of Worihip there ^ is as certainly 
 that necejfary Method of Salvation which 
 Chrift has infiitutedy as the way of Worihip 
 in the Church of England, is that necejfary 
 Method of Salvation which Chrift has in- 
 ftitured. 
 
 For this is the only Autho'^^tty or Neceffity 
 which obliges us to ':nrcr into any Church, 
 in any Part of the World ; namely, a Necef- 
 fity of being Chriftians, by entering into that 
 Church which Chrift has inftituted ; fo that 
 
 if 
 
( 191 ) 
 
 if this fame Church be in Sfa'tn^ and France^ 
 and England^ then there is an equal No- 
 ceinty of being of the Church in each 
 Kingdom ; but if the Church in Spain be 
 not'the Church which Chrift has injiitutedy 
 and the Church in England be that Church 
 which Chrifl: has injtttnted^ then there is as 
 great a Ntceffity of refujing to communicate 
 with the Church in Spaniy as of joining in 
 Communion with the Church oi England, 
 
 This therefore being the Nature of i\it Ati- 
 thority or NeceJJity which obhges to external 
 Communion, nothing can be more trifling, 
 than to argue from the NeceJJity of comply- 
 ing with the Church in ^;/^ Kingdom, to a 
 NeceJJity of complying with the Church in 
 all other Kingdoms ; wnlels you could demon- 
 jirate^ that becaufe the EJlablijh'd Church in 
 one Kingdom is the true Church of Chrift, 
 therefore the EJiabliJlod Church in every o- 
 rZ^^'r Kingdom is the true Church of Chrift. 
 
 Yet your Lordihip has fpent a great many 
 Pages in declaiming againft any Authority or 
 NeceJJity which can oblige People to com- 
 municate with the Church of England-^ be- 
 caufe then there would be the fame NeceJJity 
 that the People of Spain ^ and France,, and 
 Italy^ fliould communicate with the Church 
 in thofe Kingdoms But I hope the moft or- 
 dinary Reader vvill be able to tell your Lord- 
 fliip, that there is no more good Sen Je^ much 
 kis T>ivinityy in this way of inftru(51:ing the 
 
 World, 
 
( 1^2 ) 
 
 World, than if you had faid, there is no Ne- 
 cejjity that the People of England fliould be- 
 lieve things w hich are true^ becaule then the 
 People o'tSpain will be under xht fame Nee effi- 
 ty of believing things which are falfe ; and 
 again, that there is no NeceJJity that in this 
 Kingdom we iliould comply with goodLai^s^ 
 becaufe in ^r^^r Kingdoms People will be un- 
 der the fmne Necejfity of complying with 
 wicked Laws. 
 
 But to conclude this Point ; I have here 
 ftated the Nature of that Author tty or Necef- 
 fity which obliges us to external Communion, 
 that it does not arife from the La^jus of any 
 Men, whether in Church or State^ but from 
 the Will and Authority of Chrifl:, who has in- 
 ftituted fuch external Communion, as a necef- 
 fary Method of Salvation. 
 
 I have fliewn alfo, that human Laws^ tho' 
 they, as fiich^ do not creare a Neceffity of 
 external Com.munion, yet they have a very 
 proper Significancy^ and are as ufeful in this 
 Matter, as in any other Parts of our Duty. 
 
 Of 
 
( 1^3 ) 
 
 Of Sincerity and Private Jndgrrient. 
 
 F ycu fliould here fay, that by de- 
 nying theNecefTity of external Com- 
 munion to arile from htimari Laws, 
 as fuch, I have reiblved the Choice 
 of a parcicular Communion into private 
 Judgment. 
 
 To this I anfv\^er ; 
 
 Firft ; That by entering into any farttcu^ 
 lar Communion^ we are to underftand the 
 fame thing as entering into the Church of 
 Chrtji^ or embracing the Religion which 
 Chrift has tjijiituted. 
 
 Secondly ; That when Chrift came into the 
 World, People were left to their choice whe- 
 ther they would embrace Chriftianity. 
 
 Thirdly ; That Chriftianity is ftill upoa 
 the fame Terms with Mankind, and ic is ftili 
 left to every one's private Judgment, whe- 
 ther he will comply with the Terms of Sal- 
 vation. 
 
 Fourthly ; That this does not deftroy the 
 Force and Obligations of Authority, or make 
 it without any EfFedt upon the Condition of 
 Men. For it does by no means follow, that 
 there is no Authority^ or that there are no 
 Effects to be fear'd from fuch Authority, be- 
 
 C c cauie 
 
( 194 ) 
 
 canfc Men may difowii it if tliey pleafe. For 
 to lay there is nothing in Authority, that it 
 is infigiiificanr and without any Ejfel^ upon 
 the Condition of Men, if they may ufe their 
 frivrJe Judgments ; is as ridiculous as to 
 fay, there is nothing in the Happinels of 
 Heaven y or Torments of //<?//; that they 
 can have no Effect upon the Condition of 
 Men, becaufe Men m^y judge of thcle things 
 as they pleale. 
 
 Fifthly ; There is a Choice of Judgment 
 left to us in every Part of our Duty ; 
 Whether we uill believe a God, 
 Whether we will worlhip him, 
 Whether we will believe in Jejiis Chrijt^ 
 Whether we will acknowledge a World to 
 come. 
 
 Whether we will believe there is fuch a 
 Place as Hell. 
 
 And now, my Lord, is there no Authority 
 for thefe things, becaufe we are not forc'd to 
 believe them againfl: our Judgments ? Have 
 thofe who refus'd to believe in Chrift, no- 
 thing to fear from his Authority^ becaufe he 
 appeal'd to their Reafon^ and left them to de- 
 termine for themlelves ? Is there no Autho- 
 rity for the Torments oi Hell, or nothing to 
 be fear'd from that Authority by thofe who 
 deny there is any fuch Place. 
 
 Now if there can be an Authority in thefe 
 Matters, tho' the Ufe oi private Judgment: 
 is a!!o\vM in thefe fame Matters, if this Au- 
 thority 
 
( i9S ) 
 
 rfioriry will condemn chofc who ad:ed con- 
 trary to it; then it is certain that there may 
 be an Authority ox: Neccjjity which obliges us 
 to be of liich a particular Religion, tho' the 
 Exercife of our private Judgment is allowed \\\ 
 the Choice of our Religion ; and that we 
 may have as much to fear from a(3:ing con- 
 trary to fuch Authority^ tho' by following 
 our own Opinions, as they have who adt 
 contrary to the Will of God in any other Re- 
 ipedr, tho' by following their own Opinions. 
 
 So that 2in Ant h or ity or Nee ejjltywhxch obli- 
 ges us to be of this or that particular Commu- 
 Tiion^ that is, particular Religion, is as con- 
 fident with the Exercife oi private Judg- 
 ment^ as the NecefTity of believing a God, 
 and worfliipping him, is confident with the 
 Exercife of our private Judgment. 
 
 And if you will fay, there is an end of all 
 Authority, if Men may chufe one Commu- 
 nion before another ; you mud alfo fay, that 
 if Men might confider whether they fliould fol- 
 low Chrift, then there w.as an end of all Au- 
 thority in Chrift over them. 
 
 And again ; If Men may reafon and con- 
 fider whether there be a God, or Providence, 
 then there is an end of all Neceffity of be- 
 lieving either a God, or Providence. 
 
 If they may conjider whether the Scriptures 
 
 are the tVord of God, or any particular Do- 
 
 dirines be contained in Scripture, then there 
 
 is an end of all NeceJJity of believing the 
 
 C c X Scriptures 
 
( 19^ ) 
 
 Scriptures to be the IVord of God, or of be- 
 lieving any particular Dodtrines to be con- 
 tain'd in Scripture. 
 
 If they may confider and examine whether 
 any particular Religion comes from God, 
 then there is an end of all NeceJJUy of recei- 
 ving any particular Rehgion from God. 
 
 All this Reafoning is kill as juft, as to con- 
 clude that there is an end of all Authority to 
 oblige T.^eople to any particular Communion, 
 if they may confider the Excellency of one 
 Communion above another, which is what 
 you over and over declare. 
 
 Now, my Lord, let us fuppofe, that the 
 Queftion was, whether it be neccffary to be- 
 lieve the Scriptures to be the Word of God : 
 Would it nor become every honeft Man not 
 only to aflcrt this Neceffity^ but to fliew 
 wherein it is founded, and explain to every 
 one that Authority which calls upon us to re- 
 ceive the Scriptures as the Word of God, and 
 which will rile up in Judgment againft us, if 
 neglc<5led. 
 
 And what might we not juftly think of 
 him, who, inftead of fliewing the Authority 
 or Neceffity which obliges us to receive the 
 Scriptures as the Word of God , fliould deli- 
 ver himfelf in this manner ? 
 
 " You are Reafoning whether there be a- 
 ^'^ ny Authority or Neceffity which obliges 
 " you to receive x.]\q Scriptures as the Word 
 " of God. Whereas your very Reafoning 
 
 " upon 
 
cc 
 
 ( i91 ) 
 
 Upon this Matter, flicws there is no NcceP 
 '*^ ficy or Authority to which you arc obliged 
 " to lubmit. For fincc you are allow'd to 
 " realon and enquire whether this be necef- 
 '^ fary, it is certain, there's au endof all Au- 
 *' thority or NcceflTity to oblige you to rc- 
 ^' ccive the Scriptures as the ff^ord o[ God; 
 " and if you do but fincerely follow your 
 *' own private Perfuafions, you are entitled 
 " to the fame Degrees of God's Favour, whe- 
 *' ther you receive the Scriptures as his Word 
 ^' or not. 
 
 Now, my Lord, thus it is that you have 
 inftruded the World in relation to the Au- 
 thority which obliges us to external Commu- 
 nion. 
 
 The Queftion is, whether there be anyAu- 
 thority which obliges us to any particular 
 external Communion. 
 
 Now, my Lord, w^hat has any one to do in 
 this Difpute, but to ftew whether Chrift has 
 inftituted external Communion, or not ? For 
 on this alone mult the Neceffity of it depend. 
 And if it appears that external Communion 
 be infticuted by our Saviour as a Method of 
 Salvation, then it will follow that we are un- 
 der a Neceffity^ as we hope for Salvation, of 
 being in that particular Method or Manner 
 of external Communion, which Chrift has in- 
 ftituted ; fo that unlefs it can be flieW' n that 
 all pretended Chriftian Communions, arc as 
 truly that Method^ or particular Communion 
 
 which 
 
( 198 ) 
 
 which Chrifl has inftituted, as any other 
 Communion is ; it muft be as neceflary to 
 be in fbme 07te f articular Communion, as 
 'tis neceflary to obey Chrifl ; and as dange- 
 rous to join in fome other Communions, as 
 'tis dangerous to defpife his Authority. 
 
 But now your Lordlhip, inftead of confi- 
 dering what external Communion is injiituted^ 
 and what NeceJJity arifes from fuch Injlttu- 
 tion^ or where we may find fuch external 
 Communion , amongft the many pretended 
 Chriftian Communions, has wholly pafs'd o- 
 ver this Point, and determined the Qucftion, 
 by telHng us, that fince we are allow'd the 
 Ufc of our Rcafon in the Choice of Religion, 
 it matters not \v\\2iX. Authority we oppole ei- 
 ther of God or Man, and that there can be 
 no NeceJJity of our being of any particular 
 Communion, but where our private Judgment 
 jincerely dire<3:s us. 
 
 Thus you fay ; If the Excellency of one 
 Communion above another may be regarded^ 
 then there is an end of all human Authority 
 to oblige us to one particular external Com- 
 munion *. And to fliew that you can as ea- 
 fily deftroy all T)ivine Authority or Necefllty 
 of any particular Communion^ or Religion, 
 yon tell us, that our Title to God's Favour 
 cannot depend upon our a6iual being or con- 
 tinuing in any particular Method, but upon 
 
 * An[vu. to Kepr. p. 115. 
 
 our 
 
{^99) 
 
 our real Sincerity *.^ So that here the Since- 
 rity of private Judgment as- cffcdually dc- 
 ftroys all divine Authority and NeceJJity of 
 any particular Communion or Religion, as it 
 dcttroys that which is human ; and we arc 
 rendered as ha[>py and as high in the Favour 
 of God for breaking his Laws, as if we had 
 obferved them. 
 
 For here it is proved that there is no Ne- 
 ceJJity of any particular Communion or Reli- 
 gion, not becaufe there is none injiituted by 
 God, but becaufe, whether inftituted or not, 
 OUT JincereTerJiiaJion will equally juftify us, 
 whether it complies with or oppofes fuch In- 
 ftitution. 
 
 But to proceed. 
 
 I lliall now Ihew how this Dodrine of 
 yours of Sincerity expofes all the Terms of 
 Salvation as deliver'd in Scripture. 
 
 In the Scripture we find that Baptijm is 
 made a Term of Salvation ; but if Sincerity 
 without Baptifm be as certain a Title to the 
 Favour of God, as Sincerity with Baptifm, 
 then it is plain, that not to be baftiz'd, is as 
 much a Condition or Term of Salvation, as 
 Baptijm is a Term of Salvation. For, if 
 Baptifm with Sincerity, was more a Term or 
 Condition of God's Favour, than no Baptijm 
 with Sincerity, then it is certain that it is not 
 Sincerity alone that procures the Favour of 
 
 Prefer'v. p. 90. 
 
 God 
 
( 200 ) 
 
 God : And it is as certain, that if Sincerity 
 alone procures us the Favour of God, then 
 Baptifm is no more a Term of Salvation, than 
 the Refiifil of Baptlfin is a Term of Salva- 
 tion. So that this Do6trine makes Ba^tifm 
 and the Refufiil of Baptilm either equally 
 Terms^ or equally no Terms of Salvation ; e- 
 qually advantagious j or equally infignifi- 
 ca7it. 
 
 When therefore our BlefTed Saviour fays, 
 that except we are baptized we cannot enter 
 into the Kingdom of God*, and he that \% nor 
 baptized lliall be damned-, according to this 
 Dodrine of yours, we may alfo fay juft the 
 contrary, that except we refufe Bapcifm we 
 cannot enter into the Kingdom of God; and 
 he that is baptized Ihall be damned. 
 
 This, my Lord, is very Ihocking ; but I 
 fliall eafily Ihew that thele AfTertions are as 
 proper and OiSJiift-, as the contrary AfTertions, 
 if yourDodrine of Sincerity be right. 
 
 For, fmce your Dodrine puts the fincere 
 Acceptance and the fincere Refufal of Bap- 
 tifm upon the fame Foot as to the Favour of 
 God, there can be no more Danger in fincere- 
 ly refttfing Baptifm, than in fincerely accept- 
 ing of Baptilm. Now if there is no more 
 Danger in the one Pradice than in the other ^ 
 it mufl be plain to the moft ordinary Under- 
 ftanding, that it is asyV^ 2Xi^ proper to de- 
 
 * '^oh. 3. 3. 
 
 dare 
 
{ 201 ) 
 
 dare ojie Pradicc dangerous as the othe?^ ; 
 that is, it muft be as proper to lay, he that is 
 baptized Ihall be damndy as to lay, he that is 
 not baptized Ihall be datmtd. 
 
 Now I know your Lordfliip cannot-) upon 
 thefe Principles, ilievv, that is more dange- 
 rous to refttfi Baptifm fincerely, than to re- 
 ceive Baptilm fincerely ; and io long as this i^ 
 granted, you mud allow that it is as jufl: to fix 
 danger upon Baptifm itfclf^ as upon t\\Q'u;ant 
 of Baptilm. And conicqucnrly all your Rea- 
 ibnings upon this Suhjcd: are one continued 
 Ceniure upon our Blefled Saviour's Dodlrine in 
 relation to Baptifm, which according to your 
 Notions, is only as jufi and pro^er\ as the 
 quite contrary would have been. 
 
 Again, our Saviour tells us, that except isje 
 edt the Flejh of the Son of Alaiiy and drink 
 his Bloody we have no Life in us*. 
 
 Here we lee the eating the Flcfh and drink- 
 ing the Blood of the Son of Man is an //{/?/- 
 tutedTernf. of Salvation, and infiftcd upon by 
 our Saviour ; but if your Dodlrine be true, we 
 may as well declare the contrary to be a Term 
 of Salvation, and fay, except we fiiicerely 
 refufe to eat the Flejh and drink the Blood 
 of the Son of Man ^ we have no Life in tts. 
 
 For, my Lord, if Sincerity in refnfing to' 
 eat this Flelh, be the fame Titk to God's Fa- 
 vour that the eating of '\t with Sincerity is. 
 
 D d it 
 
( 202 ) 
 
 it is plain, there is no more Advantage in eat* 
 ifigj than in not eating ; and conlequently it 
 \s as well to fay, that except \\t forbear eat- 
 ing the F!elh of the Son of Man we have no 
 Life in us, as to fay, that except we eat the 
 Flefli of the Son of Man we have no Life in 
 us, there being plainly from this Dodtrine, no 
 more Danger in forbearing to eat , than in 
 eatings nor any more Nccc/Tity of eating, 
 than of forbearing to eat, fince both thefe 
 Pra(3:ices are equally good and advantagiom 
 with Sincerity^ and equally bad and infignifi- 
 cant without it. 
 
 And now, my Lord, let the World judge, 
 whether you could have thought of Dodbrine 
 more contradi^iory to the exprels Words of 
 our Saviour, and all the injiituted Terms of 
 Salvation, than this of yours about Sincerity, 
 which makes it no more necejfary to obferve 
 the iftjtituted Terms of Salvation, than to 
 break them ; and which alfo makes it as pro- 
 per, to declare it as dangerous to obferve liich 
 Inftitutions, as to reject them. This I have 
 Ihewn particularly inBaptifm, where yourDo- 
 <3:rine makes it as proper to iay, he that is 
 baptized fliall be damn'd^ as to fay, that he 
 who is not baptized fhall he damn' d-^ and in 
 the fame manner does it contradid: and con- 
 found the Scriptures, and make the contrary 
 to every Infiitution as much a Means of Sal- 
 vation, as the Infiitution itfdf 
 
 Your 
 
( 203 ) 
 
 Your Lordfliip has given iis a T>e7notiJIr/g< 
 tmtj as you call ir, tliac your Docflrine of 
 Sincerity aid private Terfnafion is right. 
 
 Thus you ask .- IFhat is it that jujUfyd 
 
 the Vrotejiatits in fetting ftp their O'-Jiit 
 
 Bijhops ? TV as it, that the Topijh T>ot{rincs 
 
 "Ji^ere a^fnally corrupt, or that the 'Prote- 
 
 Jiants were ferfuaded in their own Confci- 
 
 ences, that they were fo ? The latter with- 
 
 out doubt. And then conies your "Demon- 
 
 Jiration, in this manner; take away from 
 
 them this Terfuajion, and they are fo far 
 
 from being jnjtified, that they are condemned 
 
 for their Departure ; give them this Ter- 
 
 fiia/ion again, they are- condemn' d if they do 
 
 not feparate *. 
 
 You want to be fliewn the Fallacy in this 
 Demonftration, which I hope I fliall lliew to 
 your Satisfaction. 
 
 It is granted, that Corruption in Rehgion 
 is no Jtiftification of thofe who leave ir, un- 
 lefs they arc perfuaded of that Corruption. 
 
 It is alfo granted, that they who arc fully 
 perfuaded that a Religion \sfinful, areoblig'd 
 to feparate from it, -though it ihould nor be 
 finful. But then it does by no means fol- 
 low, that they who leave a trne Religion, and 
 they who leave a falfe Religion, through 
 their particular Perfuafions, arc equally J^ujii- 
 
 Prefer, p. S5. Arifvj. to Rel>. p, 103. 
 
 Pd X fed, 
 
( 204 ) 
 
 fied^ or have an equal Tide to the fame de- 
 gree of God's Favour. 
 
 Here lies the great Fallacy in this Argu- 
 ment, that you ufe the fame Word (viz. ju- 
 jitfied) in relation to both thefe People in the 
 very fame Senfe\ whereas if they ^xq jujti- 
 fedy (if this Word mud be ufed) it is in a ve- 
 ry different Senfe and different Meafure^ and 
 are not entitled to the fame T)egree of God's 
 Favour. Now, a Fallacy in this Point deftroys 
 the whole Demonftration , for the Queftion 
 wholly turns upon this Tointj whether they 
 who are flncere in a true Religion, and they 
 who are fincere in a falfe Religion, are equals 
 ly juflified and entitled to the fame 'Degrees 
 of God's Favour. 
 
 This very Thing was objedred to you by. 
 the learned Committee^ who faid, that an er- 
 roneous Confcience was nevery till now, aU 
 iowd wholly to jujiify Men in their Er- 
 rors *. 
 
 To which you have no better Anfwer to 
 make than this, That it mujt either jtifify 
 them or not juftify them. It mtift either 
 VjhoWy jufijy them^ or not juftify them at 
 all f . 
 
 My Lord, I fuppofe a Man is juftify'd by 
 his living fiber ly^ right eoufly and godlily in 
 this prefent World, I ask therefore, does his 
 
 * Ke^. p. 7. \ Anfw. to Rep. p. 9 J. 
 
 living 
 
( 205 ) 
 
 livipg foherly juftify him wholly, or does it 
 not juftify him at all? If it juftifies him 
 wholly^ thea there is no occafion of his living 
 rtghteonjly and godlily ; if it does not juftify 
 him at all, then there is no need of his living 
 foberly. 
 
 Your Anfvver to the Committee has juft as 
 much Senfe or ^Divinity in ir, as there is in 
 this Argument. 
 
 Here I muft defire, that it may be obferv'd, 
 that the Qiieftion is, not whether Sincerity 
 in any Religion, does not recommend us to 
 the Favour of God, but whether we are en- 
 titled to the fame "Degrees of God's Favour, 
 whether we are fiocere in a true or falfe 
 way of Worfliip. 
 
 I fliall therefore farther confider this 
 Point. 
 
 Firft ; If true and right Religion hath a- 
 ny thing in its own Nature to recommend us 
 to God, then Sincerity in this true and right 
 Religion muft recommend us more to God, 
 than Sincerity in a falfe and wrong Religi- 
 on ; becaufe we have a Recommendation 
 from our Religion^ as well as from our Sin- 
 cerity in it. For inftance ; if it be in any 
 Degree in the World more acceptable to God, 
 that we fhould follow Cbrift ^ than Maho- 
 met ^ our Sincerity in following Chrijl muft 
 recommend us to jufty^ much more of God's 
 Favour, than our Sincerity in following Ma- 
 homet ; as it is more acceptable to him that 
 
 we 
 
( 206 ) 
 
 we fliould follow one than the other. Now 
 to fay that true and right Religion has no- 
 thing in its own Nature to recommend us to 
 God, is faying, that things true and right 
 are no more acceptable to God, than things 
 falfe and wrong ; but as it would be Blal- 
 phemy to fay this, fb it is very little left, to 
 r^y, that Sincerity in a falfe and wrong Re- 
 ligion is jult the fame Juftification or Re- 
 commendation to the Favour of God , that 
 Sincerity in the true and right Religion is. 
 
 Farther ; The whole End and T)efign of 
 Religion, is, to recommend us to the Favour 
 of God. If therefore we can luppofe a Reli- 
 gion infiituted by God, which does no more, 
 as fuch, recommend us to the Favour of God, 
 than a Religion invented by Men or 'Devils^ 
 2iS fiich^ recommends us to the Favour of 
 God ; then we muft alfo fiippofe, that God has 
 infiituted a Religion which does not at all 
 anfwer the general End and "Defign of Reli- 
 gion, viz. the recommending us to the Fa- 
 vour of God. 
 
 Unlefs therefore we will prophanely de- 
 clare, that God has inftituted a Religion, 
 which, as fuch^ does us no Service, nor any 
 better promotes the general End of Religioi], 
 than any corrupt Inventions of Men, we 
 mull: affirm, that Sincerity in his Religion 
 will entitle us to greater Degrees of his Fa- 
 vour, than Sincerity in a Religion not fiom 
 Him; 
 
 Secondly % 
 
( 207 ) 
 
 Secondly; If there be any real Excel- 
 lency or Goodnefs in one Religion which is 
 not in another, then it is certain, that Since- 
 t^ity docs not equally juftify us in any Reli- 
 gion ; and on the contrary, it is as certain, 
 that if Sincerity in any Religion does entitle 
 us to the fame T>egrees of God's Favour, 
 then there is no fuch thing as any real Ex- 
 cellency ot Goodnefs in one Religion, which 
 is not in another. 
 
 When you was charg'd with deftroying all 
 Difference between Religions by this Ac- 
 count of Sincerity, you retreat to an Anfwer 
 as weak as could poffibly have been thought 
 of Thus you fay ; What I faid about pri- 
 vate Vtx{\x2X\csw relates;, to the Juftification of 
 the Man before God^ and not to the Excel- 
 lency of one Communion above another ^ which 
 it leaves jujl a^ it found it *. 
 
 Here, my Lord, you fuppofe that one Re- 
 ligion may very much exceed another Reli- 
 gion in Goodnefs and Excellency^ and yet 
 that this Goodnefs and Excellency has nothing 
 to do with th^Jttfifcation of Perfons ; for 
 you (ay, you was not fpeaking of the Excel- 
 lency of one Communion above another, but of 
 w^hat relates to ihtjujiification of a Man, ©f. 
 which plainly fliews that you don't allow 
 the Excellency of Religion to have any thing 
 to do with the Juftification of Men ; for if 
 
 * Anfw. t9 Bepr. p. ijrj, 
 
 you 
 
( 2o8 ) 
 
 you did, it muft have been necefTary to fpcak 
 of the Excellency of one Religion above ano- 
 ther, when you was fpcaking of what it is 
 which jujitfies a Man before God. 
 
 Now, my Lord, to grant that there is an 
 Excellency and Goodnefs in fome Religion, 
 and yet exclude this excellent and good Re- 
 ligion, from having any more in it to jujiify 
 and recommend us to the Favour of God, than 
 what is to be found in any other Religion lefs 
 excellent ; is juft as good Senfcj as to allow, 
 that fome Food is much more excellent and 
 proper than other Food ; and yet exclude this 
 mojt excellent frofer Food, from having any 
 thing in it to preferve Health and Strength^ 
 more than in any other Food. 
 
 For the Goodnefs and Excellency of Reli- 
 gion, is as truly 2. relative Goodnefs and 
 Excellency, as the Goodneis and Excellency 
 of Food is a relative Goodnefs and Excel- 
 lency. And as that Food can only be faid to 
 be better than another Food, becaufe it has 
 a better Effed: upon the Body than any other 
 Food ; fo that Religion can only be faid to 
 be better than another, becaufe it raifes us 
 higher in the Favour of God than any other 
 Religion. 
 
 It is therefore moft certain, that if any 
 one Religion can be laid to be better than 
 another, it muft be, becaufe one Religion 
 may be of more Advantage to us than ano- 
 ther. 
 
 For 
 
( 20^ ) 
 
 For as Religion in general is good^ becaufe 
 It does us goody and brings us into Favour 
 with God ; lo the farticular Excellency and 
 Goodnefs of any Rehgion, muft confiil \i\ 
 rhiS) that it does us a more particular Good^ 
 and raiies us to higher Degrees of God's Fa-: 
 vour, than a lefs excellent Reh'gion would 
 have done. 
 
 So that when your Lordiliip talks of the 
 Excellency of one Religion above another, as 
 having nothing in ir, as fuch ^ to recom- 
 mend us to higher Degrees of God's Fa vour j 
 or 'efFedt our Jitftification ; it is fully as ab- 
 lurd, as to fay, that tho' one kind o^ Learrt- 
 tng may be more excellent than another kind 
 of Learnings yet no Men are more excellent 
 or valuable for having one kind oi. Learning 
 than another. 
 
 For as no kind of Learning can be faid to 
 be peculiarly excellent, but becaufe it gives 
 ibme peculiar Excellency to thole who are 
 Matters of it ; fo no kind of Religion can 
 be laid to be more excellent than anothei:^ 
 unlefs thofe who profcis it, reap fome Ad- 
 vantage from it, which is not to be had from 
 a Rehgion lefs excellc7it. 
 
 From all this, it appears, firft, that there 
 can be no fuch thing, as any Goodnefs ov Ex- 
 cellency in one Religion above another, but 
 as it procures a peculiar Good and Advan^ 
 tage to thole who profefs ii. 
 
 E e Secondly -5 
 
( 2JO ) 
 
 Secondly ; That your Lordiliip can allow 
 no other Goodnefs or Excellency in Religion^ 
 even from your own exprels Words ^ but what 
 implies as great an Ablurdity, as to allow of 
 good Food-i good Learnings or good Advice.^ 
 which can do no body any good at all. 
 
 For fmce you cxprcflly exclude the Good* 
 nefs or Excellency of any Religion from ha- 
 ving any part in recommending us to the Fa* 
 vour of God, and will only allow it to carry 
 us fo far, as Sincerity in a worfe Religion 
 will carry us ; it is certain, that this gQod 
 and excellent Religion, is juft as good as 
 that^ which does us no good at all. 
 
 So that whether you will yet own that 
 you have deftroy'd all the difference betwixt 
 .Religions, or not, I can't tell ; yet I imagine 
 every one will fee that you have only left 
 fuch a Goodnefs in one Religion above ano- 
 ther, as can do no body any good at all. 
 
 The fliort is this ; If you will own there 
 is no Excellency in one Religion above ano- 
 ther, then you are guilty of making ChrijH- 
 anity no better than Mahomet anifm ; but if 
 you will acknowledge a Goodnefs and Ex- 
 cellency in one Religion above another, and 
 yet contend that it is Sincerity alone^ which 
 does us any Good^ or recommends us to the 
 Favour of God, in all Religions ahke ; this is 
 as abfiird, as to fay, fuch a thing \% much bet- 
 ter for us than any other thing, and yet af- 
 fert, that ajty other thing will do us as much 
 good as that. 1 have. 
 
( 211 ) 
 
 I have, I hope, fufficiently confuted jyour 
 Dod:riDe of Sincerity, from the Nature of 
 Religion. I (liall now in a word or two ex- 
 amine it farther, by confidering the Nature 
 of Private Terfuajion^ which can do all 
 rhcfe mighty things. 
 
 And, firll, I deny that Terfua/ion was the 
 only thing which juftify'd the Proteftants, or 
 which recommends People to the Favour of 
 God in the Choice of a Religion ;. ' and that, 
 bccaufe if their private Perfuajion was 
 founded in Tride^ Trejudice^ 'worldly Inte^ 
 rejU or any things but the real Truths and 
 the Jujfice of the Caufe, that their private 
 Terjiiafion did x\o\. jujl'tfy them before God ; 
 nor had they, upon this Suppofition, lb good 
 a Title to his Favour, as thofe who did not 
 reform. 
 
 If you fay, that Perlbns cannot be fuicere 
 in their Perluafions, who are influenced by 
 Tride^ or Trejudice^ or any fal/e Motive. 
 To this I anlvver ; 
 
 Firft ; That according to your own Prin- 
 ciples^ that Man is to be efteem'd Jincere^ 
 who thinks himfelf to be Jincere. For, as 
 it is a firft Principle with you, that a Man 
 IS jujiifyd in point of Religion, not becaulc 
 he obferves what in its own Nature is true 
 and right Religion, but bccaufe he obferves 
 that which he thinks to be true and right 
 Religion ; fo according to this Principle a 
 Man is to be accounted Jincere^ not becaufc 
 
 E e 1 he 
 
( 212 ) 
 
 he ads up to true and ///// Principles of Sm- 
 cerity^ but becauie he thinks in ^ his own 
 Mind, that he docs aft up to inch Ju/i and 
 true Principles of Sincerity. So that, my 
 Lord, Sincerity it Icems is as truly a private 
 ^erfuaj?07f^ as Religion is a private Periua- 
 fion ; and therefore any one may as eafily 
 think himfelf ^r/z/y finccre, and yet not have 
 true Sincerity, as he may think himfclf in 
 the true Religion, and yet not be in the 
 true Religion. 
 
 Unlefs therefore you will maintain, that a 
 Perfon who is miftaken in his Sincerity^ and 
 miftaken in his Religion too, who hath nei- 
 ther true Religion, or true Sincerity^ hath as 
 good a Title to the Favour of God, as he 
 who is truly fmcere, and in a true Religi- 
 on, you muft give up this Caufe of Sincerity. 
 For it is demonjirable from your own Trin- 
 ciplcs^ that any one may as often happen to 
 be miftaken in his Sincerity, and take that 
 for Sincerity which is not Sincerity, as he 
 may be miftaken in his Religion^ and take 
 ^hat for Religion which is not Religion, 
 '"' And confequenrly it is as rcalbnable to 
 ^talk oifincere Perfons, who are influenc'd by 
 wrong Motives^ as to talk of Perfons being 
 juftifyd in Religion, who live in a falfe 
 Rehgion. 
 
 So that, my Lord, this is the Refult of 
 your Dodrine, that Perlbns neither truly fin- 
 cere, nor in the true Religion, are yet enti- 
 '' ' tied 
 
( 213 ) 
 
 dcd to xh^ fame T>egrees of God's Favour, 
 with thole who are trtdy fincere in the trtio, 
 Religion. 
 
 The ihort is this, according to a Maxim of 
 your own, you are obhg'd to acknowledge 
 that Man to be fincere^ who thinks, himielf 
 to be fincere ; becaule you fay a Man is to 
 be efteem'd Rchgious, not becaule he pracStife^ 
 true Religion, but bccaufe he thinks he pra- 
 d:ifes true Religion ; therefore you muft lay, 
 that a Man is fincere, not becaule he is truly 
 fincere, but becaule he thinks himfelf to be 
 fincere. 
 
 It is alfo as fofilble and as likely for a Man 
 to be miftakcn in thofe things which confti- 
 tute true Sincerity, as in thofe things which 
 conftirute true Religion. 
 
 And therefore if this Sincerity be the on- 
 ly and the film eTitlQ to God's Favour in any 
 Religion, it follows, that Sincerity, tho' in- 
 fluenc'd by falfi Motives, and in a fallc way 
 of Woriliip, is as acceptable to God, as a fin- 
 cere Perluafion govern'd by right Motives in 
 a true and injiituted way of Worfhip. 
 
 So that all the fine things which you have 
 faid of Sincerity, as implying in it all which 
 is rational and excellent^ are come to no- 
 thing ; and you are as flridtly oblig'd to al- 
 low that Man to be fincere who miftakes the 
 Grounds and Principles of true Sincerity, 
 becaule he thinks himlclf to be fincere, as to 
 allow that Peribn to be juftify'd in his Reli- 
 gion. 
 
( 214 ) 
 
 gioHj who miftakes the true Religion, becaufe 
 he thinks himlelf in the true Rehgion. 
 
 So that ic is not Sincerity as it contains all 
 that is rational and excellent which alone 
 juftifies, but as it may be an idle^ vain^ 
 whimjical Perfuafion^ in which People think 
 themielves in the right. This Perjuafion, 
 the' founded in the Follies, Paffions and Pre- 
 judices of human Nature, conlecrates every 
 Way of Worlhip, and makes the Man thus 
 perfuaded as acceptable to God^ as he who 
 through a right uie of his Reafon, fervesGod 
 in that Method which he has inftituted. 
 
 I jlhali end this Point with only this Ob- 
 fervation, that however hearty a Friend you 
 may be to the Chriftian Religion your felf, 
 this I dare fay, that the heartiefl: Enemy it 
 has, will thank you for thus defending it. 
 And they who wilh all the DiflinCtion be- 
 twixt Religions confounded, and maintain that 
 we have nothing to hopeor fe<a- but from our 
 own ^erfuajlonsy are the only Perfons who 
 can call you xkizxx proper T)efender, 
 
 Of 
 
(2«5) 
 
 Of the Reformation. 
 
 f^5^j Proceed now in a Word or two to 
 Pl ]^ Ihew, that tho: Neceffity of Com^ 
 ' r^ munionwichany//«r^/f^/^/"Church, 
 ^■^- and thci?/f£'^j'of Excommunicatioa 
 are perfcdlly confiftenc with the Principles 
 of the Reformation. 
 
 You fay, If there be a Church Authority 
 
 to oblige "People to external Communion • 
 
 / beg to know how can the Reformation itfelf 
 
 he jtiflified. For there was then an Or* 
 
 der of Church-men^ vejied with all fpiritual 
 
 Authority there was therefore a Church 
 
 Authority to oblige Chrijiians^ a Tower of 
 fome over others. What was it therefore 
 to which we owe this very Church of Eng- 
 land * ? 
 
 To this it may be anfwer'd, 
 Firft ; That this Argument proceeds upon 
 a falfe Suppofition, namely, that it is the 
 Laws of any Men^ which obliges us to ex* 
 ternal Communion. Which I have already 
 (hewn to be as ialfe, as to fuppofe that it is 
 the Laws of any Men which oblige us to be 
 Chrtjiians. 
 
 * Anfw. t9 Repr. p. ii8. 
 
 Secondly 
 
( 216 ) 
 
 Secondly ; That there may be a real and d 
 great: Authority which obhges us to external 
 Communmh ^ho' this Authority be not found- 
 ed in any human Laisjs^ for there is as real 
 and apparent an Authority for Bafti/m^ and 
 the Stepper of the Lord, and' other Parts of 
 external Communion, as if they were the ex- 
 prefs Matter of any human Laws. 
 
 Thirdly ; That the Laws of Men in this 
 AfFair of Religion, arc of the fame Obliga- 
 tion and Force that they are in other Mat- 
 ters. If they command Things indifferent^^ 
 they are to be obey'd for the Authority of 
 the Command ; if they enjoin Things in their 
 own Nature good, the Neceffity of Obedience 
 is greater ; but if they command Things un- 
 lawful, we are not to comply, but obey God 
 rather than Man. 
 
 Fourthly ; The Queftion therefore at the 
 Reformation was not whether the Laivs of 
 the Tope or the Trince were on the fide of 
 the Church of Rome^ but whether that Faith 
 and thofe Inftitutions which conftitute the 
 Chriftian Religion was with the Reformers^ 
 or with the Tapijts. For the Church Autho- 
 rity which obliged them then^ and which ob- 
 liges us now to external Communion, was not 
 an Authority which obliged them to comply 
 with any Jiumber of Bilhops, or any State 
 Laws^ but to enter into Communion with 
 thatBifliopor Bifhops who obferved that way 
 of Worfliip which Chrift had inftituted. The 
 
 Ncccf^ 
 
( 217 ) 
 
 Necefilty of being in external Communion , 
 docs not oblige us to be in Communion wiih 
 the ToJ^e or any Number of Bilhops as fuch^ 
 whole Authority we may happen to be bora 
 under, but it obliges us to be in that Com- 
 munion which is that Way or Method of Sal- 
 vation which Chrift has inftituted. 
 
 So that though we iliould grant, that at the 
 Reformation we broke through the human 
 Laws of the Church which required us to 
 continue in Communion with' the Church of 
 Rome^ it will by no means follow that wc 
 broke through that Authority which obliges 
 us to external Communion, becaufe that Au- 
 thority is not founded in any hj^rnan Laws, 
 but is the Authority of Chrift, requiring us to 
 obferve all thofe things which conftiture ex- 
 ternal Communion. For as it is the Autho- 
 rity of Chrift which obliges us to be Chri- 
 jiians^ lo that fame Authority obliges us to 
 enter into that Communion w^here the Injli- 
 tutions and Faith of Chrift are preferved. 
 
 When therefore you fay, if Church Autho- 
 rity (meaning human Laws) be a fnjficient 
 Obligation upon them to determine them, 
 then our Fore- fat hers ought not in Confcience 
 to have feparated from the Church ofKomo. *. 
 
 This, my Lord, is no more to the Purpofe 
 than if you had laid, if the King of France 
 has a Right to be obey'd all over Europe^ 
 
 * P. 1 1 8. 
 
 Ff then 
 
{ 2'8 ) 
 
 then all over Europe they ought in Confcience. 
 to obey him. 
 
 For fincc it is neither pretended nor al- 
 low d, that hmnan Lcvjjs are 2. fufficient Ob- 
 ligation to external Communion , to argue 
 from this Suppofition is as ioreign to the Pur- 
 pole, as to luppole that the Kmg of France 
 was Governour of all Europe. 
 
 The next Step you take is alfo very extra- 
 ordinary, where having rejected human Au- 
 thority from being a fufficient Obligation to 
 external Communion, you thus proceed, but 
 if Men are their o^JDn Judges by the Laws 
 of God and of Chrijt in this Matter ; if they 
 have a Right to ufe their Judgment and be 
 
 determined by it then here is a Jujiijica- 
 
 tion o^ x.\\(t Reformation^ and particttlarly of 
 the Trotefant Church <?/ England *. 
 
 TliC moil: coniplaijant Juflification , my 
 Lord, that could pofilbly have been thought 
 Ofi becaufe it as /^r///i^^/y juftifies all the E- 
 nemies of the Church of England^ of what 
 kind foever, asir judifies the Proteftant Church 
 of Enriland. 
 
 For your Argument proceeds thus ; if there 
 be no human Authority to which we are ab- 
 iblutely obliged to fubmit, but have a Right 
 ro ufe our own Judgments, then thQ Refor- 
 rnation is jnftificd. Here Vv e lee the Doctrines 
 of the reformed Church are not taken into the 
 
 P. n8. , , 
 
 Queftion; 
 
( 21^ ) 
 
 Qucftion; llic is not Jaid to be judificd, as 
 being a true Church, or as prclcrving thole 
 Orders and IriJi'itntiGUs^ which conflitutc the 
 true Church ; but is juflificd, becaufc Men 
 may ulc their Reafon, and not enter into any 
 Communion which human La'is have hap- 
 pened lo eflabHfli. Now if wc of the Church 
 of England are juflificd in the Choice of our 
 Religion, bccaule no human La^sjs have an 
 abfoJurc Power to oblige us to be of any par- 
 ticular Pvcligion, then all People, whether- Ta- 
 ^ijls or Trotejiants, whether ^lakers^ Rant- 
 crs^ Jc'-jus^ Turks and Infidels^ are equally 
 juftified in the Choice of. their particular 
 fVajs of Worfliip, becaufe human Laws 
 have not an abfolute Power to obhge them to 
 be of any particular Religion. So that tho' 
 you call this a Jujiification of the Proteftanc 
 Church of England^ you might as juftly have 
 cali'd in a Jujiijication of ^lakers^ Jews^ 
 Turks and Infidels: For it is as truly a Jufti- 
 fication of every one of them, as it is a Juftifi- 
 cation of the Church of England. 
 
 But to proceed. 
 
 How comes it, my Lord, that the Refor^ 
 mation is jujlifyd^ becaufe People may ule 
 their Reafon, and arc not under a NeccfTity 
 from human Laws of being of this or that 
 Church ? Why muft the Reformation be right 
 and jufty becaufe human Laws are not fufB- 
 cient to hinder a Reformation. Is there no 
 Qther Authority that can make any particular 
 
 Ffx Rcli- 
 
( 220 ) 
 
 Religion ncccfTaiy, becaufe human Authority 
 cannot? May it not be our 'Duty to be of 
 this Communion, and a Sin to enter into an- 
 other Communion, tho' human La»ws as liich 
 cannot make the one a T>utyj or the other a 
 Sin ? Does Baptifri , the Supper of the 
 Lord, and a Belief in '^efus Chriji^ ceale to 
 be necelTary, becaufe that Neceffity does not 
 arife from human Laws ? 
 
 Now if Things may be necejfary to Salva- 
 tion, though they are not made fo by human 
 Authority, then it is no Juftification of the 
 Reformation to fay, that the Refonners might 
 ufe their Reafon,' and not chufe that RcHgion 
 which human Laws commanded them to 
 chufc; this will be no Juftification, till it ap- 
 pears, that they chofe that Religion which 
 xht Authority of God required them to chufe. 
 
 For it would be Nonfencc to iky People are 
 juOify'd for having fuch a fort oi Baptijm^ 
 btc:iVik the NeceJJity of Baptifm docs not arife 
 from human Laws, Yet this is 2lS good ScnfCy 
 as to fay, fuch a People are juflify'd in their 
 Religion, becaufe no Religion is made nccef- 
 fary by human Laws. For as they are only 
 juflify'd In Point of Baptifm^ who obferve 
 luch Baptifm, as the Authority of God has ap- 
 pointed^ fo are they only juftify'd in their 
 Religion^ who enter mto zhat Re/iirwn which 
 the Authority of God has inflituted. 
 
 But your Lotdihip has no looner fliewn that 
 human Authority, as fiich, cannot oblige us 
 
 to 
 
( 
 
 221 ) 
 
 to be of any partictilar Religion^ but you 
 prefcntly congratulate your Readers upon an 
 entire Freedom from all Authority in Religion, 
 and without once mentioning that the Refor- 
 mation is right and juft, bccaufe of the Or- 
 ders^ TDoBrines oxlnftitutions^ which it main- 
 tains ; you fay it is juftify'd for fncb a Rea- 
 fon^ as juftifies in an equalDQ'yxQt every Re- 
 ligion, and every Change of Religion in the 
 VVorld. You have ^o tar juftify'd it, as to 
 flicw^ that it is as well to be of it, as of any 
 other Church; and as well to be of any other 
 Church, as of it. 
 
 Who would not think, my Lord, that the 
 mjlittited Terms of Salvation had Ibmcthmg 
 to do with the Juftification of ChriftiansV 
 Yet you can juftify People without any re- 
 gard to them. Who would not think that a 
 Religion is unjuftifiable, if it is contrary to the 
 Religion injiituted by Chrift ? Yet your Lord- 
 fliip has juftify'd all Changes in Religion, 
 without any regard to the Injiitutions of 
 Chrift, folely for this Reafon, becaufe Men 
 may ule their own Judgment, and not fubmit 
 to the Laws of Men, as fuch^ in the Choice 
 of Religion. As if becaufe they are not to 
 be altogether governed by the Commands of 
 Men in the Choice of a Religion, neither are 
 they to be determined by the Authority of 
 God, or any more ty'd down to his Infiittt- 
 t'lons ^ than to human Laws. Who would 
 
 think 
 
( 222 ) 
 
 think that no Change in Religion is dangerous, 
 becaufc Religion is only inflituted by God, 
 and has his Authority to make it ncceffary ? 
 Yet your Lordfliip baniflies all Danger from 
 every Change of Religion, and pronounces 
 the fame Safety in every Opinion, bccauic 
 People are under no abfoluce human Autb'o- 
 rity. 
 
 It is very furprizing, after all this, to fee 
 your Lordfliip breaking out into pafjionate 
 Exprefllons for the C«^/(/^ of x\\z Reform at ion ^ 
 and fo often declaring that it is for the fake 
 of the Reformation that you have taken fo 
 much Pains, and with fo much Plealure, m 
 your late Writings. 
 
 Now it feems your Adverfaries have under- 
 min'd the very Foundations of the reformed 
 Church oi England \ and that in this Man- 
 ner. 
 
 Firft; They juftify the Church of Eng- 
 land^ by ihewing that it maintains all thole 
 Orders^ Inftttutions and T^oEfrines^ which 
 Chri(Lhas made neceffary to Salvation ; that 
 it is a true Church, becaufe it confills of all 
 thofe Things which by the Injiittition of 
 Chrift conditute a trtte Church. 
 
 For this, your Lordfliip rebukes them as 
 Enemies to the Reformation-, as Friends to 
 ^oj?ery; and declares, that the Proteftants 
 are not juftify'd becaule they have cholen a 
 true and right Religion, but becaufe they 
 
 think 
 
( 223 ) 
 
 think they have chofen a true and right Re- 
 ligion. 
 
 Again, your Adverfaries infifl: upon the 
 NeceJJity of entering into Communion with 
 the Church of England^ becaulc it is a true 
 Church of Chrift ; and declare thofe guilty 
 of the heinous Sin of Scb'tfm^ who (eparatc 
 from her Communion. 
 
 Here again you condemn them, as confpi- 
 ring the Ruin of the Reformation^ becaufe 
 if the T>ij[enters are not juftify'd in their Se- 
 paration from the Church of England by 
 their private Terfnafion^ neither is the Church 
 of England to be juftify'd for its Separation 
 from Rome. So that the Difference between 
 your Lordlhip and your Adverfaries in rela- 
 tion to the Reformed Church of England^ 
 is this. 
 
 They fupport and recommend this Church, 
 becaufe it contains all the necejfary Dodrines 
 and Inftitutions of Chrift, and confequently 
 give it an Advantage ever every other way of 
 IVorjhip^ which is either corrupted or defe- 
 Bive in thefe Dodlrines and Inftitutions of 
 Chrift. 
 
 But you fupport and recommend it (pardon 
 the Expreirions) not from any thing which 
 relates to it at all, but from privateTerfuafi- 
 on ; and confequently allow every Religion 
 in the World to be as jtifl^ and goodj and 
 fafcy if Men are but fo perfnaded. 
 
 They 
 
( 224 ) 
 
 They defend the Church of England^ by 
 fnewing what it is, and by aiTerting the 
 Truth of its Dodrincs. 
 
 You have no Title to be mention'd amongfl: 
 its T>e fender Sy but as you may be caiTd a 2)^- 
 fender of fakers and Fanattcks^ Jews and 
 Turks^ and every Religion in the World, 
 which any one thinks to be right. 
 
 To proceed ; As a farther T)efence of the 
 Reformation, you ask, How did the frji 
 Reformers behave themfelves ? *T>id they 
 not think and fpeak'of them (viz,. Abfolu- 
 tion and Excommunication) as having no- 
 thing to do with the Favour of God^ as hu- 
 man Engines J and mere Outcries of human 
 Terror V Attd did they mean by this to claim 
 to themfelves the Right ofAbfolutionj which 
 they had deny'd to others^ becaife they were 
 fallible and weak Men ; or to affert a "Rower 
 of Excommunication^ fo as to affeB Men's 
 eternal Salvation , to themfelves in one 
 Churchy which they had difregarded and tram- 
 pled tip on in another ? No : They treated 
 all Excommunications as alike, and upon an 
 equal foot ; and could upon no other Account 
 negleEi and difregard them as they did^ but 
 becaufe God had not given to any Man the 
 T)ifpofal of his Mercy or Anger *. 
 
 * An[ii\ to Repr. p. Ill, Hi. 
 
 The 
 
( 225 ) 
 
 The Argument, my Lord^here proceeds thus : 
 tirft ; That all Ablblutions and Excommuni- 
 cations muft have been eftccm'd aHke, and e- 
 c[wji\\y irijignijicant by our Reformers, becaufe 
 they were not terrify 'd at the Excommunica- 
 tions of the Church of Rome^ nor thought aa 
 Abfolution from that Church neceflary. 
 
 Secondly; That the Reformers having thus 
 difregarded thefe Towers in that Church, 
 ought not to pretend that the fame Powers 
 have any more Etfedt when they exercife 
 them in this Church, 
 
 To this it may be anfwer'd, that if we 
 ought not to pretend to any EjfeEis in Abfo- 
 lution or Excommimication^ becaufe we dis- 
 regarded thoje Towers as exercis'd by the 
 Church of Rome ; that then we ought not to 
 pretend the NecefTity of any Fdith^ becaufe 
 we difregarded the Faith of the Romijh Church ; 
 nor the Neceffity of any Sacraments^ nor the 
 NecefTiry of the Canonical Writings^ becaufe 
 we difregarded the Canonical Books of the 
 Church of Rome. And it is as good Senie 
 to cry out here, '' Did they not treat their 
 '• Sacraments as mere Inventions of Men ? 
 " Did they mean by this to claim to them- 
 " felves a Power to make Sacraments necef- 
 " fary in one Churchy which Power they had 
 '^ trampled upon in another ? Did they de- 
 ^' ny the Necefiity of /even Sacraraencs 
 " there^ in order to afTert the NecefTity of 
 *' two Sacraments here ? No : They treated 
 
 G g " all 
 
{ 126 ) 
 
 ^^ all Sacraments as alike^ and upon an equal 
 '^ foot with reipetfl to God's Favour, and 
 " conld upon no other Account negled: and 
 *^ difregard them as they did, but becauie 
 ^^ God's Favour or DifJDicafure was no ways 
 ^' aftecfted hy any Sacraments. 
 
 Here let common Senfe judge, whether 
 this Argumeijt o^ yours ilievving the Unreafon- 
 ablenefs of pretending to any Significancy in 
 Excowmiinication^ becaufe we dilregarded the 
 Excommunication of the Church of Rome^ 
 does not prove it as unreafonable to infift up- 
 on the NeceJJity of any Faith, or any Sacra- 
 ments^ or 2inY Canonical Books ^ becaufe we 
 deny'd the Romilh Creedj the Romiili Sacra- 
 ments^ and Canon of Scripture ? 
 
 For our Reformers no more intended to 
 ihew that Excommunication was a "Dream 
 and Trifle^ becaufe they difregarded the Ex- 
 communication of the Church of Rome ; 
 than they intended to ilievv that all Sacra^ 
 ments^ all Faith^ and all Scripture j were 
 Dreams and Trifles^ by their not owning ei- 
 ther the Sacraments y or the Creeds or the 
 Canon of the Church o? Rome, And, my 
 Lord, what a worthy Defender of Chriflia- 
 nity and the Reformation would he be, who 
 lliould ask us what we mean by the Neceflity 
 of Sacraments^ or Faithy or Scripture^ fince 
 w^e have not allow'd the Neceffity either of 
 the Rcmifti Sacraments^ Faithy or Scripture ? 
 Yet fuch a Defender is your Lordihip, who 
 
 conteqds 
 
( 227 ) 
 
 contends that we ought to rejc<5l: Excommu- 
 nication as a Trifle and T)t eam^ becaulc vvc 
 difregardcd the Excommunication pf the 
 Church of Rome. 
 
 I have now gone as far in the Examina- 
 tion of your T)o^rines as my prcfent Defiga 
 will allow me, and am apt to think that 
 in this and my former Letters^ I have gone 
 lb far, as to lliew, that a few mot q Jiich "De- 
 fences ol Chrifli unity and the Reformation^ 
 as you have given us, would compleat their 
 Ruin, as far as human Writings can com- 
 pleat it. 
 
 And had you meant ever fo much harm to 
 Chriftianity and the Reformation^ I believe 
 no one who wiflies their Confufion, would 
 have thought you could have taken a better 
 way to obtain that End, than by writing as 
 you have lately written. 
 
 For he muft be a very Bitter Enemy to 
 them both, who would nor think it fufficienr, 
 to let Chriftianity and Mahomet an ifhi^ the Re- 
 format ioji and ^.akerifm u^QVi the fame 
 foot. ,^ 
 
 And he'mufl: be very flow^ of Apprchenfion, 
 who does not fee that to be plainly done, by 
 refolving all into private Perfuafion^ and 
 making Sincerity in every Religion, whether 
 true Qi falfe^ the fame Title to the fame 
 T)egrees of God's Favour. 
 
 G g X I ihall 
 
( 228 ) 
 
 I {hall not with your LordQiip make any 
 Declarations about my own Sincerity ; I am 
 conteut to leave that to God, and to let a^ 
 the World pafs what Judgment they pleale a- 
 jbout it. 
 
 / am Tour Lordjhifs 
 Mojl Humble Servant^ 
 
 William Law^ 
 
 POST- 
 
( 22^ ) 
 
 POSTSCRIPT, 
 
 §^111 H E Learned Commute obferv'd to 
 X pk y^u^ Lordfliip, that an erroneous 
 W^^yMi Confcience was never ^ till now^ at- 
 
 ^■^^-"'^ low'd wholly to juftify Men in 
 their Errors. 
 
 This Obfcrvation I have ihewn to be true 
 andy///?5 as it implies, that tho' Sincerity in 
 an erroneous way of Worlhip ihould in fome 
 degree or other recommend Men to the Fa- 
 vour or Mercy of God ; yet it is not that 
 entire Recommendation to his Favour, which 
 is effeciled by our fmcere Obedience in the 
 true way of Salvation : That iS;, tho' it fliould 
 juftify thern in fome degree ^ yet it cannot 
 ■juftify them in that degree ^ in which they 
 are juftify'd, who fincerely fervc God, in that 
 true Religion which he himfelf has inftituted. 
 
 Now our Juftification, as it is effected by 
 the Merits of Chrift, is in one and the fame 
 degree ; but as our Juftification is cffcded by 
 our own Behaviour, it is as capable of diffe- 
 rent degrees^ as our Virtue and Holincls \^ ca- 
 pable of different degrees ; and it is alio ne- 
 cefTary that our Juftification be more or lefsy 
 according as our Holinefs is more or lefs. 
 
 ^ Ycr 
 
( 230 ) 
 
 Yet in anfwer to this Obfervation of the 
 Learned Com?nittee^ you fay, it mnft either 
 juftity thetn^ or not juftify them ; it muji ei- 
 ther jujiify them wholly, ornot jujlify them 
 at all. This, my Lord, is as contrary to 
 the Scripture, as it is to the Obfervation of 
 the Committee. For our blefTcd Saviour, 
 Ipeaking of the ^ublicanj fays, / tell yoit^ 
 this Man went down to his Houfe juftify'd, 
 rather than the other *. 
 
 Here, my Lord, is as plain a Declaration 
 of T>egrees in Juftification, as can well be 
 made, io far as Juftification can be efFecSed by 
 our own Behaviour. 
 
 For, it is plain, the Publican was not 
 wholly juftify'd, becaufe then there would be 
 no need of his embracing Chriftianity ; it is 
 alfo plain, that he was juftify'd in party or 
 elfe he could not be faid to be juftify'd ra- 
 ther than the Tharifee, 
 
 If therefore your Anfwer confutes the Ob- 
 fervation of the Learned Committee^ it muft 
 alio confute this PafTage of Scripture, 
 
 I fhall only add one word in relation to 
 another Point. 
 
 I have already fliewn the Falfenefs and e- 
 vil Tendency of your Argument againft Ex- 
 communication^ which you aflertcd to be a 
 T)ream and Trifle without any EjfeEf-, becaufe 
 it is our own Behaviour alone which can fig- 
 ■ ■ I ■ I I I .1 > . . .11.1 ■ 1 1 1^1 I . I - 
 
 * Luhe 1 8. 10, o^c. 
 
 nify 
 
( 231 ) 
 
 nify any thing to us with regard to the Fi- 
 vour of God. Now, my Lord, this Thilofo- 
 phy (Irikes at the very Vitals of the Chriflian 
 Rchgion : For, if this Sentence can have no 
 EfFed:, if it is a "Dream and Trifle^ becaufe 
 it is our Behaviour alone on which the Favour 
 of God depends ; then how Ihall we account 
 for thefe PafTages of Scripture, which attribute 
 our Juftlficat'ion to the Merits and T>eatb of 
 Chrift? As thus; 
 
 Jefus Chrijij who gave himfelf for our 
 Sins * ; 
 
 /// whom we have Redempion thro' his 
 Blood \', 
 
 Being jujiifyd by his Bloody we jhall be 
 fav'd from JVrath \. 
 
 It is the conftant, uniform Dodtrine of 
 Scripture, that our ReconciHation and Peace 
 with God, our Juftification and Sand:lfication 
 before God, is owing to the Merits and 
 "Death of Chrifi, But if what you have faid 
 be true, that \x. is our Behaviour alone ^ which 
 procures the Favour of God, then the Blood 
 of Chrift muft be as truly without any Effe(Sj 
 as Excommunication is without any Effed:. 
 
 For '\i the Favour of God depends entirely 
 upon our Behaviour alone^ then it can de- 
 pend upon nothing elfe ; and if it depend up- 
 on nothing, clfe, then every thing elfe is e- 
 qually trifling and without any EfFed: as to 
 
 Gal. I. ;. j Hpbe-f. 1.7. i Rom. 5. 9. 
 
 that 
 
( 232 ) 
 
 that Purpofe; and confequently every Paf- 
 (age in Scripture which alcribes our Accept- 
 ance with God to the Merits and Blood of 
 Chrijtj is as much condemned by your Do- 
 dlrine, as the Effects of Excommunication 
 are condemned by it. 
 
 Whether your Lord (hip did not perceive 
 the Inconfijiency of this Dodtrine with that 
 Satisfadiion zxxdiRedemp'ton which the Scrip- 
 tures teach ; or whether you knowingly in- 
 tended to oppofe this Dodlrine, is, what I 
 Ihall leave to every one's own Judgment. 
 Thus much I Ihall only lay, that as you have 
 here diredly contradid:ed this firft Principle of 
 the Chriftian Religion, if it is not what you in- 
 tended, I hope you will, for the fake of Chri- 
 ftianity, venture to declare, that tho' you 
 have aflerted, that it is our Behaviour alone y 
 yet it is not our Behaviour alone, but more 
 particularly the Merits and T)eath of Chrift 
 which recommends us to the Favour of God. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
A Catalogue of BOOKS printed for 
 Will, and John Innys at the Trmces- 
 Arms at the Weft-end of St. P^///'s Church- 
 Yard. 
 
 TH E Bifnop of Bangor's late Sermon, and his Letter to Dr. 
 Snapc in defence of it anfwered, and the dangerous Na- 
 ture of fome Doftr^nes in his i'refervative , IccVorrh. In a 
 Letter to his Lordflnp. By W. Law, M. A. The Scv^cnth 
 Edition, Oftavo, 
 
 A Second Letter to the Eifhop of Bangor, wherein his Lordfhip's 
 Notions of Benediction, A'ofolution, and Churrh Commuhion , aie 
 proved ro be dcftruftive of every Inftiturion of tlie Chriftian Religion. 
 To which is added a Portfcript, in AnTwrr to the Objeftions that have 
 been made againft his former Letter. By W. Law, M. A. The Third 
 Edition, Oftavo, r7i9- 
 
 Renrraiks upon the Lord Bifhop of Bangor's Sermon, entituled. The 
 Nature of the Kingdom, or Church of Chril>, humbly addtefs'd to his 
 Lordiltip. By Robert Maifdea, B. D. Archdeacon of Nottingham, and 
 late Fellow of Jefus College in Cambridge. The Thud Edition, O- 
 ftavo, 1718. 
 
 Plxin Notions of our Lord's Divinity. Set forth in a Sermon prcach'd 
 upon Chriftmas-dviy, at the Royal Chapel of Whitehall. Publilhed at 
 the Requeft of many of the Audience. ^ Tho. Mangey, L L. D. 
 Chaplain to the Right Reveiend father in God, John, Lord Bilhop of 
 London. 
 
 Remarks upon Nazarenus, wherein the Falfity of Mr. To- 
 
 land's Mahometan Gofpel, and his Mifieprelenration of Mahometan 
 Sentiments in refpeft of Chriftian'ty are fee forth j and tlie Hiftory of 
 the old Nazarxans clcar'd up, and the whole Conduft of the firllChri- 
 flians in refped of the Jewilli Law , explain'd and defended. The Se- 
 cond Edition, Octavo. 
 
 Practical Difcourfes upon the Lord's- Prayer, preached before 
 
 the Hon Society of Lincoln's-Inn. The Second Edition, Odtavo. 
 
 Dr. Bennet's Difcourfe of the ever bleiTcd Triniry in Unity, with an 
 Examination of Dr, Clarke's Scripture Doftriue of fire Trinity, Ochivo. 
 
 Direftions for Studying: i. A general Syftem or Body of Di- 
 vinity. 1. The ?p Articles of Religion. Tire Second Edition, Octavo. 
 
 i Difcourfe of Schifm i Ihewing, i. \s\\Ai is meant by Pchifm. 
 
 2. That Schifm is a damnable Sin j. That there is a Schifm between 
 the Eftabliili'd Church of England and the Diffenters. 4. That this 
 Schifm is to be charg'd on the Dilfcnters fide. 5. That the modern Pre- 
 tences of Toleration, Agreement in Fundamentals, 8cc. will not ex- 
 cc^^t. the Diflenters fiom being guilty of Schifm, &c. The Fourth Edi- 
 tion, Oftavo, 17 '8. 
 
 Pliyfico- Theology : Or a Demonftration of the Being and Attributes 
 of God, from his Works of Creation ; beingthe Subftance of itfSermons 
 preach'd at St. Mary-le-Bow Church, London, at the honourable Mr. 
 Boyle's Ledures. in the Years 171 1 and 12, wich large Notes, and ma- 
 ny curious Obfervations. By W. Derham, Re(5lor of Upminfter in Ef- 
 fex, and Fellow of the Royal Society. The Fourth Edition, Odbivo, 
 1716. 
 
 H h Aftro- 
 
Aftro-Thcology : Or, A Demonftration of the Being and At- 
 tributes of God from a Survey of the Heavens, illuftrated with Copper 
 Plates. ^The Third Edition Oftavo, 1719. 
 
 The Wirdom of G^d n.-uiifcfted in the WorVs of the Creation. In 
 Two Parts, viz.. The Heavenly Bodies, Elements, Meteois, Folfils, 
 Vegetables, Animals, (Beafts, Birds, EiHies, and Infefts) more parti- 
 cularly in the Eody of the Earth, its Figure, Motion, and Confiftcncy 
 in the admir^bk Struftiae of the Bodies of Man, and other Animals 
 AS alfo in their Generation, &c. W th Anfwers to fome Objeftions. By 
 John Ray late fellow of the Royal Society. The Seventh Edition, 
 Oftavo, 1717. 
 
 Three Phyfico Theological Difcourfes, concerning, I. The 
 
 Tiim'.tive Chaos, and Creation of the World. II. The general De- 
 luge, its Cades and Effeds. III. The Dflolution of the World, and 
 future Contlagiation. Wherein are largely difcufled, the Pioduftion 
 and Ufe of Mountains; the Oiiginal of Fountains, of formed Stones, 
 and Sea Fidies Bones and Shells found in the Earth ; the Effects of par- 
 ticular floods, and Inundations of the Sea; the Eruptions of Vulca- 
 no's ; the Nature and Caufes of Earthquakes. Alfo an Hiftoiical Ac- 
 count of thofe two late remadcable ones in Jamaica and England. 
 With Ptaaical Inferences. The Third Edition. Uiuflratcd with Cop- 
 per-Plates, and much more enlarged than the former Editions, from 
 the Author's own Manufcripts, Oftavo, 1713- 
 
 Praftical Oofervations upon the Miracles of our blcflcd Saviour; to- 
 gether with fome extraordinary PaiTages of his Life. In i Vol. By 
 Fr. Bragg, B. D. The Second Edition, Oftavo. 
 
 Praftical Difcourfes upon the Parables of our blefled Saviour, 
 
 with Prayers annex'd to each Difcourfe. 2 Vol. Oftavo 
 
 Twenty four Sermons preach'd on feveral Occalions. In 2 Vol, By 
 Richard Lucas, D. D. Th^ Second Edition Octavo. 
 
 Enquiiy after Happincfs. In Three Parts, i. Of the PofTi- 
 
 bility of obtaining Happincl's. z. Of the true Notion of Humane Life. 
 3 Of Religious Perfc6fion. In z Vol. The Fifth Edition, Odavo, 
 1717- 
 
 The Influer.ce of Converfation, with the Regulation there- 
 of; being a Seimon preach'd at St. Clement's- Dane to a Religious 
 Society. 
 
 The Spiritual Year : Or, Devout Contemplations, digefteJ 
 
 into diftinft A^rguments for every Month in the Year, and for every 
 Week, ;n that Month. 
 
 The Duty of Servants : Containing r. Their Preparation for, 
 
 and Choice of a Service. 2 Their Duty in Seivice ; together with 
 Prayers fuited to each Duty ; all which may he accommodated likcvife 
 for the mofi: part to Apprentices : To which is add.-d, a Dfcoarfe of 
 the Sacrament, fuited peculiarly to Servants. Tiie third Edition. 
 
 The Plain Man's Guide to Heaven: Containing his Duty, 
 
 T. Towards God. 2. Towards his Neighbour. With proper Prayers, 
 Medirations and Ejaculations; delign'd chiefly for the Countryman, 
 Tradefman, Labourer, and the like. 
 
 The Bulwark llormcd : In Anfwer to Thomas de Laune'% Plea for 
 the Nonconformlfs. Where n is fiiewed the Pallacioufuels a^id Uncon- 
 cJufiven^fs of every Argument in tliat pretended unanfwerable Book. By 
 Edv.ard Hart. With a Letter to the Author, in Vindication of the 
 Primitive Church, and the Church of England, from the Corruptions 
 which the faid Thomas de Laune has falfly charged upon them. By 
 the R.cvorend Doftor Brett, OtUvo, 1717, 
 
 A Cii- 
 
A Critical DlfTert-ition upon the feventh Verfe of the fifth Chapter of 
 St. John's firft Epiftle, There are Three that bear Record in Heaven, 
 &c. Wherein the Authentickne's of this Text is fully prov'd againft 
 the Objcftions of Mr. Simon and the modern Aiians. Written origi- 
 nally in French by Mr. Martin, and now tranflated into Englifh, O- 
 ftavo, 17 1 9. 
 
 A (econd Diircrtation by Mr. Martin, in Defence of the Tcftimony 
 given to our Saviour by Jofcphus. Wherein the Paragraph in the 
 fourth Chapter of the eighteenth Book of his Jewifh Antiquities is 
 yioved to be authentick. Written originally in French, and now tian- 
 llated into Englilh, Oftavo, 1719 
 
 The Rule and E.xercife of Holy Living and of Holy Dying: 'By 
 Jcr Taylor, D.D. Chaplain in Ordinary to King Charles 1. The 
 Twenty Third Edition, Oftavo, T717. 
 
 Hs Golden Grove, or choice Manual of Devotions. The 
 
 Twenty Fifth Edition, Twelves, 17 ip 
 
 The Chriflian's heft Guide: Or the Religious Companion. InThree 
 rarrs, OcVavo, 1716 
 
 Bifhop Cofin's Collef^on of private Devotions in the Prai^^ice of 
 the Ancient Church called the Hours of Prayer. The Tenth Edition, 
 Twelves, 17TP. 
 
 The Life and AB:s of the moft Reverend Father in God, John 
 Whitgift, D. D. The rhird and laft Lord Archbilhop of Canterbury in 
 the Reign of Q.ucen Elizabeth 5 who, under her Majeftyin that Station, 
 governed the Church of England for the fpace of Twenty Years, By 
 Joiin Strype, M. A. Folio, ijii. 1 
 
 The EfTays, or Councils, Civil and Moral, of Sir Franc's Bacon, 
 Lord Verulam, Vifcount St. Alhan. With a Table of the Colours of 
 Good and Evil. And a Difcourfe of the Wifdom of the Ancients. 
 To which is added a Charafter of Qiieen Elizabeth, Oftavo, 171S. 
 
 An Help and Exhortation to worthy communicating. By Mr. Kettle- 
 well. The Eighth Edition, Oilavo, 1717. 
 
 The Lives of the French, Italian and German Philofbphers lj>rc 
 Members of the Royal Academy of Sciences in Vat\s. Together 
 with Abftracls of foivc of the cho'ccft Pieces communicued by them 
 to that illiiftrious Soceiy. To which is added the Preface of the in- 
 genious Mr. Foutinelle, Secretary and Author of the Hiftoiy of the 
 faid Acadetiiy, Ottavo. 171 7 
 
 The pofthumoiis Works of Dr. Robert Hookc. To which is prc- 
 fi.x'd the Author's L fe. By Richard Waller, R. S. Secretary, FjUo. 
 
 A Treanfi of Algebri, botli Hifliorical and Pra£lical, with fomc ad- 
 ditional Treatifes. "Bv John Willis, D. D. Folio 
 
 The Anci'-'nt and Modern H ftory of the Balearick lllands, or of the 
 Kingdom of Majorca j which comprehends the Kingdoms of Majorca, 
 JMinurca, Yvica, Fermentera and others, with their Natural and Geo- 
 graphical Defciiption By Col n Campbell, Oftavo. 
 
 An Efl'uy cor.cerning the Knowledge and Cure of moft Difeafes af- 
 flifting humane Bodies, By P. Paxton. 2vl. D. Oclavo, 
 
 A new H'fto;y of .£thiopia, being a full and accurate Defcription of 
 the Kingdom of Ab) (finia, vulgarly, though erroneoufly called the 
 Empire of Prefter John. By the learned Job Ludplphus. The Second 
 Edition, Folio, w:rh Cuts. 
 
 Opticks: Or, a Treatife of the Reflexions, Refractions, Inflexions 
 and Colours of Light. The Second Edition with Additions. By Sir 
 Ilaac Newton, K' ■^ 
 
 The fame in Latin, By the Reverend Dr. Clarke. The Se- 
 
 cond Edition with Additions; Quarto & Oftavo, 1719. 
 
 Philofa- 
 
PhiTofbphlcal TitinCdi£t'oT\s N". 3; 7. for the Months of July, Au- 
 guft and September, 17 18. continued and publifhed by Dr. Edmund 
 Ha! ley, Pveg. Soc. Seer. As alfo a compleat Sett oc any fingle 
 Number 
 
 Mr. Marlhall's Chronological Tables, Folio, Lutin or EnglWli. 
 
 The Works of Ben. Johulon in Six Volumes, adornM with Cuts, 
 Oftavo, 1716. 
 
 An Accouut of f.veral late Voyages and Discoveries of Sir John 
 Narborou:;h and others to the South-Seas, &c. Illuftrated with Charts 
 .and curious Figures 0£tavo. 
 
 A Treatifc of Algebra. In Two Books : The firft treating of the A- 
 xithmetical, and the fecond of the Geometrical Part, By Philip Ro- 
 nayne, Gent. Oftavo, T717. 
 
 Philofbphical Letters between the late learned Mr. Ray, and fevcral of 
 his ingenious Correrpondeiits Natives and Foreigners. To which arc 
 added thofe of Francis Willoughby, Efqj The whole confifting of many 
 curious Difcoveries and Impiovements in the Hirtory of Quadrupeds, 
 Birds, Fiflics, Infefts, Plants, Foflils, Fountains, 5cc. Publiihed by the 
 Reverend Mr. Derham, Oftavo, 1718. 
 
 Milccllany Poems, containing Variety of* new Tranflntions of *hc 
 ancient Poets : Together with feveral Original Poems By the moft 
 eminent Hands. Publillied by Mr. Dryden. The Fourth Edition. Six 
 Vol. Twelves, 17 16. 
 
 The Penitent pardon'd : Or a Difcourfe of the Nature of Sin, and 
 tlie Efficacy of Repentance, under the Parable of the Prodigal Son. 
 By. J. Goodman, D. D. The Seventh Edition, Oftavo, 1713. 
 
 Chnltian Morals and Chriltian P-^udence In Two Parts. Wherein is 
 fiicwn the peculiar Wifdom and Beauty of the Chriftian Religion, in its 
 general DeCgn of p omoting tiiofe two excellent Ends fo perfedive of 
 humane Nature, Purity and Peace. By John Lawrence, M. A. Redor 
 of YeJvertoft in Northaniptcnlliire. Oftavo, 17^7- 
 
 Sermons ^nd Difcourfei. on feveral Subjefts and Occalions. By Ro- 
 bert South, D. D. late Prebendary of Weftminfter, and Canon of 
 Chrift-Chuich. Oxon, &c. In 6 Vol. Oilavo, 17 17. 
 
 Sermons on feveral Occaflons. By Dr. Sharpe late Lord Archbilhop 
 of York. In 4 Vols. Octavo The Fourth Edition, 1717- 
 
 The Old and Nev.- Teftamcnt connefted in the Hiftory of the Jews 
 and Neighbouring Nations, from the Declenfion of the Kingdoms of 
 Ifrael and Judah, to the Times of Chxift. By H. Prideaux, D. D. Two 
 Vols Folio, or Three Vols. Oftavo. 
 
 The Chriftian s Pattern : Or, a Treatife of the Imitation of Jefus 
 Chrift. In Four Books. Written originally in Latin by Thomas a 
 Kenipis Now rcndred into EngliHi, to which are added Meditations 
 And Prayers for Sick Perfons, By George Stanhope, D. D. Dean of 
 Canterbury. The Ninth Edition, Oftavo, 17 17. 
 
 Rapin of Gardciis : A Latin Poem. In Four Eocks. Englillied by 
 Mr. Gardiner. The Second Edition, Oftavo, 171 9- 
 
 A Paraphrafe with fhovt and ufeful Notes on the Books of the Old 
 Teft^nient. Parti InTwoVols Containing the Five Books of Mofes. 
 With a compleat Index of the Principal Matters, Words and Phrafes 
 in t!ie faid Books. For rhe Ufe of Families. By Thomas Pyle, M. A. 
 Ledlurer of Lynn-Regis in Norfolk, Oftavo, 1717- 
 
 The Pradue of Divine Lov- revifed : Being an Expofition of the 
 Church Catechifm. By the Right Reverend Father in God, Thomas 
 Kenn, D. D. late Bifliop of Bath and Wells. To wh ch are added, Di- 
 icftions for Prayer, Oiftavo, 1718. 
 
 A Companion for the Fcftivalsand Fafts of the Church of England, 
 with Collefts and Prayers for each Solemnity. By Robert NcHbn, Elqi 
 The Tenth Edition, O^avo, 17 17. 
 
f 
 
% ^ 
 
^^^