gg^;
 
 Three LETTERS to the 
 
 Bishop of 'Bangor.
 
 The TITLES of 
 
 The CONTENTS of the Nine Volumes 
 of the Rev. Willi am Laws Works. 
 
 I. Three Letters to the Bishop of Bangor, 
 
 II. [fi) Remarks upon a late Book entitled * The 
 
 * Fable of the Bees.' {hi) The Case of Reason, 
 or Natural Religion fairly and fully stated, (c) 
 The absolute Unlawfulness of Stage Enter- 
 tainments fully demonstrated. 
 
 III. A Practical Treatise upon Christian Perfection. 
 
 IV. A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life. 
 
 V. {a) A Demonstration of the Gross and Funda- 
 mental Errors of a late Book, called 'A plain 
 
 * Account of the Sacrament of the Lord's 
 
 * Supper.' [J)) The Grounds and Reason of 
 Christian Regeneration. 
 
 VI. [a] An Earnest and Serious Answer to Dr. Trapfs 
 Discourseof the Folly, Sin andDanger of being 
 Righteous over-much, [b) An Appeal to all that 
 Doubt or disbelieve the Truths of the Gospel. 
 
 VIL (ci) The Spirit of Prayer : or the Soul rising out 
 of the Vanity of Time into the Riches of Eter- 
 nity. In Two Parts, (b) The Way to Divine 
 Knowledge ; being several Dialogues between 
 Huffiafius, Academicus^ Riistictis and Theophihis. 
 
 VIII. {a) The Spirit of Love. In Two Parts, {b) A 
 Short but Sufficient Confutation of the Rev. Dr. 
 JVarbtirtons projecttd Defence of Christianity. 
 
 IX. {a) Of Justification by Faith and Works, {b) An 
 Humble, Earnest, and Afi^ectionate Address to 
 the Clergy, (c) A Collection of Letters on 
 the most Literesting and Important Subjects.
 
 THE 
 
 WORKS 
 
 Of the REVEREND 
 
 WILLIAM LAW, M.A., 
 
 Sometime Fellow of Rnunanuel 
 College, Cambridge, 
 
 In Nine Volumes. 
 
 Volume I. 
 
 Three LETTERS to the 
 Bishop of "Bangor, 
 
 LONDON: Printed for J. Richardson, I762. 
 Privately Reprinted for G. Moreton, Setleiiy 
 Brocke?ihursty New Forest, Hampshire. Io0 2.
 
 13 V 
 50^7 
 
 t Prefatory Memoir. ^' ' 
 
 THE ' Life' of the Rev. WiHiam Law has been fully, 
 even diffusively, set forth in his Biography written 
 by Canon Overton and published by Longmans 
 in the year i88i : and to that work— of which the 
 more interesting particulars are drawn from the 
 late Mr. Waltons* Collections — such readers of Law's Works 
 who desire to obtain some general idea of their Writer's life, are 
 referred. 
 
 Unfortunately, Canon Overton s Work, excellent and painstak- 
 ing as is its compilation, conveys to the earnest reader only a very 
 vague and unsatisfactory impression of William Law himself : 
 being composed chiefly of well-selected extracts from Law's 
 publications with criticisms thereon and numerous explanations 
 . and conjectures in well-meant but misplaced, elucidations of 
 motives and actions. In fact, Canon Overton has performed a 
 kind of literary autopsy upon William Law : quite in the manner 
 of biographical writing of the day ; unimpeachable, indeed, in 
 ^ respect of ' scholarly ' execution, although occasionally lapsing 
 o) into ill-chosen expressions as when he describes his subject as a 
 ^ * grand specimen of Humanity,' instead of example ; as if poor 
 ^ Law were some Museum specimen to be gazed at and remarked 
 upon, with due pedantry accordingly. This too, in the absence 
 of any authentic portrait of William Law, represses the curiosity 
 of the expectant reader who, abandoning the biography, consoles 
 himself with the remark made by Miss Hester Gibbon — when 
 ' 3 requested to write a ' Life ' of William Law — that his Life was 
 in his Works. 
 
 William Law was born at King's Cliffe a considerable Village in 
 Northamptonshire so long ago as the year i686, in the Reign of 
 fames the Second. His father was a ' Grocer and Chandler ' in 
 the Village, residing in a house of his own ; but, Canon Overton 
 
 * Christopher Walton, a ' Diamond Jeweller,' of Ludi^ate Street, 
 Loudon, a.r\d apparently a man of considerable literary ability — of the diamond- 
 jewelling kind — who had a most enthusiastic veneration for William Law. 
 He printed in the year 1856 a ' Cyclopaedia of Pure Christian Theology and 
 'Theosophic Science in Elucidation of the Sublime Genius and Theosophian 
 ' Mission ot William Law,' containing nearly 700 pages of the smallest and 
 closest printing, which is perhaps the most laborious, bombastic and 
 generally unreadable compilation ever printed — excepting the Biographical 
 footnotes relating to Law commencini^ at page 334. No wonder the Printers' 
 names are humorously and fictitiously given as '■ Reed 3in6. Pardon, Printers, 
 ' London.'
 
 iv Memoir of the 
 
 tells us ' his social standing was different from that of an ordinary 
 'Village tradesman of the present day.' From various evidence 
 it appears that theZawj were not of humble origin in respect of 
 'Gentility'; and mention is made by Walton of a Tradesman's 
 token, dated 1659, which bore their ' Coat of Arms ' — an evidence 
 of ' Gentility ' of more account at that time of ' Heraldic Visita- 
 ' tions ' than it would be at the present. It may be remembered 
 that Laius great Contemporary Bishop Butler, was the son of 
 a Linen-Draper ; and other instances might be recalled — Shake- 
 speare for example — of what has been accomplished by members 
 of that class. 
 
 William Law was the fourth son of a family of eight sons and 
 three daughters. His early disposition appears to have been 
 noticed by his father, who alone of all his sons, sent William to 
 the University ; and he entered as a Sizar of Euwianuel College, 
 Ca7iibridge, in the year 1705. He proceeded to the Arts Degrees 
 in the usual course; and was elected to a Fellowship of his 
 College and ordained in the year 171 1 — no doubt therefore, well 
 fulfilling his father's expectations of him. His political principles 
 (never mere ' Views ' with him), obliged him to decline the Oath 
 of Allegiance to George the First in the year 1716 ; which 
 deprived him of his College Fellowship and of all prospect of 
 advancement in the Church. In a note which he wrote to his 
 eldest brother on that occasion he says : ' My prospect indeed is 
 ' melancholy enough. . . . The benefits of my education seem 
 ' partly at an end, but that same education had been more miser- 
 ' ably lost, if I had not learnt to fear something worse than mis- 
 ' fortunes.' In this great, though providential disappointment to 
 his hopes and those of his family respecting him, his father did 
 not live to share, having died two years previously. 
 
 It is said that on leaving Cambridge, William Lazv came to 
 London : and there is some tradition that he officiated as Curate 
 at S. Mar/s Church in the Strand. Various vague reports are 
 current respecting him at that period ; but little is known of 
 him until he published his first letter to Dr. Hoadley, the latitu- 
 dinarian Bishop of Bangor, followed by his other letters on that 
 Controversy. The Bangorian discussion produced a copious 
 amount of theological literature which was no doubt of intense 
 interest at the time, but which has become rather tedious lumber 
 reading. 
 
 The following ' Rules for my Future Conduct ' drawn up by 
 William Laiu^ — it is said, when he was at Catnbridge — are 
 worthy of being reproduced with his Works : — 
 
 * Walton's ' Cyclopaedia,' Footnotes, pp. 345-6.
 
 "^ev, TVilliam Law, 
 
 To fix it deep in my Mind, that I have one business upon my hands 
 — to seek for eternal happiness, by doing the Will of God. 
 II. To examine ever\ thing that relates to me in this view, as 
 it serves or obstructs this only end of Life. 
 
 III. To think nothing great or desirable, because the World 
 thinks it so ; but to form all my judgments of things from the 
 infallible Word of God, and direct my Life accordmg to it. 
 
 IV. To avoid all concerns with the World, or the ways of it, but where 
 Religion and Charity oblige me to act. 
 
 V. To remember frequently, and impress it upon my Mind deeply, that no 
 condition of this Life is for enjoyment, but for trial ; and that every power, 
 ability, or advantage we have, are all so many Talents to be accounted for, to 
 the Judge of all the World. 
 
 VI. That the Greatness of Human Nature consists in nothing else but in 
 imitating the Divine Nature. That therefore, all the Greatness of this 
 World, which is not in good actions, is perfectly beside the point. 
 
 VII. To remember, often and seriously, how much of Time is inevitably 
 thrown away, from which I can expect nothing but the charge of Guilt ; and 
 how little there may be to come, on which an Eternity depends. 
 
 VI II. To avoid all excess in eating and drinking. 
 
 IX. To spend as little time as 1 possibly can, among such persons as can 
 receive no benefit from me, nor I from them. 
 
 X. To be always fearful of letting my time slip away without some fruit. 
 
 XI. To avoid all idleness. 
 
 XII. To call to mind the Presence of God, whenever I find myself 
 under any Temptation to sm, and to have immediate recourse to Prayer. 
 
 XIII. To think humbly of myself ; and with great Charity of ail others. 
 
 XIV. To forbear from all evil speaking. 
 
 XV. To think often of the Life of Christ, and to propose it as a pattern to 
 myself. 
 
 XVI. To pray, privately, thrice a day, besides my morning and evening 
 Prayer. 
 
 XVII. To keep from * as much as I can without offence. 
 
 XVIII. To spend some time in giving an account of the day, previous to 
 Evening Prayer: how have I spent this day.-* what Sin have I committed."* 
 what Temptations have I withstood.'' have I performed all my Duty.'' 
 
 It was about the year 1727 that William Law having- achieved 
 a good reputation by his Controversial writings, CJiristian Per- 
 fection, &€., became Tutor in the Gibbon family, residing at 
 Putney, in particular to the father of the Historian Gibbon whom 
 he accompanied to Emmanuel College ; and on his pupil's de- 
 parture thence upon his travels, Law returned to Putney where 
 he continued to reside for the next twelve years in the capacity 
 of Spiritual Director with the Gibbon family, by whom he was 
 much esteemed. It was during his residence at Putney that he 
 produced his fame-piece, but not perhaps his master-piece, the 
 Serious Call, by which he is now most generally known. It 
 appears to have been at Putney also, that he became acquainted 
 with the writings o^ Jacob Behmen the German Mystic, for whom 
 
 Left blank by IValton.
 
 vi Memoir of the 
 
 and his Commentators, he acquired a great veneration which 
 deepened with him until his death. 
 
 On leaving Putney, Law returned to King's Cliffe to reside ; 
 where shortly afterwards Mrs. Hutcheson, a Widow lady, and 
 Miss Hester Gibbon, who were each possessed of ample means 
 and of strict piety, joined him and devoted themselves and the 
 greater part of their joint income* to the relief of the Poor in 
 a most benevolent, but it would seem, indiscriminate manner. 
 Their Charity becoming notorious, attracted to them all the 
 Vagrants from the whole country round, demoralizing the 
 Village of Kings Cliffe ; and exciting the rebuke of the then 
 Incumbent administered to them from his pulpit. 
 
 Some interesting particulars of the daily life of William Law's 
 household at Kings Cliffe were collected many years ago by 
 Mr. Walton, and are abridged, as follows : 
 
 MR. LAW rose early each morning, probably about five o'clock, 
 spending some time in devotion; after which he breakfasted, 
 generally on a cup of chocolate in his bedroom, and then com- 
 menced study. . . . Mr. Law kept four cows, the produce of 
 which, beyond what was required for his household, he gave to 
 the poor, distributing the milk every morning with his own 
 hands. ... At nine o'clock a bell was rung for family devotion, of which the 
 Collects and Psalms for the day formed a portion. From ... the perform- 
 ance of this duty Mr. Law retired in silence to his chamber, where he passed 
 the morning in study ; not unfrequently, indeed, interrupted by the message 
 of some poor mendicant for aid, which never failed to secure his immediate 
 attention ... he inquired into the particular needs of his suppliants, and 
 caused relief to be administered in the shape either of money, apparel, or food. 
 ... He manifested displeasure if room was not found on the kitchen fire for 
 a vessel for the poor ; and sometimes he has been known to quit his studies 
 in order to taste the broth which had been made for them. ... In the winter 
 season, he occasionally added ale and wine to these charitable provisions. 
 Amongst the articles of clothing which he provided for the indigent were 
 shirts made of strong coarse linen ; and, that he might not give away what he 
 himself could not thankfully receive, he always wore them himself first . . . 
 after which they were washed and distributed. . . . Instances of hypocrisy 
 are narrated of mendicants, who have been known to change their better 
 clothing, sheltered by the projecting buttresses of the neighbouring church, 
 for rags, and, thus disguised, repair again for relief to the well-known window. 
 Though suspicions at times crossed his mind, Mr. Law would give his sup- 
 plicants the benefit of a doubt, the result of all which was that Kmg's Cliffe 
 became the resort of the idle and worthless, and obtained a character tor 
 Pauperism which the place did not deserve ; and so much annoyance did it 
 cause to the inhabitants that the Rector . . . endeavoured to put an end to 
 
 * Mrs. HutCHESON's income is said by Walton to have been ^2,000, and 
 Miss Gibbon's between five and sevei) humired pounds yearly. It also 
 appears that William Law gave the profits of only the Jirst editions of his 
 Works to the Bookseller, so that there would be a considerable income from 
 that source.
 
 "^ev, William Law. vii 
 
 the alleged mistaken benevolence of Mr. Law and his companions by openly 
 preachmg against them from the Pulpit. ... At noon in winter, and at one 
 in summer, dinner was laid upon the table, of which Mr. Law partook very 
 moderately, allowing himself one glass of wine. . . . Immediately after dinner 
 they reassembled (for devotional exercises). That duty performed, Mr. Zaw 
 once more retired to his study and remained there a few liours, again rejoin- 
 ing the ladies at the tea-table. Of this refreshment he did not ordinarily 
 partake, but supplied its place with a raisin or two from his pocket, generally 
 standing and indulging in cheerful conversation. After tea exercises of piety 
 were resumed, and varied by the servants in turn reading a chapter from the 
 Bible. . . . yix.Law and his companions, Mrs. Hutchcson and Miss Gibbon, 
 were constant in their attendance at Church whenever Divine Service was 
 performed. After the morning service on Wednesdays and Fridays, it was 
 their custom to ride out for an airing, Mr. Law and Miss Gibbon being on 
 horseback, and Mrs. Hutcheson^viiih theHonourables the Misses //«//£'«, their 
 neighbours (who usually dined with them every alternate Friday) . . . in the 
 carriage. ... As regards the regular occupations of the ladies,* apart from 
 the time dedicated to outward offices of charity among their Neighbours, or 
 spent in private devotion, it would appear that they consisted in storing their 
 minds with the instructions of Wisdom, and the impressions of Eternity, by 
 transcribing daily portions out of the writings of the ancient . . . divines as 
 in the way of school exercises. ... As no authentic portrait of Mr. Law is in 
 existence ... we give a sketch of his personal appearance, as nearly as can 
 be gathered from the testimony left upon record, assisted by our knowledge 
 of his character. f ... In stature . . . rather over than under the middle 
 size, his frame not corpulent, but stoutly built. . . . The general form of his 
 countenance was round ; and he possessed a blunt, felicitous expression of 
 utterance. . . . He had well-proportioned features ... a cheerful, open 
 expression. . . . His face was ruddy, his eyes grey, clear, vivacious. . . . 
 His general manner was lively and unaffected, and, though his walk and 
 conversation among his friends was that of a Sage ... he was accustomed 
 to see company, and was a man of free conversation. ... A sister of the . . . 
 Wesleys describes him as the very picture of the Law itself for severity and 
 gravity. , . . Perhaps the gravity of his looks and demeanour was a little 
 
 * Mrs. HUTCHESON and Miss Hester Gibbon, each of whom sur- 
 vived William Law ; and are buried at the foot of his grave in King's 
 Cliffe Churchyard. Canon Overton, in his ' Biography of Laza,' rather 
 ungallantly and frivolously records a foolish tradition ' that during 
 ' Law's lifetime the ladies dressed in the severely simple style recom- 
 ' mended in the Serious Call, but that after his death the feminine 
 'love of finery broke out,' and ' Miss Gibbon appeared resplendent in yellow 
 ' stockings :' as if Miss Gibbon's stockings had been an apparent and pro- 
 minent rather than an obscured and withdrawn portion of her apparel ; for 
 which supposition there is no evidence, although Dr. Byrom reports on 
 hearsay that ' she was said to be a very good lady, though some people thought 
 ' she was mad.' 
 
 t Mr. Walton here adds the following note (p. 502), which will be read 
 with a shudder : ' If our endeavours to obtain possession of his Skull should be 
 ' crowned with success, we shall then, perhaps, be enabled to offer a more just 
 'and complete delineation of his exterior . . . ; his hardy, economic physical 
 ' training and classically tutored mind rendering it probable that nature in 
 ' him was regular and true' — and very unlike what it was in poor Mr. Walton I
 
 viii Memoir of the 
 
 heightened by the soberness of his dress, which was usually a clerical hat 
 with the loops let down, black coat, and grey wig. 
 
 Of the many who applied to William Law for spiritual advice 
 and guidance, and who for a time implicitly followed his direc- 
 tions, the most notable was John Wesley : of whom Law subse- 
 quently wrote, ' I was at one time a sort of Oracle with Mr. 
 ' Wesley! The occasion of their estrangement was because 
 in Wesley's opinion, William Law's teaching did not sufficiently 
 dwell upon the Saving Merits of the Atonement ; and the instan- 
 taneous kind of Salvation comprehended in the Divine words 
 
 * Believe ; and thou shalt be saved.' This Doctrine Wesley in a 
 lengthy but rather weak and petulant, note charged Lazv with 
 neglecting to teach him ; and asks him ' How will you justify it 
 ' to our common Lord that you never gave me this advice' — of 
 instantaneous Salvation — ' Why did I scarcely ever hear you 
 ' name the name of Christ, never so as to ground anything on 
 'faith in His blood ?'; and concludes with some personal reflec- 
 tions upon William Lazv's morose disposition, which he thinks 
 cannot be the result of a living faith, &c., and which certainly 
 might have been spared. To this Law sent a most admirable 
 and charitable reply, sweeping away Wesley' s\ri'SA\\\xz.\Xo'c\s like so 
 many cobwebs ; in which he says ' A holy man you say taught 
 *you this "Believe and thou shalt be saved."' I am to sup- 
 
 * pose that till you met with this holy man you had not been 
 
 * taught this Doctrine. Did you not above two years ago give a 
 ' new translation of Thomas a Kempis. Will you call Thomas to 
 ' account and to answer it to God, as you do me for not teaching 
 ' you that doctrine ? Or will you say that you took upon you to 
 ' restore the true sense of that Divine Writer, and instruct others 
 ' how they might profit by reading him, before you had so much 
 ' as a literal knowledge of the most plain, open, and repeated 
 ' doctrine in his book. You cannot but remember what value I 
 ' alwaj's expressed of a Kempis^ and how much I recommended 
 ' it to your meditations. You have had a great many conver- 
 ' sations with me, and I dare say you never was with me half an 
 ' hour without my being large upon that very doctrine which you 
 ^ make me totally silent and ignorant of .... I am to suppose 
 ' that you had been meditating upon an Author that of all others 
 ' leads us the most directly to a real living Faith in Jesus Christ : 
 'after }'OU had judged yourself such a master of his sentiments 
 ' and doctrines as to be able to publish them .... after yoti had 
 ' done this you had only the faith of a Judas.' And concluding : 
 'Your last paragraph, concerning my sour, rough behaviour, I 
 ' leave in its full force. Whatever you can say of me of that
 
 "^v, JT'^illiam Law, ix 
 
 'kind, without hurting yourself , will be always well received by 
 ' me.' 
 
 William Laivs veneration for Jacob Behinen and belief in his 
 System of Philosophy ; and what has been termed, his own 
 ' mysticism,' has by many been misunderstood and misrepre- 
 sented. His latest Biographer, Canon Overton, places too much 
 stress upon a quotation from a letter written by Williani Lazolo 
 a friend ; in which, probably in an unguarded moment of strong 
 entKusiasm, he says 'All pretences and endeavours to hinder the 
 ■"^enlng of this Mystery revealed ' in Jacob BeJivien ' and its 
 ' bearing down all before it, will be as vain as so many attempts 
 ' to prevent or retard the coming of the last day ' — and this 
 statement made in the privacy of correspondence — Canon Overton 
 describes as a ' Prophecy ' unfulfilled. It is therefore, only fair 
 to William Law's memory to quote the following extract from a 
 letter written by him five years later — and within two years of 
 his death, to a friend : 'Next to the Scriptures, my only book is 
 'the illuminated Behmen. Arid' him I only Jolloio so Jar as lie 
 ' TietpS to open in me that zvhicli God had opened in him, concerning 
 ' the death and the lije oj the Jallcn and redeemed man. The 
 ' whole Kmgdom'of Grace and Nature was opened in him; and 
 ' the whole Kingdom of Grace and Nature lies hid in myself. 
 ' And, therefore, in reading of him, I am always at home and 
 ' kept close to the Kingdom of God that is within me.'' 
 
 Another of the charges brought against Lazv is, that he was 
 a 'declared Universalist.^ The final Restitution of all things, 
 was a subject upon which he spoke and wrote most guardedly ; 
 in one instance as follows : — ' Put away all needless curiosity in 
 ' Divine matters ; and look upon everything to be so but that 
 ' which helps you to die to yourself, that the Spirit and Life of 
 ' Christ may be found in you.' 
 
 William Law retired to Kings Clijfe when he was fifty-one 
 years of age, and he resided there until his death, twenty-two 
 years later. It appears that at Eastertide in the year 1761, 
 when occupying himself as usual about the annual audit of the 
 Schools, which he had founded and endowed in his native place, 
 he caught cold, producing inflammation of the kidneys; which, 
 after a few days' acute suffering, ended his life here. His death 
 occurred between seven and eight o'clock in the morning of 
 Thursday, c)th April, 1761. 'When near expiring,' it is reported, 
 ' he_saiig a hymn with a strong and very clear voice ; ' and Miss 
 Gibbon, who was present, wrote: — 'This death-bed instead of 
 ' Being a state of Affliction, was, providentially, a state of Divine 
 ' Transp ort. As to THE TRUTH, all his behaviour bore full 
 ' testimony to it, and the gracious words that proceeded out of
 
 X Memoir of the ^v, M^illiam Law. 
 
 ' his mouth were all love, all joy, and all Divine Transport . . . 
 ' after taking leave of everybody in the most affecting manner, 
 ' and declaring the opening of the Spirit of Love in the Soul to 
 ' be all in all — he expired in Divine raptures.' 
 
 G. B. M. 
 
 Brockenhurst, Hants. 
 
 i()t/i October^ 1892.
 
 THE 
 
 Bishop of Bangor's 
 
 LATE 
 
 SERMON, 
 
 AND HIS 
 
 LETTER to Dr. Snape in 
 Defence of it, 
 
 ANSWERED. 
 
 And the Dangerous Nature of some Doctrines 
 in his Preservative^ 
 
 Set forth in a 
 
 Letter to his Lordship. 
 
 By JVILLIAM LAM^, M. A. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed for W. Innys and J. Richardson, 
 in Pater-noster-Row, ^753'
 
 The 
 
 First Letter to 
 
 the Bishop of "Bangor. 
 
 My Lordj 
 
 THAT your Lordship may be prepared to receive 
 what I here presume to lay before you, with the 
 greater Candor, I sincerely profess, that it does 
 not proceed from any Prejudice ; but from certain 
 Reasons, upon which I find myself invincibly 
 obliged to differ from your Lordship in Opinion. 
 
 To prevent all Suspicion of my designing anything injurious 
 to your Lordship's Character in this Address, I have prefixed, 
 what otherwise I should have chosen to conceal, my Name 
 to it. 
 
 Your Lordship is represented as at the Head of a Cause, 
 where every Adversary is sure to be reproached, either as a 
 furious Jacobite, or Popish Bigot, or an Enemy to the Liberty 
 of his Country, and the Protestant Cause. These hard Names 
 are to be expected, my Lord, from a Set of Men who dishonour 
 your Lordship with their Panegyrics upon your Performances ; 
 whose Praises defile the Character they would adorn. 
 
 When Dr. Snape represents your Lordship as no Friend to the 
 good Orders, and necessary Institutions of the Church, you 
 complain of the ill Arts of an Adversary, who sets you out in 
 false Colours, perverts your Words on purpose to increase his 
 own Imaginary Triumphs. But, my Lord, in this. Dr. Snape 
 only thinks with those who would be counted your best Friends ; 
 and would no longer be your Friends, but that they conclude, 
 you have declared against the Authority of the Church. Does 
 
 your Lordship suppose, that the T ds, the H ks, the 
 
 B ts, would be at so much Expense of Time and Labour, to 
 
 justify, commend and enlarge upon your Lordship's Notions, if 
 they did not think you engaged in their Cause? There is not a 
 Libertine, or Loose-Thinker in England, but he imagines you 
 intend to dissolve the Church as a Society, and are ready to 
 
 I — 2
 
 T'hree Letters to 
 
 offer Incense to your Lordship for so meritorious a Design. 
 It is not my Intention to reproach your Lordship with their 
 Esteem, or to involve you in the Guilt of their Schemes ; but 
 to show, that an Adversary does not need any Malice to make 
 him believe you no Friend to the Constitution of the Church, 
 as a Regular Society, since your greatest Admirers every Day 
 publish it by necessary Construction to the World in Print. 
 
 After a Word or two concerning a Passage in your Lordship's 
 Preservative, I shall proceed to consider your Answer to Dr. 
 Snape. In the 98th Page you have these Words : Biit wJien you 
 are secure of your Integrity before God, — this will lead you {as 
 it 07tght all of us) not to be afraid of the Terrors of Men, or the 
 vain Words of Regular Ujiifiterrupted Successions, Authoritative 
 Benedictions, Excommunications, — Nullity, or Validity of God's 
 Ordinances to the People upon Account of Niceties «w^ Trifles, or 
 any other the like Dreams. 
 
 My Lord, thus much must be implied here : Be not afraid of 
 the Terrors of Men, who would persuade you of the Danger of 
 being in this, or that Communion, and fright you into particular 
 Ways of Worshipping God, who would make you believe such 
 Sacraments, and such Clergy, are necessary to recommend you 
 to his Favour. For these, your Lordship affirms, we may con- 
 temn, if we be but secure of our Integrity. 
 
 So that if a Man be not a Hypocrite, it matters not what 
 Religion he is of. This is a Proposition of an unfriendly Aspect 
 to Christianity : But that it is entirely your Lordship's, is plain 
 from what you declare, p. 90 : That every one may find it in his 
 own Conduct to be true, that his Title to God's Favour cannot 
 depetid ttpon his actual being or continuing in any particidar 
 Method ; bjit upon his real Sincerity in the Conduct of his Con- 
 science. Again, p, 91 : The Favour of God follows Since^'ity, 
 considered as such, and consequejitly equally folloivs every equal 
 Degree of Sincerity. So that I hope I have not wrested your 
 Lordship's Meaning, by saying, that, according to these Notions, 
 if a Man be not a Hypocrite, it matters not what Religion he is 
 of Not only sincere Quakers, Ranters, Muggletonians, and Fifth 
 MonarcJiy-Men, are as much in the Favour of God, as any of the 
 Apostles ; but likewise sincere Jews, Turks and Deists, are upon 
 as good a Bottom, and as secure of the Favour of God, as the 
 sincerest Christian. 
 
 For your Lordship saith, it is Sincerity, as stick, that procures 
 the Favour of God. If it be Sincerity, as such, then it is Si7i- 
 cerity independent and exclusive of any particular Way of Wor- 
 ship. And if the Favour of God equally follows every equal 
 Degree of Sincerity, then it is impossible there should be any
 
 the "Bishop of Bangor. 
 
 Difference, either as to Merit or Happiness, between a sincere 
 Martyr and a sincere Persecutor ; and he that burns the 
 Christian, if he be but in earnest, has the same Title to a 
 Reward for it, as he that is burnt for believing in Christ. 
 
 Your Lordship saith, you can't help it, if People will charge 
 you with* Evil Intentions and Bad Viexvs. I intend no such 
 Charge : But I wonder your Lordship should think it hard, that 
 anyone should infer from these Places, that you are against the 
 Interest of the CJmrcJi of England. 
 
 For, my Lord, cannot the Quakers, Muggletonians, Deists, 
 Presbyterians, assert you as much in their interest as we can ? 
 Have you said anything for us, or done anything for us in this 
 Preservative, but what you have equally done for them ? Your 
 Lordship is ours, as you fill a Bishopric ; but we are at a loss 
 to discover from this Discourse what other Interest we have in 
 your Lordship. For you openly expose our Communion, and give 
 up all the advantages of it, by telling all sorts of People, if they are 
 but sincere in their own Way, they are as much in God's Favour 
 as anybody else. Is this supporting our Interest, my Lord ? 
 
 Suppose a Friend of King George should declare it to all 
 Britons whatever, that though they were divided into Five thou- 
 sand different Parties, to set up different Pretenders ; yet if they 
 were but sincere in their Designs, they would be as much in the 
 Favour of God, as those who are most firmly attached to his 
 Majesty. Does your Lordship think, such a one would be 
 thought any great Friend to the Government? And, my Lord, 
 is not this the Declaration you made as to the Church of Eng- 
 land? Have you not told all Parties, that their Sincerity is 
 enough .-' Have you said so much as one Word in Recommenda- 
 tion of our Communion : Or, if it was not for your Church- 
 Character in the Title-Page of this Discourse, could anyone 
 alive conceive what Communion you were of? Nay, a Reader, 
 that was a Stranger, would imagine, that he who will allow no 
 Dift"erence between Communions, is himself of no Communion. 
 Your Lordship, for aught I know, may act according to the 
 strictest Sincerity, and may think it your Duty to undermine 
 the Foundations of the Church. I am only surprised, that you 
 should refuse to own the Reasonableness of such a Charge. 
 
 Your Lordship hath cancelled all our Obligations to any par- 
 ticular Communion, upon pretence of Sincerity. 
 
 I hope, my Lord, there is Mercy in store for all sorts of 
 People, however erroneous in their Way of worshipping God ; 
 but cannot believe, that to be a sincere Christian, is to be no 
 more in the Favour of God, than to be a sincere Deist, or a 
 
 * Answer, p. 46.
 
 6 T'hree Letters to 
 
 sincere Destroyer of Christians. It will be allowed, that Sincerity- 
 is a necessary Principle of true Religion ; and that without it, all 
 the most specious Appearances of Virtue are nothing worth. 
 But still, neither common Sense, nor plain Scripture, will suffer 
 me to think, that when our Saviour was on Earth, they were as 
 much in the Favour of God, who sincerely refused to be his 
 Disciples, and sincerely called for his Crucifixion, as those who 
 sincerely left all and followed him. If they were, my Lord, 
 where is that Blessedness of Believing so often mentioned in the 
 Scripture? Or, where is the Happiness of the Gospel Revelation, 
 if they are as well, who refuse it sincerely, as those who embrace 
 it with Integrity? 
 
 Our Saviour declared, that those who believed, should be saved ; 
 but those who believed not, should be damned. Will your Lord- 
 ship say, that all Unbelievers were insincere ; or, that though 
 they were damned, they were yet in the same Favour with God, 
 as those who were saved ? 
 
 The Apostle assures us, that there is no other Name under 
 Heaven given nnto Men, zvJiercby they can be saved, but Jesus 
 Christ. But your Lordship hath found out an Atonement, more 
 universal than that of his Blood ; and which will even make 
 those blessed and happy, who count it an unJioly Thing. For 
 seeing it is Sincerity, as sucJi, that alone recommends us to the 
 Favour of God, they who sincerely persecute this Name, are in 
 as good a Way, as those that sincerely worship it. Has God 
 declared this to be the only Way to Salvation ? How can your 
 Lordship tell the World, that Sincerity will save them, be they 
 in what Way they will ? Is this all the Necessity of Christ's 
 Satisfaction ? Is this all the Advantage of the Gospel Covenant, 
 that those who sincerely condemn it, are in as good a State 
 without it, as those that embrace it ? 
 
 My Lord, here is no Aggravation of your Meaning. If Sin- 
 cerity, as such, be the only thing that recommends us to God, 
 and every equal Degree of it procures an equal Degree of Favour; 
 it is a Demonstration, that Sincerity against Christ is as pleasing 
 to God, as Sincerityyi?r him. My Lord, this is a Doctrine which 
 n'> Words can enough decry. So I shall leave it, to consider 
 V hat Opinion St. Paul had of this kind of Sincerity. He did 
 not think, when he persecuted the Church, though he did it 
 ignorantly, and in Unbelief, and out of Zeal towards God, that 
 he was as much in the Favour of God, as when he suffered for 
 Christ. I avi the least, saith he, of the Apostles, not Jit to be called 
 an Apostle ; because I persecuted the Church of Christ. The 
 Apostle does not scruple to charge himself with Guilt, notwith- 
 standing his Sincerity.
 
 the bishop of Bangor, 7 
 
 A little Knowledge of human Nature will teach us, that our 
 Sincerity may be often charged with Guilt ; not as if we were 
 guilty because we are sincere ; but because it may be our Fault 
 that we are hearty and sincere in such or such ill-grounded 
 Opinions. It may have been from some ill Conduct of our own, 
 some Irregularities, or Abuse of our Faculties, that we conceive 
 things as we do, and are fixed in such and such Tenets. And 
 can we think so much owing to a Sincerity in Opinions, con- 
 tracted by ill Habits and guilty Behaviour? There are several 
 faulty Ways, by which People may cloud and prejudice tlieir 
 Understandings, and throw themselves into a very odd Way of 
 thinking ; for some Cause or other God may send them a strong 
 Delusion, that they should believe a Lie. And will your Lordship 
 say, that those who are thus sunk into Errors, it may be, through 
 their own ill Conduct, or as a Judgment of God upon them, are 
 as much in his Favour, as those that love and adhere to the 
 Truth ? This, my Lord, is a shocking Opinion, and has given 
 Numbers of Christians great Offence, as contradicting common 
 Sense and plain Scripture ; as setting all Religion upon the 
 Level, as to the Favour of God. 
 
 The next thing that, according to your Lordship, we ought not 
 to be concerned at, is, the vain Words of Regular and Uninter- 
 rupted Successions, as Niceties, Trifles, and Dreams. Thus much 
 surely is implied in these Words, that no kind of Ordination or 
 Mission of the Clergy is of any Consequence or Moment to us. 
 For if the Ordination need not h^ Regular, ox A&x'wtA from those 
 who had Authority from Christ to Ordain, it is plain, that no 
 one particular kind of Ordination can be of any more Value 
 than another. For no Ordination whatever can have any worse 
 Defects, than as being /r;r^/^/^r, and not derived by a Succession 
 from Christ. So that if these Circumstances are to be looked on 
 as Trifles and Dreams, all the Difference that can be supposed 
 betwixt any Ordinations, comes under the same Notion of 
 Trifles and Dreams ; and consequently, are either Good alike, or 
 Trifling alike. So that Quakers, Independents, Presbyterians, 
 according to your Lordship, have as much Reason to think their 
 Teachers as useful to them, and as True Ministers of Christ, as 
 those of the Episcopal Communion have to think their Teachers. 
 For if Regularity of Ordination and Uninterrupted Succession be 
 mere Trifles, and nothing ; then all the Difference betwixt us 
 and other Teachers, must be nothing: for they can differ from 
 us in no other respects. So that, my Lord, if Episcopal Ordina- 
 tion, derived from Christ, hath been contended for by the Church 
 oi England, your Lordship hath in this Point deserted her : And 
 you not only give up Episcopal Ordination, by ridiculing a
 
 8 T'hree Letters to 
 
 Succession ; but likewise by the same Argument exclude any 
 Ministers on Earth from having Christ's Authority. For if there 
 be not a Succession of Persons authorised from Christ to send 
 others to act in his Name, then both Episcopal and Presbyterian 
 Teachers are equally Usurpers, and as mere Laymen as any at 
 all. For there can't be any other Difference between the Clergy 
 and Laity ; but as the one hath Authority derived from 
 Christ, to perform Offices which the other hath not. But this 
 Authority can be no otherwise had, than by an Uninterrupted 
 Succession of Men from Christ, empowered to qualify others. 
 For if the Succession be once broke, People must either go into 
 the Ministry of their own Accord, or be sent by such as have no 
 more Power to send others, than to go themselves. And, my 
 Lord, can these be called Ministers of Christ, or received as his 
 Ambassadors 1 Can they be thought to act in his Name, who 
 have no Authority from him ? If so, your Lordship's Servant 
 might Ordain and Baptize to as much purpose as your Lordship : 
 For it could only be objected to such Actions, that they had no 
 Authority from Christ. And if there be no Succession of 
 Ordainers from him, everyone is equally qualified to Ordain. 
 My Lord, I should think it might be granted me, that the 
 Administering of a Sacrament is an Action we have no Right to 
 perform, considered either as Men, Gentlemen, or Scholars, or 
 Members of a Civil Society. Who then can have any Authority 
 to interpose, but he that has it from Christ ? And how that can 
 be had from him, without a Succession of Men from him, is not 
 easily conceived. Should a private Person choose a Lord 
 Chancellor, and declare his Authority good ; would there be any 
 thing but Absurdity, Impudence and Presumption in it .^ But 
 why he cannot as well commission a Person to act, sign and 
 seal in the King's Name, as in the Name of Christ, is unaccount- 
 able. 
 
 My Lord, it is a plain and obvious Truth, that no Man, or 
 Number of Men, considered, as such, can any more make a 
 Priest, or commission a Person to officiate in Christ's Name, as 
 such, than he can enlarge the Means of Grace, or add a New 
 Sacrament for the Conveyance of spiritual Advantages. The 
 Ministers of Christ are as much positive Ordinances, as the 
 Sacraments ; and we might as well think, that Sacraments not 
 instituted by him, might be Means of Grace, as those pass for 
 his Ministers, who have no Authority from him. 
 
 Once more, all things are either in common in the Church of 
 Christ, or they are not. If they are, then everyone may Preach, 
 Baptize, Ordain, ^c. If all things are not thus common, but the 
 Administering of the Sacrament, and Ordination, 6"^., are Offices
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor. 
 
 appropriated to particular Persons ; then I desire to know how, 
 in this present Age, or any other since the Apostles, Christians 
 can know their respective Duties, or what they may, or may not 
 do, with respect to the several Acts of Church-Communion, if 
 there be no Unintemtpted Succession of Authorised Persons from 
 Christ : For until Authority from Christ appears, to make a 
 Difference between them, we are all alike ; and anyone may 
 officiate as well as another. To make a Jest therefore of the 
 U ninternipted Succession, is to make a Jest of Ordination ; to 
 destroy the sacred Character, and make all Pretenders to it, as 
 good as those that are sent by Christ. 
 
 If there be no Uninterrupted Succession, then there are no 
 Authorised Ministers from Christ ; if no such Ministers, then no 
 Christian Sacraments ; if no Christian Sacraments, then no 
 Christian Covenant, whereof the Sacraments are the Stated and 
 Visible Seals. 
 
 My Lord, this is all your own. Here are no Consequences 
 palmed upon you ; but the first, plain, and obvious Sense of your 
 Lordship's Words — and yet, after all, your Lordship asks Dr. 
 Snape, Why all these Outcries agaifist you* ? Indeed, my Lord, 
 you have only taken the main Supports of our Religion away : j/ 
 You have neither left us Priests, nor Sacraments, nor Church : ^ 
 Or, what is the same thing, you have made them all Trifles and 
 Di'cams. And what has your Lordship given us in the room of 
 all these Advantages ? Why, only Sincerity : This is the great 
 Universal Atonement for all. This is that, which, according to 
 your Lordship, will help us to the Communion of Saints here- 
 after, though we are in Communion with anybody, or nobody 
 here. 
 
 The next Things we are not to be afraid of, are. The vain 
 Words of Nullity and Validity of God's Ordijiances, i.e., whether 
 they are administered by a Clergyman or a Layman. This 
 indeed I have shown was included in what you said about the 
 Trifle of Uninterrupted Succession. But, for fear we should have 
 overlooked it there, you have given it us in express Words in 
 the next Line. 
 
 Your Lordship tells Dr. Snape, That yoii know no Confusion, 
 Glorious or Inglorious, that you have endeavoured to introduce into 
 the Church.-f- 
 
 My Lord, If I may presume to repeat your own Words, Lay 
 your Hand on your Heart, and ask yourself. Whether the en- 
 couraging all manner of Divisions, be not endeavouring to 
 introduce Confusion ? If there were in England Five thousand 
 
 * Answer, p. 46. + Answer, p. 47.
 
 lo T'hree Letters to 
 
 different Sects, has not your Lordship persuaded them to be 
 content with themselves ; not to value what they are told by 
 other Communions ; That if they are but sincere, they need not 
 have regard to anything else ? Is not this to introduce Con- 
 fusion ? What is Confusion, but Difference and Division ? And 
 does not your Lordship plainly declare to the World, that there 
 is no need of uniting? That there is no particular Way or 
 Method, that can recommend us more to the Favour of God, 
 than another ? Has your Lordship so much as given the least 
 Hint, that it is better to be in the Communion of the Church of 
 England, than not ? Have you not exposed her Sacraments and 
 Clergy ; and, as much as lay in you, broke down every thing in 
 her, that distinguishes her from Fanatical Conventicles? What 
 is there in her, as a Church, that you have left untouched ? 
 What have you left in her, that can any way invite others into 
 her Communion ? Are her Clergy authorised more than others ? 
 For fear that should be thought, you make a Regular Succession 
 from Christ, a Trifle. Are her Sacraments more regularly 
 administered ? Lest that should recommend her, you slight the 
 Nullity or Validity of God's Ordinances. Is there any Authority 
 in her Laws, which enjoin Communion with her ? Lest this 
 should be believed, you tell us, that our being or continuing in 
 any particular Method (or particular Communion) cannot recom- 
 mend us more to the Favour of God than another. 
 
 I must observe to your Lordship, that these Opinions are very 
 oddly put in a Preservative from ill Principles ; or. An Appeal 
 to the Consciences and common Sense of the Laity. Are they to 
 be persuaded not to join with the Nonjurors, because no 
 particular Priests, no particular Sacraments, no particular 
 Communion, is anything but a Dream and Trifle ; and such 
 things as no way recommend us to the Favour of God more 
 than others ? Are the Nonjurors only thus to be answered ? 
 Is the Established Church only thus to be defended ? Your 
 Lordship indeed has not minced the Matter : But, I hope, the 
 Church of England is to be supported upon better Principles, or 
 not at all. 
 
 If I should tell a Person that put a Case of Conscience to me, 
 that all Cases of Conscience are Trifles, and signify nothing ; it 
 would be plain, that I had given him a direct Answer : Bat if he 
 had either Conscience, or common Sense, he would seek out a 
 better Confessor. 
 
 Your Lordship tells Dr. Snape, that the saith and unsaith, to 
 the great Diversion of the Roman Catholics.^ But if your Lord- 
 
 * Answer, p. 46.
 
 the "Bishop of Bangor, 1 1 
 
 ship would unsay some things you have said, it would be a 
 greater Mortification to them, than all that ever you said or writ 
 in your Life. 
 
 To deny the Necessity of any particular Communion, to 
 expose the Validity of Sacraments, and rally upon the Unin- 
 terrupted Succession of Priests, and pull down every Pillar in 
 the Church of Chrift, is an Errand on which Rome hath sent 
 many Messengers. And the Papists are no more provoked with 
 your Lordship for these Discourses, than they were angry at 
 William Penn, a reputed Jesuit, for preaching up Quakerism.. 
 So long as they rejoice in our Divisions, or are glad to see the 
 City of God made a mere Babel, they can no more be angry at 
 your Lordship, than at your Advocates. 
 
 Dr. Snape says, you represent the Church of Christ as a 
 Kingdom, in which Christ neither acts himself, nor hath invested 
 anyone else with Authority to act for him. At this your Lord- 
 ship cries, p. 22, Lay your Hand upon your Heart, and ask, Is 
 this a Christion, Human, Honest Representation of what your own 
 Eyes read in my Sermon ? 
 
 My Lord, I have dealt as sincerely with my Heart as it is 
 possible ; and I must confess, I take the Doctor's Representation 
 to be Christian and Honest. For though you sometimes contend 
 against Absolute and Indispensable Authority ; yet it is plain, 
 that you strike at all Authority, and assert, as the Doctor saith, 
 that Christ hath not invested anyone on Earth with an Authority 
 to act for him. 
 
 Page II. You expressly say, That as to the Affairs of Con- 
 science and eternal Salvation, Christ hath left no Visible Human 
 Authority behind him. 
 
 Now, my Lord, is not this saying, that he has left no Authority 
 at all .-• For Christ came with no other Authority Himself but as 
 to Conscience and Salvation, he erected a Kingdom which 
 related to nothing but Conscience and Salvation : And there- 
 fore they who have no Authority as to Conscience and Salvation, 
 have no Authority at all in his Kingdom. Conscience and Salva- 
 tion are the only Affairs of that Kingdom. 
 
 Your Lordship denies, that anyone has Authority in these 
 Affairs ; and yet you take it ill to be charged with asserting, 
 that Christ hath not invested anyone with Authority for him. 
 How can anyone act for him, but in his Kingdom ? How can 
 they act in his Kingdom, if they have nothing to do with Con- 
 science and Salvation, when his Kingdom is concerned with 
 nothing else .' 
 
 Again, Page i6, your Lordship saith, that no one of them 
 (Christians) any more than another, hath Authority either to make
 
 12 T'hree Letters to 
 
 new Laws for Christ's Subjects^ or to impose a Sense upon the old 
 ones ; or to Judge, Censure, or Punish the Servants of another 
 Master, in Matters purely relating to Conscience. 
 
 I can meet with no Divine, my Lord, either Juror or Non- 
 Juror, High or Low, Churchman or Dissenter, that does not 
 think your Lordship has plainly asserted in these Passages, 
 what the Doctor has laid to your Charge, that no o)ie is invested 
 with A uthority from Christ to act for hint. 
 
 Your Lordship thinks this is sufficiently answered, by saying, 
 you contend against an Absolute Authority. You do indeed 
 sometimes join Absolute with that Authority you disclaim. But, 
 my Lord, it is still true, that you have taken all Authority from 
 the Church : For the Reasons you everywhere give against this 
 Authority, conclude as strongly against any Degrees of Autho- 
 rity, as that which is truly Absolute. 
 
 First, You disown the Authority of any Christians over other 
 Christians, because they are the Ser-aants of another Master, 
 p. 1 6. Now this concludes as strongly against a7iy Authority, 
 as that which is Absolute: For no one can have the least 
 Authority over those that are entirely under another's Jurisdic- 
 tion. A small Authority over another's Servant, is as incon- 
 sistent as the greatest. 
 
 Secondly, You reject this Authority, because of the Objects it 
 is exercised upon, i.e. Matters purely relating to Conscience and 
 Salvation. Here this Authority is rejected, because it relates to 
 Conscience and Salvation ; which does as well exclude every 
 Degree of Authority, as that which is Absolute. For if 
 Authority and Conscience cannot suit together, Conscience 
 rejects Authority, as such ; and not because there is this or that 
 Degree of it. So that this Argument banishes all Authority. 
 
 Thirdly, Your Lordship denies any Church Authority, because 
 Christ doth not interpose to convey Infallibility, to assert the true 
 Interpretation of His own Laws.^- Now, this Reason concludes 
 as full against all Authority, as that which is Absolute. For if 
 Infallibility is necessary to found an Obedience upon in Christ's 
 Kingdom, it is plain, that nobody in Christ's Kingdom hath any 
 Right to any Obedience from others, nor consequently any 
 Authority to command it ; no Members, or Number of Members 
 of it, being infallible. 
 
 Foiirthly, Another Reason your Lordship gives against Church- 
 Authority, is this ; That it is the taking Christ's Kingdom out of 
 his Hands, and placing it in their own, p. 14. Now this Reason 
 proves as much against Authority in general, or any Degrees of 
 
 * Sermon, p. 15.
 
 the 'bishop of "Bangor, 13 
 
 It, as that which is Absolute. For if the Authority of others 
 is inconsistent with Christ's being King of his own Kingdom, 
 then every Degree of Authority, so far as it extends, is an Inva- 
 sion of so much of Christ's Authority, and usurping upon his 
 Right. 
 
 The Reason likewise which your Lordship gives to prove the 
 Apostles not Usurpers of Christ's Authority, plainly condemns 
 every Degree of Authority which any Church can now pretend 
 to. They were 7io Usurpers, because he then interposed to convey 
 hifallibility ; and was in all that they ordained : So that the 
 Authority zvas his in the strictest Sense* So that where he does 
 not interpose to convey Infallibility, there every Degree of 
 Authority is a Degree of Usurpation ; and consequently, the 
 present Church having no Infallibility, has no Right to exercise 
 the least Degree of Authority, without robbing Christ of his 
 Prerogative. 
 
 Thus it plainly appears, that every Reason you have offered 
 against Church-Authority, concludes with as much Strength 
 against «// Authority, as that which is Absolute. And therefore 
 Dr. Snape has done you no Injury in charging you with the 
 Denial of All Authority. 
 
 There happens, my Lord, to be only this Difference between 
 your Sermon and the Defence of it, that That is so many Pages 
 against Church-Authority, as such, and This is a Confutation of 
 the Pope's Infallibility. It is very strange, that so clear a Writer, 
 who has been so long inquiring into the Nature of Govenunent, 
 should not be able to make himself be understood upon it : 
 That your Lordship should be only preaching againt the Pope ; 
 and yet All the Lower House of Convocation should unanimously 
 conceive, that your Doctrine therein delivered, tended to subvert 
 all Government and Discipline in the Church of Christ. 
 
 And, my Lord, it will appear from what follows, that your 
 Lordship is even of the same Opinion yourself; and that you 
 imagined, you had banished all Authority, as such, out of the 
 Church, by those Arguments you had offered against an Absolute 
 Authority. This is plain from the following Passage, where you 
 ridicule tliat which Dr. Snape took to be an Authority, though 
 not Absolute. When Dr. Snape said, That no Church-Authority 
 was to be obeyed in anything contrary to the Revealed Will of 
 God, your Lordship triumphs thus : Glorious Absolute Authority 
 indeed, in yotir own Account, to which Christ's Subjects ozve no 
 Obedience, till thty have examined into his own Declarations ; and 
 then they obey not this Authority, but him.-f 
 
 * Answer, p. 38. t Answer, p. 27.
 
 14 T'hree Letters to 
 
 Here you make nothing of that Authority which is not Abso- 
 lute ; and yet you think it hard to be told, that you have taken 
 away all C/mrch- Authority. That which is Absolute, you 
 expressly deny ; and here you say, that which is not Absolute, 
 is nothing at all. Where then is the Authority yon have left? 
 Or how is it that Christ has empowered anyone to act in his 
 Name ? 
 
 Your Lordship fights safe under the Protection of the Word 
 Absolute; but your Aim is at all Church- Power. And your 
 Lordship makes too hasty an Inference, that because it is not 
 Absolute, it is none at all. If you ask, Where you have made 
 this Inference, it is on occasion of the above-mentioned 
 Triumph ; where your Lordship makes it an insignificant 
 Authority, which is only to be obeyed so long as it is not 
 contrary to Scripture. 
 
 Your Lordship seems to think all is lost, as to Church-Power ; 
 because the Doctor does not claim an Absolute one, but allows it 
 to be subject to Scripture : As if all Authority was Absolute, or 
 else nothing at all. I shall therefore consider the Nature of this 
 Church-Power, and show, that though it is not Absolute, yet it is 
 a Real Authority, and is not such a mere Notion as your Lord- 
 ship makes it. 
 
 An Absolute Authority, according to your Lordship, is what is 
 to be always obeyed by every Individual that is subject to it, in 
 all Circumstances. This is an Authority that we utterly deny to 
 the Church. But, I presume, there may be an Authority inferior 
 to this, which is nevertheless a Real Authority, and is to be 
 esteemed as such, and that for these Reasons : 
 
 First, I hope it will be allowed me, that our Saviour came 
 into the World with Authority. But it was not lawful for the 
 lews to receive him, if they thought his Appearance not agree- 
 able to those Marks and Characters they had of him in their 
 Scriptures. May not I here say, My Lord, Glorious Authority of 
 Christ indeed, to which the Jews oived no Obedience, till they had 
 examined their Scriptures ; and then they obey, not Him, but 
 fhein ! 
 
 Again ; The Apostles were sent into the World with Autho- 
 rity : But yet, those who thought their Doctrines unworthy of 
 God, and unsuitable to the Principles of Natural Religion, were 
 obliged not to obey them. Glorious Authority indeed of the 
 Apostles, to whom Mankind ozved no Obedience, till they had first 
 examined their own Notions of God and Religion ; and then they 
 obeyed, not the Apostles, but Them. 
 
 I hope, my Lord, it may be allowed, that the Sacraments are 
 Real Means of Grace : But it is certain they 2,xq QX\\y conditionally
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor, 15 
 
 so, if those that partake of them are endowed with suitable Dis- 
 positions of Piety and Virtue. Glorious Means of Grace of the 
 Sacraments, which is 07ily obtained by such pious Dispositions ; and 
 then it is owing to the Dispositions, a^id not the Sacraments. 
 Now, my Lord, if there can be such a thing as instituted Real 
 Means of Grace, which are only conditionally applied, I cannot 
 see, why there may not be an instituted Real Authority in the 
 Church, which is only to be conditionally obeyed. 
 
 Your Lordship has written a great many Elaborate Pages to 
 prove the English Government Limited ; and that no Obedience 
 is due to it, but whilst it preserves our Fundamentals ; and, I 
 suppose, the People are to judge for themselves, whether these are 
 safe, or not. Glorious Authority of the English Government, 
 which is to be obeyed no longer than the People think it their Interest 
 to obey it ! 
 
 Will your Lordship say, There is }io Authority in the English 
 Government, because only a conditional Obedience is due to it, 
 whilst we think it supports our Fundamentals ? Why then 
 must the Church-Authority be reckoned nothing at all, because 
 only a Rational Conditional Obedience is to be paid, whilst we 
 think it not contrary to Scripture ? Is a Limited, Con- 
 ditional Government in the State, such a Wise, Excellent, and 
 Glorious Constitution ? And is the same Authority in the 
 Church, such Absurdity, Nonsense, and nothing at all, as to any 
 actual Power? 
 
 If there be such a thing as Obedience upon Rational Motives, 
 there must be such a thing as Authority that is not absolute, or 
 that does not require a Blind, Implicit Obedience. Indeed, 
 Rational Creatures can obey no other Authority ; they must 
 have Reasons for what they do. And yet because the Church 
 claims only this Rational Obedience, your Lordship explodes 
 such Authority as none at all. 
 
 Yet it must be granted, that )io other Obedience was due to 
 the Prophets, or our Saviour and his Apostles : They were only 
 to be obeyed by those who Thought their Doctrines worthy of 
 God. So that if the Church has no Authority, because we must 
 first consult the Scriptures before we obey it ; neither our 
 Saviour, nor his Apostles, had any Authority, because the fews 
 were first to consult their Scriptures, and the Heathens their 
 Reason, before they obeyed them. And yet this is all that is 
 said against Chu rch- Authority ; That because they are to judge 
 of the Lazvfdncss of its Injunctions, therefore they owe it no 
 Obedience : Which false Conclusion I hope is enough exposed. 
 
 If we think it unlawful to do anything that the Church 
 requires of us, we must not obey its Authority. So, if we think
 
 1 6 T'hree Letters to 
 
 it unlawful to submit to any Temporal Government, we are not 
 to comply. But, I hope, it will not follow, that the Government 
 has 710 Authority, because some think it unlawful to comply with 
 it. If we are so unhappy as to judge wrong in any Matter of 
 Duty, we must nevertheless act according to our Judgments ; 
 and the Guilt of Disobedience either in Church or State, is more 
 or less, according as our Error is more or less voluntary, and 
 occasioned by our own Mismanagement. 
 
 I believe I have shown, First, That all your Lordship's 
 Arguments against ChiircJi- Authority, conclude with the same 
 Force against all Degrees of Authority : Secondly, That though 
 Church- Authority be not Absolute in a certain Sense ; yet if our 
 Saviour and his Apostles had any Authority, the Church may 
 have 3. Real Authority : For neither he, nor his Apostles, had 
 S7ich an Absolute Authority, as excludes all Co7isideration and 
 Exa77iination : Which is your Notion oi Absolute Authority. 
 
 Before I leave this Head, I must observe, that in this very 
 Answer to Dr. S7iape, where you would be thought to have 
 exposed this Absolute Authority ^z/^//^", you exclude all Authority 
 along with it. You ask the Doctor,* Is this the whole you ca7i 
 make of it, after all your boasted Zeal for Mere Authority ? You 
 then say, WJiy i/iay 7iot I be allowed to say, No Ma7i 07i Earth 
 hath ari Absolute Authority, as zvell as you ? My Lord, there 
 can be no understanding of this, unless Mere Authority and 
 Absolute Autho7-ity be taken for the same thing by your 
 Lordship. 
 
 But, my Lord, is not the smallest Pa7'ticle of Matter, Mere 
 Matter? And is it therefore the same as the Whole Mass of 
 Matter ? Is an Inch of Space, because it is Me7'-e Space, the 
 same as I7ifi7iite Space ? How comes it, then, that Me7'e 
 Authority is the same as Absolute Authority ? My Lord, Mei^e 
 Authority implies 07dy Authority, as a Me7'e Man implies only a 
 Man : But your Lordship makes no Difference between this, and 
 Absolute Authority ; and therefore hath left 7io Authority in the 
 Church, unless there be Authority, that is not Mere Authority, 
 i.e. Matter that is not Mere Matter ; or Space that is not Me7'e 
 Space. 
 
 When the Church enjoins Matters of Indifference, is she 
 obeyed for any Reason, but for her Me7x Authority ? But your 
 Lordship allows no Obedience to Mere Authority ; and therefore 
 no Obedience even in Indifferent Matters. 
 
 Thus do these Arguments of yours lay all waste in the 
 Church : And I must not omit 07ie, my Lord, which falls as 
 
 * Answer, p. 26.
 
 the bishop of "Bangor, 17 
 
 heavy upon the State, and makes all Civil Government unlawful. 
 Your words are these : As the Church of Christ is t/ie Kingdom 
 of Christ, He himself is King ; and in this it is implied, that He 
 is the sole Law-giver to his Subjects, aiid Himself the soXo. Judge 
 of their Behaviour in the Affairs of Conscience atid Salvation. If 
 there be any Truth or Force in this Argument, it concludes with 
 the same Truth and Force against all Authority in the Kingdoms 
 of this World. In Scripture we are told, tJie Most High ruleth ifi 
 the Kingdom of Men (Dan. iv. 17), that the Lord is our Law- 
 giver, the Lord is our King (Isa. xxxiii. 22). Now, if because 
 Christ is King of the Church, it must be in this implied, that he 
 is sole Law-giver to his Subjects ; it is plain to a Demonstration, 
 that because God is Ki?ig and Law-giver to the whole Earth, 
 that therefore He is sole Law-giver to his Subjects ; and conse- 
 quently, that all Civil Authority, all Htiman Laws, are mere 
 Invasions and Usurpatio?is upon God's Authority, as King of the 
 whole Earth. 
 
 Is nobody to have any Jurisdiction in Christ's Kingdom, 
 because He is King of it .'* How then comes anyone to have any 
 Authority in the Kingdoms of this World, when God has 
 declared himself the Laiv-giver, and King of the whole World ? 
 Will your Lordship say, that Christ hath left us the Scriptures^ 
 as the Statute-Laws of his Kingdom, to prevent the Necessity 
 of After-Laws ? It may be answered, That God has given us 
 Reason for our constant Guide ; which, if it were as duly 
 attended to, would as certai?ily answer the Ends of Civil Life, 
 as the Observance of the Scriptures would make us good 
 Christians. 
 
 But, my Lord, as human Nature, if left to itself, would neither 
 answer the E^ids of a Spiritual or Civil Society ; so a constant 
 Visible Government in both, is equally necessary : And, I 
 believe, it appears to all unprejudiced Eyes, that in this 
 Argument at least, your Lordship has declared both equally 
 Unlatvfil. 
 
 Your Lordship saith,* The Exclusion of the Papists from tlte 
 Throne, was not upon the Account of their Religion. Three 
 Lines after you say, / have contended indeed elsewhere, that it was 
 their unhappy Religion which alone made them uncapable in them- 
 selves, of govei'tiing this Protestant Nation by the Laws of tlie 
 Land. My Lord, I can't reconcile these two Passages. Popery 
 alone, you say, was their Licapacity. From which it may be 
 inferred, they had no other Licapacity. Yet your Lordship saith, 
 They were not excluded upon the Account of their Religion. A 
 
 * Answer, p. 25.
 
 1 8 T'hree Letters to 
 
 little after you say, The Ground of their Exclusion was not their 
 Religion, considered zs, such ; but the Fatal, Natural, Certain Effects 
 of it upon themselves to our Destruction. 
 
 As for Instance, your Lordship may mean thus : If a Man of 
 a great Estate dies, he loses his Right to his Estate ; not upon 
 the Account of Death, considered as such ; but for the Certain, 
 Fatal, Natural Effect of it upon himself. Or, suppose a Person 
 be excluded for being an Idiot ; it is not for his Idiocy, considered 
 as such ; but for the Certain, Fatal, Natural Effect of it upon 
 himself to our Destruction. 
 
 My Lord, this is prodigious deep : I wish it be clear ; or, 
 that it be not too refined a Notion for common Use on this 
 Subject. Likewise I do not conceive, my Lord, what you can call 
 the Fatal, Natural, Certain Effects of any one's Religion. I am 
 sure, among Protestants there are no Natural, Certain Effects of 
 their Religion upon them ; that their Practices don't Fatally 
 follow their Principles : Neither is there any demonstrative Cer- 
 tainty, that a Bishop cannot be against Episcopacy. 
 
 If the Papists are so unalterably sincere in their Religion, that 
 we can prove their certain Observation of it, it's pity but they 
 had our Principles, and we had their Practice. I have not that 
 good Opinion of the Papists, which your Lordship hath : I 
 believe several of them sit as loose to their Religion, as other 
 Folks. 
 
 Does you Lordship think, that all Papists are alike ^ That 
 natural Temper, Ambition and Education, don't make as much 
 Difference amongst them, as the same things do amongst us } 
 Are all Protestants loose and libertine alike } Why should all 
 Papists be the same Zealots } If not, my Lord, then these 
 Effects you call Fatal, Natural, and Certain, may be not to be 
 depended upon. 
 
 Your Lordship knows, that it was generally believed, that 
 King Charles the Second was a Papist : But I never heard of 
 any Fatal, Natural, and Certain Effects of his Religion upon him. 
 All that one hears of it is, that he lived like a Protestant, and 
 died like a Papist. I suppose your Lordship will allow, that 
 several who were lately Papists, are now true Protestants. I 
 ■desire therefore to know, what is become of the Fatal, Certain, 
 and Natural Effects of their Religion ? 
 
 My Lord, I beg of you to lay your Hand again upon your 
 Heart, and ask. Whether this be strict Reasoning } Whether it 
 is possible in the very Nature of the thing, that such Fatal, 
 Nattiral, and Certain Effects shotdd folloiv such a Giddy, Whim- 
 sical, Uncertain Thing, as Hui?ian and Free Choice f My Lord, 
 js it neither possible for Papists to change or conceal their Reli-
 
 the bishop of Bangor. 19 
 
 gion for Interest, or leave it through a conscientious Conviction? 
 If the former is impossible, then, according to your Lordship, it 
 is the safest Religion in the World ; because they are all sure of 
 being sincere, and consequently, the First Favourites of God. If 
 the latter is impossible, then a great many fine Sermons and 
 Discourses have been written to as wise Purposes, as if they had 
 been directed to the Wind. 
 
 I come now to your Lordship's Definition of Prayer, a Calm 
 and Undisturbed Address to God. It seems very strange, that so 
 great a Master of Words as your Lordship, should pick out Two 
 so very exceptionable, that all your Lordship's Skill could not 
 defend them, but by leaving their first and obvious Sense. Who 
 would not take Calm and Undisturbed to be very like Quiet and 
 Unmoved f Yet your Lordship dislikes those Expressions. But 
 if these do not give us a true Idea of Prayer, you have made a 
 very narrow Escape, and have given us a Definition of Prayer as 
 near to a wrong one as possible. 
 
 Prayer chiefly consisteth of Confession and Petition. Now, to be 
 Calm, and free from all worldly Passions, is a necessary Temper 
 to the right Discharge of such Duties : But why our Confessioti 
 must be so Calm, and free from all Perturbation of Spirit ; why 
 our Petitions may not have all that Fervour and Warmth, with 
 which either Nature or Grace can supply them, is very sur- 
 prising. 
 
 My Lord, we are advised to be Dead to the World ; and I 
 humbly suppose, no more is implied in it, than to keep our Affec- 
 tions from being too much engaged in it ; and that a Calm, Un- 
 disturbed, i.e. Dispassionate Use of the World is very consistent 
 with our being dead to it. If so, then this Calm, Undisturbed 
 Address to Heaven, is a kind of Prayer that is very consistent 
 with our being dead to Heaven. 
 
 We are forbid to love the World ; and yet no greater Abstrac- 
 tion from it is required, than to use it Calm and Undisturbed. 
 We are commanded to set our Affections on Things above ; and 
 yet, according to your Lordship, the sajne Calm, Undisturbed 
 Temper is enougli. According to this therefore we are to be 
 affected, or rather unaffected alike, with tJiis and the next World ; 
 since we are to be Calm and Undisturbed with respect to both. 
 
 The Reason your Lordship offers for this Definition of Prayer, 
 is this ; because you* look upon Calmness and Undisturbedness to 
 be the Ornament and Defence of human Understanding ifi all its 
 Actions. My Lord, this plainly supposes, there is no such thing 
 as the Right Use of our Passions : For if we could ever use them 
 
 * Answer, p. ii.
 
 20 T'hree Letters to 
 
 to any Advantage, then it could not be the Ornament of our 
 
 Nature to be dispassionate alike in all its Actions. It is as much 
 the Ornament and Defence of our Nature, to be differently 
 affected \j\\\\ Things according to their respective Differences, as it 
 is to understand or conceive difftreyit Things according to their 
 real Difference. It would be no Ornament or Credit to us, to 
 conceive no Difference betwixt a Mountain and a Mole-Hill : 
 And our Rational Nature is as much disgraced, when we are no 
 more affected with great Things than with small. It is the 
 Essential Ornament of our Nature, to be as sensibly affected in a 
 different Manner with the different Degrees of Goodness of 
 Things, as it is to perceive exactly the different Natures or Rela- 
 tions of Things. Passion is no more a Crime, as snch, than the 
 U?iderstanding\s,as such. It is nothing but mistaking the Value 
 of Objects, that makes it criminal. An Infinite Good cannot be 
 too passionately desired, nor a Real Evil too veheme?itly abhorred. 
 Mere Philosophy, my Lord, would teach us, that the Dignity of 
 Human Nattire is best declared by a Pungetit Uneasi?iess for the 
 Misery of Sin, and a passio?tate warm Application to Heaven for 
 Assistance. 
 
 Let us now consult the Scripture. St. Paul describes a godly 
 Sorrow something different from your Lordship's Calm and Un- 
 disturbed Temper, in these Words: When ye sorrowed after a 
 godly sort, what Carefulness it wrought i?i you ! Yea, what 
 Indignation, j^a, what Fear, yea, what Zeal, yea, what Revenge ! 
 (2 Cor. vii. ii). My Lord, I suppose these are not so many 
 Words for Calm and Undisturbed. Yet, as different as they 
 are, the Apostle makes them the Qualities of a godly Sorrow. 
 And all this, at the Expense of that Calmness which your Lord- 
 ship terms the Ornament of human Nature. Dr. Snape pleads 
 for the Ferve?icy and Ardour of our Devotions, from our 
 Saviour s praying more earnestly before his Passiofi. 
 
 Your Lord.ship replies, that this can give no Directions as to 
 our daily Prayers ; because it was what our Saviour himself 
 knew nothing of, but this once. The Author of the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews knew nothing of this way of Reasoning. For, as 
 an Argument for daily Patie?ice, he bids us look to fesus, who 
 endured the Cross, because he died for us, leaving us an 
 Example. 
 
 Our Saviour, my Lord, suffered and died but once ; yet is it 
 made a Reason for our daily Patience, and proposed as an 
 Example for us to imitate. 
 
 If therefore, my Lord, his Passion, so extraordinary in itself, 
 and as much above the Power of human Nature to bear, as the 
 Intenseness of his Devotions exceeded our Capacities for Prayer,
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor. 21 
 
 be yet proposed as an Example to us in the ordinary Calamities 
 of Life ; how conies it, that his Devotion at that time should 
 have no manner of Use or Direction in it as to our Devotions, 
 especially in our Distress ? How comes it, that his Suffering 
 should have so much of Example in it, so much to be imitated ; 
 but the Manner of his Devotion then have nothing of Instruction, 
 nothing that need be imitated by us ? All the Reason that is 
 offered, is the Singularity and Extraordinariness of it, when the 
 same may be said of his Passion ; yet that is allowed to be an 
 Example. 
 
 Your Lordship is pleased, for the Information of your 
 Unwary Readers^ to reason thus upon the Place : If this be the 
 Example of our Saviour^ to assure us of his Will about the 
 Temper necessary to Prayer, it will follow that our Blessed Lord 
 Himself never truly prayed before this time : And yet again, if lie 
 prayed more earnestly, it will follow, that he had prayed before ; 
 and consequently, that this Temper in ivhich He noiv was, zvas not 
 necessary to Prayer. 
 
 My Lord, one would think this Elaborate Proof was against 
 something asserted. Here you have indeed a thorough Conquest ; 
 but it is over nobody. For did anyone ever assert, that such 
 Extraordinary Earnestness was necessary to Prayer } Does Dr. 
 Snape, or any Divines, allow of no Prayers, except we sweat 
 Drops of Blood ? Will your Lordship say, that the Necessity of 
 this Temper is implied in the Quotation of this Text, as a 
 Direction for Prayer .'* I answer, just as much as we are all 
 obli:^ed to die upon the Cross, because his Sufferings there are 
 proposed to us as an Example. 
 
 The plain Truth of the Matter, my Lord, I take to be this : 
 Our Saviour s Sufferings on the Cross were such as no Mortal 
 can undergo ; yet they are justly proposed an an Example to us 
 to bear with Patience such Sufferings as are within the Compass 
 of human Nature. His earnest Devotion before this Passion, 
 far exceeded any Fervours which the Devoutest of Mankind can 
 attain to : Yet it is justly proposed to us as an Example, to 
 excite us to be as fervent as we can ; and may be justly alleged 
 in our Defence, when our zuarm and passionate Addresses to 
 God in our Calamities, are condemned as superstitious Folly. 
 My Lord, must nothing be an Example, but what we can 
 exactly come up to .? How then can the Life of our Saviour, 
 which was entirely free from Sin, be an Example to us .'' How 
 could it be said in the Scripture, Be ye holy, for I am holy ? Can 
 anyone be Holy as God is ? 
 
 My Lord, one might properly urge the Practice of the Primitive 
 Christians, who parted with all they had for the Support of their
 
 22 T'hree Letters to 
 
 Indigent Brethren^ as an Argument for Charity, without designing 
 to oblige People to part with all they have. And he that should, 
 in answer to such an Argument, tell the World, that Charity is 
 only a calm, tmdisturbed Good Will to all Matikind, would just 
 as much set forth the true Doctrine of Charity, as he that defines 
 Prayer to be a calm and undisturbed Address to Heaven, for no 
 other Reason, but because no certain Degrees of Fervour or 
 Affection are necessarily required to constitute Devotion. My 
 Lord, has Charity nothing to do with the Distribution of Alms, 
 because no certain Allowance is fixed ? Why then must Prayer 
 have nothing to do with Heat and Fervency, because no fixed 
 Degrees of it are necessary ? 
 
 Therefore, my Lord, as I would define Charity to be a pious 
 Distribution of so much of our Goods to the Poor, as is suitable 
 to our Circumstances ; so I would define Prayer, an Address to 
 Heaven, enlivened with such Degrees of Fervour a7id Intenseness, 
 as our Natural Temper, influenced with a true Sense of God, could 
 beget in us. 
 
 Your Lordship says, you only desire to strike at the Root of 
 superstitious Folly, and establish Prayer in its room ; and this is 
 to be effected by making our Addresses calm and undisturbed : 
 By which we are to understand, a Freedom from Heat and 
 Passion, as your Lordship explains it, by an Application to 
 yourself 
 
 If therefore anyone should happen to be so disturbed at his 
 Sins, as to offer a broken and contrite Heat-t to God, instead of 
 one calm and undisturbed ; or, like holy David, his Soul should 
 be athirst for God, or pant after him, as the Hart panteth after 
 t/te Water-brooks, this would not be Prayer, but superstitious 
 Folly. 
 
 My Lord, Calmness of Temper, as it signifies a Power over our 
 Passions, is a happy Circumstance of a Rational Nature, but no 
 farther : When the Object is well chosen, there is no Danger in 
 the Pursuit. 
 
 The Calmness your Lordship hath described, is fit for a 
 Philosopher in his Study, who is solving Mathematical Problems. 
 ]^ut if he should come abroad into the World, thus entirely 
 empty of all Passion, he would live to as much Purpose, as if he 
 had left his Understanding behind him. 
 
 What a fine Subject, my Lord, would such a one make, who, 
 when he heard of Plots, Invasions, and Rebellions, would continue 
 as calm and undisturbed, as when he was comparing Lines and 
 Figures ? Such a calm Subject would scarce be taken for any 
 Great Loyalist. 
 
 Your Lordship, in other Places, hath recommended an open
 
 the bishop of Bangor, 23 
 
 and undisguised Zeal^ and told us such things as ought to 
 alarm the coldest Heart.-\ Sflre, my Lord, this is somewhat more 
 than Calm and Undisturbed : And will your Lordship, who hath 
 expressed so much Concern for this Ornament and Defence of 
 human Understanding, persuade us to part with the least Degree 
 of it upon any Account ? I am, my Lord, (with all Respect 
 that is due to your Lordship's Station and Character), 
 
 Your most Hu^nhle and 
 Obedient Servant^ 
 
 W^illiam Law. 
 
 * Sermon, Nov. 5, p. 5. f Sermon, p. 14.
 
 A SECOND 
 
 LETTER 
 
 TO THE 
 
 Bishop of BANGOR: 
 
 WHEREIN 
 
 His Lordship's NOTIONS 
 
 O F 
 
 Benediction^ Absolution^ and 
 Church' Communion^ 
 
 Are proved to be Destructive of every 
 Institution of the Christian Religion, 
 
 To which is added, A 
 
 POSTSCRIPT, 
 
 In answer to the OBJECTIONS that 
 have been made against his former Letter. 
 
 By WILLIAM LAJV, M. A. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed for J. Richardson, in Pater-noster-Row. 
 
 1762.
 
 The 
 
 Second Letter to 
 
 the Bishop of "Bangor. 
 
 My Lord^ 
 
 A Just Concern for Truth, and the First Principles 
 of the Christian Religion, was the only Motive 
 that engaged me in the Examination of your 
 Lordship's Doctrines, in a former Letter to your 
 Lordship. And the same Motive, I hope, will 
 be thought a sufficient Apology for my presuming to give your 
 Lordship the Trouble of a Second Letter. 
 
 Amongst the Vain Contemptible Things, whereof your Lordship 
 would create an Abhorrence in the Laity, are, the Trifles and 
 Niceties of Authoritative Benedictions, Absolutions, Excommuni- 
 cations J*" Again, you say, that to expect the Grace of God from 
 
 any Hands, but his own, is to affront him ."f* And that all 
 
 depends upon God and ourselves ; That Human Benedictions, 
 Human Absolutions, Human Excommunications, have nothing to 
 do with the Favour of God.\ 
 
 It is evident from these Maxims (for your Lordship asserts 
 them as such) that whatever Institutions are observed in any 
 Christian Society, upon this Supposition, that thereby Grace is 
 conferred through Human Hands, or by the Ministry of the 
 Clergy, such Institutions ought to be condemned, and are con- 
 demned by your Lordship, as triflitig, useless, and affronting to 
 God. 
 
 There is an Institution, my Lord, in the yet Established 
 Church of England, which we call Confirmation : It is founded 
 upon the express Words of Scripture, Primitive Observance, and 
 the Universal Practice of all succeeding Ages in the Church. 
 The Design of this Institution is, that it should be a Means of 
 conferring Grace, by the Prayer and Imposition of the Bishop's 
 Hands on those who have been already Baptized. But yet 
 against all this Authority, both Divine and Human, and the 
 
 * Preservative, p. 98. f P- 89. t P. loi.
 
 28 'Three Letters to 
 
 express Order of our own Church, your Lordship teaches the 
 Laity, that all Human Benedictions are useless Niceties ; and that 
 to expect God's Grace from any Hands but his own, is to affront 
 him. 
 
 If so, my Lord, what shall we say in Defence of the Apostles ? 
 We read {Acts 8. 14) that when Philip the Deacon had baptized 
 the Samaritans, the Apostles sent Peter and fohn to them, who 
 having prayed, and laidtJieir Hands on them, they received the Holy 
 Ghost, who bejore was fallen upon none of them ; only they were 
 baptized in the Name of the Lord fesus. 
 
 My Lord, several things are here out of Question ; First, Th^t 
 something else, even in the Apostolical Times, was necessary, 
 besides Baptism, in order to qualify Persons to become complete 
 Members of the Body, or Partakers of the Grace of Christ. 
 They had been baptized, yet did not receive the Holy Ghost, 
 till the Apostles' Hands were laid upon them. Secondly, That 
 God's Graces are not only conferred by means of Human Hands, 
 but of some particular Hands, and not others. Thirdly, That 
 this Office was so strictly appropriated to the Apostles, or Chief 
 Governors of the Church, that it could not be performed by in- 
 spired Men, though empowered to work Miracles, who were of an 
 inferior Order ; as Philip the Deacon. Fotirthly, That the Power 
 of the Apostles for the Performance of this Ordinance, was 
 entirely owing to their superior Degree in the Ministry, and not 
 to any extraordinary Gifts they were endowed with : For then 
 Philip might have performed it ; who was not wanting in those 
 Gifts, being himself an Evangelist, and Worker of Miracles : 
 Which is a Demonstration, that his Incapacity arose from his 
 inferior Degree in the Ministry. 
 
 And now, my Lord, are all human Benedictions Niceties and 
 Trifles ? Are the Means of God's Grace in his own Hands 
 alone ? Is it wicked, and affronting to God, to suppose the con- 
 trary ? How then comes Peter and fohn to confer the Holy 
 Ghost by the Imposition of their Hands } How comes it, that 
 they appropriate this Office to themselves ? Is the Dispensation 
 of God's Grace in his own Hands alone ? And yet can it be 
 dispensed to us by the Ministry of some Persons, and not by that 
 of others ? 
 
 Were the Apostles so wicked as to distinguish themselves by 
 a Pretence to vain Powers, which God had reserved to himself; 
 And which your Lordship supposes, from the Title of your Pre- 
 servative, that it is inconsistent with cotnmon Sense, to imagine 
 that God could or would have communicated to Men ? 
 
 Had any of your Lordship's well-instructed Laity lived in the 
 Apostles' Days, with what Indignation must they have rejected
 
 the bishop of "Bangor, 29 
 
 this senseless chimerical Claitn of the Apostles ? They must 
 have said, Why do you, Peter or John, pretend to this Blas- 
 phemous Power ? Whilst we believe the Gospel, we cannot expect 
 the Grace of God from any Hands but his own. You give us the 
 Holy Ghost I You confer the Grace of God ! Is it not impious 
 to think, that he should make our Improvement in Grace depend 
 upon your Ministry ; or hang our Salvation on any particular 
 Order of Clergymen ? We know, that God is Just, and Good, 
 and True, and that all depends upon Him and ourselves, and 
 that Jiuman Benedictions are Trifles. Therefore whether you 
 Peter, or you Philip, or both, or neither of you \?iy your Hands 
 upon us, we are neither better nor worse ; but just in the sa^ne 
 State of Grace as we were before. 
 
 This Representation has not one Syllable in it, but what is 
 founded in your Lordship's Doctrine, and perfectly agreeable 
 to it. 
 
 The late most Pious and Learned Bishop Beveridge has these 
 remarkable Words upon Confirmation : ' How any Bishops in 
 ' our Age dare neglect so considerable a Part of their Office, I 
 ' know not ; but fear they will have no good Account to give of 
 ' it, when they come to stand before Gods Tribunal.'* 
 
 But we may justly, and therefore I hope, with Decency, ask 
 your Lordship, how you dare perform this Part of your Office ? 
 For you have condemned it as Trifing and Wicked; as Trifing, 
 because it is an human Benediction ; as Wicked, because it sup- 
 poses Grace conferred by the Hands of the Bishop. If therefore 
 any baptized Persons should come to your Lordship for Con- 
 firmation, if you are sincere in what you have delivered, your 
 Lordship ought, I humbly conceive, to make them this Declara- 
 tion : 
 
 ' My Friends, for the sake of Decency and Order, I have taken 
 'upon me the Episcopal Character; and, according to Custom, 
 ' which has long prevailed against common Sense, am now to 
 ' lay my Hands upon \ou : But I beseech you, as you have any 
 ' Regard to the Truth of the Gospel, or to the Honour of God, 
 ' not to imagine there is anything in this Action, more than an 
 ' useless empty Ceremony : For if you expect to have any 
 ' Spiritual Advantage from huma7i Benedictions, or to receive 
 ' Grace from the Imposition of a Bishop's Hands, you affront 
 * God, and in effect, renounce Christianity.' 
 
 Pray, my Lord, consider that Passage in the Scripture, where 
 the Apostle speaks of Leaving the Principles of the Doctrine of 
 Christ, and goi?ig on unto Perfection ; not layi?tg again the Foun- 
 
 * First Volume of Sermons.
 
 30 'Three Letters to 
 
 dation of Repentance from dead Works, of Faith towards God, 
 of the Doctrine of Baptisms, and of Laying on of Hands, and 
 of the Resurrection of the Dead, and of eternal fudgment 
 (Heb, vi. I, 2). 
 
 My Lord, here it is undeniably plain, that this Laying on of 
 Hands (which is with us called Confirmation^ is so fundamental 
 a Part of Christ's Religion, that it is called one of the first 
 Principles of the Doctrine of Christ ; and is placed amongst 
 such primary Truths, as the Resurrection of the Dead, and of 
 Eternal Judgment. 
 
 St. Cyprian speaking of this Apostolical Imposition of Hands, 
 says. The same is now practised with us ; they who have beett 
 baptised in the Church, are brought to the Presidents of the Church, 
 that by our Prayer and Imposition of Hands, they may receive the 
 Holy Ghost, and be consummated with the Lords Seal. 
 
 And must we yet believe, that all human Benedictions are 
 Dreams, and the Imposition of human Hands trifling and use- 
 less ; and that to expect God's Graces from them, is to affront 
 him ; though the Scriptures expressly teach us, that God confers 
 his Grace by means of ctvtdim particular human Hands, and not 
 of others ; though they tell us, this Jiuman Benediction, this 
 Laying on of Hands, is one of the first Principles of the Religion 
 of Christ, and as much a Foundation-Doctrine, as the Resurrec- 
 tion of the Dead, and Eternal Judgment ; and though every 
 Age since that of the Apostles, has strictly observed it as such, 
 and the Authority of our own Church still requires the Ob- 
 servance of it ? 
 
 I come now, my Lord, to another sacred and Divine Institu- 
 tion of Christ's Church, which stands exposed and condemned 
 by your Lordship's Doctrine ; and that is, the Ordination of the 
 Christian Clergy ; where, by means of a human Benediction, 
 and the Imposition of the Bishop's Hands, the Holy Ghost is 
 supposed to be conferred on Persons towards consecrating them 
 for the Work of the Ministry. 
 
 We find it constantly taught by the Scriptures, that all 
 Ecclesiastical Authority, and the Graces whereby the Clergy are 
 qualified and enabled to exercise their Functions to the Benefit 
 of the Church, are the Gifts and Graces of the Holy Spirit. 
 Thus the Apostle exhorts the Elders to take heed unto the Flock, 
 over which the Holy Ghost had made them Overseers (Eph. iv. 7). 
 But how, my Lord, had the Holy Ghost made them Overseers, 
 but by the laying on of the Apostles' Hands ? They were not 
 immediately called by the Holy Ghost; but being consecrated 
 by such human Hands as had been authorised to that Purpose, 
 they were as truly called by him, and sanctified with Grace for
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor, 31 
 
 that Employment, as if they had received an immediate or 
 miraculous Commission. So again, St. Paul puts Timothy in 
 mind to stir up the Gift of God that was in him, by laying on of 
 his Hands (2 Tim. ii. 6). 
 
 And now, my Lord, if human Benedictions be such idle Dreams 
 and Trifles ; if it be affronting to God, to expect his Graces from 
 them, or through human Hands ; do we not plainly want new 
 Scriptures ? Must we not give up the Apostles as furious High- 
 Church Prelates, who aspired to presumptuous Claims, and 
 talked of conferring the Graces of God by their own Hands ? 
 Was not this Doctrine as strange and unaccountable then, as at 
 present ? Was it not as inconsistent with the Attributes and 
 Sovereignty of God at that Time, to have his Graces pass 
 through other Hands than his own, as in any succeeding Age ? 
 Nay, my Lord, where shall we find any Fathers or Councils, in 
 the primitive Church, but who owned and asserted these Powers? 
 They that were so ready to part with their Lives, rather than do 
 the least Dishonour to God, or the Christian Name, yet were all 
 guilty of this horrid Blasphemy, in imagining that they were to 
 bless in God's Name ; and that by the Benediction and laying on 
 of the Bishop's Hands, the Graces of the Holy Ghost could be 
 conferred on any Persons. 
 
 Agreeable to the Sense of Scripture and Antiquity, our 
 Church uses this Form of Ordination : The Bishop laying his 
 Hands on the Person's Head, saith, Receive the Holy Ghost, for the 
 Office and Work of a Priest in the Church of God, committed unto 
 thee, by the Imposition of our Hands. From this Form, it is 
 plain, First, That our Church holds, that the Reception of the 
 Holy Ghost is necessary to constitute a Person a Christian 
 Priest. Secondly, That the Holy Ghost is conferred through 
 human Hands. Thirdly, That it is by the Hands of a Bishop 
 that the Holy Ghost is conferred. 
 
 If, therefore, your Lordship is right in your Doctrine, the 
 Church of England is evidently most corrupt : For if it be 
 dishonourable and affronting to God, to expect his Grace from 
 any human Hands, it must of Necessity be dishonourable and 
 affronting to him, for a Bishop to pretend to confer it by his 
 Hands. And can that Church be any ways defended, that has 
 established such an .Iniquity by Law, and made the Form of it 
 so necessary } How can your Lordship answer it to your Laity, 
 for taking the Character or Power of a Bishop from such a Form 
 of Words 1 You tell them it is affronting to God, to expect his 
 Grace from human Hands ; yet, to qualify yourself for a 
 Bishopric, you let human Hands be laid on you, after a Manner 
 which directly supposes you thereby receive the Holy Ghost ! Is
 
 32 "Three Letters to 
 
 it wicked in them to expect it from human Hands ? And is it 
 less so in your Lordship, to pretend to receive it from human 
 Hands ? He that beh'eves it is affronting to God, to expect his 
 Grace from human Hands, must likewise believe, that our Form 
 of Ordination, which promises the Holy Ghost by the Bishop's 
 Hands, must be also affronting to God. Certainly he cannot be 
 said to be very jealous of the Honour of God, who will submit 
 himself to be made a Bishop by a Form of Words derogatory, 
 upon his own Principles, to God's Honour. 
 
 Suppose your Lordship were to have been consecrated to the 
 Office of a Bishop by these Words ; Take thou Power to sustain 
 all Things in Being, given thee by my Hands. I suppose your 
 Lordship would think it entirely unlawful to submit to the 
 Form of such an Ordination. But, my Lord, Receive thou the 
 Holy Ghost, &c., is as impious a Form, according to your Lord- 
 ship's Doctrine, and equally injurious to the eternal Power and 
 Godhead, as the other. For if the Grace of God can only be 
 had from his own Hands, would it not be as innocent in the 
 Bishop to say. Receive tlioii Poiuer to sustain all Things in Being, 
 as to say, Receive the Holy Ghost, by the Imposition of my Hands? 
 And would not a Compliance with either Form be equally 
 unlawful ? According to your Doctrine, in each of them God's 
 Prerogative is equally invaded, and therefore the Guilt must be 
 the same. 
 
 It may also well be wondered, how your Lordship can accept 
 of a Character, which is, or ought to be, chiefly distinguished by 
 the Exercise of that Power which you disclaim, as in the Offices 
 of Confirmation and Ordination. For, my Lord, where can be 
 the Sincerity of saying. Receive the Holy Ghost by the Imposition 
 of our Hands, when you declare it affronting to God, to expect 
 it from any Hands but his own ? Suppose your Lordship had 
 been preaching to the Laity against owning any Authority in 
 the Virgin Mary, and yet should acquiesce in the Conditions of 
 being made a Bishop in her Name, and by recognising her 
 Power ; could such a Submission be consistent with Sincerity ? 
 Here you forbid the Laity to expect God's Grace from any 
 Hands but his ; yet not only accept of an Office, upon Sup- 
 position of the contrary Doctrine ; but oblige yourself ac- 
 cording to the Sense of the Church wherein you are ordained 
 a Bishop, to act frequently in direct Opposition to your own 
 Principles. 
 
 So that, I think, it is undeniably plain, that you have at once, 
 my Lord, by these Doctrines condemned the Scriptures, the 
 Apostles, their martyred Successors, the Church oi E7igland, and 
 your own Conduct ; and have thereby given us some Reason
 
 the "Bishop of Bangor, 33 
 
 (though I wish there were no Occasion to mention it) to suspect, 
 whether you, who allow of no other Church, but what is founded 
 in Sincerity, are yourself really a Member of any Church. 
 
 I shall now proceed to say something upon the Consecration 
 of the Lord's Supper, which is as much exposed as a Trifle, b}- 
 your Lordship's Doctrine, as the other Institutions. St. Paul 
 says. The Cup of Blessing ivhich we bless, is it not the Communion 
 of the Blood of Christ? My Lord, is not this Cup still to be 
 blessed ? Must there not therefore be such a Thing as a human 
 Benedictiofi ? And are human Benedictions to be all despised, 
 though by them the Bread and Wine become Means of Grace, 
 and are made the spiritual Nourishment of our Souls ? Can 
 anyone bless this Cup ? If not, then there is a Difference 
 between human Benedictions : Some are authorised by God, and 
 their Blessing is effectual ; whilst others only are vain and pre- 
 sumptuous. If the Prayer over the Elements, and the 
 Consecration, be only a Trifle and a Dream, and it be offensive 
 to God to expect they are converted into Means of Grace by a 
 human Benediction ; why then did St. Paul pretend to bless 
 them ? Why did he make it the Privilege of the Church ? Or, 
 why do we keep up the same Solemnity? But if it be to be 
 blessed only by God's Ministers, then how can your Lordship 
 answer it to God, for ridiculing and abusing human Benedictions, 
 and telling the World that a particular Order of the Clergy are 
 not of any Necessity, nor can be of any Advantage to them ? 
 For if the Sacrament can only be blessed by God's Ministers, 
 then such Ministers are as necessary as the Sacraments them- 
 selves. 
 
 St. Paul says, the Cup must be blessed ; If you say, anyone 
 may bless it, then, though you contemn the Benedictions of the 
 Clergy, you allow of them by everybody else : If every Body 
 cannot bless it, then you must confess ; that the Benedictions of 
 some Persons are effectual, where others are not. 
 
 My Lord, the great Sin against the Holy Ghost, was the 
 Denial of his Operation in the Ministry of our Saviour. And 
 how near does your Lordship come to it, in denying the Opera- 
 tion of that same Spirit, in the Ministers whom Christ hath 
 sent ? They are employed in the same Work that he was. He 
 left his Authority with them, and promised that the Holy Spirit 
 should remain with them to the End of the World ; that what- 
 soever they should bind on Earth, should be bound in Heaven ; 
 and whatsoever they should loose on Earth, should be loosed in 
 Heaven ; and that whosoever despises them, despises him, and 
 him that sent him. And yet your Lordship tells us, we need 
 not to trouble our Heads about any particular Sort of Clergy,
 
 34 "Three Letters to 
 
 that all is to be transacted betwixt God and ourselves ; that 
 human Benedictions are insignificant Trifles. 
 
 But pray what Proof has your Lordship for all this ? Have 
 you any Scripture for it ? Has God anywhere declared that no 
 Men on Earth have any Authority to bless in his Name ? Has 
 he anywhere said, that it is a wicked, presumptuous Thing, for 
 anyone to pretend to it ? Has he anywhere told us that it is 
 inconsistent with his Honour to bestow his Graces by human 
 Hands ? Has he anywhere told us that he has no Ministers, no 
 Ambassadors on Earth ; but that all his Gifts and Graces are to 
 be received immediately from his own Hands ? Have you any 
 Antiquity, Fathers, or Councils, on your Side ? No ; the whole 
 Tenor of Scripture, the whole Current of Tradition is against 
 you : Your novel Doctrine has only this to recommend it to the 
 Libertines of the Age, who universally give into it, that it never 
 was the Opinion of any Church, or Churchman. It is your 
 Lordship's proper Assertion, That we ojfend God in expecting his 
 Graces from any Hatids but his own. 
 
 Now it is strange, that God should be offended with his own 
 Methods, or that your Lordship should find us out a Way of 
 pleasing him, more suitable to his Nature and Attributes, than 
 what he has taught us in the Scriptures. I call them his own 
 Methods ; for what else is the \\h.o\Q Jewish Dispensation, but a 
 Method of God's Providence, v/here his Blessings and Judgments 
 were dispensed by hiDnan Hands ? What is the Christian Reli- 
 gion but a Method of Salvation, where the chief Means of Grace 
 are offered and dispensed by human Hands ? Let me here 
 recommend to your Lordship, the excellent Words of a very 
 learned and judicious Prelate on this Occasion. 
 
 ' This will have no Weight with any reasonable Man, against 
 ' the Censures of the Church, or any other Ordinance of the 
 ' Gospel, that they make the Intervention of other Men necessary 
 ' to our Salvation ; since it has always been God's ordinary 
 ' Method, to dispense his Blessings and Judgments by the Hands 
 ' of Men.'* 
 
 Your Lordship exclaims against your Adversaries as such 
 romantic strange sort of Men, for talking of Benedictions and 
 Absolutions, and of the Necessity of receiving God's Ordinances 
 from proper Hands : Yet, my Lord, here is an excellent Bishop, 
 against whose Learning, Judgment, and Protestantism, there can 
 be no Objection ; who says, if a Person has but the Use of his 
 Reason, he will have nothing to object to any Ordinances of the 
 Gospel, which make the Intervention of other Men necessary 
 
 * Dr. Potter's Church Government, p. 336.
 
 the "Bishop of Bangor, 3 5 
 
 towards the Conveyance of them, since that has always been 
 God's ordinary Method, The Bishop does not say, it is necessary 
 a Man should be a great Divine to acknowledge it ; so he be but 
 a reasonable Ma)i, he will allow it. Yet your Lordship is so far 
 from being this reasonable Man, that you think your Adversaries 
 void both of Reason and common Sense, for teaching it. You 
 expressly exclude all Persons from having any Thing to do 
 with our Salvation, and say, it wholly depends upon God and 
 ourselves. 
 
 You tell us, that authoritative Benediction is anot/ier of the 
 Terms of Art Jtsed by your Protestant Adversaries ; in which tJiey 
 claim a Right, in one 7'egidar Succession, of blessing the People.^ 
 An ingenious Author, my Lord, (in the Opinion of many, if not 
 of most of your Friends) calls the Consecration of the Elements 
 Conjuration .-f Your Lordship calls the Sacerdotal Benediction a 
 Term of Art ; too plain an Intimation, though in more remote 
 and somewhat softer Terms, that in the Sense of a certain 
 FatJier of the Church, her Clergy are little better than so many 
 Jugglers. 
 
 Your Lordship says, If they only meant hereby to declare upon 
 what Terms God will give his Blessings to Christians, or to 
 express tJuir own Iiearty Wislies for them, this might be understood. 
 So it might, my Lord, very easily ; and I suppose every Body 
 understands that they may do this, whether they be Clergy or 
 Laity, Men or Women : For I presume anyone may declare what 
 he takes to be the Terms of the Gospel, and wish that others 
 may faithfully observe them. But I humbly presume, my Lord, 
 that the good Bishop above-mentioned meant something more 
 than this, when he spake of Ordinances ivhich make the Interven- 
 tion of other Men necessary to our Salvation, aiui of Gods dis- 
 pensing Jiis Blessings in virtue of them through their Hands. 
 
 There is a superstitious Custom (in your Lordship's Account 
 it must be so) yet remaining in most Places, of sending for a 
 Clergyman to minister to sick Persons in imminent Danger of 
 Death : Even those who have abused the Clergy all their Lives 
 long, are glad to beg their Assistance when they apprehend 
 themselves upon the Confines of another World. There is no 
 Reason, my Lord, to dislike this Practice, but as it supposes a 
 Difference between the Sacerdotal Prayers and Benedictions, and 
 those of a Nurse. 
 
 We read, my Lord, that God would not heal Abimclech, though 
 he knew the Integrity of his Heart, till Abraham had prayed for 
 
 * Page 91. I Rites of the Christian Church. 
 
 3—2
 
 36 
 
 T'hree Letters to 
 
 him : He is a Prop/iet, said God, he shall pray for thee, and thou 
 shall live (Gen. xx. 7). 
 
 Pray, my Lord, was not God just, and good, and true, in the 
 Days oi AbraJiam, as he is now? Yet you see, Abimelech's 
 Integrity was not available itself. He was to be pardoned by 
 the Prayer of Abraham, and his Prayer was effectual ; and so 
 represented, because it was the Prayer of a Prophet. 
 
 Suppose, my Lord, that AbivielccJi had said with your Lordship, 
 That it is ajf routing to God, that we should expect his Graces from 
 any Hands but his own ; that all is to be transacted between God 
 and ourselves ; and so had rejected the Prayer of AbraJiam, as a 
 mere Essay of Prophet-Craft ; he had then acted with as much 
 Prudence and Piety as your Lordship's Laity would do, if you 
 could persuade them to despise Bcjiedictions and Absolutions, to 
 regard no particidar sort of Clergy ; but entirely depend upon 
 God and themselves, without any other Assistance what- 
 ever. 
 
 We read also, that Joshua was full of the Spirit of Wisdom, 
 for Moses had laid his Hattds upo7i him (Deut. xxxiv. 9). 
 Was it not as absurd, my Lord, in the Days oi foshua, for human 
 Hands to bless, as it is now ? Did there not then lie the same 
 Objection against Aloses, that there does now against the Chris- 
 tian Clergy ? Had Aloses any more jiatural Power to give the 
 Spirit of Wisdom, &c., by his Hands, than the Clergy have to 
 confer Grace by theirs ? They are both equally weak and 
 insufficient for these Purposes of themselves, and equally power- 
 ful when it pleases God to make them so. 
 
 Again, when Eliphaz and his Friends had displeased God, they 
 were not to be reconciled to God by their own Repentance, or 
 transact that Matter only between God and themselves ; but 
 they were referred to apply to fob. My Serva?tt Job shall pray for 
 you, for him will I accept (Job xlii. 8). Might not Eliphaz here 
 have said, shall I so far affront God, as to think I cannot be 
 blessed without the Prayers of fob ? Shall I be so weak or 
 senseless, as to imagine, my own Supplications and Repentance 
 will not save me ; or that I need apply to any one but God alone, 
 to qualify me for the Reception of his Grace ? 
 
 Again, The Lord spake icnto Moses, saying, speak tinto Aaron 
 and his sons, saying, on this wise shall ye bless the children of 
 Israel, saying luito them. The Lord bless and keep thee, &c., and 
 I will bless them (Numb. vi. 22). 
 
 Again, The Priests of the Sons of Levi shall come near ; for 
 them hath the Lord thy God cJiosen to minister unto him, and to 
 bless in the Name of the Lord (Deut. xxi. 5). 
 
 Now, my Lord, this is what we mean by the authoritative
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor, 37 
 
 Administrations of the Christian Clergy; whether they be by way 
 of Benediction, or of any other kind. We take them to be 
 Persons whom God has chosen to minister unto him, and to bless 
 in his Name. We imagine that our Saviour was a greater Priest 
 and Mediator than Aaro7i, or any of God's former Ministers. We 
 are assured that Christ sent his Apostles, as his Father had sent 
 him, and that therefore they were his true Successors : And since 
 they did commission others to succeed them in their Office, by 
 the Imposition of Hands, as Moses commissioned Joshua to 
 succeed him ; the Clergy who have succeeded the Apostles, have 
 as divine a Call and Commission to their Work, as those who 
 were called by our Saviour ; and are as truly his Successors, as 
 the Apostles themselves were. 
 
 From the Places of Scripture above-mentioned, it is evident, 
 and indeed from the whole Tenor of Sacred Writ, that it may 
 consist with the Goodness and Justness of God to depute Men 
 to act in his Name, and be ministerial towards the Salvation of 
 others ; and to lay a Necessity upon his Creatures of qualifying 
 themselves for his Favour, and receiving his Graces by the Hands 
 and Intervention of mere Men. 
 
 But, my Lord, if there be now any Set of Men upon Earth 
 that are more peculiarly God's Ministers than others, and through 
 whose Administrations, Prayers, and Benedictions, God will accept 
 of returning Sinners, and receive them to Grace ; you have done 
 all you can to prejudice People against them: You have taught 
 the Laity that all is to be transacted between God and them- 
 selves, and that they need not value any particular Sort of Clergy 
 in the World. 
 
 I leave it to the Great Judge and Searcher of Hearts, to judge 
 from what Principles, or upon what Motives your Lordship has 
 been induced to teach these Things ; but must declare, that, for 
 my own Part, if I had the greatest Hatred to Christianity, I 
 should think it could not be more expressed than by teaching 
 what your Lordship has publicly taught. If I could rejoice in 
 the Misery and Ruin of Sinners, I should think it sufficient 
 Matter of Triumph, to drive them from the Ministers of God, 
 and to put them upon inventing new Schemes of saving them- 
 selves instead of submitting to the ordinary Methods of Salvation 
 appointed by God. 
 
 It will not follow from anything I have said, that the Laity 
 have lost their Christian Liberty, or that no Body can be saved 
 but whom the Clergy please to save; that they have the arbitrary 
 Disposal of Happiness to Mankind. Was Abimelech's Happiness 
 in the Disposition o{ Abraham, h^.c^xai^Q he was to be received by 
 Means of Abraham's Intercession ? Or could Job damn Eliphaz^
 
 38 
 
 T'hree Letters to 
 
 because he was to mediate for him, and procure his Reconcilia- 
 tion to God ? 
 
 Neither, my Lord, do the Christian Clergy pretend to this 
 despotic Empire over their Flocks. They do not assume to them- 
 selves a Power to damn the Innocent, or to save the Guilty; but 
 they assert a sober and just Right to reconcile Men to God, and 
 to act in his Name, in restoring them to his Favour. They 
 received their Commission from those whom Christ sent with 
 full Authority to send others, and with a Promise that he would 
 be with them to the End of the World. From this they conclude, 
 that they have his Authority, and that in consequence of it, their 
 Administrations are necessary, and effectual to the Salvation of 
 Mankind ; and that none can despise them, but who despise him 
 that sent them ; and are as surely out of the Covenant of Grace, 
 when they leave such his Pastors^ as when they openly despise, 
 or omit to receive his Sacraments. 
 
 And what is there in this Doctrine, my Lord, to terrify the 
 Co7iscicnces of the Laity? What is there here to bring the 
 profane Scandal of Priestcraft upon the Clergy ? Could it be 
 any Ground of AbimelecJCs hating Abra/iani, because that 
 Abraham was to reconcile him to God .-' Could Eliphaz justly 
 have any Prejudice against Job, because God would hear Job's 
 Intercession for him .'' Why then, my Lord, must the Christian 
 Priesthood be so horrid and hateful an Institution, because the 
 Design of it is to restore Men to the Grace and Favour of God ? 
 Why must we be abused and insulted for being sent upon the 
 Errand of Salvation, and made Ministers of eternal Happiness 
 to our Brethren } There is a Woe due to us if we preach not the 
 Gospel, or neglect those ministerial Offices that Christ hath en- 
 trusted to us. We are to watch for their Souls, as those who are 
 to give an Account. Wh>' then must we be treated as arrogant 
 Priests, ox popishly affected, for pretending to have any Thing to 
 do in the Discharge of our Ministry with the Salvation of Men ? 
 Why must we be reproached with blasphemous Claims, ^.nd absurd 
 senseless Pozvers, for assuming to bless in God's Name, or think- 
 ing our Administrations more effectual than the Office of a 
 common Layman ? 
 
 But farther, To what Purpose does your Lordship except 
 against these Powers in the Clergy, from their common Frailties 
 and Lnjirviities with the rest of Mankind .'' Were not Abraham 
 and Job, and the Jewish Priests, Men of like Passions with us } 
 Did not our Saviour command the Jews to apply to their Priests, 
 notwithstanding their personal Faults, because they sat in Moses' 
 Chair ? Did not the Apostles assure their Followers that they 
 were Men of like Passions with them } But did they therefore
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor. 39 
 
 disclaim their Mission, or Apostolical Authority ? Did they 
 teach, that their natural Infirmities made them less the Ministers 
 of God, or less necessary to the Salvation of Men ? Their 
 personal Defects did not make them depart from the Claim of 
 those Powers they were invested with, or desert their Ministry, 
 but, indeed, gave St. Paul Occasion to say. We have this Treasure 
 in eartJien Vessels, {i.e., this Authority committed to mere Men) 
 that the excellency of it may be of God, and not of Men. The 
 Apostle happens to differ very much from your Lordship : He 
 says, such weak Instruments were made use of that the Glory 
 might redound to God. Your Lordship says, to suppose Instru- 
 ments to be of any Benefit to us, is to lessen the Sovereignty of 
 God, and, in Consequence, his Glory. 
 
 Your Lordship imagines you have sufficiently destroyed the 
 sacerdotal Powers, by showing, that the Clergy are only Men, and 
 subject to the common Frailties of Mankind. My Lord, we own 
 the Charge, and do not claim any sacerdotal Powers from our 
 personal Abilities, or to acquire any Glory to ourselves. But, 
 weak as we are, we are God's Ministers, and if we are either 
 afraid or ashamed of our Duty, we must perish in the Guilt. But 
 is a Prophet therefore proud, because he insists upon the 
 Authority of his Mission .'' Cannot a Mortal be God's Messenger, 
 and employed in his Affairs, but he must be insolent and assum- 
 ing, for having the Resolution to own it .-' If we are to be re- 
 proved for pretending to be God's Ministers, because we are but 
 Men, the Reproach will fall upon Providence; since it has pleased 
 God, chiefly to transact his Affairs with Mankind by the Ministry 
 of their Brethren. 
 
 Your Lordship has not one Word from Scripture against 
 these sacerdotal Powers ; no Proof that Christ has not sent Men 
 to be effectual Administrators of his Graces : You only assert, 
 that there can be no such Ministers, because they are mere 
 Men. 
 
 Now, my Lord, I must beg Leave to say, that it the natural 
 Weakness of Men makes them incapableof being the Instruments 
 of conveying Grace to their Brethren ; if the Clergy cannot be 
 of any Use or Necessity to their Flocks, for this Reason ; then it 
 undeniably follows, that there can be no positive Institutions in 
 the Christian Religion that can procure any spiritual Advantages 
 to the Members of it ; then the Sacraments can be no longer any 
 Means of Grace. For, I hope, no one thinks that Bread and 
 Wine have any natural Force or Efficacy to convey Grace to the 
 Soul. The Water in Baptism has the common Qualities of 
 Water, and is destitute of any intrinsic Power to cleanse the 
 Soul, or purify from Sin. But your Lordship will not say, because
 
 40 'Three Letters to 
 
 it has only the common Nature of Water, that therefore it cannot 
 be a Means of Grace. Why then may not the Clergy, though 
 they have the common Nature of Men, be constituted by God, 
 to convey his Graces, and to be ministerial to the Salvation of 
 their Brethren ? Can God consecrate inanimate Things to 
 spiritual Purposes, and make them the Means of eternal Happi- 
 ness ? And is Man the only Creature that he cannot make sub- 
 servient to his Designs ? The only Being, who is too weak for 
 an Omnipotent God to render effectual towards attaining the 
 Ends of his Grace ? 
 
 Is it just and reasonable, to reject and despise the Ministry 
 and Benedictions of Men, because they are Men like ourselves ? 
 And is it not as reasonable, to despise the Sprinkling of Water, 
 a Creature below us, a senseless and inanimate Creature ? 
 
 Your Lordship therefore, must either find us some other 
 Reason for rejecting the Necessity of human Administrations, 
 than because they are human ; or else give up the Sacraments, 
 and all positive Institutions along with them. 
 
 Surely, your Lordship must have a mighty Opinion of 
 Naaman the Syrian, who, when the Prophet bid him go wash in 
 Jordan seven times, to the end he might be clean from his 
 Leprosy, very wisely remonstrated, Are not Abana and Pharpar, 
 Rivers (?/" Damascus, better than all the Waters of Israel ? 
 
 This, my Lord, discovered Naaman's great Liberty of Mind ; 
 and it is much, this has not been produced before, as an 
 Argument of his being a Free-Thinker. He took the Water of 
 Jordaii to be only Water ; as your Lordship justly observes a 
 Clergyman to be only a Man : And if you had been with him, 
 you could have informed him, that the washing seven Times was 
 a mere Nicety and Trifle of the Prophet ; and that since it is 
 God alone who can work miraculous Cures, we ought not to 
 think, that they depend upon any external Means, or any stated 
 Number of repeating them. 
 
 This, my Lord, is the true Scope and Spirit of your 
 Argument : If the Syrian was right in despising the Water of 
 Jordan, because it was only Water ; your Lordship might be 
 right in despising any particular Order of Clergy, because they 
 are but Men. Your Lordship is certainly as right, or as wrong, 
 as he was. 
 
 And now, my Lord, let the common Sense of Mankind here 
 judge, whether, if the Clergy are to be esteemed as having no 
 Authority, because they are but Men ; it does not plainly follow, 
 that everything else, every Institution that has not some natural 
 Force and Power to produce the Effects designed by it, is not 
 also to be rejected as equally trifling and ineffectual.
 
 the bishop of "Bangor, 41 
 
 The Sum of the Matter is this : It appears from many express 
 Facts, and indeed, from the whole Series of God's Providence, 
 that it is not only consistent with his Attributes, but also agree- 
 able to his ordinary Methods of dealing with Mankind, that he 
 should substitute Men to act in his Name, and be authoritatively 
 employed in conferring his Graces and Favours upon Mankind. 
 It appears, that your Lordship's Argument against the authori- 
 tative Administrations of the Christian Clergy, does not only 
 contradict those Facts, and condemn the ordinary Method of 
 God's Dispensations ; but likewise proves the Sacraments, and 
 every positive Institution of Christianity, to be ineffectual, and 
 as mere Dreams and Trifles, as the several Offices and Orders of 
 the Clergy. 
 
 This, I hope, will be esteemed a sufficient Confutation of your 
 Lordship's Doctrine, by all who have any true Regard or Zeal 
 for the Christian Religion ; and only expect to be saved by the 
 Methods of divine Grace proposed in the Gospel. 
 
 I shall now in a word or two set forth the Sacredness of the 
 Ecclesiastical Character, as it is founded in the New Testament; 
 with a particular regard to the Power of conferring Grace, and 
 the Efficacy of human Benedictions. 
 
 It appears therein that all sacerdotal Power is derived from 
 the Holy Ghost. Our Saviour himself took not that Ministry 
 upon him, till he had this Consecration : And during the time 
 of his Ministry, he was under the Guidance and Direction of the 
 Holy Ghost. Through the Holy Spirit he gave Commandment 
 to the Apostles whom he had chosen. When he ordained them 
 to the Work of the Ministry, it was with these Words, Receive 
 t/ie Holy Ghost. Those whom the Apostles ordained to the 
 same Function, it was by the same Authority : They laid their 
 Hands upon the Elders, exhorting them to take care of the 
 Flock of Christ, over which the Holy Ghost had made them 
 Overseers. 
 
 Hereby they plainly declared, that however this Office was to 
 descend from Man to Man through human Hands, that it was 
 the Holy Ghost which consecrated them to that Employment, 
 and gave them Authority to execute it. 
 
 From this it is also manifest, that the Priesthood is a Grace of 
 the Holy Ghost : That it is not a Function founded on the 
 Natural or Civil Rights of Mankind, but is derived from the 
 special Authority of the Holy Ghost ; and is as truly a positive 
 Institution as the Sacraments. So that they who have no 
 Authority to alter the Old Sacraments, and substitute New 
 ones, have no Power to alter the Old Order of the Clergy, or 
 introduce any other Order of them.
 
 42 'Three Letters to 
 
 For why can we not change the Sacraments ? Is it not 
 because they are only Sacraments, and operate as they are 
 instituted by the Holy Ghost ? Because they are useless 
 ineffectual Rites without this Authority ? And does not the 
 same Reason hold as well for the Order of the Clergy ? Does 
 not the same Scripture tell us, they are equally instituted by the 
 Holy Ghost, and oblige only by virtue of his Authority ? How 
 absurd is it therefore to pretend to abolish, or depart from the 
 settled Order of the Clergy, to make new Orders, or think any 
 God's Ministers, unless we had his Authority, and could make 
 new Sacraments, or a new Religion ? 
 
 My Lord, how comes it. That we cannot alter the Scriptures ? 
 Is it not, because they are Divinely inspired, and dictated by 
 the Holy Ghost ? And since it is express Scripture, That the 
 Priesthood is instituted and authorised by the same Holy Spirit, 
 Why is not the Holy Ghost as much to be regarded in one 
 Institution, as in another ? Why may we not as well make a 
 Gospel, and say, it was writ by the Holy Ghost, as make a new 
 Order of Clergy, and call them his ? Or esteem them as having 
 any relation to him ? 
 
 From this it likewise appears. That there is an absolute 
 Necessity of a strict Succession of authorised Ordainers from 
 the Apostolical Times, in order to constitute a Christian Priest. 
 For since a Commission from the Holy Ghost is necessary for 
 the exercise of this Office ; no one now can receive it, but from 
 those who have derived their Authority in a true Succession, 
 from the Apostles. We could not, my Lord, call our present 
 Bibles the Word of God, unless we knew the Copies from which 
 they are taken were taken from other true ones, till we come to 
 the Originals themselves. No more could we call any true 
 Ministers, or authorised by the Holy Ghost, who have not 
 received their Commission by an uninterrupted Succession of 
 lawful Ordainers. 
 
 What an excellent Divine would he be, who should tell the 
 World, it was not necessary that the several Copies and Manu- 
 scripts through which the Scriptures have been transmitted 
 through different Ages and Languages, should be all true ones, 
 and none of them forged } That this was a Thing subject to so 
 great Uncertainty, that God could not hang our Salvation on such 
 Niceties ? Suppose, for Proof of this, he should appeal to the 
 Scriptures ; and ask, where any mention is made of ascertaining 
 the Truth of all the Copies } Would not this be a Way of 
 Arguing very Theological ? The Application is very easy. 
 
 Your Lordship has not one Word to prove the uninterrupted 
 Succession of the Clergy a Trifle or Dream ; but that it is
 
 the "Bishop of Bangor, 43 
 
 subject to so great Uncertainty, and is never mentioned in the 
 Scriptures. As to the Uncertainty of it, it is equally as 
 uncertain, as whether the Scriptures be Gefiuine. There is just 
 the same sufficient Historical Evidence for the Certainty of one 
 as the other. As to its not being mentioned in the Scripture, 
 the Doctrine upon which it is founded, plainly made it unneces- 
 sary to mention it. Is it needful for the Scriptures to tell us, that 
 if we take our Bible from any false Copy, that it is not the 
 Word of God ? Why then need they tell us, that if we are 
 ordained by usurping false Pretenders to Ordination, nor 
 deriving their Authority to that end from the Apostles, that we 
 are no Priests .'' Does not the thing itself speak as plain in one 
 Case as in the other ? The Scriptures are only of use to us, as 
 they are the Word of God : We cannot have this Word of God, 
 which was written so many Years ago, unless we receive it from 
 authentic Copies and Manuscripts. 
 
 The Clergy have their Commission from the Holy Ghost : 
 The Power of conferring this Commission of the Holy Ghost, 
 was left with the Apostles : Therefore the present Clergy cannot 
 have the same Commission, or Call, but from an Order of Men, 
 who have successively conveyed this Power from the Apostles to 
 the present time. So that, my Lord, I shall beg leave to lay it 
 down, as a plain, undeniable, Christian Truth, that the Order of 
 the Clergy is an Order of as necessary Obligation as the Sacra- 
 ments ; and as unalterable as the Holy Scriptures ; the same 
 Holy Ghost being as truly the Author and Founder of the 
 Priesthood, as the Institutor of the Sacraments, or the Inspirer 
 of those Divine OracJes. And when your Lordship shall offer 
 any fresh Arguments to prove that no particular sort of Clergy 
 is necessary ; that the Benedictions and Administrations of the 
 present Clergy of our most excellent Church, are trifling 
 Niceties ; if I cannot show that the same Arguments will 
 conclude against the Authority of the Sacraments and the 
 Scriptures, I faithfully promise your Lordship to become a 
 Convert to your Doctrine. 
 
 What your Lordship charges upon your Adversaries, as an 
 absurd Doctrine, in pretending the Necessity of one regular, 
 successive, and particular Order of the Clergy, is a true Christian 
 Doctrine ; and as certain from Scripture, as that we are to keep 
 to the Institution of particular Sacraments ; or not to alter 
 those particular Scriptures, which now compose the Canon ot 
 the old and new Testament. 
 
 By authoritative Benediction^ we do not mean any natural or 
 intrinsic Authority of our own : But a Commission from God, to 
 be effectual Administrators of his Ordinances, and to bless in his
 
 44 "Three Letters to 
 
 Name. Thus, a Person who is sent from God, to foretell things, 
 of which he had before no Knowledge or Notion ; or to 
 denounce Judgments, which he has no natural Power to 
 execute; may truly be said to be an authoritative Prophet; 
 because he has the Authority of God for what he does. Thus, 
 when the Bishop is said to confer Grace in Confirmation, this is 
 properly an authoritative Benediction ; because he is then as truly 
 doing what God has commissioned him to do, as when a Prophet 
 declares upon what Errand he is sent. 
 
 It is in this Sense, my Lord, that the People are said to be 
 authoritatively blessed by the regular Clergy ; because they are 
 God's Clergy, and act by his Commission ; because by their 
 Hands the People receive the Graces and Benefits of God's 
 Ordinances ; which they have no more Reason to expect from 
 other Ministers of their own Election, or if the Word may be 
 used in an abusive Sense, of their own Consecration, than to 
 receive Grace from Sacraments of their own Appointment. The 
 Scriptures teach us, That the Holy Ghost has instituted an Order 
 of Clergy : We say, a Priesthood, so authorised, can no more be 
 changed by us, than we can change the Scriptures, or make new 
 Sacraments ; because they are all founded on the same Autho- 
 rity, without any Power of a Dispensation delegated to us in one 
 Case more than another. If therefore we have a Mind to con- 
 tinue in the Covenant of Christ, and receive the Grace and 
 Benefit of his Ordinances, we must receive them through such 
 Hands as he has authorised for that Purpose, to the end we may 
 be qualified to partake of the Blessings of them. For as a true 
 Priest cannot benefit us by administering a false Sacrament ; so 
 a true Sacrament is nothing, when it is administered by a false 
 uncoviviissioned ATinister. Besides this Benediction which attends 
 the Ordinances of God, when they are thus performed by autho- 
 rised Hands, there is a Benediction of Prayer, which we may 
 justly think very effectual, when pronounced or dispensed by the 
 same Hands. 
 
 Thus when the Bishop or Priest intercedes for the Congrega- 
 tion, or pronounces the Apostolical Benediction upon them, we 
 do not consider this barely as an Act of Charity and Humanity, 
 of one Christian praying for another ; but as the Work of a 
 Person who is commissioned by God to bless in his Name, and be 
 effectually ministerial in the Conveyance of his Graces ; or as 
 the Prayer of one who is left with us in Christ's stead, to carry 
 on his great Design of saving us ; and whose Benedictions are 
 ever ratified in Heaven, but when we render ourselves in one 
 Respect or other incapable of them. 
 
 Now, my Lord, they are these sacerdotal Prayers, these autho-
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor. 45 
 
 rised Sacraments, these commissioned Pastors, whom the Holy 
 Ghost has made Overseers of the Flock of Christ, that your 
 Lordship encourages the Laity to despise. You bid them con- 
 teniji the vain Words of Validity or Invalidity of God's Ordi- 
 nances ; to Jieed no particular sort of Clergy^ or the pretended 
 Necessity of their Administrations. 
 
 Your Lordship sets up in this Controversy for an Advocate for 
 the Laity, against the arrogant Pretences, and false Claims of the 
 Clergy. My Lord, we are no more contending for ourselves in 
 this Doctrine, than when we insist upon any Article in the 
 Creed. Neither is it any more our particular Cause, when we 
 assert our Mission, than when we assert the Necessity of the 
 Sacraments. 
 
 Who is to receive the Benefit of that Commission which we 
 assert, but they t Who is to suffer, if we pretend a false one, but 
 ourselves ? Sad Injury, indeed, offered to the Laity ! that we 
 should affect to be thought Ministers of God for their Sakes ! If 
 we really are so, they are to receive the Benefit ; if not, we are to 
 bear the Punishment. 
 
 But your Lordship comes too late in this glorious Under- 
 taking, to receive the Reputation of it ; the Work has been 
 already, in the Opinion of most People, better done to your 
 Lordship's Hands. The famous Author of The Rites of the 
 Christian ChurcJi, has carried this Christian Liberty to as great 
 Heights as your Lordship, And though you have not one 
 Notion, I can recollect, that has given Offence to the World, but 
 what seems taken from that pernicious Book ; yet your Lordship 
 is not so just as ever once to cite or mention the Author ; who, if 
 your Lordship's Doctrine be true, deserves to have a Statue 
 erected to his Honour, and receive every Mark of Esteem which 
 is due to the greatest Reformer of Religion. 
 
 Did not mine own Eyes assure me that he has cast no Con- 
 tempt upon the Church, no Reproach upon the Evangelical 
 Institutions, or the Sacred P'unction, but what has been seconded 
 by your Lordship, I would never have placed your Lordship in 
 the same View with so scandalous a Declaimer against the 
 Ordinances of Christ. W^hether I am right, or not, in this 
 Charge, I freely leave to the Judgment of those to determine, 
 who are acquainted with both your Works. Yet this Author, my 
 Lord, has been treated by the greatest and best Part of the 
 Nation, as a Free-thinking Infidel. But for what, my Lord t 
 Not that he has declared against the Scriptures; not that he has 
 rejected Revelation : (we are not, blessed be God, still so far 
 corrupted with the Principles of Infidelity) but because he has 
 reproached every particular Church, as such, and denied all
 
 46 
 
 'Three Letters to 
 
 Obligation to Communion ; because he has exposed Benedic- 
 tions, Absolutions, and Excommunications ; denied the Divine 
 Right of the Clergy, and ridiculed the pretended Sacredness 
 and Necessity of their Administrations, as mere Niceties and 
 Trifles, though commonly in more distant, I was going to say 
 more decent Ways : In a Word, because he made all Churches, 
 all Priests, all Sacraments, however administered, equally valid, 
 and denied any particular Method necessary to Salvation. Yet 
 after all this profane Declamation, he allows, my Lord, that 
 Religious Offices may be appropriated to particular Men, called 
 Clergy, yi^r Order sake only ; and not on the Account of any pecu- 
 liar Spiritual Advantages, Pozvers, or Privileges, which those ivho 
 are set apart for them, have from Heaven j^ 
 
 Agreeable to this, your Lordship owns, that you are not 
 against the Order, or Decency, or Subordination belonging to 
 Christian Societies.-^ 
 
 But, pray, my Lord, do you mean any more by this, than the 
 above-mentioned Author ? Is it for any Thing, but the Sake of 
 a little external Order or Conveniency ? Is there any Christian 
 Law that obliges to observe this kind of Order ? Is there any 
 real essential Difference between Persons ranked into this Order ? 
 Is it a Sin for any Body, especially the Civil Magistrate, to leave 
 this Order, and make what other Orders he prefers to it ? This 
 your Lordship cannot resolve in the Affirmative ; for then you 
 must allow, that some Communions are safer than others, and 
 that some Clergy have more Authority than others. 
 
 Will your Lordship say, that no particular Order can be neces- 
 sary ; yet some Order necessary, which may be different in 
 different Communions ? This cannot hold good upon your 
 Lordship's Principles ; for since Christ has left no Law about 
 any Order, no Members of any particular Communion need 
 submit to that Order ; since it is confessed by your Lordship, 
 That in Religion no Laws, but those of Christ, are of any Obli- 
 gation. So that though you do not disclaim all external Order 
 and Decency yourself, yet you have taught other People to do it 
 if they please, and as much as they please. 
 
 Suppose, my Lord, some Layman, upon a Pretence of your 
 Lordship's Absence, or any other, should go into the Diocese of 
 Bangor, and there pretend to ordain Clergymen ; could your 
 Lordship quote one Text of Scripture against him .'' Could you 
 allege any Law of Christ, or his Apostles, that he had broken .■* 
 Could you prove him guilty of any Sin ? No, my Lord, you 
 would not do that ; because this would be acknowledging such a 
 
 * Page 131. t Aiisuer to Dr. Snape, p. 48.
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor, 47 
 
 Thing as a Sinful Ordination ; and if there be Sinful Ordinations, 
 then there must be some Law concerning Ordinations : For Sin 
 is the Transgression of the Law : And if there be a Law concern- 
 ing Ordinations, then we must keep to the Clergy laivfully 
 ordained ; and must confess, after all your Lordship has said, or 
 can say, that still some Communions are safer than others. 
 
 If you should reprove such a one, as an EnglisJunan, for acting 
 in Opposition to the EnglisJi Laws of Decency and Order ; he 
 would answer. That he has nothing to do with such Trifles ; 
 That Christ was sole Lawgiver in his Kingdom ; That he was 
 content to have his Kingdom as orderly and decent as Christ had 
 left it ; and since he had instituted no Laws in that Matter, it 
 was presuming, for others to take upon them to add any Thing 
 by way of Order or Decency, by Laws of their own : That as 
 he had as much Authority from Christ to ordain Clergy as 
 your Lordship, he would not depart from his Christian Liberty. 
 
 If he should remonstrate to your Lordship in these, or Words 
 to the like Effect, he would only reduce your Lordship's own 
 Doctrine to Practice. This, my Lord, is part of that Confusion 
 the learned Dr. Snape has charged you with being the Author of, 
 in the Church of God : And all Persons, my Lord, whom you 
 have taught not to regard any particular Sort of Clergy, must 
 know (if they have the common Sense to which you appeal) that 
 then no Clergy are at all necessary ; and that it is as lawful for 
 any Man to be his own Priest, as to solicit his own Cause. For 
 to say that no particular Sort of Clergy are necessary, and yet 
 that in general the Clergy are necessary, is the same as to say, 
 that Truth is necessary to be believed ; yet the Belief of no par- 
 ticular Truth is necessary. 
 
 The next Thing to be considered, my Lord, is your Doctrine 
 concerning Absolutions. You begin thus : The same you will 
 find a sufficient Reply to their presiimptnous Claim to an authorita- 
 tive Absolution. An infallible Absolution cannot belong to fallible 
 Man. But no Absobition can be authoritative, which is not 
 infallible. Therefore no authoritative A bsoliUion can belong to any 
 Man living.* 
 
 I must observe here, your Lordship does not reject this Abso- 
 lution, because the Claim of it is not founded in Scripture ; but 
 by an Argument drawn from the Nature of the Thing : Because 
 you imagine such Absolution requires Infallibility for the Execu- 
 tion of it ; therefore it cannot belong to Men. Should this be 
 true, it would prove, that if our Saviour had really so intended, 
 he could not have given this Power to his Ministers. But, my 
 
 * Preservative, p. 92.
 
 48 
 
 'Three Letters to 
 
 Lord, who can see any Repugnancy in the Reason of the Thing 
 itself? Is it not as easy to conceive, that our Lord should confer 
 his Grace of Pardon by the Hands of his Ministers, as by Means 
 of the Sacraments ? And may not such Absolution be justly 
 called authoritative, the Power of which is granted, and executed 
 by his Authority ? 
 
 Is it impossible for Men to have this Authority from God, 
 because they may mistake in the Exercise of it ? This Argu- 
 ment proves too much, and makes as short Work with every 
 Institution of Christianity, as with the Power of Absolution. 
 
 For if it is impossible that Men should have Authority from 
 God to absolve in his Name, because they are not infallible ; 
 this makes them equally incapable of being entrusted with any 
 other Means of Grace ; and consequently supposes the whole 
 Priest's Office to imply a direct Impossibility in the very Notion 
 of it. 
 
 Your Lordship's Argument is this : Christians have their Sins 
 pardoned upon certain Conditions ; but fallible Men cannot 
 certainly know these Conditions : Therefore fallible Men cannot 
 have Authority to absolve. 
 
 From hence I take Occasion to argue thus : Persons are to be 
 admitted to the Sacraments on certain Conditions ; but fallible 
 Men cannot tell whether they come qualified to receive them 
 according to these Conditions : Therefore fallible Men cannot 
 have Authority to administer the Sacraments. 
 
 27idiy, This Argument subverts all Authority of the Christian 
 Religion itself, and the Reason of every instituted Means of 
 Grace. For if nothing can be authoritative, but what a Man is 
 infallibly assured of, then the Christian Religion cannot be an 
 authoritative Method of Salvation ; since a Man, by being a 
 Christian, does not become infallibly certain of his Salvation : 
 Nor does Grace infallibly attend the Participation of the Sacra- 
 ments. So that though your Lordship has formed this Argument 
 only against this absolving Power, yet it has as much Force 
 against the Sacraments, and the Christian Religion itself. For 
 if it be absurd to suppose that the Priest should absolve anyone, 
 because he cannot be certain that he deserves Absolution ; does 
 it not imply the same Absurdity, to suppose that he should have 
 the Power of administering the Sacraments, when he cannot be 
 infallibly certain that those who receive them are duly qualified ? 
 If a Possibility of Error destroys the Power in one Case, it as 
 certainly destroys it in the other. Again, if Absolution cannot 
 be authoritative, unless it be infallible ; then it is plain that the 
 Christian Religion is not an authoritative Means of Salvation ; 
 because all Christians are not infallibly saved : Nor can the
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor, 49 
 
 Sacraments be authoritative Means of Grace, because all who 
 partake of them do not infallibly obtain Grace. 
 
 Your Lordship proceeds with your Laity by way of Expostu- 
 lation : If tJiey amuse you with that Power which Christ left with 
 his Apostles, Whose soever Sins ye remit, they are rejuitted unto 
 tliem ; and whose soever Sins ye retain, tluy are retained unto 
 them .-* 
 
 But why amuse, my Lord ? Are the Texts of Holy Scripture 
 to be treated only as Matter of Amusement? Or does your 
 Lordship know of any A^e in the Church when the very same 
 Doctrine which we now teach, has not been taught from the 
 same Texts ? 
 
 Do you know any Successors of the Apostles that thought 
 the Power there specified did not belong to them ? But, how- 
 ever, your Lordship has taught your Laity to believe what we 
 argue from this Text, all Amusement ; and told them. They may 
 securely answer, that it is impossible for them to depend upon this 
 Right as anything certain, till t/iey can prove to you tJiat everything 
 spoken to the Apostles, belongs to Ministers in all Ages.-\ The 
 Security of this Answer, my Lord, is founded upon this false 
 Presumption, viz. That the Clergy can claim no Right to the 
 Exercise of any Part of their Office, as Successors of the Apostles, 
 till they can prove that every Thing that was spoken to the 
 Apostles, belongs to them. 
 
 This Proposition must be true, or else there is no Force or 
 Security in the Objection you here bring for the Instruction of 
 the Laity. If it is well founded, then the Clergy cannot possibly 
 prove they have any more Right to the Exercise of any Part of 
 their Office than the Laity. Do they pretend to ordain, confirm, 
 to admit or exclude Men from the Sacraments? By what 
 Authority is all this done ? Is it not because the Apostles, whose 
 Successors they are, did the same Things .-* But then, say your 
 Lordship's well-instructed Laity, this is nothing to the Purpose : 
 Prove yourselves Apostles ; prove that every Thing said to the 
 Apostles belongs to you ; and then it will be allowed, that you 
 may exercise these Powers, because they exercised them : But 
 as this is impossible to be done, so it is impossible for you to 
 prove that you have any Powers or Authorities, because they 
 had them. 
 
 And now, my Lord, if the Case be thus, what Apology shall 
 we make for Christianity, as it has been practised in all Ages .'' 
 How shall we excuse the Noble Army of Martyrs, Saints, and 
 Confessors, who have boldly asserted the Right to so many 
 
 * Page 93. t Page 94.
 
 50 'Three Letters to 
 
 Apostolical Powers? Could any Men in these Ages pretend, 
 that everything that was spoken to the Apostles^ belonged to them- 
 selves ? False, then, was their Claim, and presumptuous their 
 Authority, who should pretend any Apostolical Powers, because 
 the Apostles had them; when they could not prove, that every- 
 thing that was spoke^i to the Apostles, belo?iged to them. 
 
 Farther; To prove that the above-mentioned Text does not 
 confer the Power of Absolution in the Clergy, you reason thus : 
 Whatever contradicts the Natural Notions of God, and the Design 
 and Tenor of the Gospel, cannot be the true Meaning of any Passage 
 in the Gospel : But to make the Absolution of weak and fallible 
 Men so necessary, or so valid, that God will not par-don without 
 them, ; or that all are pardoned who have them pronounced over 
 them, is to contradict those Notions, as well as the plain Tenor of 
 the Gospel!^ 
 
 Be pleased, my Lord, to point out your Adversary ; name 
 any one Church of Englarid Man that ever taught this romantic 
 Doctrine which you are confuting. Who ever taught such a 
 Necessity of Absolutions, that God will pardon none without 
 them ? Who ever declared that all are pardoned who have 
 them pronounced over them ? We teach the Necessity and 
 Validity of Sacraments ; but do we ever declare that all are 
 saved who receive them ? Is there no Medium between two 
 Extremes ? No such Thing, my Lord, as Moderation ! Must 
 every Thing be thus absolute and extravagant, or nothing 
 at all ? 
 
 In another Page we have more of this same Colouring : But 
 to claim a Right to stand in Gods Stead, in such a Sense, that 
 they can absolutely and certainly bless, or 7iot bless, with their Voice 
 alone : This is the highest Absurdity and Blasphemy as it supposeth 
 God to place a Set of Men above himself ; and to put out of his 
 own Hands the Disposal of his Blessings and Curses. \ 
 
 If your Lordship had employed all this Oratory against 
 worshipping the Sun or Moon, it had just affected your Adver- 
 saries as much as this. For who ever tau-^ht that any Set of 
 Men could absolutely bless, or withhold Blessing, independent of 
 God? Who ever taught, that the Christian Religion, or Sacra- 
 ments, or Absolution, saved People on course, or without proper 
 Dispositions? Whoever claimed such an absolving Power, as to 
 set himself above God, and to take from him the Disposal of his 
 own Blessings and Curses ? What has such extravagant Descrip- 
 tions, such romantic Characters of Absolution, to do with that 
 Power the Clergy justly claim ? Cannot there be a Necessity 
 
 * Page 93. f Page 91.
 
 the bishop of "Bangor, 5 i 
 
 in some Cases of receiving Absolution from their Hands, except 
 they set themselves above God ? Is God robbed of the Disposal 
 of his Blessings, when, in Obedience to his own Commands, and 
 in virtue of his own Authority, they admit some as Members of 
 the Church, and exclude others from the Communion of it ? 
 Do they pretend to be Channels of Grace, or the Means of 
 Pardon, by any Rights or Powers naturally inherent in them ? 
 Do they not in all these Things consider themselves as Instru- 
 ments of God, that are made ministerial to the Edification of 
 the Church, purely by his Will, and only so far as they act in 
 Conformity to it ? Now if it has pleased God to confer the 
 Holy Ghost in Ordination, Confirmation, &c., only by them, and 
 to annex the Grace of Pardon to the Imposition of their Hands, 
 on returning Sinners; is it any Blasphemy for them to claim and 
 exert their Power? Is the Prerogative of God injured, because 
 his own Institutions are obeyed ? Cannot he dispense his Graces 
 by what Persons, and on what Terms he pleases ? Is he deprived 
 of the Disposal of his Blessings, because they are bestowed on 
 Persons according to his Order, and in Obedience to his 
 Authority ? If I should afifirm, that Bishops have the sole 
 Power to ordain and confirm, would this be robbing God of his 
 Disposal of those Graces that attend such Actions ? Is it not 
 rather allowing and submitting to God's own Disposal, when we 
 keep close to those Methods of it which himself has prescribed ? 
 
 Pray, my Lord, consider the Nature of Sacraments. Are not 
 they necessary to Salvation ? But is God therefore excluded 
 from any Power of his own ? Has he for that Reason, set Bread 
 and Wine in the Eucharist, or Water in Baptism, above Himself ? 
 Has he put the Salvation of Men out of his own Power, because 
 it depends on his own Institutions ? Is the Salvation of Chris- 
 tians less his own Act and Deed, or less the Effect of his own 
 Mercy, because these Sacraments in great measure contribute to 
 effect it? Why then, my Lord, must that Imposition of Hands 
 that is attended with his Grace and Pardon, and which has no 
 Pretence to such Grace, but in Obedience to his Order, and in 
 virtue of his Promise, be thus destructive of his Prerogative ? 
 Where is there any Diminution of his Honour or Authority, if 
 such Actions of the Clergy are made necessary to the Salvation 
 of Souls in some Circumstances, as their washing in Water, or 
 their receiving Bread and Wine ? Cannot God institute Means 
 of Grace, but those Means must needs be above himself? They 
 owe all their Power and Efficacy to his Institution, and can 
 operate no farther than the Ends for which he instituted them. 
 How then is he dethroned for being thus obeyed ? 
 
 My Lord, you take no notice of Scripture ; but in a new Way 
 
 4—2
 
 52 'Three Letters to 
 
 of your own, contend against this Power, from the Nature of the 
 Thing : Yet I must beg leave to say, this Power stands upon as 
 sure a Bottom, and is as consistent with the Goodness and 
 Majesty of God, as the Sacraments. If the annexing Grace to 
 Sacraments, and making them necessary Means of Salvation, be 
 a reasonable Institution of God ; so is his annexing Pardon to 
 the Imposition of Hands by the Clergy on returning Sinners. 
 The Grace or Blessing received in either Case, is of his own 
 giving, and in a Method of his own prescribing. And how this 
 should be any Injury to God's Honour, or Affront to his Majesty, 
 cannot easily be accounted for. 
 
 The Clergy justly claim a Power of reconciling Men to God, 
 from express Terms of Scripture ; and of delivering his Pardons 
 to penitent Sinners. Your Lordship disowns this Claim, as 
 making fallible Men the absolute Dispensers of God's Blessings, 
 and putting it in their Power to damn and save as they please. 
 But, my Lord, nothing of this Extravagance is included in it. 
 They are only entrusted with a conditional Power ; which they 
 are to exercise according to the Rules God has given ; and it 
 only obtains its Effect when it is so exercised. Every instituted 
 Means of Grace is conditional ; and it is only then effectual, 
 when it is attended with such Circumstances, as are required by 
 God. If the Clergy, through Weakness, Passion or Prejudice, 
 exclude Persons from the Church of God, they injure only them- 
 selves. But, my Lord, are these Powers nothing, because they 
 may be exercised in vain ? Have the Clergy no right at all to 
 them, because they are not absolutely infallible in the Exercise of 
 them .-* 
 
 Can you prove, my Lord, that they are not necessary, because 
 they have not always the same Effect ? May not that be neces- 
 sary to Salvation, which is only effectual on certain Conditions ? 
 Is not the Christian Religion necessary to Salvation, though all 
 Christians are not saved .'' Are not the Sacraments necessary 
 Means of Grace, though the Means of Grace obtained thereby 
 is only conditional .-' Is everyone necessarily improved in Grace, 
 who receives the Sacrament ? Or is it less necessary, because the 
 salutar)^ Effects of it are not more universal ? Why then must 
 the Imposition of Hands be less necessary, because the Grace of 
 it is conditional, and only obtained in due and proper Circum- 
 stances ? Is Absolution nothing, because if withheld wrongfully, 
 it injures not the Person who is denied it ; and if given without 
 due Dispositions in the Penitent, it avails nothing } Is not this 
 equally true of the Sacraments, if they are denied wrongfully, or 
 administered to unprepared Receivers ? But do they therefore 
 cease to be standing and necessary Means of Grace }
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor, 53 
 
 The Argument therefore against this Power, drawn from the 
 Ignorance or Passions of the Clergy, whereby they may mistake 
 or pervert the Application of it, can be of no Force ; since it is 
 as conditional as any other Christian Institution, The Salvation 
 of no Man can be endangered by the Ignorance or Passions of 
 any Clergymen in the Use of this Power : If they err in the 
 Exercise of it, the Consequences of their Error only affect them- 
 selves. The Administration of the Sacraments is certainly 
 entrusted to them : But will anyone say, that the Sacraments are 
 not necessary to Salvation ; because they may, through Ignorance 
 or Passion, make an ill Use of this Trust ? 
 
 There is nothing in this Doctrine to gratify the Pride of Clergy- 
 men, or encourage them to lord it over the Flock of Christ. If 
 you could suppose an Atheist or a Deist in Orders ; he might be 
 arrogant and domineer in the Exercise of his Powers : But who, 
 that has the least Sense of Religion, can think it matter of 
 Triumph, that he can deny the Sacraments, or refuse his Bene- 
 diction to any of his Flock? Can he injure or offend the 
 least of these ; and will not God take Account ? Or, if they fall 
 through his Offence, will not their Blood be required at his 
 Hands ? 
 
 Neither is there anything in it that can enslave the Laity to 
 the Clergy ; or make their Salvation depend upon their arbitrary 
 Will. Does anyone think his Salvation in danger, because the 
 Sacraments (the necessary means of it) are only to be ad- 
 ministered by the Clergy ? Why then must the Salvation of 
 Penitents be endangered, or made dependent on the sole Pleasure 
 of the Clergy ; because they alone can reconcile them to the 
 Favour of God ? If Persons are unjustly denied the Sacraments, 
 they may humbly hope, that God will not lay the Want of them 
 to their Charge. And if they are unjustly kept out of the 
 Church, and denied Admittance, they have no Reason to fear 
 but God will notwithstanding accept them, provided they be in 
 other respects proper Objects of his Favour. 
 
 But to proceed, your Lordship says, TJie Apostles might possibly 
 understand the Power of remitting and retainins; Sins, to be that 
 Power of laying their Hands upon the Sick. 
 
 Is this possible, my Lord .'* Then it is possible, the Apostles 
 might think, that in the Power here intended to be given them, 
 nothing at all was intended to be given them. For the Power of 
 healing the Sick, was already conferred upon them. Therefore, 
 if no more was intended to be given them in this Text, it cannot 
 be interpreted, as having entitled them properly to any Power 
 at all. 
 
 2. The Power mentioned here, was something that Jesus pro-
 
 54 "Three Letters to 
 
 mised he would give them hereafter : Which plainly supposes 
 they had it not then : But they then had the Power of Healing; 
 therefore something else must be intended here. 
 
 3. The Power of the Keys has always been looked upon as the 
 highest in the Apostolical Order. But if it related only to the 
 Power of Healing, it could not be so : For the Seventy, who were 
 inferior to the Apostles, had this Power. 
 
 4. The very Manner of Expression in this Place, proves, that 
 the Power here intended to be given, could not relate to Healing 
 tlie Sick, or to anything of that Nature ; but to some spiritual 
 Power, whose Effects should not be visible ; but be made good 
 by virtue of God's Promise. Thus, tvhonisoever ye shall heal on 
 Earth, I will heal in Heaven, borders too near upon an Absurdity. 
 There is no Occasion to promise to make good such Actions as 
 are good already, and have antecedently produced their Effects. 
 Persons who were restored to Health, to their Sight, or the Use 
 of their Limbs, did not want to be assured, that the Apostles, by 
 whom they were restored, had the Power to that End ; the 
 Exercise of which Power proved and confirmed itself. There 
 was no need therefore of a Divine Assurance, that a Person that 
 was healed, was actually healed in virtue of it. But when we 
 consider this Promise, as relating to a Power whose Effects are 
 not visible, as the Pardo?i of Sins, the Terms whereby it is 
 expressed, are most proper ; and it is very reasonable to suppose 
 God promising, that the spiritual powers exercised by his 
 Ministers on Earth, though they do not here produce their 
 visible Effects, shall yet be made good and effectual by him in 
 Heaven. 
 
 These Reasons, my Lord, I should think, are sufficient to con- 
 vince anyone, that the Apostles could not possibly understand 
 these Words in the Sense of yuur Lordship. 
 
 Let us now consider the Commission given to Peter. Our 
 Saviour said to him. Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will 
 build my Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against 
 it : And I will grant unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of 
 Heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth, shall be bound 
 in Heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt loose 07i Earth, shall be 
 loosed in Heaven. 
 
 Now, my Lord, how should it enter into the Thoughts of 
 Peter, that nothing was here intended, or promised by our 
 Saviour, but a Power of Healing ; which he not only had before, 
 but also many other Disciples, who were not Apostles .'' / will 
 give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven ; that is, 
 according to your Lordship, / ivill give thee Power to heal the 
 Sick. Can anything be more contrary to the plain obvious
 
 the "Bishop of Bangor, 55 
 
 Sense of the Words ? Can anyone be said to have the Keys of 
 the Kingdom of Heaven, because he may be the Instrument of 
 restoring People to Health ? Are Persons Members of Christ's 
 Kingdom, with any regard to Health ? How then can he have 
 any Power in that Kingdom ; or be said to have the Keys of it, 
 who is only empowered to cure Distempers ? Could anyone be 
 said to have the Keys of a temporal Kingdom, who had no tem- 
 poral Power given him in that Kingdom ? Must not he therefore 
 who has the Keys of a spiritual Kingdom, have some spiritual 
 Power in that Kingdom ? 
 
 Christ has told us, that his Kingdom is not of this World. 
 Your Lordship has told us, that it is so foreign to everything of 
 this World, that no worldly Terrors or Allurements, no Pains or 
 Pleasures of the Body, can have anything to do with it. Yet 
 here your Lordship teaches us, that he may have the Keys of this 
 spiritual Kingdom, who has only a Power over Diseases. My 
 Lord, are not Sickness and Health, Sight and Limbs, Things of 
 this World t Have they not some relation to bodily Pleasures 
 and Pains? How then can a Power about Things wholly con- 
 fined to this World, be a Power in a Kingdom that is not of this 
 World ? The Force of the Argument lies here : Our Saviour 
 has assured us, that his Kingdom is not of this World : Your 
 Lordship takes it to be of so spiritual a Nature, that it ought not, 
 nay, that it cannot be encouraged or established by any worldly 
 Powers. Otir Saviour gives to his Apostles the Keys of this 
 Kingdom : Yet you have so far forgotten your own Doctrine, and 
 the Spirituality of this Kingdom, that you tell us, he here gave 
 them a temporal Power of Diseases ; though he says, they were 
 the Keys of his Kingdom which he gave them. Suppose any 
 Successor of the Apostles should from this Text pretend to the 
 Power of the Sword, to make People Members of this Kingdom : 
 Must not the Answer be, that he mistakes the Power, by not 
 considering, that they are only the Keys of a spiritual, not 
 of a temporal Kingdom, which were here delivered to the 
 Apostles. 
 
 I humbly presume, my Lord, that this would be as good an 
 Answer to your Lordship's Doctrine, as to theirs who claim the 
 Right eif the Sword, till it can be shown that Health and Sick- 
 ness, Sight and Limbs, do not as truly relate to the Things of 
 this World as the Power of the Sword. 
 
 If this Power of the Keys must be understood, only as a 
 Power of inflicting or curing Diseases ; then the Words, in the 
 proper Construction of them, must run thus : Thou art Peter, 
 and upon this Rock I will build my Church, i.e., a peculiar Society 
 of healthful People, a7id the Gates of Hell shall never prevail
 
 T'hree Letters to 
 
 against it, i.e., they shall always be in a State of Health. I will 
 give unto thee the Keys of this Kingdom of Heaven, i.e., thou shalt 
 have the Power of inflicting and curing Distempers ; a7id what- 
 soever thou shalt bind ofi Earth, shall be boimd in Heaven, i.e., on 
 whomsoever thou shalt inflict the Leprosy on Earth, he shall be 
 a Leper in Heaven ; and zvh'atsoever thou shalt loose on Earth, 
 shall be loosed in Heaven, i.e., whomsoever thou shalt cure of that 
 Disease on Earth, shall be perfectly cured of it in Heaven. 
 
 This, without putting any Force upon the Words, is your 
 Lordship's own Interpretation ; which exposes the Honour and 
 Authority of Scriptures as much as the greatest Enemy to them 
 can wish. If our Saviour could mean by these Words, only a 
 Power of healing Distempers ; or if the Apostles understood 
 them in that Sense, we may as well believe that when he said. 
 His Kingdom was not of this World, that he meant, it was of this 
 World ; and that the Apostles so understood him too. 
 
 But, however, for the Benefit and Edification of the Laity, 
 your Lordship has another Interpretation for them : You sa}'-, if 
 they (the Apostles) did apply this Power of remitting Sins to the 
 certain Absolutio7i of partictilar Persons, it is plain, they could do 
 it tipon no other Bottom but this ; that God's Will and good 
 Pleasure about such particular Persons was infallibly communi- 
 cated to them. 
 
 Pray, my Lord, how, or where is this so plain } Is it plain 
 that they never baptized Persons till God had i?tfallibly commu- 
 nicated his good Pleasure to them about such particular Persons ? 
 Baptism is an Institution equally sacred with this other, and 
 puts the Person baptized in the same State of Grace that Abso- 
 lution does the Penitent. Baptism is designed for the Remission 
 of Sin. It is an Ordinance to which Absolution is consequent ; 
 but I suppose Persons may be baptized without such infallible 
 Communication promised, as your Lordship contends for. If 
 therefore it be not necessary for the Exercise of Absolution by 
 Baptism, why must it be necessary for Absolution by the Impo- 
 sition of Hands ? 
 
 Can Pastors without Infallibility baptize Heathens, and 
 absolve, or be the Instruments of absolving them thereby from 
 their Sins ? Are they not as able to absolve Christian Penitents, 
 or restore those who have apostatised ? If human Knowledge, 
 and the common Rules of the Church, be sufficient to direct the 
 Priest to whom he ought to administer the Sacraments ; they 
 are also sufficient for the Exercise of this other Part of the 
 sacerdotal Office. 
 
 But your Lordship proceeds thus : Not that they themselves 
 absolved any.
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor, 57 
 
 No, my Lord, no more than Water in Baptism of itself 
 purifies the Soul from Sin. This baptismal Water is, notwith- 
 standing, necessary for the Remission of our Sins. 
 
 Again, you say, Not that God was obliged to bind and loose the 
 Guilt of Men according to their Declarations, considered as their 
 own Decisio7ts, a7id their own Determinations. No, my Lord, 
 who ever thought so? God is not obliged to confer Grace by 
 the baptismal Water, considered only as Water ; but he is, 
 considered as Jiis own Institution for that End and Purpose. So 
 if these Declarations are considered only as the Declaratiojis of 
 Men, God is not obliged by them : But when they are considered 
 as the Declarations of Moi whom he has especially authorised 
 to make such Declarations in his Name, then they are as effectual 
 with God, as any other of his Institutions whatever. 
 
 I proceed now to a Paragraph that bears as hard upon our 
 Saviour, as some others have done upon his Apostles and their 
 Successors ; where your Lordship designs to prove, that though 
 Christ claimed a Power of remitting Sins himself, or in his own 
 Person, yet that he really had no such Power. 
 
 You go on in these Words : If we look back tcpon our Saviour 
 himself, we shall find, that when he declares that the Son of Man 
 had Power upon Earth to forgive Sins, even he himself either 
 meant by it the Power of a miraculous releasing Man from his 
 Affliction ; or if it related to another more spiritual Sense of the 
 Words, the Power of declaring, that the Mans Sins were forgiveti 
 by God* 
 
 The Words of our Saviour, which we are to look back upon, 
 are these : Whether it is easier to say, thy Sins are forgiven thee ; 
 or to say, arise, take up thy Bed and walk ? But that ye may 
 know, the Son of Maft hatk Power on Earth to forgive Sins 
 (Mark ii. 9, 10) ; As if he had said, ' Is not the same Divine 
 ' Authority and Power required } Is it not a Work as peculiar to 
 ' God, to perform miraculous Cures, as to forgive Sins .-' The 
 * Reason therefore why I now choose to declare my Authority, 
 ' rather by saying. Thy Sins are forgiven thee, than by saying, 
 ' Arise ajtd walk, was purely to teach you this Truth, that the 
 ^ Power of the Son of Man is not confined to Bodily Cures ; but 
 ' that he has Power on Earth to forgive Sins.' 
 
 This, my Lord, is the first obvious Sense of the Words ; and 
 therefore I take it to be the true Sense. But your Lordship can 
 look back upon them, till you find that Christ has not this 
 Power, though he claims it expressly ; but that he only intends 
 a Power of doing something or other, which no more imports a 
 
 * Preservative, p. 94.
 
 58 
 
 T'hree Letters to 
 
 Power of forgiving Sins, than of remitting any temporal Debt or 
 Penalty. 
 
 If our blessed Saviour had intended to teach the World that 
 he was invested with this Power, I would gladly know how he 
 must have expressed himself, to have satisfied your Lordship 
 that he really had it? He must have told you, that he had not 
 this Power, and then possibly your Lordship would have taught 
 us, that he had this Power. For no one can discover any 
 Reason why you should deny it him, but because he has in 
 express Words claimed and asserted it. I hope your Lordship 
 has not so low an Opinion of our Saviour's Person, as to think 
 it unreasonable in the Nature of the Thing, that he should have 
 this Power. Where does it contradict any Principle of Reason, 
 to say, that a King should be able to pardon his Subjects .-• 
 Since there is no Absurdity then in the Thing itself, and it is so 
 expressly asserted in Scripture ; it is just Matter of Surprise, 
 that your Lordship should carry your Reader from a plain 
 consistent Sense of the Words, to either this or that, Something or 
 other, the Origin whereof is only to be sought for in your Lord- 
 ship's own Invention ; rather than not exclude Christ from a 
 Power which he declared he had, and declared he had it for this 
 very Reason, tJmt zee might know that he had it. Our Saviour 
 has told us that the Way to Heaven is narrow. Your Lordship 
 might as reasonably prove from hence, that he meant, it was 
 broad, as that he did not mean that he could forgive Sins, when 
 he said, tJiat ye may know, that the Son of Man hath Power on 
 EartJi to forgive Sins. 
 
 Your Lordship has rejected all Chnrch Authority, and despised 
 the pretended Powers of the Clergy, for this Reason ; because 
 Christ is the sole King, sole Laivgiver, and fudge in his Kingdom. 
 But, it seems, your Lordship, notwithstanding, thinks it now 
 Time to depose him : And this sole King in his own Kingdom., 
 must not be allowed to be capable of pardoning his own 
 Subjects. 
 
 This Doctrine, my Lord, is delivered, I suppose, as your 
 other Doctrines, out of a hearty Concern and Christian Zeal for 
 the Privileges of the Laity ; and to show that your Lordship is 
 not only able to limit as you please the Authority of temporal 
 Kings ; but also to make Christ himself sole King, and yet no 
 King, in his Spiritual Kingdom. For, my Lord, the Kingdom 
 of Christ is a Society founded in order to the Reconciliation of 
 Sinners to God. If therefore Christ could not pardon Sms, to 
 what End eould he either erect, or how could he support his 
 Kingdom, which is only, in the great and last Design of it, to 
 consist of absolved Sinners .-' He that cannot forgive Sins in a
 
 the bishop of "Bangor, 59 
 
 Kingdom that is erected for the Remission of Sins, can no more 
 be sole King in it, than he that has no temporal Pozver, can be 
 sole King in a temporal Kingdom. Therefore your Lordship has 
 been thus mighty serviceable to the Christian Laity, as to teach 
 them that Christ is not only sole King, but no King in his 
 Kingdom. 
 
 This is not the first Contradiction your Lordship has un- 
 happily fallen into, in your Attempts upon kingly Authority. Nor 
 is it the last which I shall presume to observe to the common 
 Sense of your Laity. 
 
 Again, in this Account of our blessed Saviour, your Lordship 
 has made no Difference between him and his Apostles, as to this 
 absolving Authority. For you say, the great Commissioti given 
 to them implied either a Power of releasing Men from their 
 bodily Afflictions ; or of declaring such to be pardoned, whom 
 God had assured them that he had pardoned : And this all that 
 you here allow to Christ himself. 
 
 Your Lordship's calling him so often King, and sole King, &c., 
 in his Kingdom, and yet making him a mere Creature in it, is too 
 like the Insult, and designed Sarcasm of the Jews, who, when 
 they had nailed him to the Cross, writ over his Head, TJiis is 
 the King of the Jews. 
 
 But to proceed : Your Lordship proves. That our Saviour had 
 not the Power oi forgiving Sins; because His Way of Expression 
 was. Thy Sins are forgiven thee. This zvas plainly to acknoivledge, 
 and keep up that true Notion, that God alone forgiveth Sins. 
 
 Let us therefore put this Argument in Form. Christ hath 
 affirmed, that he had Power to forgive Sins : But his Way was 
 to say. Thy Sins are forgive?t thee : Therefore Christ had not 
 Power to forgive Sins. Q. E. D. 
 
 It is much your Lordship did not recommend this to your 
 Laity, as another invincible Demonstration. For by the Help of 
 it, my Lord, they may prove that our Saviour could no more 
 heal Diseases, \.\\^v\ forgive Sins. As thus; Christ indeed pretends 
 to a Power of healing Diseases ; but his usual Way of speaking 
 to the diseased Person was, thy Faith hath made thee wJiole ; 
 therefore he had not the Power of healing Diseases. The Argu- 
 ment has the same Force against one Power, as against the 
 other. If he did x\ot forgive Sins, because he said, Thy Sifis are 
 forgiven thee ; no more did he heal Diseases, because he said, 
 Thy Faith hath made thee whole. 
 
 I have a Claim of several Debts upon a Man ; I forgive him 
 them all, in these Words, Thy Debts are remitted thee. A philo- 
 sophical Wit stands by, and pretends to prove, that I had not 
 the Power of remitting these Debts ; because I said. Thy Debts
 
 6o T'hree Letters to 
 
 are remitted thee. What can come up to, or equal such profound 
 Philosophy, but the Divinity of one who teaches, our Saviour 
 could not forgive Sins, because he said, Thy Sins are forgiven 
 thee ? 
 
 But your Lordship says, the Reason vi^hy our Saviour thus 
 expresseth himself, Thy Sins are forgiven thee, ' v^^as plainly to 
 ' keep up that true Notion, that God alone forgiveth Sins.' 
 Therefore, my Lord, according to this Doctrine, our Saviour was 
 obliged not to claim any Power that was peculiar or appropriated 
 to God alone. For if this be an Argument, why he should not 
 forgive Sins, it is also an Argument that he ought not to claim 
 any other Power, any more than this ; which is proper to God, 
 and only belongs to him. But, my Lord, if he did express him- 
 self thus, that he might not lay Claim to any Thing that was 
 peculiar to God, how came he in so many other Respects to lay 
 Claim to such Things as are as truly peculiar to God, as the 
 Forgiveness of Sins ? How came he in so many Instances to 
 make himself equal to God.'' How came he to say. Ye believe in 
 God, believe also in me? And that Men should worsJiip the Son, 
 even as the Father? That he was the Son of God, that he was 
 the Way, the Truth, and the Life. 
 
 Are not evangelical Faith, Worship, and Trust, Duties that are 
 solely due to God ? Does he not as much invade the Sovereignty 
 of God, who lays Claim to these Duties, as he that pretends to 
 forgive Sins ? Did not Christ also give his Disciples Power and 
 Authority over Devils and unclean Spirits, and Power to heal all 
 manner of Diseases ? 
 
 Now if Christ did not assume a Power to forgive Sins, because 
 God alone could forgive Sins, it is also as unaccountable that he 
 should exercise oXh&x AuthoiHties dSidi Powers, which are as strictly 
 peculiar to God as that of forgiving Sins. As if a Person should 
 disown that Christ is omniscient, because Omniscience is an 
 Attribute of God alone ; and yet confess his Omnipotence, which 
 is an Attribute equally divine. 
 
 But farther, my Lord : Did our Saviour thus designedly 
 express himself, lest he should be thought to assume any Power 
 which was divine, then it is certain (according to this Opinion) 
 that if he had assumed any such Power, or pretended to do what 
 was peculiar to God, he had been the Occasion of misleading 
 Men into Error. For if this be a plain Reason why he expressed 
 himself so as to disown this Power, it is plain that if he had 
 owned it, he had been condemned by this Argument, as teaching 
 false Doctrine. 
 
 Now if this would have been interpretatively false Doctrine in 
 Christ, to take upon himself any Thing that was peculiar to God,
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor, 6i 
 
 the Apostles were guilty of propagating this false Doctrine. For 
 there is scarce any known Attribute or Power of God, but they 
 ascribe it to our Saviour. They declare him eternal, omnipotent, 
 omniscient, &c. Is it not a true Notion, that God alone can 
 create, and is Governor of the Universe ? Yet the Apostles ex- 
 pressly assure us of Christ, that all Things were created by him, 
 and that God hath put all Things in Subjection under his Feet. 
 'Tis very surprising that your Lordship should exclude Christ 
 from this Power o{ forgiving Sins, though he has expressly said 
 he could forgive Sins, because such a Power belongs only to 
 God : When it appears through the whole Scripture, that there 
 is scarce any divine Power which our Saviour himself has not 
 claimed, nor any Attribute of God but what his Apostles have 
 ascribed to him. They have made him the Creator, the 
 Preserver, the Gover?ior of the Universe, the Author of eternal 
 Salvation to all that obey him ; and yet your Lordship tells us, 
 that he did not pretend to forgive Sins, because that was a Power 
 peculiar to God. 
 
 Here is then (to speak in your Lordship's elegant Style) an 
 immovable Resting-place for your Laity to set their Feet upon ; 
 here is an Argument that zvill last them for ever : They must 
 believe that our Saviour did not forgive Sins, because this was a 
 Power that belonged to God, though the Scriptures assure us, 
 that every other divine Power belonged to Christ. That is, they 
 must believe, that though our Saviour claimed all divine Powers, 
 yet not this divine Power, because it is a divine Power. And, my 
 Lord, if they have the common Sense to believe this, they may 
 also believe, that though our Saviour took human Nature upon 
 him, yet that he had not a human Soul, because it is proper to 
 Man. They may believe, that any Person who has all kingly 
 Power, cannot remit or reprieve a Malefactor, because it is an 
 Act of kingly Power to do it ; or that a Bishop cannot suspend 
 any Offender of his Diocese, because it is an Act of episcopal 
 Power to do it. All these Reasons are as strong and demonstra- 
 tive, as that Christ who claimed all divine Powers, could not 
 forgive Sins, because it was a divine Poiver. 
 
 Lastly, In this Argument your Lordship has plainly declared 
 against the Divinity of Christ, and ranked him in the Order of 
 Creatures. Your Lordship says, Christ did not forgive Sins, 
 because it is God alone who can forgive Sins ; as plain an Argu- 
 ment as can be offered, that in your Lordship's Opinion Christ 
 is not God : For if you believed him, in a true and proper Sense, 
 God, how could you exclude him from the Power of forgiving 
 Sins, because God alone can forgive Sins? It is inconsistent with 
 Sense and Reason to deny this Power to Christ because it is a
 
 62 T'hree Letters to 
 
 divine Power, but only because you believe him not to be a 
 divine Person. If Christ was God, then he might forgive Sins, 
 though God alone can forgive Sins : But you say, Christ cannot 
 forgive Sins, because God alo?ie can forgive Sins ; therefore it is 
 plain, that, according to your Lordship's Doctrine, Christ is not 
 truly, or in a proper Sense, God. 
 
 Here, my Lord, I desire again to appeal to the common Sense 
 of your Laity ; let them judge betwixt the Scriptures and your 
 Lordship. The Scriptures plainly and frequently ascribe all 
 divine Attributes to Christ : They make him the Creator and 
 Governor of the World ; God over all, blessed for ever. Yet 
 your Lordship makes him a Creature, and denies him such a 
 Power, because it belongs only to God. 
 
 You yourself, my Lord, have allowed him to be absolute Ruler 
 over the Consciences of Men ; to be an arbitrary Dispenser of 
 the Means of Salvation to Mankind ; than which Powers, none 
 can be more divine : And yet you hold, that he cannot forgive 
 Sins, because Pardon of Sin can only be the Effect of a divine 
 Power. 
 
 Is it not equally a divine Power (even according to your Lord- 
 ship), to rule over the Consciences of Men, to give Laws of Salva- 
 tion, and to act in these Affairs with an uncontrollable Power, 
 as to forgive Sins f 
 
 My Lord, let their common Sense here discover the Absurdity 
 (for I must call it so) of your new Scheme of Government in 
 Christ's Kingdom. Christ is absolute Lord of it, (according to 
 yourself) and can make or unmake Laws relating to it ; can 
 dispense or withhold Grace as he pleases in this spiritual King- 
 dom, all which Powers are purely divine ; yet you say he cannot 
 forgive Sins, though every express Power which you have allowed 
 him over the Consciences of Men, be as truly a divine Power as 
 \\\-aX oi forgiving Siyis. Has not Christ a proper and personal 
 Power to give Grace to his Subjects ? Is he not Lord over their 
 Consciences ? And are not these Powers as truly appropriated 
 to God ? And has not your Lordship often taught them to be 
 so, as that of Forgiveness of Sins? Is it not as much the Pre- 
 rogative of God to have any natural intrinsic Power, to confer 
 Grace, or any spiritual Benefit to the Souls of Men, as to forgive 
 Sins } Has not your Lordship despised all the Administrations 
 of the Clergy, because God's Graces can only come from himself, 
 and are only to be received from his own Hands? The Conclu- 
 sion therefore is this, either Christ has a personal intrinsic Power 
 to confer Grace in his Kingdom, or he has not; if you say he 
 has not, then you are chargeable with the Collusion of making 
 him a King in a spiritual Kingdom, where you allow him no
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor, 63 
 
 spiritual Power: If you say he has, then you fall into this Con- 
 tradiction, that you allow him to have divine Powers, though he 
 cannot have divine Powers; that is, you allow him to give Grace, 
 though it is a divine Power, and not to forgive Sins, because it is 
 a divine Power. My Lord, I wish your Laity (if there be any to 
 whom you can render it intelligible) much Joy of such profound 
 Divinity. Or if there are others who are more taken with your 
 Lordship's Sincerity, I desire them not to pass by this following 
 remarkable Instance of it : Your Lordship has here as plainly 
 declared, as Words can consequentially declare any Thing, that 
 you do not believe Christ to be God, yet profess yourself Bishop 
 of a Church, whose Liturgy in so many repeated Testimonies 
 declares the contrary Doctrine, and which obliges you to express 
 your Assent and Consent to such Doctrine. My Lord, I here 
 call upon your Sincerity ; either declare Christ to be perfect 
 God, and then show why he could not forgive Sins ; or deny 
 him to be perfect God, and then show how you can sincerely 
 declare your Assent and Consent to the Doctrine of the Church 
 of England. 
 
 This, my Lord, has an Appearance of Prevarication, which 
 you cannot, I hope, charge upon any of your Adversaries, who if 
 they cannot think, that to be sincere is the only Thing 
 necessary to recommend Men to the Favour of God, yet may 
 have as much, or possibly more Sincerity, than those who do 
 think so. 
 
 Before I take Leave of your Lordship, I must take Notice of 
 a Resting-place, a strong Retreat, a lasting Fomidation, i.e., a 
 Demonstration in the strictest Sense of the \\^ords, that all Church- 
 Co7Himcnion is unnecessary. 
 
 Your Lordship sets it out in these Words : 
 
 / am not noiv going to accuse you of a Heresy against Charity, 
 but of a Hej'esy against the Possibility and Nature of Things. As 
 thus, Mr. Nelson (for Instance) thinks himself obliged in Con- 
 science to communicate with some of our Church. Upon this you 
 declare he hath no Title to God's Mercy ; and you and all the 
 World allow, that if he communicates with yoti whilst his Coti- 
 science tells him it is a Sin, he is self-cotidemned, and out of God's 
 Favour. That Notio7i {viz. the Necessity of Church-Communion) 
 therefore, which implies this great invi?icibe Absurdity, cannot be 
 true. 
 
 Pray, my Lord, what is this wondrous Curiosit)- of a Demon- 
 stration, but the common Case of an erroneous Conscience ? Did 
 the strictest Contenders for Church-Communion ever teach, that 
 any Terms are to be complied with against Conscience ? But it 
 is a strange Conclusion to infer from thence, that there is no
 
 64 
 
 'Three Letters to 
 
 Obligation to Communion, or that all Things are to be held in- 
 different, because they are not to be complied with against one's 
 Conscience. 
 
 The Truths of the Christian Religion have the same Nature 
 and Obligation, whatever our Opinions are of them, and those 
 that are necessary to be believed, continue so, whether we can 
 persuade ourselves to believe them or not. I suppose your Lord- 
 ship will not say, that the Articles of Faith and necessary Insti- 
 tutions of the Christian Religion, are no other ways necessary, 
 than because we believe them to be so, that our Persuasion is 
 the only Cause of the Necessity ; but if their Necessity be not 
 owing merely to our Belief of them, then it is certain that our 
 Disbelief of them cannot make them less necessary. If the Ordi- 
 nances of Christ, and the Articles of Faith are necessary, because 
 Christ has made them so, that Necessity must continue the same, 
 whether we believe and observe them or not. 
 
 So that, my Lord, we may still maintain the Necessity of 
 Church-Communion, and the strict Observance of Christ's Ordi- 
 nances, notwithstanding that People have different Persuasions 
 in these Matters, presuming that our Opinions can no more alter 
 the Nature or Necessity of Christ's Institutions, than we can 
 believe Error into Truth, Good into Evil, or Light into Darhtess. 
 I shall think myself no Heretic against the Nature of Things, 
 though I tell a conscientious Socinian, that the Divinity of Christ 
 is necessary to be believed, or a conscientious Jew, that it is 
 necessary to be a Christian in order to be saved. But if your 
 Lordship's Demonstration was accepted, we should be obliged to 
 give up the Necessity of every Doctrine and Institution, to every 
 Disbeliever that pretended Conscience. We must not tell any 
 Party of People that they are in any Danger for being out 
 of Communion with us, if they do but follow their own Persua- 
 sion. 
 
 Your Lordship's invincible Demonstration proceeds thus : 
 We must not insist upon the Necessity of joining with any par- 
 ticular Church, because theft conscientious Persons will be in Danger 
 either Way ; for if there be a Necessity of it, then there is a Danger 
 if they do not Join with it, and if they comply against their Con- 
 sciences, the Danger is the same. 
 
 What an inextricable Difficulty is here ! How shall Divinity 
 or Logic be able to relieve us ? 
 
 Be pleased, my Lord, to accept of this Solution, in lieu of your 
 Demonstration. 
 
 I will suppose the Case of a conscientious few ; I tell him that 
 Christianity is the only covenanted Method of Salvation, and 
 that he can have no Title to the Favour of God, till he professes
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor 65 
 
 the Faith of Christ. What, reph'es he, would you direct me to 
 do ? If I embrace Christianity against my Conscience, I am out 
 of God's Favour ; and if I follow my Conscience, and continue a 
 Jew, I am also out of his Favour. The Answer is this, my 
 Lord ; The Jeiv is to obey his Conscience, and to be left to the 
 uncovenantcd, unpromiscd Terms of God's Mercy, whilst the con- 
 scientious Christian is entitled to the express and promised Favours 
 cj/God. 
 
 There is still the same absolute Necessity of believing in 
 Christ, Christianity is still the only Method of Salvation ; though 
 the sincere Jeiv cannot so persuade himself; and we ought to 
 declare it to all Jeivs and Unbelievers whatsoever, that they can 
 only be saved by embracing Christianity : That a false Religion 
 does not become a true one, nor a true one false, in Consequence 
 of their Opinions ; but that if they are so unhappy as to refuse 
 the Covenant of Grace, they must be left to such Mercy as is 
 without any Covenant. And now, my Lord, what is become of 
 this mighty Demonstration ? Does it prove that Christianity is 
 not necessary, because the conscientious Jeiv may think it is not 
 so ? It may as well prove that the Moon is no larger than a 
 Man's Head, because an honest ignorant Countryman may think 
 it no larger. 
 
 Is there any Person of common Sense, who would think it a 
 Demonstration that he is not obliged to go to Church, because a 
 conscientious Dissenter will not ? Could he think it less necessary 
 to be a Christian, because a sincere Jezv cannot embrace Chris- 
 tianity ? Could he take it to be an indifferent Matter whether 
 he believed the Divinity of Christ, because a conscientious 
 Socinian cannot ? Yet this is your Lordship's invincible Demon- 
 stration, that we ought not to insist upon the Necessity of 
 Church-Communion, because a conscientious Disbeliever cannot 
 comply with it. 
 
 A small Degree of common Sense, would teach a Man that true 
 Religion, and the Terms of Salvation, must have the same obli- 
 gatory Force, whether we reason rightly about them or not ; and 
 that they who believe and practise according to them, are in 
 express Covenant with God, which entitles them to his Favour ; 
 whilst those who are sincerely erroneous, have nothing but the 
 Sincerity of their Errors to plead, and are left to such Mercy of 
 God, as is without any Promise. Here, my Lord, is nothing 
 frightful or absurd in this Doctrine ; they who are in the 
 Church which Christ has founded, are upon Terms which entitle 
 them to God's Favour ; they who are out of it, fall to his 
 Mercy. 
 
 But your Lordship is not content with the Terms of the 
 
 5
 
 66 'Three Letters to 
 
 Gospel, or a Doctrine that only saves a particular Sort of People; 
 this is a narrow View, not wide enough for your Notions of 
 Liberty. Particular Religions, and particular Covenants, are 
 deino7tstrated to be absurd, becajise particular Persons may dis- 
 believe, or not submit to them. 
 
 Your Lordship must have Doctrines that will save all People 
 alike, in every way that their Persuasion leads them to take : 
 But, my Lord, there needs be no greater Demonstration against 
 your Lordship's Doctrine, than that it equally favours every 
 Way of Worship ; for an Argument which equally proves every 
 Thing, has been generally thought to prove nothing ; which 
 happens to be the Case of your Lordship's important Demon- 
 stration. 
 
 Your Lordship indeed only instances in a particular Person, 
 Mr. Nelsoji ; but your Demonstration is as serviceable to any 
 other Person who has left any other Church whatever. The 
 conscientious Quaker^ Mugg/etoniafi, Independent, or Socinian, &c., 
 has the same Right to obey Conscience, and blame any Church 
 that assumes a Power of censuring him, as Mr. Nelson had ; and 
 if he is censured by any Church, that Church is as guilty of the 
 same Heresy against the Nature of Things, as that Church which 
 censured Mr. Nelson, or any Church that should pretend to cen- 
 sure any other Person whatever. 
 
 I am not at all surprised that your Lordship should teach this 
 Doctrine, but it is something strange that such an Argument 
 should be obtruded upon the World as an unheard-of Demon- 
 stration, and that in an Appeal to common Soise. Suppose some 
 Body or other in Defence of your Lordship, should take upon 
 him to demonstrate to the World that there is no such Thing as 
 Colour, because there are some People that cannot see ; or 
 Sounds, because there are some who do not hear them ; He 
 would have found out the only Demonstration in the World that 
 could equal your Lordship's, and would have as much Reason to 
 call those Heretics against the Nature of Tilings, who should dis- 
 beheve him, and insist upon the Reality of Sounds, as your 
 Lordship has to call your Adversaries so. 
 
 For is there no Necessity of Church-Communion, because 
 there are some who do not conceive it .'' Then there are no 
 Sounds, because there are some who do not hear them ; for it is 
 certainly as easy to believe away the Truth and Reality, as the 
 Necessity of Things. 
 
 Some People have only taught us the Innocency of Error, and 
 been content with setting forth its harmless Qualities ; but your 
 Lordship has been a more hearty Advocate, and given it dL Power 
 over every Truth and Institution of Christianity. If we have
 
 the bishop of "Bangor. 67 
 
 but an erroneous Conscience, the whole Christian Dispensation is 
 cancelled ; all the Truths and Doctrines in the Bible are demon- 
 strated to be unnecessary, if we do not believe them. 
 
 How unhappily have the several Parties of Christians been 
 disputing for many Ages, who, if they could but have found out 
 this intelligible DenioJistration (from the Case of an erroneous 
 Conscience), would have seen the Absurdity of pretending to 
 necessary Doctrines, and insisting upon Church-Coniviunion ; 
 but it must be acknowledged your Lordship's new-invented 
 Engine iox the Destruction of Churches ; and it may be expected 
 the good Christians of ?io Church will return your Lordship their 
 Thanks for it. 
 
 Your Lordship has thought it a mighty Objection to some 
 Doctrines in the Church of England, that the Papists might make 
 some Advantage of them : But yet your own Doctrine defends 
 all Communions alike, and serve the Jezu and Socinian, &c., as 
 much as any other sort of People. Though this sufficiently 
 appears, from what has been already said, yet that it may 
 be still more obvious to the common Sense of everyone, I 
 shall reduce these Doctrines to Practice, and suppose, for 
 once, that your Lordship intends to convert a Jew, a Quaker, or 
 Socinian. 
 
 Now in order to make a Convert of any of them, these Pre- 
 liminary PROPOSITIONS are to be first laid down according 
 to your Lordship's Doctrine. 
 
 Some Propositions for the Improvement of true Religion. 
 
 Proposition I. That we are neither more or less in the Favour 
 of God, for living in any particular Method or Way of Worship, 
 but purely as we are sincere. Preserv., p. 90. 
 
 Prop. II. That no Church ought to unchurch another, or 
 declare it out of God's Favour. Preserv., p. 85. 
 
 Prop. III. That nothing loses us the Favour of God, but a 
 wicked Insincerity. Ibid. 
 
 Prop. IV. That a conscientious Person can be in no Danger for 
 being out of any particular Church. Preserv., p. 90. 
 
 Prop. V. That there is no such Thing as any real Perfection or 
 Excellency in any Religion, that can justify our adhering to it, 
 but tJiat all is founded in our personal Persuasion ; which your 
 Lordship thus proves : When zve left the Popish Doctri?ies, was it 
 because they were actually corrupt ? No ; The Reason was, because 
 we thought them so. Therefore if we might leave the Church of 
 Rome, not because her Doctrines were corrupt, but because we 
 thought them so, then the same Reason will justify anyone else, 
 in leaving any Church, how true soever its Doctrines are ; and 
 consequently there is no such Thing as any real Perfection or 
 
 5—2
 
 68 'Three Letters to 
 
 Excellency in any Religion considered in itself, but is j^ight or 
 ivrong diCcord\r\g to our Persuasions about it. Preserv., p. 85. 
 
 Prop. VI. That Christ is sole King and Lawgiver in his King- 
 dom, that no Men have any Power of Legislation in it ; that if we 
 would be good Members of it, we must show ourselves Subjects 
 of Christ alone, without any Regard to Man's Judgment. 
 
 Prop. VII. That as Christ's Kingdom is not of this World, so 
 when worldly Encouragements are annexed to it, these are so 
 many Divisions against Christ and his own express Word. 
 Serni., p. 1 1. 
 
 Prop. VIII. That to pretend to know the Hearts and Sincerity 
 of Men, is Nonsense and Absurdity. Serin., p. 93. 
 
 Prop. IX. That God's Graces are only to be received imme- 
 diately from himself. Serni., p. 89. 
 
 These, my Lord, are your Lordship's own Propositions, 
 expressed in your own Terms, without any Exaggeration. 
 
 And now, my Lord, begin as soon as you please, either with a 
 Quaker, Socinian, or Jeiu ; use any Argument whatsoever to 
 convert them, and you shall have a sufficient answer from your 
 own Propositions. 
 
 Will you tell the Jezv that Christianity is necessary to Salva- 
 tion } He will answer from Prop. I. That we are neither more or 
 less in the Favour of God for living iu any particular Method or 
 Way of Worship, but purely as we are sincere. 
 
 Will your Lordship tell him, that the Truth of Christianity is 
 so well asserted, that there is no Excuse left for Unbelievers } 
 He will answer from Prop. V. That all Religion is founded in 
 personal Persuasion ; that as your Lordship does not believe that 
 Christ is come, because Ju is actually come, but because you think lie 
 is come ; so he does not disbelieve Christ because he is not actually 
 come, but because he thinks he is not come. So that here, my 
 Lord, the few gives as good a Reason why he is not a Christian, 
 as, your Lordship does why you are not a Papist. 
 
 If your Lordship should turn the Discourse to a Quaker, and 
 offer him any Reasons for embracing the Doctrine of the Church 
 of England, you cannot possibly have any better Success ; any- 
 one m.\y see from your Propositions, that no Argument can be 
 urged, but what your Lordship has there fully answered. For 
 since you allow nothing to the Truth of Doctrines, or the 
 Excellency of any Communion as such, it is demonstrable that 
 no Church or Communion can have any Advantage above 
 another, which is absolutely necessary in order to persuade any 
 sensible Man to exchange any Communion for another. 
 
 Will your Lordship tell a Quaker, that there is any Danger in 
 that particular Way thar he is in t
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor, 69 
 
 He can answer from Prop. I., III., and IV. That a conscientious 
 Person cannot be in any Danger of being out of any particular 
 Church. 
 
 Will your Lordship tell him that his Religion is condemned 
 by the universal Church? 
 
 He can answer from Prop. II. That no Church ought to 
 unchurch another, or declare it out of God's Favour. 
 
 Will you tell him that Christ has instituted Sacraments as 
 necessary Means of Grace, which he neglects to observe ? 
 
 He will answer you from Prop. IX. That Gods Graces are 
 only to be received Immedisitely from himself And to think that 
 Bread and Wine, or the sprinkling of Water, is necessary to 
 Salvation, is as absurd, as to think any Order of the Clergy is 
 necessary to recommend us to God. 
 
 Will your Lordship tell him that he displeases God, by not 
 holding several Articles of Faith, which Christ has required us 
 to believe .'' 
 
 He can reply from Prop. HI. That nothing loses us the Favour 
 of God but a wicked Insincerity. And from Prop. V. That as 
 your Lordship believes such Things, not because they are 
 actually to be believed, but because you think so ; so he dis- 
 believes them, not because they are actually false, but because 
 he thinks so. 
 
 Will your Lordship tell him he is insincere .-* 
 He can reply from Prop. VI. That to assume to know tJie Hearts 
 and Sincerity of Men, is Nonsense and BlaspJieuiy. 
 
 Will your Lordship tell him that he ought to conform to a 
 Church established by the Laws of the Land } 
 
 He can answer from Prop. VIII. That this very Establishment 
 is an Argument against Conformity .-* For as Christ's Kingdom 
 is not of this World, so xvhen zvorldly Encouragements are ayinexed 
 to it, they are so many Decisions against Christ, and his own 
 express Words. And from Prop. VII. That seeing Christ is sole 
 King and Lawgiver in his Kingdom, and no Men have any Power 
 of Legislation in it, they who would be good Members of it, must 
 show themselves Subjects to Christ alone, without any Regard to 
 Afan's fudgment. 
 
 I am inclined to think, my Lord, that it is now demonstrated 
 to the common Sense of the Laity, that your Lordship cannot 
 urge any Argument, either from the Truth, the Advantage, or 
 Necessity of embracing the Doctrines of the Church of England, 
 to either y^Ti/, Heretic, or Schismatic, but you have helped him 
 to a full Answer to any such Argument, from your own 
 Principles. 
 
 Are we, my Lord, to be treated as popishly affected for
 
 70 T'hree Letters to 
 
 asserting some Truths, which the Papists join with us in 
 asserting ? Is it a Crime in us not to drop some necessary 
 Doctrines, because the Papists have not dropped them ? If this 
 is to be popishly affected, we own the Charge, and are not for 
 being such true Protestants, as to give up the Apostles' Creed, or 
 lay aside the Sacraments, because they are received by the 
 Church of Rome. I cannot indeed charge your Lordship with 
 being %vell affected to the Church of Rome, or of England, to the 
 Jews, the Quakers, or Socmians ; but this I have demonstrated, 
 and will undertake the Defence of it, that your Lordship's 
 Principles equally serve them all alike, and do not give the least 
 Advantage to one Church above another, as has sufficiently 
 appeared from your Principles. 
 
 I will no more say your Lordship is in the Interest of the 
 Quakers, or Socijiians, or Papists, than I would charge you with 
 being in the Interest of the Church of Eiigland ; for as your 
 Doctrines equally support them all, he ought to ask your Lord- 
 ship's Pardon, who should declare you more a Friend to one 
 than the other. 
 
 I intended, my Lord, to have considered another very 
 obnoxious Article in your Lordship's Doctrines concerning the 
 Repugnancy of tejnporal Encouragements to the Nature of Christ's 
 Kingdom ; but the Consistency and Reasonableness of guarding 
 this spiritual Kingdom with human Laws, has been defended 
 with so much Perspicuity and Strength of Argument, and your 
 Lordship's Objections so fully confuted by the judicious and 
 learned Dean of Chichester, that I presume this Part of the 
 Controversy is finally determined. 
 
 I hope, my Lord, that I have delivered nothing here that 
 needs any Excuse or Apology to the Laity, that they will not 
 be persuaded, through any vain Pretence of Liberty, to make 
 themselves Parties against the first Principles of Christianity ; or 
 imagine, that whilst we contend for the positive Institutions of 
 the Gospel, the Necessity of Church-Communion, or the Excel- 
 lency of our own, we are robbing them of their natural Rights, 
 or interfering with their Privileges. Whilst we appear in the 
 Defence of any part of Christianity, we are engaged for them in 
 the common Cause of Christians ; and I am persuaded better 
 Things of the Laity, than to believe that such Labours will 
 render either our Persons or Professions hateful to them. Your 
 Lordship has indeed endeavoured to give an invidious Turn to 
 the Controversy, by calling upon the Laity to assert their 
 Liberties, as if they were in Danger from the Principles of 
 
 Christianity. But, my Lord, what Liberty does any 
 
 Layman lose, by our asserting, that Church-Communion is
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor. 71 
 
 necessary ? What Privilege is taken from them by our teaching 
 the Danger of certain Ways and Methods of Reh'gion ? Is a 
 Man made a Slave because he is cautioned against the Principles 
 of the Quakers, against Fajiaticism, Popery, or Socinianisni ? Is 
 he in a State of Bondage because the Sacraments are necessary, 
 and none but episcopal Clergy ought to administer them ? Is 
 his Freedom destroyed because there is a particular Order of 
 Men appointed by God to minister in holy Things, and be 
 serviceable to him in recommending him to the Favour of God ? 
 Can any Person, my Lord, think these Things Breaches^upon 
 their Liberty, except such as think the Commandments a 
 Burden ? Is there any more Hardship in saying thou shalt 
 keep to an episcopal Church, than thou shalt be baptized ? Or 
 in requiring People to receive particular Sacraments, than to 
 believe particular Books of Scripture to be the Word of God ? 
 If some other Advocate for the Laity should, out of Zeal for 
 their Rights, declare that they need not believe one-half of the 
 Articles in the Creed, if they would but assert their Liberty, he 
 would be as true a Friend, and deserve the same Applause, as 
 he who should assert the Necessity of Church-Communion is 
 inconsistent with the natural Rights and Liberties of Mankind. 
 
 I am, my Lord, 
 
 Your Lordship's most 
 
 Humble Servant^ 
 
 W^illiam Law. 
 
 Postscript. 
 
 I HOPE your Lordship will not think it unnatural or 
 impertinent, to offer here a Word or two in Answer to 
 some Objections against my former Letter. 
 To begin with the Doctrine of the uninterrupted 
 Succession of the Clergy. , 
 I have, as I think, proved that there is a divine Commission 
 required to qualify any one to exercise the priestly Office^ and 
 that seeing this divine Commission can only be had from such
 
 72 'T'hree Letters to 
 
 particular Persons as God has appointed to give it, therefore it 
 is necessary that there should be a continual Succession of such 
 Persons, in order to keep up a commissioned Order of the 
 Clergy. For if the Commission itself be to descend through 
 Ages, and distinguish the Clergy from the Laity ; it is certain 
 the Persons who alone can give this Commission, must descend 
 through the same Ages, and consequently an uninterrupted 
 Succession is as necessary, as that the Clergy have a divine 
 Commission. Take away this Succession, and the Clergy may 
 as well be ordained by one Person as another ; a Number of 
 Women may as well give them a divine Commission, as a 
 Congregation of any Men ; they may indeed appoint Persons to 
 officiate in holy Orders, for the Sake of Decency and Order ; but 
 then there is no more in it, than an external Decency and Order ; 
 they are no more the Priests of God, than those that pretended 
 to make them so. If we had lost the Scriptures, it would be 
 very well to make as good Books as we could, and come as near 
 them as possible ; but then it would be not only Folly, but 
 Presumption, to call them the Word of God, But I proceed 
 to the Objections against the Doctrine of an uninterrupted 
 Succession. 
 
 First, It is said, that there is no mention made of it in 
 Scripture, as having any Relation to the Being of a Church. 
 
 Secondly, That it is subject to so great Uncertainty, that if it 
 be necessary we cannot now be sure we are in the Church, 
 
 TJdrdly, That it is a popish Doctrine, and gives them great 
 Advantage over us. 
 
 I begin with \hQ first Objection, that there is no mention made 
 of it in the Scriptures, which though I think I have sufficiently 
 answered in this Letter, I shall here farther consider. 
 
 Pray, my Lord, is it not a true Doctrine, that tJie Scriptures 
 contain all Things necessary to Salvation ? But, my Lord, it is 
 nowhere expressly said, that t/ie Scriptures contain all Things 
 necessary to Salvation. It is nowhere said, that no other Articles 
 of Faith need be believed. Where does it appear in Scripture, 
 that the Scriptures were writ by any divine Command ? Have 
 any of the Gospels or Epistles this Authority to recommend 
 them ? Are they necessary to be believed, because there is any 
 Law of Christ concerning the Necessity of believing them .'' 
 
 May I reject this uninterrupted Succession, because it is not 
 mentioned in Scripture } And may I not as well reject all the 
 Gospels ? Produce your Authority, my Lord, mention your 
 Texts of Scripture, where Christ has hung the Salvation of Men 
 upon their believing that St. Matthezv or St. John wrote such a 
 Book seventeen hundred years ago. These, my Lord, are
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor, 73 
 
 Niceties and Trifles which are not to be found in Scripture, and 
 consequently have nothing to do with the Salvation of Men. 
 
 Now if nothing be to be held as necessary, but what is 
 expressly required in so many Words in Scripture, then it can 
 never be proved that the Scriptures themselves are a standing 
 Rule of Faith in all Ages, since it is nowhere expressly asserted, 
 nor is it anywhere said, that the Scriptures should be continued 
 as a Rule of Faith in all Ages. Is it an Objection against the 
 Necessity of a perpetual Succession of the Clergy, that it is not 
 mentioned in the Scripture ? And is it not as good a one 
 against the Necessity of making Scripture the standing Rule of 
 Faith in all Ages, since it is never said that they were to be 
 continued as a standing Rule in all Ages ? If Things are only 
 necessary for being said to be so in Scripture, then all that are 
 not thus taught are equally unnecessary, and consequently it is 
 no more necessary that the Scripture should be a fixed Rule of 
 Faith in all Ages, than that there should be Bishops to ordain 
 in all Ages. 
 
 Again, Where shall we find it in Scripture, that the Sacraments 
 are to be continued in every Age of the Church ? Where is it 
 said that they shall always be the ordinary Means of Grace 
 necessary to be observed ? Is there any Law of Christ, any 
 Text of Scripture, that expressly asserts, that if we leave the 
 Use of the Sacraments, we are out of Covenant with God ? Is 
 it anywhere directly said, that we must never lay them aside, 
 or that they will be perpetnally necessary ? No, my Lord, this is 
 a Nicety and Trifle not to be found in Scripture : There is no 
 Stress laid there upon this Matter, but upon Things of a quite 
 different Nature. 
 
 I now presume, my Lord, that every one who has common 
 Sense plainly sees, that if this Succession of the Clergy is to be 
 despised, because it is not expressly required in Scripture ; it 
 undeniably follows, that we may reject the Scriptures, as not 
 being a standing Ride of Faith in all Ages ; we may disuse the 
 Sacraments, as not the ordinary Means of Grace itt all Ages; 
 since these are no more mentioned in the Scriptures, or expressly 
 required, than this uninterrupted Succession. 
 
 If it be a good Argument against the necessity of episcopal 
 Ordainers, that it is never said in Scripture that there shall 
 always be such Ordainers ; it is certainly as conclusive against 
 the Use of the Sacraments in every Age, that it is nowhere said 
 in Scripture they shall be used in all Ages. 
 
 If no Government or Order of the Clergy is to be held as 
 necessary, because no such Necessity is asserted in Scripture ; it 
 is certain, this concludes as strongly against Government, and the
 
 74 T'hree Letters to 
 
 Order itself, as against any particular Order. For it is no more 
 said in Scripture that there shall be an Order of Clergy, than 
 that there shall be ds\y particular Order; therefore if this Silence 
 proves against any particular Order of Clergy, it proves as much 
 against Order itself. 
 
 Should therefore any of your Lordship's Friends have so much 
 Church-Zeal, as to contend for the Necessity of some Order, 
 though of no particular Order ; he must fall under your Lord- 
 ship's Displeasure, and be proved as mere a Dreamer and Trijler, 
 as those who assert the Necessity of episcopal Ordination. For 
 if it be plain that there need be no episcopal Clergy, because it is 
 not said there shall always be episcopal Clergy ; it is undeniably 
 plain that there need be no Order of the Clergy, since it is 
 nowhere said, there shall be an Order of Clergy: Therefore who- 
 ever shall contend for an Order of Clergy, will be as much 
 condemned by your Lordship's Doctrine, as he that declares for 
 the episcopal Clergy. 
 
 The Truth of the Matter is this ; if nothing is to be esteemed 
 of any Moment, but counted as mere Trifle and Nicety among 
 Christians, which is not expressly required in the Scriptures; 
 then it is a Trifle and Nicety, whether we believe the Scriptures 
 to be a standing Rule of Faith in all Ages, whether we use the 
 Sacraments in all Ages, whether we have any Clergy at all, 
 whether we observe the Lord's Day, whether we baptize our 
 Children, or whether we go to public Worship ; for none of 
 these Things are expressly required in so many Words in Scrip- 
 ture. But if your Lordship, with the rest of the Christian World, 
 will take these Things to be of Moment, and well proved, because 
 they are founded in Scripture, though not in express Terms, or 
 under plain Commands ; if you will acknowledge these Matters 
 to be well asserted, because they may be gathered from Scripture, 
 and are confirmed by the universal Practice of the Church in all 
 Ages, (which is all the Proof that they are capable of,) I do not 
 doubt but it will appear, that this successive Order of the Clergy 
 is founded on the same Evidence, and supported by as great 
 Authority, so that it must be thought of the same Moment with 
 these Things by all unprejudiced Persons. 
 
 For, my Lord, though it be not expressly said, that there shall 
 always be a Succession of Episcopal Clergy, yet it is a Truth 
 founded in Scripture itself, and asserted by the universal Voice 
 of Tradition in the first and succeeding Ages of the Church. 
 
 It is thus founded in Scripture : There we are taught that the 
 Priesthood is d, positive Institution; that no Man can take this 
 Office unto himself; that neither our Saviour himself, nor his 
 Apostles, nor any other Person, however extraordinarily endowed
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor. 75 
 
 with Gifts from God, could, as such, exercise the priestly Ofifice, 
 till they had God's express Commission for that Purpose. Now 
 how does it appear, that the Sacraments are positive Institutions, 
 but that they are consecrated to such Ends and Effects, as of 
 themselves they were no way qualified to perform ? Now as it 
 appears from Scripture that Men, as sicch, however endowed, 
 were not qualified to take this Office upon them without God's 
 Appointment ; it is demonstratively certain, that Men so called 
 are as much to be esteemed a positive Institutio7t, as Elements 
 so chosen can be called 2, positive Institution. All the personal 
 Abilities of Men conferring no more Authority to exercise the 
 Office of a Clergyman, than the natural Qualities of Water to 
 make a Sacrament : So that the one Institution is as truly 
 positive as the other. 
 
 Again, The Order of the Clergy is not only a positive Order 
 instituted by God, but the different Degrees in this Order are of 
 the same Nature. For we find in Scripture, that some Persons 
 could perform some Offices in the Priesthood, which neither 
 Deacons nor Priests could do, though those Deacons and Priests 
 were inspired Persons, and Workers of Miracles. Thus Timothy 
 was sent to ordain Elders, because none below his Order, who 
 was a Bishop, could perform that Office. Peter and Joh7i laid 
 their Hands on baptized Persons, because neither Priests nor 
 Deacons, though Workers of Miracles, could execute that Part of 
 the sacerdotal Office. 
 
 How can we imagine that the Apostles and Bishops thus 
 distinguished themselves for nothing? That there was the same 
 Power in Deacons and Priests to execute those Offices, though 
 they took them to themselves ? No my Lord ; if three Degrees 
 in the Ministry are instituted in Scripture, we are obliged to 
 think them as truly distinct in their Powers, as we are to think 
 that the Priesthood itself contains Powers that are distinct from 
 those of the Laity. It is no more consistent with Scripture, to 
 say that Deacons or Priests may ordain, than that the Laity are 
 Priests or Deacons. The same divine Institution making as 
 truly a Difference betwixt the Clergy, as it does betwixt Clergy 
 and Laity. 
 
 Now if the Order of the Clergy be a divine positive Institution, 
 in which there are different Degrees of Power, where some alone 
 can ordain, &c., whilst others can only perform other Parts of the 
 sacred Office ; if this (as it plainly appears) be a Doctrine of 
 Scripture, then it is a Doctrine of Scripture, that there is a 
 Necessity of such a Succession of Men as have Power to ordain. 
 For do the Scriptures make it necessary that Timothy (or some 
 Bishop) should be sent to Ephesus to ordain Priests, because the
 
 76 
 
 T'hree Letters to 
 
 Priests who were there could not ordain ? And do not the same 
 Scriptures make it as necessary, that Timothy's Successor be the 
 only Ordainer, as well as he was in his Time ? Will not Priests 
 in the next Age be as destitute of the Power of ordaining, as 
 when TimotJiy was alive ? So that since the Scriptures teach, 
 that TinwtJiy, or Persons of his Order, could alone ordain in that 
 Age, they as plainly teach, that the Successors of that Order can 
 alojie ordain in any Age, and consequently the Scriptures plainly 
 teach a Necessity of an episcopal Succession. 
 
 The Scriptures declare there is a Necessity of a divine Com- 
 mission to execute the Office of a Priest ; they also teach, that 
 this Commission can only be had from particular Persons : 
 Therefore the Scriptures plainly teach, there is a Necessity of a 
 Succession of such particular Persons, in order to keep up a truly 
 commissioned Clergy. 
 
 Suppose when Timothy was sent to EpJiesiis to ordain Elders, 
 the Church had told him, We have chosen Elders already, and 
 laid our Hands upon them ; that if he alone was allowed to 
 exercise this Power, it might seem as if he alone had it ; or that 
 Ministers were the better for being ordained by his particular 
 Hands ; and that some Persons might imagine they could have 
 no Clergy, except they were ordained by him, or some of his 
 Order; and that seeing Christ had nowhere made an. express 
 Law, that such Persons should be necessary to the Ordination of 
 the Clergy ; therefore they rejected this Authority of Timothy, 
 lest they should subject themselves to Niceties and Trifles. 
 
 Will your Lordship say, that such a Practice would have been 
 allowed of in the Ephesians ? Or that Ministers so ordained 
 would have been received as the Ministers of Christ ? If not, 
 why must such Practice or such Ministers be allowed of in any 
 After ages ? Would not the same Proceeding against any of 
 Timothys Successors have deserved the same Censure, as being 
 equally unlawful? If therefore the Scripture condemns all 
 Ordination but what is episcopal, the Scriptures make a Succes- 
 sion of episcopal Ordainers necessary. So that I hope, my Lord, 
 we shall be no more told that this is a Doctrine not mentioned 
 in Scripture, or without any Foundation in it. 
 
 The great Objection to this Doctrine is, that this episcopal 
 Order of the Clergy \?, only an apostolical Practice; and seeing 
 all apostolical Practices are not binding to us, surely this need 
 not. 
 
 In Answer to this, my Lord, I shall first shew, that though 
 all apostolical Practices are not necessary, yet some may be 
 necessary. Secondly, That the divine unalterable Right of 
 Episcopacy is not founded mej'ely on apostolical Practice.
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor, 77 
 
 To begin with the first ; The Objection runs thus, All 
 apostolical Practices are not unalterable or obligatory to us, tliere- 
 fore no apostolical Practices are. This, my Lord, is just as 
 theological, as if I should say all Scripture-Truths are not 
 Articles of Faith, or Fundamentals of Religion, therefore no 
 Scripture-Truths are : Is not the Argument full as just and 
 solid in one Case as the other ? May there not be the same 
 Difference between some Practices of the Apostles and others, 
 that there is betwixt some Scripture Truths and others ? Are 
 all Truths equally important that are to be found in the Bible ? 
 Why must all Practices be of the same Moment that were 
 apostolical ? Now if there be any Way, either divine or human, 
 of knowing an Article of Faith, from the smallest Truth, or most 
 indifferent Matter in Scripture, they will equally assist us in 
 distinguishing what apostolical Practices are of perpetual Obliga- 
 tion, and what are not. But it is a strange Way of Reasoning, 
 that some People are fallen into, who seem to know nothing of 
 Moderation, but jump as constantly out of one Extreme into 
 another, as if there was no such Thing as a middle Way, or any 
 such Virtue as Moderatioji. Thus either the Church must have 
 an absolute mico7itrolable Authority, or none at all ; we must 
 either hold all apostolical Practices necessary, or none at all. 
 
 Again, If no apostolical Practices can be unalterable, because 
 all are not, then no apostolical Doctrines are necessar}' to be 
 taught in all Ages, because all apostolical Doctrines are not ; and 
 we are no more obliged to teach the Death, Satisfaction, and 
 Resurrection of Jesus Christ, than we are obliged to forbid the 
 eating of Blood and Things strangled. If we must thus blindly 
 follow them in all their Practices, or else be at Liberty to leave 
 them in all, we must for the same Reason implicitly teach all 
 their Doctrines, or else have a Power of receding from them all, 
 
 For if there be any Thing in the Nature of Doctrines, in the 
 Tenor of Scripture, or the Sense of Antiquity, whereby we can 
 know the Difference of some Doctrines from others, that some 
 were occasional temporary Determinations, suited to particular 
 States and Conditions in the Church, whilst others were such 
 general Doctrines as would concern the Church in all States and 
 Circumstances ; if there can be this Difference betwixt apostolical 
 Doctrines, there must necessarily be the same Difference betwixt 
 apostolical Practices, unless we will say, that their Practices, were 
 not suited to their Doctrines. For occasional Doctrines must 
 produce occasional Practices. 
 
 Now may we not be obliged by some Practices of the Apostles, 
 where the Nature of the Thing, and the Consent of Antiquity, 
 shews it to be equally necessary and important in all Ages and
 
 78 
 
 "Three Letters to 
 
 Conditions of the Church, without being tied down to the strict 
 Observance of every Thing which the Apostles did, though it 
 plainly appears that it was done upon accidental and mutable 
 Reasons ? Can we not be obliged to observe the Lords Day 
 from apostolical Practice, without being equally obliged to lock 
 the Doors where we are met, because in the Apostle's Time they 
 locked them for Fear of their Enemies. 
 
 My Lord, we are to follow the Practices of the Apostles, as we 
 ought to follow every Thing else, with Discretion and Judgment, 
 and not run headlong into every Thing they did, because they 
 were Apostles, or yet think that because we need not practise 
 after them in every Thing, we need do it in nothing. We best 
 imitate them, when we act upon such Reasons as they acted 
 upon, and neither make "C^^xx occasional VvSiCXXces perpetual Laws, 
 nor break through such general Rules as will always have the 
 same Reason to be observed. 
 
 If it be asked how we can know what Practices must be 
 observed, and what may be laid aside ? I answer, as we know 
 Articles of Faith from lesser TrutJis ; as we Vnow occasional Tioc- 
 trines from perpetual Doctrines ; that is, from the Nature of 
 the Things, from the Tenor of Scripture, and the Testimony of 
 Antiquity. 
 
 Secondly, It is not true, that the divine unalterable Right of 
 Episcopacy is founded merely upon apostolical Practice. 
 
 We do not say that Episcopacy cannot be changed merely 
 because we have apostolical Practice for it, but because such is 
 the Nature of the Christian Priesthood, that it can only be con- 
 tinued in that Method, which God has appointed for its Continu- 
 ance. Thus Episcopacy is the only instituted Method of 
 continuing the Priesthood ; therefore Episcopacy is iincJiangeable, 
 not because it is an apostolical Practice, but because the Nature 
 of the Thing requires it: A positive Institution being only to be 
 continued in that Method which God has appointed ; so that it 
 is the Nature of the Priesthood, and not the apostolical Practice 
 alone, that makes it necessary to be continued. The apostolical 
 Practice indeed shews, that Episcopacy is the Order that is 
 appointed, but it is the Nature of the Priesthood that assures us 
 that it is 7malterable : And that because an Office which is of no 
 Significancy, but as it is of divine Appointment, and instituted 
 by God, can no otherwise be continued, but in that Way of Con- 
 tinuance which God has appointed. 
 
 The Argument proceeds thus : The Christian Priesthood is a 
 divine positive Institution, which as it could only begin by the 
 divine Appointmejit, so it can only descend to After-ages in such 
 a Method as God has been pleased to appoint.
 
 the "Bishop of Bangor, 79 
 
 The Apostles (and your Lordship owns, Christ was in all that 
 they did"^) instituted Episcopacy alone, therefore this Method of 
 Episcopacy is unalterable, not because an apostolical Practice 
 cannot be laid aside, but because the Priesthood can only 
 descend to After-ages in such a Method as is of divine 
 Appointment. 
 
 So that the Question is not fairly stated, when it is asked 
 whether Episcopacy, being an apostolical Practice, may be laid 
 aside ? But it should be asked, whether an instituted particular 
 Method of continuing the Priesthood be not necessary to be con- 
 tinued ? Whether an appointed Order of receiving a Commission 
 from God be not necessary to be observed, in order to receive a 
 Commission from him ? If the Case was thus stated, as it ought, 
 to be fairly stated, anyone would soon perceive, that we can no 
 more lay aside Episcopacy, and yet continue the Christian Priest- 
 hood, than we can alter the Terms of Salvation, and be in Covenant 
 with God. 
 
 I come now, my Lord, to the second Objection, That this un- 
 interrupted Sticcession is subject to so great Uncertainty, that if it 
 be necessary, we ca?i never say that we are in the CJnircJi. 
 
 I know no Reason, my Lord, why it is so uncertain, but 
 because it is founded upon historical Evidence. Let it therefore 
 be considered, my Lord, that Christianity itself is a Matter of 
 Fact only conveyed to us by historical Evidence : That the Canon 
 of Scripture is only made known to us hy historical Evidence ; 
 that we have no other Way of knowing what Writings are the 
 Word of God ; and yet the Truth of our Faith, and every other 
 Means of Grace depends upon our Knowledge and Belief of the 
 Scriptures. Must we not declare the Necessity of the Succession 
 of Bishops, because it can only be proved by historical Evidence, 
 and that for such a long Tract of Time .'' 
 
 Why then do we declare the Belief of the Scriptures necessary 
 to Salvation ? Is not this equally putting the Salvation of Men 
 upon a Matter of Fact, supported only by historical Evidence, and 
 making it depend upon Things done seventeen hundred Years 
 ago? Cannot historical Evidence satisfy us in one Point, as well 
 as in the other ? Is there any Thing in the Nature of this Suc- 
 cession, that it cannot be as well asserted by historical Evidence, 
 as the Truth of the Scriptures ? Is there not the same bare 
 Possibility in the Thing itself, that the Scriptures may in some 
 important Points be corrupted, as that this Succession may be 
 broke } But is this any just Reason why we should believe, or 
 fear, that the Scriptures are corrupted, because there is a physical 
 
 * Answer to Dr. Snape.
 
 8o T'hree Letters to 
 
 Possibility of it, though there is all the Proof that can be required 
 of the contrary ? Why then must we set aside the Necessity of 
 this Succession from a bare Possibility of Error, though there is 
 all the Proof that can be required, that it never was broken, but 
 strictly kept up ? 
 
 And though your Lordship has told the World so much of the 
 Improbability, Nonsense, and Absurdity of this Succession, yet I 
 promise your Lordship an Answer, whenever you shall think fit 
 to show, when, or how, or zvhere, this Succession broke, or seemed 
 to break, or was likely to break. 
 
 And till then, I shall content myself with offering this Reason 
 to your Lordship, why it is morally impossible it ever should have 
 broken in all the Term of Years, from the Apostles to the 
 present Times. 
 
 The Reason is this ; it has been a received Doctrine in every 
 Age of the Church, that no Ordination was valid but that of 
 Bishops : This Doctrine, my Lord, has been a constant Guard 
 upon the episcopal Sticcession ; for seeing it was universally 
 believed that Bishops alone could ordain, it was morally impossible 
 that any Persons could be received as Bishops, who had not been 
 so ordained. 
 
 Now is it not morally i)npossible that in our Church anyone 
 should be made a Bishop without episcopal Ordinatioti ? Is there 
 any Possibility of forging Orders, or stealing a Bishopric by any 
 other Stratagem ? No, it is morally impossible, because it is an 
 acknowledged Doctrine amongst us, that a Bishop can only be 
 ordained by Bishops. Now as this Doctrine must necessarily 
 prevent anyone being a Bishop without episcopal Ordination in 
 our Age, so it must have the same Effect in every other Age as 
 well as ours ; and consequently it is as reasonable to believe that 
 the Succession of Bishops was not broke in any Age since the 
 Apostles, as that it was not broke in our own Kingdom within 
 these forty Years. For the same Doctrine which preserves it 
 forty Years, may as well preserve it forty hundred Years, if it 
 was equally believed in all that Space of Time. That this has 
 been the constant Doctrine of the Church, I presume your Lord- 
 ship will not deny; I have not here entered into the historical 
 Defence of it ; this, and indeed every other Institution of the 
 Christian Church, has been lately so well defended from the 
 ecclesiastical Records by a very excellent and judicious Writer.* 
 
 We believe the Scriptures are not corrupted, because it was 
 always a received Doctrine in the Church, that they were the 
 standing Rule of Faith, and because the Providence of God may 
 
 * Original Draught of the Primitive Church.
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor, 8i 
 
 well be supposed to preserve such Books as were to convey to 
 
 every Age the Means of Salvation. The same Reasons prove 
 the great Improbability that this Succession should ever be 
 broken, both because it was always against a received Doctrine to 
 break it, and because we may justly hope the Providence of God 
 would keep up his own Institution. 
 
 I must here observe, that though your Lordship often exposes 
 the Impossibility of this Succession, yet at other times, even you 
 yourself, and your Advocates, assert it. Thus you tell us, That 
 the Papists Jiave one regular Appointment or uninterrupted Suc- 
 cession of Bishops undefiled with the touch of Lay -hands* 
 
 Is this Succession then such an improbable impossible Thing, 
 _ and yet can your Lordship assure us that it is at Rome ; that 
 though it be seventeen hundred Years old there, yet that it is a 
 true one? Is it such Absurdity, and Nonsense, and every Thing 
 that is ridiculous, when we lay Claim to it ; and yet can your 
 Lordship assure us that it is not only possible to be, but actually 
 is in Being, in the Church of Rome; What Arguments or 
 Authority can your Lordship produce, to shew that there is a 
 Succession there, that will not equally prove it to be here ? 
 
 You assert expressly, that there is a true Succession there ; 
 you deny that we have it here ; therefore your Lordship must 
 mean, that we have not episcopal Ordination when we separated 
 from the Church of Rome. And here the Controversy must rest 
 betwixt you and your Adversaries, wluther we had episcopal 
 Ordination then ; for as your Lordship has expressly affirmed 
 that there is this uninterrupted Succession in the Church of 
 Rome, it is impossible that we should want it, unless we had not 
 episcopal Ordination at the Reformation. 
 
 Whenever your Lordship shall please to appear in Defence of 
 the Nag's-Head Story, or any other Pretence against our epis- 
 copal Ordination when we departed from Rome, we shall beg 
 Leave to shew ourselves so far true Protestants, as to answer 
 any Popish Argument your Lordship can produce. 
 
 Here let the common Sense of the Laity be once more appealed 
 to : Your Lordship tells them that an uninterrupted Succession is 
 improbable, absurd, and morally speaking, impossible, and, for 
 this Reason, they need not trouble their Heads about it; yet in 
 another Place you positively affirm, that this true uninterrupted 
 Siiccession is actually in the Church of Rotne : That is, they are 
 to despise this Succession, because it never was, or ever can be ; 
 yet are to believe that it really is in the Romish Church. My 
 Lord, this comes very near saying and unsaying, to the great 
 
 * Prescrvatk'e, p. So.
 
 82 "Three Letters to 
 
 Diversion of the Papists. Must they not laugh at your Lord- 
 ship's Protestant Zeal, which might be much better called the 
 Spirit of Popery? Must they not be highly pleased with all 
 your Banter and Ridicule upon an uninterrupted Succession, 
 when they see you so kindly accept theirs : And think it only 
 Nonsense and Absurdity when claimed by any other Church ? 
 Surely, my Lord, they must conceive great Hopes of your 
 Lordship, since you have here rather chosen to contradict your- 
 self, than not vouch for their Succession : For you have said it 
 is morally impossible, yet affirm that it is with them. 
 
 The third Objection against this uninter7-upted Sticcession is 
 this, that it is a Popish Docti-inc, and gives Papists Advantage 
 over us. 
 
 The Objection proceeds thus, We must not assert the Necessity 
 of this Succession, because the Papists say it is only to be found 
 with them. I might add, because some mighty zealous Pro- 
 testants say so too. 
 
 But if this be good Argumentation, we ought not to tell the 
 Jews, or Deists, &c., that there is any Necessity of embracing 
 Christianity, because the Papists say Christians can only be 
 saved in their Church. 
 
 Again, we ought not to insist upon a true Faith, because the 
 Papists say that a true Faith is only in their Communion. So 
 that there is just as much Popery in teaching this Doctrine, as in 
 asserting the Necessity of Christianity to a Jew, or the Necessity 
 of a right Faith to a Socinian, &'c. 
 
 I shall only trouble your Lordship with a Word or two 
 concerning another Point in my former Letter. I there proved 
 that your Lordship has put the whole of our Title to God's 
 Favour upon Sincerity, as such, independent of every Thing 
 else. That no Purity of Worship, no Excellence of Order, no 
 Truth of Faith, no Sort of Sacraments, no Kind of Institutions, 
 or any Church, as such, can help us to the least Degree of 
 God's Favour, or give us the smallest Advantage above any 
 other Communion. And consequently, that your Lordship has 
 set sincere Jews, Quakers, Socinians, Mtigglet07iia7is, and all 
 Heretics and Schismatics, upon the same Bottom, as to the 
 Favour of God, with sincere Christians. 
 
 Upon this, my Lord, I am called upon to prove that these 
 several Sorts of People can be sincei-e in your Account of 
 Sincerity. To which, my Lord, I make this Answer, Either 
 there are some sincere Persons among Jews, Quakers, Socinians, 
 or any kind of Heretics and Schis7natics, or there are not ; if 
 there are, your Lordship has given them the same Title to God's 
 Favour, that you have to the sincerest Christians ; if you will
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor, 83 
 
 say there are no sincere Persons amongst any of them, then 
 your Lordship damns them all in the Gross ; for surely Corrup- 
 tions in Religion, professed with Insincerity, will never save 
 People. 
 
 I have nothing to do to prove the Sincerity of any of them ; 
 if they are sincere, what I have said is true ; if you will not 
 allow them to be sincere, you condemn them all at once. 
 
 Again, I humbly supposed a Man might be sincere in his 
 religions Opinions, though it might be owing to some ill Habits, 
 or something crimb I al'm himself, that he was fallen into such or 
 such a Way of thinking. But it seems this is all Contradiction ; 
 and no Man can be sincere, who has any Faults, or whose Faults 
 have any Infliience upon his Way of thinking. 
 
 Your Lordship tells all the Dissenters, that they may be easy 
 if they are sincere ; and that it is the only Ground for Peace and 
 Satisfaction. But pray, my Lord, if none are to be esteemed 
 sincere, but those who have no Faults, or whose Faults have no 
 Influence upon their Persuasions, who can be assured that he is 
 sincere, but he that has the least Pretence to it, the proud 
 Pharisee ? If your Lordship, or your Advocates, were desired 
 to prove your Sincerity, either before God or Man, it must be 
 for these Reasons, because you have no ill Passions or Habits, 
 no faulty Prejudices, no past or present Vices, that can have any 
 Effect upon your Minds. My Lord, as this is the only Proof 
 that any of you could give of your own Sincerity, in this 
 Meaning of it, so the very pretence to it, would prove the Want 
 of it. 
 
 6—2
 
 REPLY 
 
 T O T H E 
 
 Bishop of BANGOR's 
 
 ANSWER 
 
 TO THE 
 
 REPRESENTATION 
 
 O F T H E 
 
 COMMITTEE 
 
 O F 
 
 CONFOCJriON. 
 
 Humbly addressed to his Lordship. 
 
 By JVILLIAM LAJV, M. A. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed for J. Richardson, in Pater-noster-Row. 
 
 1762.
 
 o 
 
 The Contents. 
 
 F the Nature of the Church. Page 89 
 
 Of Church Authority. 113 
 
 A remarkable Evasion of his Lordship's in Relation to 
 
 Church Authority. 132 
 
 Of Excommunication. 142 
 
 Of Church Authority, as it relates to external Com- 
 munion. 165 
 
 Of Sincerity, and private Judgment. 1 84 
 
 Of the Reformation. * 195
 
 The 
 
 Third Letter to 
 
 the Bishop of "Bangor, 
 
 My Lord,, 
 
 I BEG leave to trouble your Lordship and the World once 
 more with my Remarks upon the Doctrines you have 
 lately delivered. Your Sermon and Preservative I have 
 already considered in the most impartial manner I could ; 
 and shall now examine your Answer to the Representa- 
 tion of the Learned Committee, both as it is an Answer to that, 
 and as it contains Opinions contrary to the fundamental Articles 
 of Christianity. 
 
 I have less need of excusing to your Lordship this third 
 Address, since you can so easily acquit yourself from the Trouble 
 of making any Reply to whatever comes from me. It seems I 
 have too small a Reputation to deserve your Notice ; but if the 
 Dean of Chichester would but declare for the Doctrines delivered 
 in my Letters, and put but a little of his Reputation upon tJie 
 issue, then, you say, you would suhnit to the Employment of an 
 Answer.* 
 
 My Lord, I readily confess that I have neither Reputation nor 
 Learning, nor any Title to recommend me to your Lordship's 
 Notice ; but I must own, that I thought the very want of these 
 would, in your Opinion, qualify me to make better Enquiries 
 into Religious Truths, and raise your Esteem of me as a 
 Correspondent in these Matters. For you expressly declare, 
 that if Learning or Literature is to be ijiterested in this Debate, 
 then tJie most learned Man has certainly a Title to be the Universal 
 fudge.-\ So that no Man ought to shew any Regard to Learning, 
 as a Qualification in religious Disputes, unless he will own that 
 the most learned Man has a Title to be a Pope, or as you 
 express it, the Universal fudge. Yet your Lordship, in spite of 
 this Protestant Doctrine so lately delivered, has despised and 
 
 * Ansta. to Condit. of our Saviour vindicated, p. 112. 
 t Answ. to Repr., p. 99.
 
 88 'Three Letters to 
 
 overlooked all my Opinions in Religion merely for my want of 
 Character and Learning, and has promised to undertake the 
 needless Task of examining those Opinions with another Gentle- 
 man, merely upon account of his Character and Reputation. So 
 that though it is perfect Popery, and making the most learned 
 Man the universal Judge, to allow anything to Learning; yet 
 your Lordship is so true a Protestant, and pays so great a Regard 
 to Learning, that you will not so much as examine a Doctrine 
 with a Person of no Character for Learning. 
 
 Again you say ; Nothing has been seen to administer so many 
 Donbts and Differences (in Religion) as Learning^ and that none 
 are seen to be less secure from Error than learned Men. 
 
 Now is it not strange, my Lord, that after this noble Declara- 
 tion against Learning, as the greatest Cause of Doubts and 
 Differences, this extraordinary Preference given to Ignorance, as 
 a more likely Guide to Truth, you should despise anyone as 
 below your Notice in religious Disputes, because he wants that 
 Learning which so blinds the Understanding ? Can you ascribe 
 thus much Honour to Learning, which in your Opinion does so 
 much Dishonour to Religion ? Will you interest those Qualities 
 in this Debate, which if they are allowed to have any Interest in 
 it, will make the Man of the greatest Abilities the Universal 
 Judge. 
 
 Again, As a farther Reason why you have taken no notice of 
 me, you say, as considerable a Writer as Mr. Law is, I hope the 
 Cotnmittee, as a Body, are much more considerable in the Dean's 
 Eyes ; I am snre, they are in mine: And the Dean himself, I have 
 thought a imich more considerable ivriter than Mr. Law, and so 
 have spent all my time upon Him and the Committee. 
 
 Now, my Lord, though I readily acknowledge this to be 
 exceeding true, and have so far at least a just Opinion of mj'self, 
 as to be afraid to be compared to much less Persons than the 
 Dean, or any of the learned Committee, yet, my Lord, this 
 Reason, which, if urged by anyone else, might pass for a good 
 one, cannot be urged by you, without contradicting a principal 
 Doctrine maintained in your Answer to the Representation. For 
 there you bid us look itito the Popish Countries ; and see whether 
 one illiterate honest Maji be not as capable of judging for himself 
 in Religion, as all their learned Men tinited; even supposing them 
 ■met together in a General Council, zuith all possible Marks of 
 Solemnity and Grandeitr.-^ 
 
 Here we see a Person merely for his want of Literature made 
 as good a Judge in Religion, as a General Council of the most 
 
 * Answ. to Repr., p. 98. f Ibid.^ p. 98.
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor, 89 
 
 learned Men, acting with the utmost Solemnity. We see a 
 Council in its utmost Perfection contemptuously compared to, 
 and even made less considerable than a private illiterate Person. 
 And this we may fairly suppose was intended to shew your 
 Contempt of the English Convocation. But a few Weeks after, 
 when you had another Design in your Head, you tell us to this 
 purpose, that you disregarded the Writings of a single Person of 
 no Figure in the learned World, to pay your respect to the 
 Committee as a Body, ivhich, as such, is much more considerable 
 in yo7ir Eyes. So that here an illiterate Person is made a great 
 Judge in Religion in regard to a Body of learned Men, because 
 he is illiterate ; and here that same Person is made of no Con- 
 sideration in Points of Religion in regard to a Body of learned 
 Men, merely because he '\s, private and illiterate. 
 
 It wll be of no Advantage to your Lordship, to say that you 
 have only replied to the Dean, in relation to me ; in the same 
 Words that he used to you, in relation to Mr. Sykes. 
 
 For, my Lord, that Reply might be proper enough from the 
 Dean, if he judged right of Mr. Sykes s Performance ; it being 
 very reasonable to overlook an Adversary that has neither 
 Truth, Abilities, or Reputation to support his Cause. 
 
 But though this might be right in the Dean, who pays a true 
 Regard to the Authority and Learning of great Men, yet it 
 cannot be defended by your Lordship. For though my Learn- 
 ing or Reputation were ever so low, they are so far from unquali- 
 fying me for Religious Enquiries, that if you would sincerely 
 stand to what you have said, you ought, for the want of these 
 very Accomplishments, to esteem me the more, and even choose 
 me out as a Correspondent in this Debate. 
 
 But however, without any farther Regard to the Opinion your 
 Lordship has either of me or my Abilities, I shall proceed to 
 the most impartial Examination of your Book that I possibly 
 can. 
 
 Of the Nature of the Church, 
 
 TO begin with your Lordship's Description of a Church ; 
 Tfie number of Men, whether small or great, ivhether 
 dispersed or united, who truly and since7-ely are Subjects 
 to Christ alone in Matters of Salvation* 
 
 The learned Committee calls this your Lordship's 
 Description of a Church. 
 
 * Senn., p. i;
 
 po T'hree Letters to 
 
 Your Lordship answers ; / wonder to hear this called my 
 Description of A Church ; ivhereas I pretend, in those Words to 
 describe no other, but The Universal Invisible Church. // is a 
 Description, not of A Church, in our modern way of speaking ; but 
 <?/"The Church, the Invisible Church of Christ.^ 
 
 May not we also wonder, my Lord, that you should so describe 
 The Church, that it will not bear being called A Church ? If I 
 should say it is a Description of no Church, I have your Lord- 
 ship's Confession, that it is not A Church ; so that it is something 
 betwixt a Church and no Church, that is, it is The Church. 
 
 Suppose, my Lord, somebody or other should have a mind to 
 be of your Church, if he betakes himself to A Chicrch, he is 
 wrong ; you do not mean A Church, but The Church. Your 
 Lordship owns that this is not a Description of a Church in the 
 modern way of speaking ; I humbly presume to call upon your 
 Lordship to shew that it is a Description according to the ancient 
 way of speaking. To call the Number of Believers the Invisible 
 Church, is a way of speaking, no more to be found in the Scrip- 
 tures, than the Company o{ PrcE- Adamites. 
 
 There is, no doubt of it, an Invisible Church, i.e., a Number of 
 Beings that are in Covenant with God, who are not to be seen 
 by human Eyes ; and we may be said to be Members of this 
 Invisible ChurcJi, as we are entitled to the same Hopes and 
 Expectations. But to call the Number of Men and Women who 
 believe in Christ and observe his Institutions, whether dispersed 
 or united in this visible World, to call these The hivisible Church, 
 is as false and groundless, as to call them the Order of Angels, 
 or the Church of Seraphims. The Profession of Christians is as 
 visible as any other Profession, and as much declared by visible 
 external Acts. And it is as proper to call a Number of Men 
 practising Law or Physic, an Invisible Society of Lawyers and 
 Physicians, as to call the Church on Earth the Invisible Church. 
 For all those Acts and Offices which prove People to be Christians, 
 or the Church of Christ, are as visible and notorious, as those 
 which prove them to be of any particular secular Employment. 
 Would it be proper to call the Number of Infidels and Idolaters 
 the Invisible Church of the Devil .^ Are they not visibly under 
 the Dominion of the Powers of Darkness ? Are they not visibly 
 out of Christ's Church ? Must it not therefore be as visible who 
 is in this Church, as who is not in it } 
 
 If anyone should tell us that we are to believe Invisible Scrip- 
 tures, and observe Invisible Sacraments, he would have just as 
 much Reason and Scripture of his side, as your Lordship has 
 
 * Answ. to Repr.^ p. 70.
 
 the "Bishop of Bangor, 91 
 
 for this Doctrine. And it would be of the same Service to the 
 World to talk of these Invisibilities, if the Canon of Scripture 
 was in dispute, as to describe this Invisible Church, when the 
 Case is, with what Visible Church we ought to unite. 
 
 Our Saviour himself tells us, that t/ie Kingdoin of Heaven is 
 like unto a Net that was cast into the Sea, and gathered of every 
 kind ; which, when it was full, they dreiv to shore and sat down, 
 and gathered tJie good into Vessels, but cast the bad away. And 
 then says, so shall it be at the ejid of the World.* 
 
 This, my Lord, is a Description of the State of Christ's Church 
 given us by himself. Is there anything in this Description that 
 should lead us to take it for an Invisible Kingdom, that consists 
 of one particular sort of People invisibly united to Christ .-' Nay, 
 is it not the whole Intent of this Similitude to teach us the con- 
 trary, that his Kingdom is to consist of a Mixture of good and 
 bad Subjects till the End of the World ? The Kingdom of 
 Christ is said here to gather its Members, as a Net gathers all 
 kinds of Fish ; it is chiefly compared to it in this respect, because 
 it gathers of all kinds ; which I suppose is a sufficient Declara- 
 tion, that this Kingdom consists of Subjects good and bad, as 
 that the Net that gathers of every kind of Fish, takes good and 
 bad Fish. Let us suppose that the Church of Christ was this 
 Invisible Number of People united to Christ by such internal 
 invisible Graces ; is it possible that a Kingdom consisting of this 
 one particular sort of People invisibly good, should be like a Net 
 that gathers of every kind of Fish ? If it was to be compared to 
 a Net, it ought to be compared to such a Net, as gathers only of 
 one kind, vis. good Fish and then it might represent to us a 
 Church that has but one sort of Members. 
 
 But since Christ who certainly understood the Nature of his 
 own Kingdom, has declared that it is like a Net that gathers of 
 every kind of Fish ; it is as absurd to say, that it consists only of 
 one kind of Persons (znz., the invisibly good) as to say, that the 
 Net which gathers of every kind, has only of one kind in it. 
 Farther ; zvhen it was full they drew it to shore, and gathered the 
 good into Vessels, but cast the bad atvay ; so shall it be at the end 
 of the World. Now as it was the bad as well the good Fish 
 which filled the Net, and the Church is compared to the Net in 
 this respect ; so it is evident that bad Men as well as good are 
 Subjects of this Kingdom. And I presume they are Members 
 of that Kingdom which they fill up, as surely as the Fish must 
 be in the Net before they can fill it. All these Circumstances 
 plainly declare that the Church or Kingdom of Christ shall 
 
 * Matth. xiii. 47.
 
 92 'Three Letters to 
 
 consist of a Mixture of good and bad People to the End of 
 the World. 
 
 Again ; Christ declares that the Kingdom of Heaven is like to 
 a certain King which made a marriage for his Son, and sent his 
 Servants out into the High- ways, who gathered together all as 
 many as they found, both good and bad, and the Wedding zuas 
 filled ivitJi Guests.^ 
 
 Nothing can be more evident than that the chief Intent of 
 this Parable is to shew that the Church of Christ is to be a 
 Mixture of good and bad People to the end of the World. It is 
 like a Feast where good and bad Guests are entertained ; but can 
 it be like such a Feast if only the invisibly virtuous are Members 
 of it ? If the Subjects of this Kingdom are of one invisible kind, 
 how can they bear any Resemblance to a Feast made up of all 
 kinds of Guests .? Nay, what could be thought of, more unlike 
 to this Kingdom, if it was such a Kingdom as you have repre- 
 sented it } 
 
 How could our blessed Saviour have more directly guarded 
 against such a Description of his Kingdom as your Lordship has 
 given us, than he has done in these Parables } He compares it 
 to a Quantity of good and bad Fish in a Net, to a Number 
 of good and bad Guests at a Feast. Are there any Words that 
 could more fully declare his Meaning to be, that his Kingdom 
 consisted of good and bad Subjects .•* Could anyone more 
 directly contradict this Account of our Saviour, than by saying 
 that his Kingdom is an invisible Kingdom consisting of a par- 
 ticular sort of People invisibly virtuous ? 
 
 Your Lordship professes a mighty Regard for the Scriptures, 
 and a great Dislike to all Doctrines that are not delivered there; 
 pray, my Lord, produce but so much as one Text of Scripture ; 
 tell us the Apostle or Evangelist that ever declared the Number 
 of Believers zvhether dispersed or united on Earth, to be the 
 Universal Invisible Church ; shew us any one Passage in Scrip- 
 ture which teaches us, that none are of the Church of Christ, but 
 those who have such Invisible Virtues, and cannot be known to 
 be so. 
 
 There is as much Authority from Scripture to prove that the 
 Church is a Kingdom without any Subjects, as that they are only 
 of it, who have such Invisible Graces. And it is as easy to 
 prove from those sacred Writings, that neither Christ or his 
 Apostles were ever Visible on Earth, as that the Number of 
 People on Earth who believe in Christ constitute the Invisible 
 Church. 
 
 * Matth. xxii. 2.
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor, 93 
 
 In the Parables above mentioned it is out of all doubt that our 
 Saviour describes his Universal Kingdovi or Church : It is also 
 certain that the Universal Invisible Church, which you call 
 Christ's Church, cannot be this Universal Church that is made 
 up of a Mixture of good and bad Members. I therefore beg of 
 your Lordship to let us know where Christ has taught us, that 
 he has two Universal Churches on Earth ; for if you cannot shew 
 that he has declared that he has these two Universal Churches, 
 you must allow that this which you have described, is a Church 
 of your own setting up, not only without any Authority, but even 
 against the express Word of Scripture. 
 
 Your Lordship says that the Doctrines which the Learned 
 Committee have condemned, if they be of that evil Tendency, 
 must be so either ivith Regard to the Universal Invisible Church, 
 made up of all those luho sincerely iji their Hearts believe in Christ ; 
 or with respect to the Universal Visible Church made up of all, who 
 in all Countries {whether sincerely or iitsincerely) openly profess to 
 believe in Christ ; or with respect to some particular Visible 
 Church.* 
 
 It may be justly expected, my Lord, that you should shew us 
 some Grounds for this Distinction. Where does our blessed 
 Lord give us so much as the least Hint that he has founded two 
 Universal Churches on Earth .»* Did he describe his Church by 
 halves when he likened it to a Net full of all kinds of Fish ? 
 Has he any where let us know that he has another Universal 
 Kingdom on Earth besides this, which in the Variety of its 
 Member is like a \et full of all sorts of good and bad Fish. 
 
 Let your Lordship, if you can, shew any Subtilties in Popery 
 which are more of human Invention, or more contrary to 
 Scripture than this refined Distinction. The Opus Operatuni in 
 the Sacraments, the temporal Satisfactions for Sins, Works of 
 Supererogation, or any of the nicest Arts o^ Jesuitism, are not less 
 founded in Scripture than this nice Distinction, of injuring either 
 the Ufiiversal Invisible, or the Universal Visible, or a particular 
 Visible Church. For, my Lord, the Church of Christ is as truly 
 one and the same Church, as the Sacrament of Baptism is one 
 and the same Baptism ; and he no more instituted several sorts 
 of Churches, than he instituted several kinds of Baptism. 
 
 Pray, my Lord, therefore be no longer angry at Human Arts 
 in Religion ; why may not Popery have its Peculiarities in 
 Doctrine as well as your Lordship ; the Church of Rome, with 
 all its Additions and Corruptions, and pompous Ornaments, is 
 as much like the Church as it was in the Apostles' Times, as your 
 
 * Answ. to Rcpr., p. 5.
 
 94 'Three Letters to 
 
 Invisible Church is like that which Christ declared to be his 
 Church. When they set out the Church as Infallible, they do 
 but reason like your Lordship, when you describe it as hivisible. 
 
 That there are good and bad Church-men, is past all doubt ; 
 but that People are of the Church by means of Invisible Virtues, 
 is as false, as that only good Men came to the Feast in the 
 Gospel. We are assured that many are called, but few are chosen ; 
 i.e., that many shall be made Members of Christ's Church, but 
 few shall be saved ; and who these few are that truly work out 
 their Salvation, may be invisible to us ; but those many that 
 were called, that is, who were in the Church, though they did 
 not live up to all the Intents of Church-Communion, yet were 
 as truly of the Church, as the bad Fish were really in the Net. 
 
 But to proceed ; I shall Illustrate this Reply of your Lordship 
 concerning an Universal Visible, and Universal Invisible, and 
 particular Visible Church, with the following Instances. 
 
 Let us suppose any one was charged with writing against the 
 Sacraments ; if he should with your Lordship reply, that this 
 Charge against him must either relate to the Uftiversal Visible 
 Sacraments, or Universal Invisible Sacraments, or particular 
 Visible Sacraments, he would have just as much Scripture or 
 Reason to support that Distinction, as your Lordship has for 
 dividing the Church into Universal Visible, and Universal 
 Invisible, and particular Visible. For the Profession of Chris- 
 tianity, or Church-Membership, is as external and visible a 
 thing, as the Sacraments are external visible Institutions. So 
 that it is as contrary to Scripture, and as mere an human Inven- 
 tion to make Pretence of an Universal Invisible Church, when 
 the Dispute is concerning Christ's Church on Earth, as it is to 
 have recourse to Invisible Sacraments, if the Question was con- 
 cerning Chrisfs Sacraments. 
 
 They are both equally external and visible ; and as the Sacra- 
 ments may be received without any spiritual Advantage, so 
 Persons may be of the Church and yet not be saved. And as 
 the Sacraments are not less Sacraments, though they may not 
 convey the designed Benefits to the Receiver ; so neither are 
 such a Number of People not of the Church, though they do not 
 obtain that Salvation which is the intended Consequence of 
 Church-Communion. 
 
 Your Lordship cannot give any one Reason for introducing this 
 Distinction with Regard to the Church, which will not equally 
 hold for the same Distinction in Regard to the Sacraments ; and 
 there is exactly the same Qtiak ery diXxd Fanaticism in one Doctrine 
 as the other. 
 
 For as they are the Sacraments which chiefly constitute the
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor, 95 
 
 Church, so no Distinctions or Divisions can with any tolerable 
 Propriety be applied to the Church, but such as may be also 
 applied to the Sacrarnents, that constitute the CJmrcJi. And 
 therefore the Terms Universal and Particular, Visible and 
 Invisible, have no more to do with Christ's Church which he has 
 instituted in tJiis World, than with the two Sacraments which he 
 also instituted, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. 
 
 Again, If anyone was accused of writing against the Christian 
 Revelation, he might answer with your Lordship, if this Accusa- 
 tion be true, it must be so either with regard to God's Universal 
 Visible Revelation in all the Canonical Books, or with Regard to 
 his Universal I tivisihlc Revelation whereby he speaks inwardly to 
 all sincere People, or with respect to some particular Part of his 
 visible Revelation. Let all the World judge, whether if a Person 
 so accused should make this Reply, it would not plainly appear, 
 either that he was a downright Enthusiast, or a crafty Dealer in 
 Cant and artificial Words. I am sure your Lordship cannot 
 shew that you have more Authority to divide the Church on 
 Earth into Universal Visible, and Universal Invisible, and par- 
 ticular Visible, than he had to divide the Christian Revelation 
 into Visible and hivisible. Neither was it less to the purpose for 
 such a one to talk of Invisible Scriptures, if he was accused of 
 denying the Gospel of St. John, than it is for your Lordship 
 under your present Accusation to have recourse to the Invisible 
 Church ; but your Lordship will find no Advantage in this 
 Retreat. 
 
 Again ; Suppose a Person was charged with writing Treason 
 against the Government, and in his Defence should thus distin- 
 guish ; The Ti-eason that I am charged with against the Govern- 
 ment, must relate either to Universal Government in this World, 
 or to Universal Government in the other IVorld, or to some par- 
 ticular Government in this World. 
 
 It would be as ingemious, as sincere, and as pertinent for a 
 Person thus accused to talk of Governments that had no relation 
 to the Case, but in his own Imagination, as for your Lordship in 
 the present Dispute to talk of U?iiversal Visible, and Universal 
 Invisible, 2ir\d particular Visible Churches. For besides this, that 
 there is no Foundation for such a Distinction, yet if there was 
 such an Invisible Church, how is it possible your Lordship 
 should hurt it? How is it possible the Learned Committee 
 should mean to charge you with injuring it .-' They might as 
 well think your Lordship capable of forming a Design to arrest 
 a Party of Spirits, as to attack an Invisible Church that neither 
 you nor they know anything of, or where to find. 
 
 Your Lordship saith, That if y 021 have Jtnjustly laid anything
 
 96 
 
 T'hree Letters to 
 
 down in this Description of the Invisible Churchy to the Prejudice 
 or Injury of any Particular Visible Church, you acknowledge 
 that it is your part to anszver for it* 
 
 I believe it appears already that your Lordship has a great 
 deal to answer for upon this Head ; and I shall now farther shew, 
 that you have set up this Invisible Church in Opposition to all 
 other Churches whatever. This will appear from the following 
 Passage in your Sermon ; This Inquiry zvill bring us back to the 
 first, ivhich is tlie only true Account of the Church of Christ or 
 Kingdom of Christ in the Mouth of a Christian, viz. the Number 
 of Men zvhether small or great, ^ &c. 
 
 We have your Lordship's Confession that you only here 
 pretend to describe the Universal Invisible Church of Christ ; 
 you also here plainly declare, that it is the only true Account of 
 Christ's Chui'ch or Kingdom in the Mouth of a Christian. 
 
 Is not this, my Lord, expressly declaring, that any other 
 Account of Christ's Church is not a true one ; for you say this 
 is the only true one ? Is it not directly affirming that any other 
 Description of Christ's Church cannot become the Mouth of a 
 Christian ; for you say that this is the only true one in the Mouth 
 of a Christian ? So that if we call the Universal Visible Church, 
 the Church of Christ, we give a false Account of Christ's 
 Church, and such a one as is unfit for the Mouth of a Christian. 
 
 Could your Lordship have thought of anything more shocking, 
 than to say that the Description of your Invisible Church is the 
 only true Account of Christ's Church, and fit for the Mouth of a 
 Christian, when our Saviour has given us a quite contrary 
 Account of it from his own Mouth ? He compares it to a Net 
 full of good and bad Fish, to a Feast full of good and bad 
 Guests ; this surely, my Lord, is not an Account of your 
 Invisible Church, where there are only Invisible Members. 
 Your Lordship cannot say that Christ has here described the 
 Invisible Church ; you directly say that your Description of the 
 Invisible Church, is the only true Account of Christ's Church in 
 the Mouth of a Christian ; and consequently this Account which 
 our Saviour himself has given of his Church, stands condemned 
 by your Lordship as a false Account of Christ's Church unfit for 
 the Mouth of a Christian. I appeal to the common Sense of 
 every Reader, whether I have laid anything to your Charge, but 
 what your own express Words amount to. The short is this ; 
 If Christ has in these Parables described the Universal Clmrch 
 as Visible, then it is plain that this Account of Christ's Church 
 is a false one in the Mouth of a Christian ; for you say your 
 
 * Atisiu. io Rep., p. 70. f P. 16.
 
 the "Bishop of Bangor. 97 
 
 Account of the Invisible Church is the only true Account of 
 Christ's Church in the Mouth of a Christian ; so that nothing 
 can secure this Account which our Saviour has given of his 
 Church from your Lordship's Censure, but shewing that it is the 
 \^xy same Account of tJie Invisible Church that you have given ; 
 which I believe is more than your Lordship will undertake to 
 prove ; it being as hard to prove that a Net full of good and 
 bad Fish, or a Feast full of good and bad Guests, should repre- 
 sent an Invisible Kingdom of only one sort of Subjects, as that 
 the Net and Feast, though hoih full, should represent a Kingdom 
 that had not one Subject in it. 
 
 If a Fanatic should describe the Christian Sacraments, as 
 Spiritual and Invisible Sacraments, and then affirm that that 
 was tlie only true Accoujit of Clwistian Sacraments in the Mouth 
 of a Christian, could we charge him with less than writing 
 against all Sacraments but Invisible Sacraments ? It is just 
 thus far that your Lordship has proceeded against the Exterjial 
 Visible Church ; you have declared the Invisible one to be the 
 only true Church, fit to be spoken of by a Christian, which I think 
 is laying down a Position highly injurious to the Visible Church, 
 since it is here condemned as false in the Mouth of a Christian. 
 
 From all this it appears, that the Learned Committee have 
 justly disliked your Lordship's Description of the Church of 
 Christ. 
 
 First ; As you describe it as an Invisible Church, directly 
 contrary to the Scripture Representations of it, as given by our 
 Saviour himself. 
 
 Secondly ; As it is in Disparagement of the Article of our 
 Church, which gives quite another Description of the Church. 
 
 That the Church described in the Article falls under your 
 Lordship's Censure, is very plain. For you declare that your 
 Description of the Invisible, is the only true Account of Christ's 
 Church ; therefore the Description in the Article cannot be a 
 true one, because it is different from yours, which is the only 
 true one. 
 
 Secondly ; You declare that you consider the Church under 
 this Description, z^/.c. as Invisible, because every other Notion of 
 it, is made up of inconsistent Images :* Therefore the Account 
 of the Church in the Article is thus inconsistent. 
 
 Now what does your Lordship answer here } Only this, that 
 the Article speaks of the Visible Church, and you speak of the 
 Invisible one.-f 
 
 This Answer, my Lord, proves the Charge upon you to be 
 
 * Ser/u., p. 10. f Answ. to Repr., p. 78. 
 
 7
 
 98 
 
 "Three Letters to 
 
 just. For since you own that you describe another Church than 
 that which is described in the Article, and expressly affirm that 
 your Account of this other Church is the only tnie Accoitnt of 
 Christ's Church m the Mouth of a Christian ; you plainly 
 declare that the other Church is a false one in the Mouth of a 
 Christian. Yet your Lordship rests satisfied with this Reply, as 
 if you had cleared yourself by it. Whereas this is the very 
 Charge itself, That you have described the Church otherwise 
 than it is in the Article, and have called this different and nezv 
 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 must be a false 
 one. 
 
 Your Lordship goes on, TJie Article declares zvJiat it is, that 
 makes every such Congregatioji, the Visible Church of Christ ; and 
 I describe what it is that makes every particular Alan, a Member 
 of Christ's Universal Invisible Church. The Article describes 
 those outward Acts, zvhicJi are necessary to vurke a Visible Chtirch; 
 and I describe that inward Sincerity, and Regard to Christ him- 
 self tvhich make Men Members of the Invisible Church of Christ. 
 And zvhere is the Contradiction contained in all tins ?* 
 
 Suppose, my Lord, anyone should affirm that there is a 
 Sincere, Invisible Bishop of Bangor, who is the only true Bishop of 
 Bangor m the Mouth of a Christian. Would your Lordship think 
 here was no Reflection intended upon yourself ? Would you think 
 this Account no Contradiction to your Right as Bishop of 
 Bangor ? Does your Lordship believe such an Assertion could 
 come from anyone that owned your Right to your Bishopric, and 
 was a Friend to you in it .'' Would you imagine that nothing 
 was meant against you, because the other Bishop was said to be 
 Invisible ? Your Lordship cannot but know, that though he is 
 said to be Invisible, yet if he is the only true Bishop of Bangor in 
 the Mouth of a Christian, then any other Bishop of Bangor, 
 whether Visible or Invisible, must be a false one in the Mouth of 
 a Christian. 
 
 Thus it is your Lordship has dealt with the Visible Church ; 
 you have set another up as the only true Church, and yet think 
 all is well : that there is no Contradiction, because you call this 
 other an Invisible Church, whereas if it be the only true Church, 
 it contradicts every other Church in the highest Sense. And 
 though it does not contradict it as a Visible Church, yet it does 
 as a True Church, which is of more Consequence. 
 
 Your Lordship here puts a Question in favour of the Visible 
 Church. Can it be supposed by this learned Body, that a Mans 
 
 * Ans7ii. to Rcpr., p. 79.
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor, 99 
 
 being of \tJie Invisible Church of Christ, is inconsistent with his 
 joining Iiinisclf with any Visible Church .?* 
 
 No, my Lord, it cannot be supposed. It cannot be supposed 
 by any Body that a Maiis being of the Invisible Church, is in- 
 consistent with his joining himself to the Royal Society, or College 
 of Physicians. But pray, my Lord, is this all that your Invisible 
 Church will allow of? Dare your Lordship proceed no farther, 
 than only to grant that it is no Inconsistency, no Contradiction for 
 a Member of your Invisible Church to join with any Visible 
 Church? If you would siiiccrely shew that you have said nothing 
 to the Prejudice of the Visible Church, you ought to declare that 
 the Members of your Invisible Church, may not only consistently 
 join with that which is Visible, but that it is their Duty, and that 
 they are obliged to join with it in order to be of yours that is 
 Invisible. For if you have set up an Invisible Church, which 
 will excuse its Members from being of any that is Visible, then 
 you have plainly destroyed it, by making it useless. And it is 
 but a poor Apology for it to say, there is no Inconsistency in 
 joining with it, after you have made it needless and unnecessary 
 to join with it. And it will be pretty difficult to give a consistent 
 Reason, why any Person should join himself to a needless 
 Church. 
 
 Your Lordship has here made great Discoveries of the Nature 
 of your Invisible Church, which appears to have nothing visible 
 or external in it. 
 
 For first, you declare that the Article describes one Church, 
 and you another. But how does this appear ? How does your 
 Lordship prove this } i^t. Because the Article declares zvhat it is 
 that makes every such Congregation the Visible ChurcJi.-\ Now, 
 my Lord, if this shews that the Article does not describe your 
 Church, then it is plain that the Article here describes souictJiing 
 that does not belong to your Church ; for if it equally belonged 
 to your Church, it could be no Proof that it did not describe 
 your Church. But you expressly say that it describes a different 
 Church from yours ; therefore it must describe something that 
 does not belong to yours. 
 
 Now if that which makes any Congregation the Visible Church, 
 be not necessary to make Persons Members of your Church, it 
 follows that they may be Members of yours, without being of 
 any Visible Church, 
 
 Again ; Another Reason why the Article does not describe 
 your Invisible Church is this ; Because it describes those outuard 
 Acts, ichich are necessary to nmke a Visible Church. These out- 
 
 * Answ. toRcpr., p. 79. | Ansiv. to Repr., p. 70. 
 
 7—^
 
 loo 'Three Letters to 
 
 ward Acts are, the Preaching the pure Word of God, and ad- 
 
 ininistcj'ing the Sacraments. Now, my Lord, seeing these out- 
 ward Acts shew that the Church here described is not your 
 Invisible Church, does not this evidently declare that such out- 
 ward Acts are not necessary to your Church ? For if they did 
 equally belong to both Churches, and were alike necessary to 
 them, how could they more describe one than another? But 
 you say, it is the mentioning of these outward Acts, that shews 
 that your Invisible CJinrch is not described ; therefore it is plain, 
 that you do not include these outward Acts as essential to your 
 Invisible Church, and consequently it is a Church to which neither 
 public Worship, nor visible Sacraments are necessary. For if these 
 outward Acts are necessary to your Invisible Church, why does 
 not your Lordship mention them as such? You oww you describe 
 what it is that makes every pai'ticular Man a Member of the 
 Invisible Church ; yet you not only take no notice of these out- 
 zvard Acts, but say that the Article describes not your Church, 
 because it mentions these outwai'd Acts, which, is a Demonstration, 
 that these outzvard Acts do not belong to yoiir Church. 
 
 Farther; When the learned Cominittee has charged your Lord- 
 ship with the Omission oi preaching the Word and adviinistering 
 of the Sacraments, you answer, they might have added, He omits 
 likewise the very piiblic Profession of Christianity. A nd is not 
 tlie Reason plain ? because I was not speaking of the Visible 
 CJiurch ; to zvhich alone, as such, visible outward Signs, and 
 verbal Professions belong: but of the Universal Invisible 
 Church.* 
 
 My Lord, the Reason is very plain, and it is as plain that is 
 not a good Reason. For if the preaching of the Word, the 
 administering of the Sacraments, and the public Profession of 
 Christianity, be necessary to make anyone a Member of your 
 divisible Church, then there was as good Reason to mention 
 them in your Description, as if you had been describing the 
 Visible Church. 
 
 If they are not necessary, then you have set up a Church 
 exclusive of the Visible Church. The Case stands thus ; If these 
 outward Acts be as necessary to make Persons be of the Invisible 
 as of the Visible Church, then they ought to come equally into 
 the Description of both Churches, being equally necessary to 
 both : If you say they are not equally necessary, then you must 
 allow that there is no Necessity that the Members of your Church 
 should be in any external Communion. 
 
 It is therefore no Apology, to say that you describe the 
 
 Answ. to Rcpr., p. So.
 
 the bishop of Bangor, loi 
 
 Invisible Church, unless you will say that a Man may be of it, 
 without any outiuard Acts, or Coinniunion with any Visible 
 Church. If a Person may be of this Invisible Church without 
 having anything to do with Visible Sacraments, or Worship in a 
 Visible Communion, then you have an Excuse, why you did not 
 mention these ontzvard Professions in your Description of the 
 Church ; but if he cannot be of this Invisible Communion 
 without observing these ontzvard Ordinances, then it was as 
 necessary to mention these ontzvard Ordi)iances in your Account 
 of this Church, as if you had been describing a Church, which 
 consisted of nothing else but outward Ordinances. 
 
 So that the short of the Case is this ; If the Observation of 
 external Ordinances be not necessary to make Men Members of 
 your Invisible Church, then indeed there is a plain Reason why 
 your Lordship should omit them ; and it is also plain, that this 
 Doctrine sets aside the Gospel, if this Invisible Church, the only 
 true Church in the Mouth of a Christian, be excused from Gospel 
 Ordinances. But if these external Ordinances be necessary to 
 constitute the Invisible Church, then there was as plain a Reason 
 to mention them, in the Description of your Church, as if you 
 had been describing the Visible Church. 
 
 So that if your Lordship will give a good plain Reason why 
 you have omitted these outivard Acts, it must be because they 
 do not belong to it ; for otherwise the calling it Invisible is 
 no Excuse, unless it has no occasion for such ontzvard Per- 
 formances. 
 
 And indeed this has appeared to be your Doctrine in almost 
 every Page, that you set up this Invisible Church in Opposition 
 to Ontzvard and Visible Ordinances. For you all along set out 
 the Opposition or Difference betwixt the Visible and Invisible 
 Church in respect to external Ordinances : Thus the one is 
 Visible, because to it alone belong external Signs, or verbal Pro- 
 fessions.'^ The other is Invisible for the zva)it of tJiese. Yet this 
 Invisible Church thus destitute, and even necessarily destitute of 
 external Ordinances, is by you called, the only true Church in the 
 Mouth of a Christian. 
 
 One may, I acknowledge, easily conceive in one's Mind a 
 Number of People, whose Internal and Invisible Graces may 
 entitle them to the Favour of God ; and these may be called an 
 Invisible Number, or Congregation, or CJiurch, because it is 
 Invisible to us where it is, or how great it is. But then, my Lord, 
 it is a great Mistake if this Invisible Church is opposed to, or 
 distinguished from the Visible Church in respect of external 
 
 * Ajis-w. to Rcpr., p. Si.
 
 I02 T'hree Letters to 
 
 Ordinances. For in these things they are both equally obliged to 
 be Visible. And the Invisible Church is not so called, in Contra- 
 distinction to those who attend Visible Communions, and observe 
 external Ordinances, but in Contradistinction to those who are 
 invisibly bad, and are not what their external Profession promises. 
 This is the only Number of People or Church, which the Invisible 
 Church is opposed to. For as the Invisible Church intends a 
 Number so called, because of their Invisible Graces ; so this 
 Invisibly good Church can be tndy opposed only to the Invisibly 
 bad Church, or such as are not such Persons inzvardly, as they 
 profess to be outwardly. 
 
 But, contrary to this, your Lordship has all along considered 
 and described this Invisible Church in Opposition to the Visible^ 
 and made those outward Acts which are necessary to the Visible 
 Church, so many Marks to distinguish it from that which is 
 Invisible. Thus you say, that you ivcrc not speaking of tJie Visible 
 Church, to luhich alojie, as such, visible outivard Signs, or verbal 
 Professions belong : but of the Universal Invisible Church.'^ 
 
 Here you plainly make external Signs, and outward Professions, 
 distinguish the Visible from the Invisible Church ; whereas it is 
 not Invisible in this respect, as being ivitJiout these external 
 Professions, or in Contradistinction to a Visible Church ; but it is 
 only Invisible in those Graces, which human Eyes cannot per- 
 ceive. Thus they are said to be the Invisible Church, because 
 they are a Number of Men, who are such inzvardly, as they 
 profess to be outivaj'dly. But this shews, that they cannot be so 
 called in Contradistinction to outward Professions, since they 
 must have an outivard Profession themselves before they can be 
 inwardly sincere in it ; and consequently they are not opposed 
 to, or distinguished from a Number of outward Professors, for 
 this they are obliged to be themselves, but from a Number of 
 outward Professors, who are not sincere in what they outivardly 
 profess. 
 
 If I should describe charitable Men to be an hivisible Church 
 of Persons sincerely well affected to Mankind, and this in Contra- 
 distinction to others who are externally charitable, and perform 
 outward Acts of Love ; or if I should describe chaste Men to be 
 an Invisible Church of Persons inzvardly chaste and pure, and 
 this in Contradistinction to others externally chaste and visibly 
 pure as to outivard Acts ; I should just have the same Authority 
 either from Reason or Scripture to set up these Invisible Churches 
 of cJiaritable and chaste Men, in Opposition to persons outwardly 
 charitable and chaste, as your Lordship has to set u\) this 
 
 * Answ. to Rpr., p. 8i.
 
 the bishop of "Bangor, 103 
 
 invisible sincere Church, in Contradistinction to the visible external 
 Church. For, first, this Sincerity no more makes a Chtwch, than 
 Charity and Chastity make a Church, or than Honesty makes a 
 Man a Member of a Corporation, or an Officer in the Army ; 
 these, being private personal Virtues, do not constitute a Church 
 or Society, but concern Men, as Men, in every Estate of Life. 
 
 Secondly, Outivard Ordinances and Visible Professions, are 
 as necessary to make Men true Christians, as outward Acts of 
 Love and external Purity are necessary to make Men charitable 
 or chaste. For Christianity as truly implies external Acts and 
 Professions, as Chastity implies ojitzvard Purity. 
 
 Now, my Lord, suppose the Question was, whether Adultery 
 or Fornication or any other Impurity was lawful, and that the 
 World was divided upon this Controversy ; Would he not be an 
 excellent Preacher of Chastity, that should never tell us whether 
 any or all of these were unlawful, but should pretend to decide 
 the Controversy, by telling the World, that chaste Men, are an 
 Invisible Church of Persons imuardly pure, and this in Contra- 
 distinction to Persons externally pure .'' Suppose he should tell 
 them, that their Title to Chastity did not depend upon their 
 being or not being of the Number of any outwardly pure or 
 impure Persons, but upon their inzvard Purity ; What Apology 
 could even Charity itself make for such a Teacher .'' 
 
 The Controversy on foot is this ; Whether external Com- 
 munion with any sort of Fanatics be lawful ? Whether it be as 
 safe to be in one external visible Communion as in another ? 
 The Word is divided upon this Subject ; and your Lordship 
 comes in to end the Controversy. But how? Is it by examining 
 the Merits of the contending Parties? Is it by telling us what 
 is right and what is wrong in the different Communions? Is it 
 by telling us that one external Communion is better than 
 another } Is it by shewing us that any is dangerous ? Is it by 
 directing us, with which we ought to join, or indeed that we 
 ought so much as to join with any ? No : This right and wrong, 
 or good and bad in external Communions, though it was the 
 zvhole Question, is wholly skipped over by your Lordship ; and 
 you preach up an Invisible Church as the only true Church in the 
 Mouth of a Christian, and this in Contradistinction to all Visible 
 Churches : And only declare, that our Title to God's Favour 
 cannot depend upon our being or continuing in any particular 
 Method, but upon our Sincerity, 
 
 Your Lordship says ; / Jiave laid down a Description of the 
 Universal Invisible Church or Kingdom of Christ.^ Your Lord- 
 
 * P. 78.
 
 I04 T'hree Letters to 
 
 ship iiad been as well employed if you had been painting of 
 Spirits, or weighing of Thoughts. The main Question, you say, 
 is whether this Description be true and just* 
 
 This, my Lord, is not the main Question; nor indeed does it 
 concern us at all whether your Lordship is ingenious, or not, in 
 this Description. 
 
 For suppose your Lordship had been describing an hivisible 
 King to the People of Great Britain, do you think the main 
 Question amongst the Lords and Commons would be, whether 
 you had hit off the Description well ? No, my Lord, the 7nain 
 Question would be, To what Ends and Purposes you had set up 
 such a King, and what Relation the Subjects of Great Britain 
 had to him ; whether they might leave their Visible, and pay 
 only an interfial Allegiance to your Invisible King? If your 
 Lordship should farther describe him as the only true King in 
 the Mouth of a Britain, I believe it would be thought but di poor 
 Apology to appeal to your fine Painting, that you had described 
 him justly, and set him out as hivisible. The Application is 
 here very easy ; it is a very trifling Question, and only concerns 
 your Lordship's Parts, Whether your Description of your 
 Invisible Church be just or not ? But it is the Use and the End 
 of setting up this Church, which is any Matter of Question to 
 us. Your Lordship might erect as many Churches as you 
 please, if you did it only for speculative Amuse^ncnt, and to try 
 your Abilities in fine Drawing ; but if you pretend to unsettle 
 the Christian Church, by your new Buildings, or to destroy the 
 Distinction between the Church and Conventicle, by your Invisibles, 
 we must beg your Lordship's Excuse, and can no more admire 
 the Beauty ox Justness of your fine Descriptions, than you would 
 admire 2, just Description of an Invisible Diocese, if it was set out 
 in order to receive your Lordship. 
 
 You add ; But of this (Description) they {the Committee) have 
 not said one word ; but rather chosen to go off to an article of the 
 Church of England, which defines not the Universal Invisible 
 Church. And your Lordship might as well observe, that they 
 have not said one word about Plato's Republic. For how they 
 should imagine that you were describing an Invisible Church, or 
 if they did, why they should trouble their Heads with such a 
 Description, is not easily conceived. 
 
 For, my Lord, if it was your primary Intention only to appear 
 in Defence of an Universal Invisible Church, what can we con- 
 ceive in our Minds more surprising ? What can be more extra- 
 ordinary, than that a Visible Bishop at a Visible Court, should 
 
 * P. 78.
 
 the "Bishop of Bangor, 105 
 
 with so much Solemnity preach in Defence of a Church which 
 can neither be defended nor injured ? Are there any Rights in 
 your Invisible Church which can possibly be lost ? If not, to 
 what purpose does your Lordship come in as a Defender? Can 
 the Sight of any Men find it, the Malice of any Men attack it, 
 or the Good-will of any Men support it ? No : Yet though it is 
 as invisible as the Centre of the Earth, and as much out of our 
 reach as the Stars^ yet your Lordship has very pathetically 
 preached a Sermon, and published some Volumes, lest this 
 Invisible Church, which nobody knows where to find, should be 
 run away with. 
 
 Should the same Christian Zeal induce your Lordship to 
 appear, at some other solemn Occasion, in the Cause of the 
 Winds^ your Pains would be as well employed ; for it would be 
 as reasonable to desire that they might rise and blow where they 
 list, as that an Invisible Church, nowhere to be known or found 
 by us at present, may not be injured. 
 
 If therefore the Learned Covniiittee had so far forgot that 
 Visible Church of which they are Members, as to have engaged 
 with your Lordship about your Invisible ChurcJi, the Dispute 
 would have been to as much purpose, as a Trial in Westminster 
 Hall about the Philosopher s Stone. 
 
 But you complain that they rather chose to go off to an 
 Article of the Church of England. My Lord, this is very hard 
 indeed, that they should ^6* off to the Church oi England, when 
 you had an Invisible Church ready for them ; or that this 
 Learned Body cannot dispute about Churches, but they must 
 needs bring the Church of England \x\\.o the Question. 
 
 Suppose, as in the above-mentioned Instance, your Lordship 
 should lay down a fine and Just Description of your Invisible 
 King of Great Britain, a Number of Tories should, instead of 
 examining the Truth of your Description, go off to the Act of 
 Scttleincnt, which declares a Visible King of Britain : This 
 would be to use your Lordship just as the Learned Coniniittee 
 have done ; who, instead of dwelling upon the Beauty and Just- 
 ness of this Description, have gone off to an old Article in the 
 Church of England, which indeed only describes an old-fashioned 
 Visible Church, as Churches went in the Apostles' Days : That 
 is, a Congrcgatioti of faitliful Men, in ivJiich tJie pure Word of 
 God is preached^ and the Sacraments duly administered.* 
 
 I am of Opinion, that the Apostolical Church would not have 
 thought themselves too Invisible to be thus described, or that 
 
 * Artie. 19.
 
 io6 T'hree Letters to 
 
 this was too Visible a Description of the Church of Christ to 
 take in its sincere Members. 
 
 Whether therefore your Lordship has given a true Description 
 of the Invisible Church, that is, a Church of Thoughts and 
 Sentivients, I shall not consider, but thus much I must observe, 
 that it is a very false Description ; first, as it pretends to 
 describe THE Church,* and the only true Church in the Mouth of 
 a Christian. For the Church of Christ, as has been shewn, is as 
 truly a Visible external Society, as any Civil or Secular Society 
 in the World : And it is no more distinguished from such 
 Societies by the Invisibility, than by the Youth or Age of its 
 Members. 
 
 The holy consecrated Elements differ from common Breadsind 
 Wine, but they do not so differ from it, as to cease to be as 
 Visible, as common Bread and Wine. Thus the Holy Catholic 
 Church, the Kingdom of Christ, differs from worldly Societies 
 and Kingdoms, but not in point of Visibility, but in regard to 
 the Ends and Purposes for which it is erected, viz., the eternal 
 Salvation of Mankind. 
 
 Secondly, This Description contradicts the nineteenth Article 
 of the Church of England. For though it is not set up as another 
 Visible Church, so as to contradict it in point of Visibility, yet 
 seeing it is described as THE Church, and the only true Church, 
 it plainly contradicts it in point of Truth ; for if it be the only 
 true Church, every other must be a false one. 
 
 Thirdly, This Description is a mere specidative Conjecture, a 
 Creature of the Imagination, which can serve no Purposes, but 
 is entirely foreign to the present Dispute, and must be so to any 
 Dispute which ever can arise between contending Communions. 
 It no more serves to inform anyone, whether he should go to the 
 Visible Church, or Visible Conventicle, than whether he should 
 study the Lazu or Physic. It may indeed serve to make Persons 
 regardless of any Visible Church, but can be of no use to them, 
 if they desire to know with what Visible Church they ought to 
 join. 
 
 It may now be worth our while to observe, how your Lordship 
 came by this Account of Christ's Kingdom, which you say is the 
 only true one, fesus ansivered, my Kingdom is not of this World, 
 is the Text to your Sermon. You sdiy, you have chosen these IVords 
 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 these Words declared what his Kingdom 
 is ; for without this, it cannot be true that he hath declared the 
 
 * Answ. to Repr., p. 70. f Serm., p. 10.
 
 the bishop of Bangor, 107 
 
 Nature of his Kingdom. Whereas it is so far from beings true, 
 that he hath in tJiese Words declared what his Kingdom is, that 
 he has only, and that in one particular Respect, declared zvJiat 
 it is not. If he had said that his Kingdom was not a Jewish 
 Kingdom, would this be declaring the Nature of his Kingdom ? 
 If a Person should say that his Belief was not the Belief of the 
 Church of England, would he in these Words declare the Nature 
 of his Belief ^ Would it not still be uncertain whether he was an 
 Arian or 6>a«m;/, or something different from them both? Thus 
 our Saviour's saying that his Kingdom is not of this World, no 
 more declares the Nature of his Kingdom, than a Person by 
 saying such a one was not his Son, would in these Words declare 
 how many Children he had. 
 
 My Kingdom is not of this World, are very indeterminate 
 Words, and capable of several Meanings, if we consider them in 
 themselves. But as soon as we consider them as an Answer to 
 a particular Question, they take one determinate Sense. The 
 Question was, whether our Saviour was the (Temporal) King of 
 tlie Jews ? Jesus ansivered, my Kingdom is not of this World. 
 Now as these Words may signify no more than the Denial of 
 what was asked ; as there is nothing in them that necessarily 
 implies more, than that he was not a King as the y^wzV// or other 
 Temporal Kings are ; as the Question extends the Answer no 
 farther than this Meaning ; so if we enlarge it, or fix any other 
 Meaning to it, it is all human Reasoning, without any Warrant 
 from the Text. 
 
 Now, taking the Words in this Sense, what a strange Conclu- 
 sion is this that your Lordship draws from it : That because 
 Christ said his Kingdom was not a Temporal Kingdom as the 
 Jewish and other Kingdoms were ; therefore his Kingdom is 
 Invisible. Is it denied to be a Temporal Kingdom, because a 
 Temporal Kingdom is Visible .'' If not, it will by no means 
 follow, that it must be Invisible, because it is said not to be 
 Temporal. Must it be in every respect contrary to a Temporal 
 Kingdom, because it is said not to be Temporal .'' Then it must 
 have no Subjects, because in Temporal Kingdoms there are 
 Subjects ; then there must be no King, because in such King- 
 doms there are Kings. I suppose the Sacraments may in a very 
 proper Sense be said to be not Temporal I nstitutio7is, though they 
 are as external and Visible as any thing in the World ; and con- 
 sequently the Church may be not Temporal in a very proper 
 Sense, without implying that it must therefore be Invisible. 
 Indeed I cannot conceive how your Lordship could have thought 
 of a more odd Conclusion, than this which you have drawn from 
 them. If you had concluded that because Christ's Kingdom is
 
 io8 T'hree Letters to 
 
 not a Temporal Kingdom, therefore its Members are all of an 
 Age ; it had been as well as to say, therefore they are Invisible. 
 
 Nothing can be more surprising, than to see your Lordship 
 throughout your whole Sermon describing this Kingdom, with 
 all the Accuracy and Exactness imaginable, and even dcvion- 
 strating every particular Circumstance of its Nature, froui this 
 little Negative, that it is not a Temporal Kingdom. Your Lord- 
 ship must be very excellent at taking a Hint, or you could never 
 have found out this Kingdom of God so exactly from so small a 
 Circumstance. It seems, had this little Text been all the Scrip- 
 ture that we had left in the World, your Lordship could have 
 revealed the rest by the help of it. For there is nothing that 
 relates to this Kingdom, or the Circumstances of its Members, 
 but you have purely by the Strength of your Genius, unassisted 
 by any other Scripture proved and demonstrated from this single 
 Passage. 
 
 If a Foreigner should tell your Lordship, that his House in 
 his own Country was not as the Houses are in this Kingdom, 
 would it not be very wonderful in your Lordship, to be able to 
 detnonstrate its Length and Breadth, to tell how many Rooms 
 there are on a Floor, and to describe every Beauty and Con- 
 venience of the Structure, merely from having been told that it 
 was not like the Houses in this Kingdom ? But it would not be 
 more wonderful, than to see your Lordship describe the Nature 
 of Christ's Kingdom, and explain every Circumstance that 
 concerns its Members, from having been told this Negative 
 Circumstance, Nor indeed is it much to be wondered, seeing 
 you set out upon this bottom, if you give as false an Account of 
 Christ's Kingdom, as you would do of an House, that you only 
 knew what it was not. 
 
 Again, you say, As the Church of Christ is the Kingdom of 
 Christ, he himself is King; and in this it is implied that he is 
 himself the sole Lazv -giver to his Subjects, and himself the sole 
 fudge of tJieir Behaviotcr in the Affairs of Conscience and Salva- 
 tion.* 
 
 What a pretty fine-spun Consequence is this, to be drawn 
 from the above mentioned Text. Your Lordship here advances 
 a mere human Speculation founded upon no other Authority, 
 than the uncertain Signification of the Words, King dind Kingdom; 
 you say it is in this implied that because Christ is King of his 
 Kingdom, he is the sole Law-giver to his Subjects. Pray, my 
 Lord, why is it in this implied ? Do the Words, King and 
 Kingdom always imply the same thing ? Has a King in one 
 
 * Serm., p. 1 1 .
 
 the bishop of Bangor, 109 
 
 Kingdom the same Powers, which every King hath in another 
 Kingdom ? Has the King of England the same Power, which a 
 King of France, or any Sovereign hath in his Kingdom ? Would 
 it be any reason why the King of England should be sole Law- 
 giver to his Subjects, because there are Kings who are sole Law- 
 givers to their Subjects ? Now if the word, King, does not 
 necessarily imply the same Power in every Kingdom, how car^ 
 there be any Conclusion, that because Christ is King of his 
 Kingdom, he is sole Law-giver to his Subjects ? Yet your Lord- 
 ship's whole Argument is founded upon this weak and false 
 bottom, that the word, King, is to be taken in one absolute and 
 fixed Sense : For you expressly say, it is in this implied, that 
 because he is King, he is sole Law-giver. Now it is impossible it 
 should be implied z« tJiis, unless the word, King, always implies 
 the same Power : For if there be any Difference in the Con- 
 stitutions of Kingdoms, though 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 
 Lordship has described the Constitution of Christ's Kingdom, 
 the Circumstances of its Subjects, and in short everything that 
 can concern it, as absolutely, and with as much Certainty, from 
 Christ's being King of it, as if the word, Kifig, had but one 
 Meaning, or every King the same Power. 
 
 Again, you tell us ; The grossest Mistakes in Judgment, about 
 tJie Nature of Christ's Kingdom or Church, have arisen from hence, 
 that Men have argued from other Visible Societies, and other 
 Visible Kingdoms of this World, to what oiight to be Visible and 
 Sejtsible ifi his Kingdotn. 
 
 Is it thus, my Lord ? Are all our gross Errors owing to this 
 way of Reasoning ? How then comes your Lordship to fall into 
 this grossest of Errors } How come you to state the very Nature 
 of Christ's Kingdom from the Consideration of Temporal King- 
 doms, or Absolute Monarchies ? How come you to argue from 
 the Relation between a King and his Kingdom, to what ought 
 to be in Christ's spiritual Kingdom ? Are not Kings and 
 Kingdoms Temporal Institutions? Is not the Relation betwixt 
 a King and his Kingdom a Temporal Relation .? How then can 
 you argue from these Temporal Kingdoms, to anything con- 
 cerning Christ's Kingdom } Why will your Lordship fall into 
 so gross an Error, as to assert that Christ must be sole Law- 
 giver to his Subjects, because there are some Temporal Kings 
 who are sole Law-givers to their Subjects? Is there any Con- 
 sequence in this Argument ? Nay, arc not all our Errors owing 
 to this mistaken way of arguing .'' 
 
 The only way to know the Constitution of this Kingdom, i^
 
 1 1 o T'hree Letters to 
 
 not to reason from what is implied in the Words King and 
 KingdoDi, for they do not imply any fixed, or absolute Sense, but 
 from the Laws and Institutions of it, whether they admit of or 
 require the Authority of under Magistrates. Thus, if it appears 
 that Christ has commissioned others to act in his Name, to 
 exercise Authority in his Kingdom, and govern his Subjects in 
 such a manner as he has commissioned them to govern ; Is it 
 any Answer to this, to say that the Chiu'ch is a Kingdom, and 
 Christ is a King, and consequently sole Lazv-giver in it ? Is there 
 nothing in this Text, Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth shall be 
 bound in Heaven, &c., because Christ is King of his Church ? 
 
 The whole Scheme of all your Doctrines is raised out of this 
 single Text, Aly Kingdom is not of this ]\^orld ; which certainly 
 implies no more, than if Christ had said, I am not the Temporal 
 King of the fezvs. Let us therefore see how your Lordship's 
 Doctrines appear, if we bring them to the Principle from whence 
 you had them : As thus, Jesns is not the Temporal King of the 
 Jezvs, therefore there is no such thing as Church-Authority, 
 no Obligation to join in any particular Communion, fesus 
 is not the Temporal King of the feius, therefore Absolutions, 
 Benedictions, and Excomvmnications are Dreams and Trifles ; 
 therefore no Succession or Order of Clergy is better than 
 another. 
 
 Jesus is not the Temporal King of the feus, therefore the 
 Invisible Church is the only true Church in the Mouth of a Chris- 
 tian ; therefore Sincerity alone, exclusive of any particular 
 Communion, is the only Title to God's Favour. Now if the 
 Papists should say, Jesus is not tJie Temporal King of the Jews, 
 therefore there is a Purgatory, therefore we are to pray to Saints; 
 they would shew as much true Logic and Divinity, as your 
 Lordship has shewn in the Proof of your Doctrines from the 
 above-mentioned Text. And I dare say, that every Reader of 
 this Controversy knows, that you have not pretended to any 
 other Proof from the Scriptures for your Doctrine, than what 
 your Oratory could draw from this single Text. 
 
 This therefore, I hope, every Reader will observe, that all 
 which you have advanced against the Universally Received 
 Doctrines of Christianity, is only an Hara)igue upon this single 
 Text, which everyone's common Sense will tell him, contains 
 nothing in it that can possibly determine the Cause, which you 
 are engaged in. For who can imagine, that it is as well to be a 
 sincere Turk as a sincere Christian, or that a sincere Quaker is as 
 much in the Favour of God as a sincere Churchman, because our 
 blessed Lord told Pilate, that his Kingdom teas not of this 
 World ; and that in such a manner, and upon such an occasion.
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor, 
 
 III 
 
 as only to imply that he was not that King which he enquired 
 after ? Who can conceive that there is no particular Order 
 of the Clergy necessary, no Necessity of any particular Com- 
 munion, no Authority in any Church, nor any Significancy in the 
 sacerdotal Powers, for this reason, because there is a Text in 
 Scripture, which denies that Christ was the Temporal King of the 
 Jews. 
 
 Your Lordship has said much of the Plainness and Simplicity 
 of the Gospel, and of its peculiar P"itness to be judged of, by the 
 ordinary common Sense of Mankind ; you have also interposed 
 in this Controversy, to deliver them from the Authority of the 
 Church, and turn them loose to the Scriptures. But, my Lord, 
 if this Text, My Kingdom is not of this World, which seems to 
 common Sense to contain only the Denial of a particular Ques- 
 tion, contains, as you have pretended, the whole Christian 
 Religion ; and every other seemingly plain Part of the Gospel is 
 to take its IMeaning from this Passage ; if it be thus, my Lord, 
 what can we conceive more mysterious than the Scripture ? Or 
 more unequal to the common, ordinary Sense of Men ? 
 
 For how should it come into a plain honest Man's Head, that 
 this Text, which is nothing but the Denial of a certain Question, 
 should be the Key to all the rest of Scripture ? How should he 
 know that the plainest Texts in Scripture were not to be under- 
 stood in their apparent Meaning, but in some Sense or other 
 given them from this Text ? Thus, when it is said, Go ye and 
 disciple all Nations ; andlo I am with, yon to the end of the World : 
 The first apparent Sense of these Words is this, that as Christ 
 promised to be with the Apostles in the Execution of their 
 Office, both as to Anthority and Pozuer, so he promises the same 
 to their Successors, the Bishops, since he could no otherwise be 
 with them to the End of the World, than by being with their 
 Successors. Now, my Lord, how should an ordinary Thinker 
 know that this plain Meaning of the Words was to be neglected, 
 and that he was to go to the above-mentioned Text, to learn to 
 understand, or rather disbelieve them ? For what is there in this 
 Text, My Kingdom is not of tins World, to shew either that 
 Christ did not authorise the Apostles to ordain Successors, who 
 should have his Authority, or that the Bishops alone, are not 
 such Successors ? Is there anything in this Text which can any 
 way determine the Nature, the Necessity, or the Significancy of 
 such a Succession ? 
 
 Again it is said, that There is no other Name 2inder Heaven 
 £;ivcn unto Men, zvhereby they may be saved but fesics Christ. 
 Now how should a Man that has only common Sense imagine, 
 .that he must reject this plain Meaning of the Words, and believe
 
 112 T'hree Letters to 
 
 that a sincere Turk is as much in the Favour of God as a sincere 
 Christian, for this only reason, because Chris fs Kingdom is not of 
 this World? It must not be common ordinary Sense which can 
 reason and discover at this rate. 
 
 Lastly, it is said, Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth, shall he 
 bo2uid in Heaven, &c. Now how shall anyone that has only sober 
 Sense find out, that there is nothing at all left in this Text, that 
 it only gave something or other to the Apostles, but gives no Autho- 
 rity to any Persons now, because the Kingdom of Christ is not of 
 this World. 
 
 Our Saviour told his Disciples, that thej were not of this 
 Wo7dd, but is that an Argument that they therefore became 
 immediately invisible ? Was neither St. Peter, nor St. Paul, &c., 
 ever to be seen afterwards .'' Why then must the Kingdom of 
 Christ become immediately invisible, because it is said not to be 
 of this World, any more than its first Members were Invisible, 
 who were also declared to be not of this World? 
 
 Had St. Peter or St. Panl no visible Power and Authority 
 over the Presbyters and Deacons, because they ivere not of this 
 World? If they had, why may not some Persons have Autho- 
 rity over others in Christ's Kingdom, though it is not of this 
 World? 
 
 For our blessed Lord's saying that his Disciples wej'-e not of 
 this World, does as strictly prove that St. Peter and St. /'^///had 
 no distinct Powers from Presbyters and Deacons, as his saying, 
 that his Kingdom was not of this IForld, proves that there is no 
 real or necessary Difference betwixt Bishops and Presbyters in 
 his Kin.^dom. And it is as good Logic, to say the Disciples 
 of Christ were not of this World, therefore there was no 
 Necessity, that some should have been Apostles, and others 
 Presbyters, &c., as to say Christ's Kingdom is not of this World, 
 therefore there is no Necessity that some should be Bishops and 
 others Presbyters in it. 
 
 I have been the more particular in examining the Text to 
 your Sermon, and bringing your Doctrines close to it, that every 
 Reader who has common Sense, may be able to perceive that 
 they have no more Relation to that Text from which you would 
 be thought to have them, than if you had deduced them from 
 the first Verse in the first Chapter of Genesis. 
 
 And yet thus much every Reader must have observed, that it 
 is your Explication of this Text alone, which has led you 
 to condemn all that Authority, to censure all those Institutions 
 as Dreams and Trifles, which the holy Scriptures, and the first 
 and purest Ages of Christianity, have taught us to esteem as 
 sacred in themselves, being ordained by God ; and of the
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor, 113 
 
 greatest Benefit to us, being means of obtaining his Grace, and 
 Favour. 
 
 Tlius far concerning the Nature of Christ's Church. 
 
 Of Church Authority, 
 
 I COME now to consider what your Lordship has delivered 
 upon the Article of CJiurcJi Authority, as it is invested 
 in the Governors of the Church. And here I have 
 little else to do, but to clear it from those false 
 Characters, under which you have been pleased to 
 describe it. 
 
 Thus you begin ; If there be an Authority in any to jicdge, 
 censure, or punisJi the Servants of anotJier Master, in Matters 
 purely relating to Conscience and eternal Salvatio7i ; tJien Christ 
 has left behind fudges over the Consciences and Religion of his 
 People ; then the Consciences and Religion of his People are subject 
 to them whom lie has left fudges over them ; and then there is a 
 Right in some Christians to determine the Religion and Consciences 
 of others. And what is more, if the Decisions of any Men can be 
 made to concern or affect the State of Christ's Subjects zvith regard 
 to the Favour of God, then the Salvatioji of some Christians depends 
 7ipon the Sentence passed by others.* 
 
 Here is the Sum of what you have advanced from Reason and 
 the Nature of the Thing against the Authority of Church 
 Governors ; which you would have pass for a strict Proof, that 
 if they have any Authority in Matters purely relating to Con- 
 science derived to them from Christ, that then their Authority 
 can damn or save at pleasure. 
 
 But, my Lord, in this same strict way of Reasoning, and by 
 only using your own Words, I will as plainly prove that a 
 Fatlur hath not Authority even to send his Children of an 
 Errand. 
 
 For, * If the Christian Religion authorises a Father to judge 
 ' the Servants of another Master in Matters purely relating to 
 ^Motion, then Christ has left behind him Judges over the Motion 
 
 * of his People, then the Motion of his People is subjected to them 
 'whom he has left Judges over it ; and then there is a Right in 
 ' some Christians to determine the Motion of others. And what 
 
 * is more, if the Determinations of any Men can concern or affect 
 
 * Answ. to Rcpr.-, p. 27.
 
 114 T'hree Letters to 
 
 * the State of Christ's Subjects with regard to Motion, then the 
 ' Lives of some Christians depend upon the Determination passed 
 ' by others; because 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 
 Sense, whether I have not in your ozvji Words ^^rowQd it as absurd 
 and unreasonable, that a Father should have any Power over his 
 Son, so as to send him of an Errand, as to allow the Church to 
 have Authority in Matters of Conscience and Salvation ; and the 
 Consequence, according to your Argument, is equally dreadful in 
 both Cases : For it is as plain that if Fathers have Authority 
 in Matters of Motion, then they may move their Sons to the 
 bottom of a Precipice ; as that if the Church hath Authority in 
 Matters of Salvation, then it may save or damn at pleasure ; and 
 it is as well proved, that Fathers have no Authority in Matters 
 of Motion, because they have no Authority to command their 
 Children to desti'oy themselves, as that the Church hath no 
 Authority in Matters of Conscience and Salvation, because they 
 have not an Authority to damn People for ever : For there is 
 the same room for Degrees in the Authority of the Church, 
 which there is for Degi'ees in the Authority oi Parents ; and it is 
 as justly concluded that Parents have no Authority in Matters 
 of any particular Nature, because they have not unlimited 
 Authority in things of thzt particular Nature, as that the Chuixh 
 hath no Authority in Matters of Conscience and Salvation, 
 because it has not an absolute unlimited Authority in these 
 Matters. 
 
 Yet this is the whole of your Argument against CJiurch 
 Authority, that it cannot relate to Matters of Conscience and 
 Salvation, because an Authority in these Matters, is an absolute 
 Authority over the Souls of others ; which is just as true, as if 
 anyone should declare that a Father hath no Authority in 
 Matters purely relating to the Body of his Son, because an 
 Authority in these Matters, is an absolute Authority to dispose of 
 his Body as he pleases. 
 
 Suppose it should be said, that a FatJier hath Authority over 
 his Son in Civil Affairs ; Will it be an Argument that he has no 
 such Authority, because he has not all, or an unlimited Authority 
 in Civil Affairs? Will it be an Argument that he has no 
 Authority in such Matters, because his Son is not wholly and 
 entirely subjected to him in such Matters ? Has a Father no 
 Right to choose an Employment for his Son, or govern him in 
 several things of a Civil Nature, because he cannot oblige him 
 to resign his Title to his Estate, or take from him the Benefit of 
 the Laws of the Landf
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor, 115 
 
 If he has an Authority in these Matters, though not all, why 
 cannot the Governors of the Church have an Authority in 
 Matters of Conscience, though they have not all, or an unlimited 
 Authority in Matters of Conscience ? How does it follow that 
 they have no such Authority, because Christians are not zvJiolly 
 and absohttely subjected to them in such Matters ? Why can 
 there not be Boimds to an Authority in Matters of Conscience, as 
 well as Bounds to an Authority in Civil Affairs ? And if a 
 Father may have Authority over his Son in Civil Affairs, though 
 that Authority is limited by the Laws of the Land, and the 
 superior Authority of the Civil Magistrate ; why may not the 
 Church have an Authority in Matters of Conscicjice and Salva- 
 tion, though that Authority is limited by the Scriptures, and the 
 supreme Authority of God? 
 
 He therefore who concludes the Church hath no Authority in 
 Matters of Salvation, because it cannot absolutely save or damn 
 People, reasons as strictly, as he who concludes a Person has no 
 Authoj'ity in Civil Affairs, because he cannot grant or take away 
 Civil Privileges of the highest Nature. 
 
 What therefore your Lordship has thus logically advanced 
 against the Authority of the Church, concludes with the sa7?te 
 Force against all Authority in the World. For if the Church 
 hath no Authority in Matters of Conscience, for this demonstra- 
 tive Reason, because it hath not an unlimited Authority in 
 Matters of Conscience ; then it is also demonstrated that no 
 Persons have any Authority in any particular Matters, because 
 they have not an absolute unbounded AutJiority in those particular 
 Matters. 
 
 As thus ; KPrince\idX\\ no Authority to oblige his Subjects to 
 make War against such a People, because he hath not an un- 
 limited K\iX\\ox\\.Y to oblige his Subjects to fight zf/^^/r, and when, 
 and with zvhoin he pleases. 
 
 A Father has no Authority over the Persons or Affairs of his 
 Children, because he cannot dispose of Xhe Persons a.nd Affairs o{ 
 his Children in what manner he will. 
 
 Masters have no Authority to command the Assistance of their 
 Servants, because they cannot oblige them to assist in a Rebellion 
 or Robbery, 
 
 Thus are all these particidar Aiithorities, as plainly confuted 
 by your Argument, as the Authority of the Church is confuted 
 by it. 
 
 But now, my Lord, have neither Masters, nor Fathers, nor 
 Princes, any Authority in thtsQ particular Matters, because they 
 have no Authority to command at any rate, or as they please in 
 these Matters? If they have, why may not the Governors of 
 
 8—2
 
 1 1 6 T'hree Letters to 
 
 the Church have an Authority in Matters of Conscience, though 
 they cannot oblige Conscience at any rate, or as they please ? 
 Why may not they have an Authority in Matters of Salvation, 
 though they have not Power absolutely to damn or save ? 
 
 Your Lordship would therefore have done as much Justice to 
 Truth, and as much Service to the World, if, instead of calling 
 Christians from the Authority of the Church, you had publicly 
 declared that neither Masters, nor Fathers, nor Princes, have, 
 properly speaking, any real Authority over their respective 
 Servants, Sons, and Subjects, and that because they are none of 
 them to be obeyed but in such and sucJi Circumstances, and upon 
 certain supposed Conditions. For you have plainly declared 
 there is no Authority in the Church, that it has no power of 
 obliging, because we are only to obey upon Terms and certain 
 supposed Conditions. If therefore this conditional Obedience 
 proves that there \s, properly speaking, no AutJiority in the Church, 
 then that conditional Obedience of Servants, Sons, and Subjects, 
 proves that neither their Masters, Fathers, or Princes, have any 
 Authority /r^/^r/;/ speaking. 
 
 You say ; If there be a Power in some O VER others in Matters 
 of Religion, so as to determine these others ; then all Communions 
 are upon an equal foot, zvithout any regard to any intrinsic Good- 
 ness ; or whether they be right or wrong ; then no Religion is in 
 itself preferable to another, but all are alike with respect to the 
 Favour of God!^ 
 
 Now, my Lord, all this might, with as much Truth, be said of 
 any other Authority, as of Church Authority. 
 
 As thus ; ' If there be a Power in the Prince, or in some over 
 ' others in Matters of War and Fighting, so as to determine 
 ' those others ; then all Wars and Fightings are upon an equal 
 ' foot, without any regard to any intrinsic Goodness ; or whether 
 'they be rigJit or %vrong ; then no Wars or Fightings are in 
 
 * themselves preferable to others, but all are alike with respect to 
 
 * the Favour of God.' 
 
 And now, my Lord, what must we say here } Has the Prince 
 no Right or Power to command his Subjects to wage War with 
 such a People ? Or if he has this Power over them, does this 
 make all Wars alike ? Does this Authority leave nothing to the 
 justice or Equity of Wars, but make all Wars exactly the same 
 with regard to the Favour of God } 
 
 Does this Authority of the Prince make all Engagements 
 equally lawful to the Subject that engages by his Authority ? Is 
 he neither more or less in the Favour of God, for whatever Cause 
 
 * Answ. to Repr., p. 114.
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor. 117 
 
 he fights in, because he has the Authority of his Prince ? Is it 
 as pleasing to God that under such Authority he should 
 make War upon the Innocent, plunder and ravage the Father^ 
 less and Widows, as engage in the Cause of Equity and 
 HoJtojir ? 
 
 Now, my Lord, if all Wars are not alike to the Persons who 
 are concerned in them, as to the Favour of God ; if there can be 
 any Cases supposed, where it is not only lawful, but honourable 
 dind glorious for Soldiers to disobey the Orders of their Prince ; 
 then it is past doubt, that Soldiers may and ought to have some 
 regard to the Nature and Justice of the Orders they have from 
 their Prince. 
 
 But we have your Lordship^s Assurance, that if they may have 
 any regard to the Nature and Justice of their Orders, then there 
 is an end of all Authority, and an end of all Power of one Man 
 over anotJier in such Matters. 
 
 So that you have as plainly confuted all Authority of the 
 Prittce over his Soldiers in Matters purely Military, as you have 
 confuted all Authority of the Church in Matters purely of Con- 
 science. For it is plain to every Understanding, that if there is 
 an end of all Authority in Religion, because Persons may have 
 some regard to the ijttritisic Goodness of tilings,^ that therefore 
 there is an end of all Regal Authority over Soldiers, if Soldiers 
 may have any regard to the Nature and Justice of their Military 
 Orders. 
 
 Your Argument against Church Authority consists of two 
 Parts ; XhQ first Part is taken from the Nature oi Authority, and 
 proceeds thus : If there be an Authority in Matters of Conscience, 
 it must be an absolute Authority over Conscience, so as to be obeyed 
 in all its Commands of zuhat kind soever ; which is as false as if 
 it were said, that if a Father hath Authority over the Person of 
 his Son, then he hath an absolute Authority to do what he will 
 with his Person ; or if he hath Authority over his Son in Civil 
 Affairs, then he hath an absolute unlimited Authority in the Civil 
 Affairs of his Son. 
 
 The other Part of your Argument, is taken from the Nature 
 of Obedience, and proceeds in this manner : If Persons may have 
 some regard to the intrinsic Goodness of things in Religion, then 
 there is an end oi all Authority in Matters of Religion ; which is 
 as false as to say, that if a Soldier may have some regard to the 
 Nature and Justice of the Military Orders of his Prince, then 
 there is an end of all Authority of the Prince over his Soldiers in 
 Military Affairs ; or if a Servant may have sonie regard to the 
 
 ■■'■ Anszc to Repr., p. 115.
 
 1 1 8 'Three Letters to 
 
 Lawfulness of the Commands of his Master, then there is an end 
 of all Authority of Masters over their Servants as to such 
 Matters. 
 
 So that if there be any such thing as Authority either in 
 Masters, or Fatliers, or Princes, then botJi Parts of your Argu- 
 ment are confuted ; for none of these have any other than a 
 limited Authority, nor do their respective Servants, Sons, or 
 Subjects, owe them any other active Obedience, but such as is 
 conditional. 
 
 Now if it can be any way proved that Obedience to our Masters^ 
 Parents, and Princes is a very great Duty, and Disobedience a 
 very great Sin ; though they cannot obh'ge us to act against the 
 Laws of God, or the Laws of our Country ; then it will follow 
 that Obedience to our Spiritual Governors may be a very great 
 Duty, and Disobedience a very great Sin ; though they cannot 
 oblige us to submit to their sinful or ludawful Commands. 
 
 And \i common Reason, the Laws of God, and our Country be 
 sufficient to direct us, where to stop in our active Obedience to 
 our Masters, Fathers, or Princes, though they have Authority 
 from God to demand our Obedience ; the same Guides will with 
 the same Certainty teach us where to stop in our Obedience to 
 the Authority of the Church, though that Authority be set over 
 us by God himself. 
 
 Though this might be thought sufficient to shew the Weakness 
 of your Arguments against the Authority of the Church, yet I 
 shall beg leave to examine them a little farther in another 
 manner. 
 
 You say the Authority which you deny, is only an Authority 
 in Matters relating purely to Conscience and eternal Salvation, an 
 Authority whose Laws and Decisions affect the State of Chrisfs 
 Subjects with regard to the Favour of God ; and the reason of 
 your denying it is this, that if this Authority, or Laws, or 
 Decisions of Men can concern or affect the State of Christ's Stdfects 
 ^vith regard to the Favour of God, then tJie eternal Salvation of 
 some Christians depends upon the Sentence passed by others.^ 
 
 In order to lay open the Weakness of this Reasoning, I shall 
 state the Meaning of the Propositions of which it consists. 
 
 And, first, I suppose an Authority may be properly said to 
 affect the State of People with regard to the Favour of God, 
 when their Obedience to such an Authority procures his Favour, 
 and their Contempt of it raises his displeasure ; and I believe 
 that this is not only a proper Sense, but the ofUy proper Sense 
 which the Words are capable of. 
 
 * Answ. to Repr., p. 28.
 
 the bishop of Bangor, 119 
 
 It is certainly true that the Authority of our blessed Saviour, 
 was an Authority which affected the State of the Jews with 
 regard to the Favour of God ; but yet it no otherwise affected 
 their State, than as their Obedience to his Authority was pleasing 
 to God, and their Disobedience to it, the Cause of his farther 
 Displeasure. This is the only way in which the Authority of 
 Christ affected the State of People with regard to the Favour of 
 God ; and therefore is the only manner in which any other 
 Authority can be supposed to affect Persons with regard to the 
 Favour of God. 
 
 Secondly ; Any Things or Matters may be properly said to 
 relate to Conscience and eternal Salvation, when the Observance 
 of them is a Means of obtaining Salvation, and the Neglect of 
 them, an Hindrance to our Salvation. Thus Baptism and the 
 Supper of the Lord, are Matters relating to Conscience and 
 eternal Salvatioti, but then they are only so, for this reason, 
 because the partaking of these Sacraments, is a Means of obtain- 
 ing Salvation, and the Refusal of them, is an Hindrance of our 
 Salvation. He therefore who hath Authority in sncJi tilings, as 
 by our observing of them we promote our Salvation, and by 
 our neglecting of them, we hinder our Salvation, he has in the 
 utmost Propriety of the Words, an Authority in Matters of Con- 
 science and Salvation. 
 
 Hence it appears that it is not peculiar or appropriate to the 
 Authority of the Church alone, \.o relate to Matters of Conscience 
 and eternal Salvation, but equally belongs to every other 
 Authority which can be called the Ordinance of God. 
 
 Now all lawful Authority, whether of Masters, Fathers, or 
 Princes, is the Ordinance of God, and the respective Duties of 
 their Servants, CJiildren, and Subjects, are as truly Matters of 
 Conscience and eternal Salvation, as their Observance of any 
 Part of the Christian Religion is a Matter of Conscience and 
 eternal Salvation: And it is not more their Duty to receive the 
 Sacrament, or worship God in any particular manner, than to 
 obey their respective Governors ; nor does it more concern or 
 affect their State with regard to the Favour of God, whether 
 they neglect those Duties which particularly regard his Service, 
 or those Duties which they owe to their proper Governors. So 
 that Conscience and eternal Salvation are equally concerned in 
 both Cases. 
 
 For tilings may as well be Matters of Conscience and eternal 
 Salvation, though they are of a Civil or Secular Nature, as 
 the positive Institutions of Christ are Matters of Conscience and 
 Salvation. 
 
 For Baptism has no more of Religion in its ovun Nature, nor
 
 I20 l^hree Letters to 
 
 has of itself any more concern with our Salvation, than any 
 Action that is merely Secular or Civil. But as Baptism by 
 Institution becomes our Duty, and so is a Matter of Cojiscience 
 and Salvation ; so when Actions merely Secular and Indifferent, 
 are by a Lawful Authority made our Duty, they are as truly 
 Matters of Conscience and Salvation, as any Parts of Religion. 
 
 The Difference betwixt a Spiritual and Temporal Authority 
 does not consist in this, that one relates to Matters of Conscience 
 and Salvation, and concerns and affects our State with regard to 
 the Favour of God, and the other does not ; but the Difference 
 is this, that one presides over us in things relating to Religion 
 and the Service of God, the other presides over us in things 
 relating to Civil Life ; and as our Salvation depends as certainly 
 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 Conscience and Salvation: And as the 
 Temporal Authority is the Ordinance of God, to which we are to 
 submit, not only for Wrath, but also for Conscience' sake, it 
 undeniably follows, that this Temporal KvL\}i\ox\\.y 2.^ truly concerns 
 and affects our State with regard to the Favour of God, as any 
 Authority in Matters purely relating to Religion. For such an 
 Authority could in no other Sense affect our State with regard to 
 the Favour of God, than by our Obedience or Disobedience to 
 it ; but our State with regard to the Favour of God is as truly 
 affected by our Obedience, or Disobedience to our Lawful Sovereign, 
 as by our observing or neglecting any Duty in the World ; and 
 consequently the Temporal Authority as tridy affects our State 
 with regard to the Favour of God, as any Authority in Matters 
 of Religion. 
 
 Seeing therefore, by an Authority in Matters of Conscience and 
 Salvation, by an Authority which can affect our State with 
 regard to the Favour of God, nothing more is implied, than an 
 Authority to which our Obedience is a Duty, and our Disobedience 
 a Sin, which is the Case of every Lawful Authority ; it plainly 
 appears, that all ^host frightful Consequences, those Dangers to 
 the Souls of Men which you have charged upon such Church 
 Authority, are as truly chargeable upon Masters, FatJiers, and 
 Princes, and make their several Authorities as dangerous 
 Powers over the Salvation of others, as the Authority of the 
 Church. 
 
 Thus, when your Demonstration proceeds in this manner : If 
 there be an Authority in some over others in Matters purely 
 relating to Conscience and Salvatio?i, tJien the Salvatioji of some 
 People will depend upon others. Which, if we set it in a true 
 Light, ought to proceed thus; If there be an Authority in Matters
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor. 121 
 
 of Religion, to which our Obedience is a Duty, and our Disobedience 
 a Sin, then the Salvation of some People depends upon others. 
 
 But, my Lord, what a Sagacity must he have who can see this 
 dismal Consequence ? Who can see that Masters, Fathers, and 
 Pritices, have a Power over the Souls of others, either to damn or 
 save them, because Obedience to their Authority is a Duty, and 
 Disobedience a Sin ? 
 
 Your Lordship cannot here say, that an Authority in Matters 
 purely 7'elating to Conscioice and eternal Salvation, is not expressed 
 high enough, by being described as an Authority to which our 
 Obedience is a Duty, and our Disobedience a Sin. For, my Lord, 
 no Authority, however concerned in things of the greatest Im- 
 portance in Religion and Salvation, can possibly be an Authority 
 of an higher Nature, than that Authority to zvhich our Obedience 
 is a Duty, and our Disobedience a Sin. It was in this Sense alone, 
 that the Authority of our Saviour hAvaszM affected the state of the 
 feivs with regard to the Favour of God ; his Authority was of an 
 high and concernitig Nature to them only for this Reason, because 
 their Obedience to it was their Duty, and their Disobedience 
 their Sin. 
 
 If we now consider this Authority in the Church, in this 
 true Manner in which it ought to be considered, your Lord- 
 ship's Argument against it, either proves a deal too much, or 
 nothing at all. 
 
 Thus, if the Consequence be just, that if it be Sin to disobey 
 the Church, then the Church hath a Power of damning us ; then 
 it is as good a Consequence in regard to other Authority ; as 
 thus. It is a Sin to disobey our Parents, therefore 02ir Parents have 
 a Power of damning us ; it is a Sin to disobey our Prince, there- 
 fore our Prince has a Power of damning us. These Consequences 
 are evidently diS Just and true, as that other drawn from Church 
 Authority ; so that all those dismal Charges which you have 
 fixed upon Church Authority, are as false Accounts of it, as if 
 you had asserted that every Father, or Master, or Prince, who 
 demands Obedience from his Child, Servant, or Subject, in point 
 of Duty, or by declaring that their Disobedience is a Sin, does 
 thereby prove himself to be a Pope, and to have the Souls of 
 others at his Disposal. For it is out of all doubt, that if the 
 Governors of the Church by demanding Obedience to them in 
 point of Duty, or by declaring Disobedience to be Sin, do 
 thereby assert the Claims of Popery, and assume a Power to 
 dispose of the Souls of the People ; that any other Authority 
 which requires this Obedience as a Duty of Conscience, and 
 forbids Disobedience as Si)i, does thereby claim the Authority 
 of the Pope, and pretend to a Power over the Souls of others.
 
 122 T'hree Letters to 
 
 So that if your Lordship has destroyed Church Authority, 
 which pretends Obedience to be a Duty, as a Popish Claim; you 
 have also as certainly destroyed every other Authority which 
 demands Obedience as a Duty, as being equally a Popish Pre- 
 sumption. 
 
 Whenever therefore you shall please to call away Servants, 
 Children, or Subjects from their respective Masters, Fathers, and 
 Princes, you have as many Dononstrations ready to prove them 
 all Papists, if they will stick by their Obedience to them as a 
 Duty of Conscience, and to prove their Governors all Popes, if 
 they declare their Disobedience to be Sin, as you have to prove 
 Church Authority to be a Popish Claim. And I must beg leave 
 to affirm, that they are as much misled who follow your Lord- 
 ship against the Authority of the Church, as if they should 
 follow you in the same Argument against owning any Authority 
 of their Parents and Princes. 
 
 The Intent of all this is only to shew, that though there is an 
 Authority in the Church, to which our Obedience is a Duty and 
 our Disobedience a Sin (which is as high an Authority as can 
 be claimed) yet this Authority implies no more a frightful 
 Power of disposing of our Souls, than any other Lawful 
 Authority, which it is a Sin to disobey, implies such a 
 Power. 
 
 For where is the Danger to our Souls ? How is our Salvation 
 made subject to the Pleasure of our Church Governors, because 
 God has appointed them to direct us in the manner of wor- 
 shipping him, and to preside over things relating to Religion, 
 and made it our Duty to obey them ? How does this imply a 
 dangerous Power over our Salvation ? If we sin against this 
 Authority, we endanger our Salvation as we do by neglecting 
 any other Ordinance of God ; and our Damnation is no more 
 affected by any Poiver in the Persons, whom we may be damned 
 for disobeying, than a Person that is damned for killing his 
 Father, is damned by any Poiver of his Father s. 
 
 Neither is it in the Power of the Governors in the Church, 
 though they have Authority in Matters of Salvation, to make 
 our Salvation any more difficult to us, than if they had no such 
 Authority. 
 
 For all their Injunctions must be either Lazvful, or U id awful ; 
 if they are Laivfid, then by our Obedience to an Ordinajice of 
 God, we recommend ourselves to the Favour of God ; and sure 
 there is no harm in this Authority thus far. And if their 
 Commands are Unlawfid, then by our not obeying them, we 
 still please God, in choosing rather to obey him than Men, 
 where both cannot be obeyed. And where, my Lord, is the
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor, 123 
 
 Terror of this Authority so much complained of? How does 
 this make our Salvation lie at the Mercy of our Church 
 Governors ? We are still as truly saved or damned by our own 
 Behaviour, as though they had no stich Authority over us ; and 
 though we may make their Authority the Occasion of our 
 Damnation, by our rebelling against it, yet it is only in such a 
 manner as anyone may make Baptism, or the Supper of the 
 Lord, the Occasion of his Damnation, by a profane Refusal of 
 them. 
 
 Upon the whole of this Matter, it appears, First, that when 
 the Authority of the Church is said to be an Authority in 
 Matters of Conscience and Salvation, or an Authority which 
 concerns and affects our State with regard to the Favour of God ; 
 that this is the only true Meaning of those Propositions, viz., an 
 Authority in Matters of Religion, to zuJiicJi Obedience is a Duty, 
 ajid Disobedience a Sin. 
 
 Secondly, That this Authority to which we are tJius obliged, is 
 as consistent with our working out our own Salvation, and no 
 more puts our Souls into the Disposal of such Authority, than 
 our Salvation is at the Mercy of our Parents and Princes^ 
 because to obey their Authority is 2. great Duty, and to disobey 
 it, a great Sin. 
 
 Your Lordship has yet another Argument against Church 
 A tithority, taken from the Nature of our Reformation, which it 
 seems cannot be defended, if there was then this Church Authority 
 we have been pleading for. 
 
 Thus you say ; //there be a Church Authority, I beg to know, 
 how call the Reformation itself be justified!^ 
 
 My Lord, I cannot but wonder this should be a Difficulty 
 with 3'our Lordship, who has writ so famous a Treatise to inform 
 People, how they not only may, but ought in point of Duty to 
 get rid of a real Authority ; I mean in your Defence of Resist- 
 ance. 
 
 I suppose it is taken for granted, that fajnes the Second was 
 King of England, that he had a Regal Authority over all the 
 People of England, and that they all of what Station soever were 
 his Subjects ; yet granting this Regal Authority in him, and this 
 State of Subjcctiofi in all the People of England, your Lordship 
 knows how to set aside that Government, and set up another 
 Government ; and even to make it our Duty as Men and Pro- 
 testants to set up another Government. 
 
 Now since you know how to get rid of this Authority in 
 so Christian and Protestant a manner, one cannot but wonder 
 
 * AnsTV. to Repr., p. 1 17.
 
 124 T'hree Letters to 
 
 how you should be at a loss to justify the Rejorination, without 
 supposing that the Church at tJiat time had no Authority. 
 
 For did you ever justify the Revolution, because James the 
 Second had no Kingly Anthority, or that the People of Englafid 
 were not his Subjects ? Nay, did you not defend it upon the 
 quite contrary Supposition, that though James the Second had a 
 Regal Authority, though all the People of England were his 
 Subjects, and had sworn to be his faithful Subjects, yet in spite 
 of all these Considerations, did you not assert that they not only 
 might, but ought to set him aside and choose another Governor in 
 his stead ? 
 
 And yet after all this, you know not how to defend the Refor- 
 mation, it is a perfectly lost Cause, and not a word to be said for 
 it, unless we suppose that there was no AutJwrity in the Church 
 when we reformed from it. Surely if your Lordship loved to 
 defend the Reformation, as well as you loved to defend the Revo- 
 lution, you would not have so many Reasons for one, and noneiox 
 the other. 
 
 For supposing an Authority in the Church, will not Tyramiy, 
 Breach of Fundamentals, and iinlaivfid Terms of Communion, 
 defend our Departure from a real Authority in the Church, as 
 well as any Grievances or Oppressions will defend our leaving a 
 real Authority in the State } 
 
 What 2. pitiful Advocate, what a Betrayer of the Rights of the 
 People would you reckon him, who should say, If there was any 
 Regal Authority in James tJie Second, if the People <?/" England 
 were his Subjects ; / beg to know, how can the Revolution itself 
 be justified ? 
 
 Yet just such an Advocate are you, just such a Betrayer of the 
 Reformation, you cannot defend it, it has no bottom to stand 
 upon ; and if there was any Authority in the Church before the 
 Reformation, you beg to knoiu, how the Reformation itself can be 
 justified ? 
 
 My Lord, I do not urge this to shew either that the Revolution 
 and Reformation are equally justifiable, or that they both are to 
 be justified upon the same Reasons ; but to shew that your 
 Lordship from your own Principles, needed not to have wanted 
 as good Reasons for the Reformation, as you have produced for 
 the Revolution, even supposing the Church of Rone had as real 
 an Authority over us as fanies the Second had, and that we were 
 as truly in a State of Subjection to that Church before the 
 Reformation, as we were in a State of Subjection to that King 
 before the Revolution. 
 
 Again, you proceed thus ; For there zvas tJien (at the Time of 
 the Reformation) a Church, and an Order <?/ Church- men, vested
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor, 125 
 
 with all such spiritual Authority, as is of the Essence of the 
 ChurcJi. There was tJierefore a Church Authority to oblige 
 Christians ; and a Power itt some over others. What was it 
 therefore to which we owe this very Church of England ?* 
 
 Now, my Lord, I hope you will grant, that just at the Tinne of 
 the Revolution, ' there was then a King, vested with all such Civil 
 ' Authority as is of the Essence of a King. There was therefore 
 ' a Regal Authority to oblige the People of England, and a Power 
 ' in one over others. What was it therefore to which we owe this 
 ' very Revolution in England ?' 
 
 I suppose you will say that we owe it, not to any Want of 
 Authority in the late Yi\r\g fames, but to his Abuse of his Autho- 
 rity : Why therefore is it not as easy to account for the Refor- 
 mation, not from the Want, but the Abuse of Authority in the 
 Church of Rome ? Is it an Argument that the People of 
 England were no Subjects, under no Government, nor had any 
 King, because they would no longer submit to the Oppressions 
 and Grievances of a late Reign, but asserted their Liberties and 
 appealed to the Conditions of the Original Contract ? 
 
 If not, why is it an Argument that the Church had no AutJw- 
 rity, because some Years ago the People of England would no 
 longer submit to the Corruptions, and unlawful Injunctions of 
 the Church of Rome, but appealed to the Scriptures, and the 
 Practice of "Cne. first and purest Ages of Christianity ? 
 
 If your Lordship was so entirely consistent with yourself as you 
 tell us you are ; if you never pursued an Argument farther than 
 the plain Reason of it led you ; how is it possible that you, who 
 have so strenuously defended the Resistance of People against a 
 Legal Kingf (for so you expressly call him), should declare that 
 our Separation from the Church of Rome cannot be justified, 
 without supposing that the Church of Roine had never any 
 Authority over us ? 
 
 For supposing that Church had been really our Sovereign in 
 Affairs of Religion, is it not strange that you, who have asserted 
 that o\xr present Settlement is owing entirely to the taking up Arms, 
 a7id adhering to such as zvere in Arms against their Sovereign, J 
 should yet declare that our opposing the Church of Rome, 
 cannot be justified but by supposing, that she never had any 
 Sovereignty over us ? 
 
 Is it not yet stranger, that you, who have defended the Revo- 
 lution by comparing it to the Reformation, should yet declare 
 that the Reformation cannot be justified without supposing that 
 
 * Aiisw. to Repr., p. ii8. 
 
 \ Sev. Tracts, p. 332. X Ibid., p. 366.
 
 126 T'hree Letters to 
 
 the Church of England was under 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 opposing 
 that Church be compared to the resisting oi K.ing /ajnes ? How 
 could our Separation from that Church be a Defence of our zc///^- 
 drawing our Allegiance from YJ\x\g Jai>ies, without supposing that 
 the Church before that Separation, had as Real and Legal Autho- 
 rity as that King had before the Revolution ? 
 
 Your Words are these ; Why should that {i.e., Resistance) be 
 absolutely and entirely condemned, as a damnable Sin, any more 
 than Church Separation, by which we got rid of the Tyranny of 
 Rome ? And again, All Cluirch Reformation is 7iot Church 
 Destruction ; Why therefore must all Resistance be called 
 Rebellion ?* 
 
 Now is it not very strange, my Lord, that after this, you 
 should assert that the Church had no Authority before the 
 Reformation ; and that if it had any Authority, then our 
 Separation from it cannot hejustifed? Is not this very strange, 
 after you had used it as an 7\rgument to justify the withdrawing 
 of our Allegiance from King fames the Second ? 
 
 For let us suppose with you, that there was no ChurcJi 
 Authority at the time of the Reformatio)!, and then see how 
 excellent an Argument you have found out in Defence of the 
 Revolution, which, upon this Supposition, must proceed in this 
 manner. 
 
 The Church of England might separate from the Church of 
 Rome, who had tio AutJiority over her ; therefore the People of 
 England might resist their Legal King, who had a Regal 
 Authority over them. Again, The Clergy of England, who 
 were no Subfects of the Church of Rome, migJit separate from 
 that Church ; therefore the People of England, who were 
 Subfects to King faijies the Second, might withdraw their 
 Allegiance from him. 
 
 Thus absurd is your Argument made, by supposing that the 
 Church had not as real and rightful an Authority before the 
 Reformation, as fames the Second had before the Revolution. 
 
 Farther ; Let us suppose with your Lordship, 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 iinfustifiable; 
 let us suppose that this Doctrine is true, and then see how con- 
 sistently you have argued upon this Supposition. 
 
 You say the ReformatioJi cannot be justified ; it has no bottom 
 to stand upon, if the Church of Rome had a real Authority ; yet 
 
 * Sev. Tracts, p. 334.
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor, 127 
 
 this Opposition, which is so entirely wrong, because an Opposition 
 to Authority, is brought by you as a parallel Case to prove that 
 the Resistance against the AntJiority of YAr\g James was entirely 
 right. This Reformation, which if it was brought about against 
 any Church Authority, is said to be for that very Reason without 
 any bottom, and to have no Foundation, is used by your Lordship 
 to point out the true Bottom and firm Fontidation of the Revo- 
 lution. 
 
 And here let all the World judge, whether Reason and 
 Religion alone can induce anyone to maintain the Truth, the 
 Justice, the Honour, the Christianity of the Revolution, as 
 founded upon Resistance to a Legal King ; and yet condemn at 
 the same time the Reforjuation, as having neither Reason, nor 
 Truth, nor Justice to support it, as founded upon a Departure 
 from a real Authority in the Church of Rome. For Reason and 
 Religion do as plainly give leave to depart from the highest 
 Authority in the Church, when the Laws of God cannot be 
 observed without departing from it, as in any other Case ; and 
 there is no more Necessity of supposing or proving that there 
 was no rightful Authority in the Church, to justify our departing 
 from it, than it is necessary to prove such a Person not to be my 
 Father, or to have no Authority over me, in order to justify my 
 disobeying his unlazvfid Commands. 
 
 Again, your Lordship is farther at a loss about the Reforma- 
 tion, which cannot possibly be justified, if afterwards, an Authority 
 in Matters of Conscience and Salvation, be still claimed. 
 
 Thus you say ; Nor can I ever 7mderstand, itpon this bottom 
 (viz., the claiming such Authority) what it was that coidd move 
 ^r justify tJiose, who broke off from the Tyramiy of the Church of 
 Rome ; unless it be sufficient to say, that it was 07ily that Power 
 might change Hands.* 
 
 Here your Lordship cannot conceive anything more unjustifi- 
 able than the Reformation, if Chicrch Authority \s still to be kept 
 up ; nor can you upon this Claim assign any other Pretence for 
 reforming, but only that Power might change Hands. 
 
 Did your Lordship then never hear of the Justice of removing 
 one Authority, and setting up another ? Can you think of no 
 Case, where Equity, Honour, and Duty, called upon a People to 
 resist one Power, and yet make another to succeed ? 
 
 Now if this Practice can be equitable and honourable, and is 
 asserted to be so by your Lordship, can it be conceived, that 
 Reason alone should induce you to load the Reformation with so 
 much Guilt and Injustice, to condemn it as so groundless an 
 
 Answ. to Repr., p. 48.
 
 128 'Three Letters to 
 
 Undertaking ; because though it set aside the Tyrannical 
 Authority of the Church of Rome, yet it asserted a true Church 
 Authority, and made Obedience to it necessary to obtain the 
 Favour of God. 
 
 Suppose some Friend to the Revolution, after hearing that the 
 Prince of Orange was proclaimed King, and a Regal Authority 
 set up, should then have said in your Lordship's Words, / can 
 never understand, upon this bottom, what it was that could move 
 €r justify those, who broke off from the Tyranny of the late King 
 James ; tinless it was sufficient to say, that it was only that Power 
 might change Hands. 
 
 I appeal to your Lordship, whether anything could be more 
 extravagant and senseless, than such a Declaration as this from a 
 Friend to the Revolution. 
 
 And I as freely appeal to the common Sense of everyone, 
 whether your ozvn Declaration expressed in the same Words 
 with regard to the Reformation, sets you out to any better 
 Advantage in relation to that. 
 
 For it is full as good Sense to say, where is the justice of the 
 Revolution, or what Foundation has it in the Reason of Things, 
 if there is still a. King to be acknowledged, and a Regal Authority 
 to be submitted to .'' as to call out for the justice, and Equity, 
 and Reason of the Reformation, if there is still a Church 
 AutJwrity which we are obliged to obey. And it is as certainly 
 the Shame and Reproach and Injustice of the Revolution, that a 
 Government and Regal Authority is still maintained, as it is the 
 Shame, and Reproach, and Injustice of the Reformation, that a 
 ChurcJi Authority is still asserted. 
 
 And there was no more Necessity in the Nature or Reason of 
 the Thing, that the Reformation should disown all Authority 
 properly so called, in Matters of Religion, than that the Revolu- 
 tion should have rejected all Authority properly so called in 
 Civil Affairs. Neither does the Reformation any more con- 
 tradict itself, or undermine its own Foundation, and give the 
 Papists an Advantage over it, by claiming and asserting a Church 
 AutJwrity, than the Revolution contradicted itself, or conspired 
 its own Ruin, by setting up a King, and maintaining a Govern- 
 ment in the State, And it had been just as ivise, 2js, prudent, and 
 politic Management, if the Revolution had set up no Government, 
 but left every Man to himself in Civil Affairs, in order to have 
 prevented the Return of the late ¥J\x\^ fames ; as if the Reforma- 
 tion had maintained no Church Authority, but left every Person's 
 Religion to himself, in order to keep out Popery. And it is just 
 as much Matter of Joy and Triumph to the Papists, to see this 
 Authority asserted in the Church of Englajid, as it was Matter
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor, 129 
 
 of Joy to the late King- James, to find that a Regal Authority 
 was set up against 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 of Rome, therefore we may lawfully depart from any 
 Church Authority. And again ; at the Reformation we lawfnUv 
 separated from the Conminnion of the Chnrch of Rome, therefore 
 we may as lazvfully separate from any particular Commtinioti. 
 
 And now, my Lord, can any Argument be more trifling, or 
 draw more absurd Consequences after it, than this .-' And yet, 
 absurd as it is, it is one of your best, and which you seem to take 
 great Delight in : Thus are we told in almost every Page, that if 
 we will stand by the Reason 3,nd Justice of the Reformation, we 
 must give up all Authority in Matters of Religion; and not 
 pretend to a Necessity of being of zx\y particular Church, if we 
 would justify our leaving the Romish Church. 
 
 But pray, my Lord, you have told us, that the People of 
 England oi all Stations did lazufully and honourably, &c., resist 
 the late Yiing James ; but does it therefore follow, that they may 
 as lazifully and honourably resist King George ? If not, how 
 does it follow, that because we might Justly separate from the 
 Church of Rome, therefore others may as Justly separate from 
 the Church o{ England? 
 
 Is it inconsistent with the Principles of the Revolution to 
 declare Men Rebels, because it was founded (as you affirm) upon 
 Resistance? If not, why must it be inconsistent with the Prin- 
 ciples of the Church of England, to declare any people 
 Schismatics, because she separated from the Church of Rome ? 
 Now if you will say that all who take Arins at any time against 
 any King, are justified by those, who took Arms against the late 
 King James ; then you would have some Pretence to make our 
 Separation from the Church of Rome a Justification of every 
 other Separation in the World. But since you cannot say this, 
 but have pretended to demonstrate the contrary, that though 
 sometimes Resistance is not Rebellion, yet sometimes Resistance 
 certainly is Rebellion, you are particularly hard to the Reforma- 
 tion, to make it either unjustifiable in itself, or else to be a 
 Justification of every other pretended Reformation. 
 
 But however, as hard as you are upon the Reformation in this 
 Place, making it, considered as a Separation, a Defence of all 
 other Separations from the Church of England ; yet you your- 
 self, to shew your equal regard to both sides of a Contradiction, 
 have asserted the contrary, and declared that as all Resistance is 
 not Rebellion, so neither is all Separation Schism. 
 
 9
 
 130 T'hree Letters to 
 
 Now, I suppose, when you say that all Resistance is not 
 Rebellion, it is certainly imph"ed that some Resistance may be 
 Rebellion; and likewise by declaring in the same manner all 
 Separation not to be Schism, it must as necessarily be implied 
 that so7ne Separation may be Schism. Here therefore you 
 plainly teach us, that some Separation may be Schism, and some 
 Separation may not be Schism; yet your present Argument is 
 founded upon the contrary Supposition, that either all Separa- 
 tions are Laivfnl, or none are Lazvful; for it is the constant 
 Complaint in every Chapter of your Book, that the Church of 
 ^;/^/c?;/(^ should assert any Necessity or Obligation upon others 
 of conforming to her, when she herself denied the Necessity of 
 her conforming to the Church of Rome. So that the Lazufulness 
 or Justice of her Separation from Rome, is urged to shew the 
 equal Laivfnlness 2Si(\ Justice of all Separations from the Church 
 of England ; which Argument is plainly founded upon this 
 Proposition, that all Separations from any Churches, are either 
 equally Lawful, or equally Unlawful. Which is directly con- 
 trary to this other Proposition, that some Separation may be 
 Schism, and some Separation may not be Schism. Which 
 Contradiction is just as palpable, as if you had said, all Resistance 
 is not the Sin of Rebellion ; yet all Resistance is either equally 
 lawful, or equally unlawful. 
 
 But to go on, you say that all Resistance is not Rebellion, 
 and for a Proof of it, say, that all Church Separation is not 
 Schism ; which plainly implies, that there is at least as much 
 Difference betwixt some Sepaj^ations from different Churches, as 
 there is betwixt some armed Resistances against differoit Kings. 
 Now if, according to your Lordship, there is as much Difference 
 betwixt Resistances, as there is betwixt an Action that is a 
 D2ity, and an Action that is a Sin, and you have proved this 
 Difference, by comparing those Resistances to different sorts of 
 Separations, then it will necessarily follow that there may be, 
 nay must be, as much Difference betwixt one Separation and 
 another Separation, as there is betwixt one Action that is a 
 Duty, and another Action that is a Si^i. This being the true 
 State of the Case, your Lordship's Argument in Defence of the 
 Separatists, taken from our Separatio7i from the Church of Rome, 
 will stand thus. 
 
 We separated from the Church o{ Rome, because such Sepai'a- 
 tion was our Duty, therefore the Fanatics may separate from the 
 Church of England, though sucJi Separation is a Sin : Which is 
 as rational an Argument, as if it should be said, such a one 
 killed a Man lawfully, therefore anyone else may kill a Man 
 unlawfully. For if some Separation may be a Duty, and some
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor. 
 
 131 
 
 Separation a Sin, it is as false and ridiculous to infer, that if our 
 Separation is just, it justifies all other Separations ; as to con- 
 clude, that because we may do our Duty, others may transgress 
 their Diity. For there is manifestly, and from your own Acknow- 
 ledgment, this great Difference between one Separation and 
 another Separation, that one Separation in such Circumstances, 
 will no more justify a Separation in other Circumstances, than 
 the Lawfulness of killing a Man in some Cases, will prove it 
 lawful to kill a Man in all other Cases. 
 
 Now if your Lordship has any Demonstrations ready, to show 
 that Resistance in some Circumstances is a Christian Duty, and 
 Resistance in some other Circumstances is a damnable Sin ; and 
 that it may be as great a Sin to resist some Princes, as it is a 
 Duty to resist others ; if you can help us to any plain Rule, any 
 certain Signs to know an honest Christian Resister, from a 
 Resister who is a Rebel and in danger of Damnation ; I hope 
 there may be found as plain Rules to shew us who separates 
 lazufuliy, and who separates nnlawfully from any particular 
 Church. If you can give any Reasons why the late l\.\ng James 
 might be i^esisted then, and yet show it a Sin to resist King 
 George noiu, it is something strange that you cannot find any 
 Reasons, why it was our Duty to separate from the Church of 
 Rome then, and yet shew it a Sin to separate from the Church 
 of England noiv. 
 
 For I would suppose at least, that there is as much Difference 
 between separating from the Church of England and separating 
 from the Church of Rome, as there is betwixt Resistance against 
 a good King, and Resistance against a Tyrannical Oppressor ; 
 and if there be this Difference, then you must allow, that it is as 
 false to argue from the Lazufidness of separating from one 
 Church, to the Laivfulncss of separating from the other, as it 
 would be to argue, that because oppressive Tyrants may be 
 resisted, therefore just and good Kings may be resisted. I have 
 been the longer in examining this Doctrine, in this particular 
 View in relation to Resistance, that it may be seen with how 
 much Truth you say, you have recommended such Principles as 
 serve to establish the Interest of our common Country and our 
 common Christianity, of huvuxn Society and true Religion, upon 
 one uniform, steady, and consistent Foundation.* 
 
 For it is evident that these Principles, if put in Practice, 
 directly tend to the utter Ruin of our common Country, and our 
 common Christianity ; for I have shewn that all the Arguments 
 which you have advanced against Church Authority, if they 
 
 Pj-eJ. to Com. Rights of Subjects. 
 
 9—2
 
 132 T'hree Letters to 
 
 have any Force, conclude with the same Force against all sorts 
 of Authority in the World. 
 
 I shall now proceed to a most remarkable evasive Denial of 
 everything you have said relating to Church Authority, from 
 your own Mouth. 
 
 A Remarkable Evasion of your Lordship's 
 in relatio7t to Church Authority, 
 
 THE Learned Committee charged your Lordship with 
 denying all Authority to the Church, and leaving it 
 zvithout any Authority to Judge, cejisure, or punish 
 Offenders in the Affairs of Consciejice and eternal 
 Salvation.^ To support this Charge, they quoted 
 these Words of your Sermon ; Christ is sole Lawgiver to his 
 Subjects, and himself sole Judge of their Bchaviotir in the Affairs 
 of Conscience and Salvation ; in these Points he hath lejt behind 
 him no visible human AutJiority. 
 
 Now how is it that your Lordship has cleared yourself from 
 this Charge ? Why truly by declaring, that by a Denial of all 
 CJiurch Authority, you only meant to deny to the Governors of 
 the Church a Power of passing the irreversible Seiitence, or that 
 Christ has left no visible Authority here to Judge People at the 
 last Day. When you talked so much of Church Authority in 
 Matters of Religion, and oi an Aiithorlty left behind, it was very 
 reasonable to think that you were speaking of an Authority 
 which related to the Church in this World. But it seems, all 
 you have denied in relation to Church Authority, is only this, 
 that anyone but Christ shall pass the irreversible Sentetice, or 
 judge us at the last Day. 
 
 For you sa}^ ; As Christ is to pass the irreversible Sentence, thus 
 he is Judge alone. And what I affirm of Jiim, / deny of others in 
 the same Sense in which L affirm it of him : And in no other Sense 
 can L be supposed to deny it, because it anszuers no Pujpose.-f 
 
 Therefore when you say no Men have any Authority in Affairs 
 of Religion and Conscience, you only say that no Men have 
 Authority to pass the irreversible Sentence at the last Day. For 
 you declare that thus it is that Christ alone is Judge, and }-ou 
 only deny that of others, which you affirm of him, and con- 
 
 * Repres., p. 4. t Anszu. to Repr., p. T)2)-
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor. 133 
 
 sequently the only Authority which you deny them, is that of 
 judging the World at the last Day. 
 
 Strange ! my Lord, that after so many elaborate Pages for 
 ecclesiastical Liberty, so many Compliments received for your 
 successful Attacks upon Church Authority ; that after all, you 
 should declare, that you have not so much as touched upon 
 Church Authority, but have only been labouring to demonstrate 
 that the Judgmoit of the last Day is committed to Christ alone. 
 
 Christ, you say, is in no other Sense Jiidge of the Behaviour of 
 Christians in these Points, than as their Condition must and will 
 be determined by his Sentence. And zu hen I deny this of Men, I 
 do not, I cannot, mean to deny this of them in any other Sense, but 
 that in which I affirm it of CJirist!^ 
 
 So that when you in plain Words seem to deny all Authority 
 in the Church, as by saying, that Christ alone is fiidge of the 
 BeJiaviour of Christians, in Matters of Religion, and that he left 
 behind him no visible luivian Authority in these Points ; and such 
 like Phrases, as seem to ordinary Understandings to deny all 
 Ride and Authority in the Church ; you only mean, that no one 
 but Christ is to pass the Sentence at the last Day. This is the 
 Key your Lordship has given us to your Writings, which indeed 
 gives them quite another Face, and makes them such a Course 
 oi Amusements, as exceeds all which have yet been seen in that 
 kind ; as will appear from the following Particulars. 
 
 Thus when you say, that in the Affairs of Conscience and 
 Salvation, Christ hath left no visible human Authority behind 
 him. The Meaning is this, that Christ hath left no body behind 
 him in this World, to pass the irreversible Sentence in the next 
 World, i.e., hath left no one to do that Jiere, which cannot be 
 done till hereafter. This is the sublimcst Sense which this 
 Passage is capable of, from your own Construction. 
 
 Again, you say, the Church of Christ is the Number of Persons 
 who are sincerely and zvillingly Subjects to him as their Lawgiver 
 and fudge ;t which according to this new Key, is to be thus 
 understood ; The Church of Christ is the Number of Persons zvho 
 will sincerely and willingly submit to the Sentence of Christ at the 
 last Day. For you say, we are to submit to him as our Judge ; 
 and you expressly say, he is in no other Sense Judge of the 
 Behaviour of Christians, than as he is to pass the irreversible 
 Sentence ; therefore if we are to be willingly and sincerely subject 
 to him as fudge, our Obedience or Subjection to him as Judge, 
 can be no otherwise expressed, than by our Submission to his 
 Sentence then pronounced. 
 
 * Anszu. to Repr., p. 46. f Serm., p. 25.
 
 134 T'hree Letters to 
 
 So that this Definition comes at last to signify a Number of 
 Persons, who sincerely and willingly submit, some to be saved, 
 and some to be damned at the last Day ; for this will be the 
 Effect of Christ's Sentence as Judge. 
 
 This is as sound Divinity, as if I should define the Church of 
 Christ, to be a Number of Persons, who sincerely and willingly 
 S7ibmif, some to live, and some to die. 
 
 Again, you say, that your Doctrines relating to the Atithority of 
 the ChurcJi, is the very Foundation on which the Church of 
 England stands ; and that they are so necessary for its continu- 
 ance, that without them it is impossible to defend its Cause against 
 the Roman Catholics. 
 
 Now your Doctrine concerning Church Authority, you have 
 over and over declared to be only this, that Christ alone shall 
 Judge the World at the last Day. For you expressly say, that 
 you deny the Church an Authority of judging in no other Se?ise, 
 than in the Sense in which you affirm it of Christ. 
 
 Now, my Lord, how comes this Doctrine to be the Support of 
 the Church of England? How can it possibly have any relation 
 to the Merits of the Cause ? Does it follow that the Pope had 
 no Eegal Authority in England, that Transubstantiation is false, 
 that Purgatory is a groundless Fiction, and Pi'ayers to Saints 
 are unlawful, because Christ alone shall Judge the World? This 
 is what you have affirmed of Christ, this is all which you have 
 denied of Men ; and this Doctrine it seems about Church 
 Authority, Tis, you are pleased to call it, is the only Support oi 
 the Church of England, and the vejy Foundation on %vhiclt it 
 stands. 
 
 A Roman Catholic tells me that Transubstantiation is true ; J 
 answer him no, that cannot be, and that for this reason, because 
 no Order of Men shall judge us at the last Day ; Christ alone 
 should do it. Could anything be more extravagant, or more 
 foreign to the Purpose, than such an Answer as this to a Romaji 
 Catholic ? And yet, according to your Account of the Matter, 
 this is the only Answer which can be defended. For you have 
 denied no Atithority to the Church, but that which peculiarly 
 belongs to Christ as Judge at the last Day ; and yet you say that 
 your Doctrine relating to Church Authority, is the very Founda- 
 1 ion and Support of the Refornuxtion . 
 
 Now if this Doctrine be our only Defence against the Church 
 of Rome, and what alone supports us against that Church, then 
 the Presbyterians, the Independents, Quakers, and all sorts of 
 Fanatics, who own this Doctrine, that Christ alone shall pass the 
 last Sentence, are by it as well defended against the Church of 
 England, as she is against the Church of Rome ; so that it makes
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor, 135 
 
 us as much wrong in regard to the Dissenters, as it makes us 
 right in regard to the Papists ; and though it should give us 
 Victory over the Papists, yet it makes us fall a Conquest to 
 the Fanatics. For it is certainly as proper for a Quaker to 
 reply to the Church of Eftghind, that his Reformation is justified 
 against the Authority of the Church of England, because 
 Christ alone shall judge the World at the last Day ; as for 
 the Church of England to make that Answer to the Church of 
 Rome. 
 
 Your Lordship says, for you to deny Church Authority in any 
 other Sense, answers no Purpose. Pray, my Lord, what Purpose 
 does this manner of denying answer ? Here is a Dispute about 
 Church Authority, and the Powers of Ecclesiastical Governors : 
 Your Lordship interposes, and declares that no Man shall pass 
 the irreversible Sentence at the last Day. To what Purpose, my 
 Lord, is this Declaration ? Does it strike any Light into the 
 Controversy, or any way point out the Merits of the Cause ? 
 Does this inform us whether there is any such thing as Church 
 Authority, or where it is seated ? If two Families were trying 
 their Title to the same Estate, and the Judge should pretend to 
 determine the Matter, by saying that God alone is sole Proprietor 
 of all Things, it would be as much to the Purpose, as to tell us 
 in the Controversy about Church Authority, that Christ alone 
 shall judge the World. Does this any way prove that there is 
 no human Authority in the Church, or that Christians are no 
 way concerned with it? What an excellent Argument is this? 
 Christ alo?ie s\i3.\\ judge the World, therefore no Men have any 
 Authority in Religion, therefore it can no way affect you with 
 regard to the Favour of God, whether you submit or not, to such 
 human Authority? 
 
 Whether your Lordship is forced upon this Method of explain- 
 ing yourself, by any other Motives than those of Sincerity and 
 Conviction, is what I shall not presume to say ; but I believe, if 
 a Person should be called to account for saying the Kinghd^d no 
 Right to create Peers, and should afterwards defend himself, by 
 saying that he only meant he could not create in that Sense, in 
 which God alone could create ; I am apt to think such a Defence 
 would be no great Recommendation of his Sincerity. But, my 
 Lord, it would be as proper and as ingenuous for a Person so 
 accused to make such a Defence, or rather such an Escape, as 
 for your Lordship, after the most express repeated Denials of all 
 Church Authority, to declare that you only meant to exclude it 
 from passing the irreversible Sentence at the last Day. And the 
 Nature of Church Authority is as much settled and determined 
 by this Declaration, as the King's Power in his Kingdom, as to
 
 136 'Three Letters to 
 
 the Creation of Peers, is declared by saying that God alone can 
 create. 
 
 For is it any Argument that no Persons have any particular 
 Authority to baptize others, to admit to the holy Sacrament, and 
 exclude unworthy Persons from it, because they are not to judge 
 the World at the last Day ? Is it a Proof that Bishops have no 
 Authority to ordain, to confirm ; no Commission from God to 
 take care of Religious Matters, and see that all Things in the 
 Divine Service be done decently and in order, because Christ 
 alone is to pass Judgment upon all at the last Day ? Does 
 it follow that Men are under no Church Authority, but may 
 choose any Government, or no Government as they please, 
 because Christ alone shall call the World to Judgment? There 
 is as much Logic in saying that Jesus 67/;7>/ suffered under Pontius 
 Pilate, therefore Bishops have no more Authority than Lay- 
 men ; as to say they have no Authority in Religious Affairs, 
 because Christ is to judge the World. 
 
 Yet you say this was the only proper Sense in which you 
 could be supposed to deny it. Now, my Lord, I should have 
 thought it had been more to the Purpose, to have denied Church 
 Authority in some such Sense, as it had been falsely claimed by 
 somebody or other, that it might have been said that you had an 
 Adversary somewhere or other. But in this Matter, you have 
 rot so much as an Adversary in this World ; for no one pretends 
 to be Judge, as Christ is Judge, or sets up the Authority of the 
 Church iri Opposition to the last Tribunal ; yet this is the only 
 manner of Judging, the only sort of Authority, which you say 
 you have denied to others ; therefore you have only denied that 
 which was never claimed ; you have only denied that which no 
 more relates to Church Authority, than it relates to Church 
 Music. The Pope himself neither pretends to pass Sentence at 
 the last Day, nor that his Judgments here will have any Effect in 
 the next World, but conditionally, that is, Clave non errante. 
 Now this is not a Sense in which Christ alone is Judge, therefore 
 it is not a Sense in which you have denied it to others. So that 
 notwithstanding this long elaborate Treatise against Church 
 Tyranny and Popish Claims, Popery itself is as safe and sound as 
 ever it was. For you have denied this Power of Judging in no 
 other Sense, than as you have affirmed it of Christ, as he is to 
 pass the last irreversible Sentence at the Day of Judgment ; but 
 the Pope does not claim it in that Sense, therefore the Papal 
 Power is untouched by your Lordship. 
 
 Here I must observe, how your Lordship has evaded the great 
 Points in Dispute, both concerning the Avr/wrt' of the Church, and 
 Church Authority. When you were charged with describing the
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor. 137 
 
 Church contrary to Scripture and the Article in the Church of 
 England; your Answer was, that you had only described the 
 Invisible C/inrch ; which was saying in other VVords, that in a 
 Dispute amongst Visible Churches, and about Church-Com- 
 munion, you described a Church which had no relation to the 
 Matter, nor ever can have to any Dispute amongst Christians. 
 This, my Lord, to speak tenderly of it, may be called only an 
 Evasion. 
 
 Again, as to Church Authority, your Lordship has been 
 charged with denying it all, and leaving it no right to judge or 
 censure in the Affairs of Conscience. Your Answer is this, that 
 you have only denied that Christ has left any Men hereto judge 
 us at the last Day. That is, in a Controversy about the Existence 
 of Church Authority, the Extent and Obligation of its Laws, you 
 have only denied such an Authority as nobody claims, nor 
 ever will be executed, till all Visible Churches, and Disputes 
 about them, will be at an end, viz., at the Day of Judgment. 
 
 This, my Lord, is another Evasion, and that in the very chief 
 Point in Dispute, where Sincerity should have obliged you to 
 have been open, clear, and express. But no sooner are you 
 touched upon this Point, but you fly into the Clouds, and the very 
 Dissenters themselves lose sight of you. 
 
 Thus when you had plainly said, that Christ hath left behind 
 him no visible Jiuman Authority in the Affairs of Conscience, the 
 Dissenters might justly think they had nothing to be charged 
 with for their Disobedience to Bishops ; they might well think 
 that they were left to any Government, or no Government in 
 Religion, as they pleased, since Christ had left no visible human 
 Authority ; but then how must they be astonished, my Lord, to 
 find that your Assertion about Church Authority, does not at all 
 relate to the Church in this World, but to the Exercise of a 
 certain Authority in the next World, after all Churches on the 
 Earth are at an end ? To find that you have denied no Autho- 
 rity to any Men, but that which peculiarly belongs to Christ at 
 the last Day ? That is, that you denied no Authority which ever 
 was claimed either by P}vtestant or Popish Churches, or indeed 
 which relates to the Church in this World ? 
 
 Suppose, when his Majesty was last at Hanover, anyone should 
 have asserted, that the Regency had no Authority in Civil 
 Matters ; would the Regency have thought it any Excuse, if he 
 had said that he only meant they were not the Governors of 
 Hanover? Yet, my Lord, it would be as proper an Apology 
 for him who had denied the Power of the Regency in Great 
 Britain, to say he only meant they had not the supreme Power 
 in Hanover, as for your Lordship, after a Denial of all Visible
 
 138 
 
 T'hree Letters to 
 
 Church Authority in this World, to say you only denied an 
 Authority to pass the irreversible Sentence in the next World. 
 
 Thus has your Lordship left the Dispute, and only pretended 
 to deny that which nobody ever claimed, viz., that any Men have 
 Authority to Judge the ]Vortd in Christ's stead, or pass the irre- 
 versible Sentetice at the last Day. Your Lordship is here appre- 
 hensive, that you shall be charged with fighting without an 
 Adversary, and therefore )'ou point out several, and say, I meant 
 it against those, zvho are so very free in declaring others of Christ's 
 Subjects out of God's Favour ; and in obliging Almighty God, to 
 execute the Sentences of Men. 
 
 There has been indeed, my Lord, a Number of Men, ever since 
 Christianity appeared in the World, who have been very free in 
 declaring Heretics and Schismatics out of God's Favour, and who 
 have maintained that these Heretics and Schismatics, when 
 censured by the Church, cannot be received into God's Favour, 
 but by their submitting to, and returning to the Church. But 
 now, if your Lordship means your Doctrine against these, you 
 are still without an Adversary, and might as v/ell mean it against 
 no Body ; for these Men never pretended to Judge others in 
 Christ's stead, or to erect an Ecclesiastical Authority in Opposition 
 to tJie Great Tribunal, zuliich is the only Authority you pretend to 
 deny. 
 
 You go on : If we had ?iot such amongst Protestants ; yet it 
 might be pardonable to guard our People against the Presump- 
 tions of the Roman Catholics ; zuJlo assume to themselves that 
 Power offudgmoit, ivhich Christ alone can have. 
 
 Surely your Lordship must have so great an Aversion to 
 Popery, that you never could so much as look into their Books ; 
 for otherwise I cannot conceive how you should not know, that 
 the Roman Catholics pretended to no Power of Judging so as to 
 affect People, but upon certain Conditions, as Clave non errante ; 
 but I suppose this is not a Power of Judging which belongs to 
 our Saviour ; Clave non er^-ante has no Place in his Judgments. 
 How then can your Lordship charge the Papists with assuming 
 his Power, when that which they assume, cannot be ascribed to 
 him without Blasphemy? So that, my Lord, it is just as pardon- 
 able to guard your People against these Presumptions, as it is to 
 alarm them with false and imaginary Dangers. 
 
 Again you say ; But how lately is it, that zve have had People 
 terrified zvitJi this very Presumption, even by Protestants ; and the 
 Terms of Church Poiver, and the spiritual fatal Effects of Church 
 Censures, made use of to frighten Men into a separate Com- 
 munion ? 
 
 Mv Lord, I shall not here enter into the Merits of that Con-
 
 the bishop of Bangor, 139 
 
 troversy, which your Lordship here points at ; it being the 
 Doctrine itself which your Lordship blames, and not the Mis- 
 application of it. Thus you censure them, not because they 
 would draw People from a true Church to z. false one, but because 
 they pretend to frighten Men out of one Communion into an- 
 other. This is your Lordship's heavy Charge against them, that 
 they should presume to talk of the Differences of Communions, 
 and prefer one Communion to another. So that whoever thinks 
 any way of Worship to be dangerous, and endeavours to with- 
 draw People from it, is here censured by your Lordship, as 
 pretending to judge in Christ's stead, and setting up an Authority 
 in Opposition to the last Day. 
 
 Your Lordship saith, it is with this very Presumption (i/zk, that 
 they can pass the irreversible Sentence) that these Men have 
 endeavoured to frighten. People into a separate Coniniimion. If I 
 should say, that it is upon Presumption that Christ never appeared 
 in the World, that your Lordship has delivered your late Doc- 
 trines, I should freely submit to the Charge of Calunmy ; and I 
 am sure your Lordship has ventured as far, in saying that it was 
 with this very Prcsnmptio7i that these Men delivered such 
 Doctrines. And your Lordship has as much reason to charge 
 them with Atheism, as with this very Presumption ; for they no 
 more presume to Judge in Chrisfs stead, or pass the irreversible 
 Sentence, than they presume there is no God. 
 
 Your Lordship has still, it seems, another Adversary, a late 
 Writer (the Dean of CJiicJiester) zvJio has spoken unwarily of the 
 Effects of the spiritual Punishments, the Church inflicts, being 
 generally suspended till the Offender comes into the other IVorld* 
 
 This first Censure is very modest, carrying it no farther than 
 an unwary Expression; but presently the Charge advances; and, 
 you say, if it be tJnis, you confess you think the Condition of 
 Christians fnuch worse than the Condition in ivhicJi St. Paul 
 describes the HcatJiens, zuho are left to their ow7i Consciences and 
 the righteous fudgment of God. So that at last it comes to this, 
 that the Dean has taught such Doctrine, as makes it more desir- 
 able to be a Heathen than a Christian. 
 
 Let us therefore try how this Charge is supported : The Dean 
 has said, the Effects of spiritual P?inishments are gejie rally 
 suspended till the Offender comes into another World ;-f- therefore, 
 says your Lordship, the Condition of Christians is intich worse 
 than that of Heathens, and the Reason is this, because HeatJiens 
 are left to their own Consciences and the righteous fudgment of 
 God ; so that if spiritual Punishments signif)- anj-thing to 
 
 * AnsiK.'. to Repr., p. 35. f ^t-'r/n., p. 8.
 
 140 'Three Letters to 
 
 Offenders in the other World, or have any Effect there, then such 
 People are in your Lordship's Judgment, not left to their own 
 Consciences and the righteous Judgment of God. 
 
 Pray, my Lord, how does it follow that if spiritual Punishments 
 have any Effect in the other World, that then Offenders are not 
 left to the righteous Judgmejit of God ? 
 
 Is it an Argument that People are not left to the righteous 
 Judgment of God, because they are to be punished in the other 
 World ? Or is it an Argument that they are excluded from 
 God's righteous Judgment, because they are not punished till 
 they come thither ? I should have thought it a plain Argument 
 for the direct contrary, and that one could not give a stronger 
 Proof that such Offenders were left to the righteous Judgment of 
 God, than by saying that the Effects of such Punishments are 
 not felt till the Offender comes into the other World ; 1 should 
 have thought this a manifest Declaration that the Offender was 
 to fall to the rigJiteous fudgment of God, since he was not to feel 
 any Punishment till he was fallen into God's Hands. If the 
 Dean had intended to teach that Church Punishments have no 
 Effect, but such as the righteous fudgment of God gives them, 
 how could he have better signified his Intention, than by 
 declaring, that the Effects of such Punishments are generally 
 suspended till the Offender comes into the otJier World? How 
 could the Dean more expressly guard against any horrible 
 Apprehensions of Church Censures, or more directly refer the 
 Cause to God, than he has done here ? His Words are a plain 
 Declaration, that such Offenders must fall to the righteous J udg- 
 7nent of God, since they are to fall into his Hands before they feel 
 the Effects of such Punishment. 
 
 If any discontented Offender against the Church should tell 
 me, that if the Censures of the Church can signify anything to 
 him, he should be glad to be a Heathen, and have his Fate 
 amongst them ; would it not be sufficient Matter of Satisfaction 
 to tell him, that these Punishments will have no Effect but in 
 the other World, where there can be no Injustice ; and that it is 
 the same God who judges the Heathens, who will judge Chris- 
 tians ? 
 
 Yet this Declaration, which is the only Ground for Satisfaction 
 to Men of Conscience, under the Censures of the Church, is by 
 your Lordship pretended to be such an Evil, as to make us 
 rather resign our Christianity, than submit to it. This is all 
 which the Dean has said to make it more desirable to be a 
 Heathen than a CJiristian. 
 
 Suppose, my Lord, the Matter had been worded stronger, and 
 instead of saying that the Effects of spiritual Punishments are
 
 the 'bishop of "Bangor, 141 
 
 generally suspended till the Offenders come into the other World, it 
 had been said, the spiritual Censures of the Church shall rise in 
 the Judgment and condemn Offenders. If it had been thus 
 expressed, what Complaints might you not have made against 
 such ttnwary Expressions ? What Cruelties and Hardships 
 might you not have charged on such Doctrine ? And how 
 advantageously might you have compared the Felicity of 
 Heathenism to such Christianity ? 
 
 But, my Lord, that Divine Person who has reserved to himself 
 the righteous Judgment of the World, has yet declared to a 
 certain Generation, that the Men oi Nijieveh shall rise up in the 
 Judgment with them and condemn them, because those repented at 
 the preaching of Jonas, but these did not, though a greater than 
 Jonas was zvith them* 
 
 Now, my Lord, here lies the same Objection against this 
 Doctrine, which there does against the Deans. For is it not full 
 as hard that the Repentance of the Men of Nineveh, or anywhere 
 else, should have any Effect upon the Impenitent at the Day of 
 Judgment, as that the Coisures of the Church should have any 
 Effect upon Offenders in the other World? Is it not as cruel 
 that the Impenitent shall have their Guilt aggravated by other 
 People's preaching or Repentance, as by other People's Censures ? 
 And would it not be as proper here to say, if this be so, happy 
 they who never heard o^ Preaching ov Repentance, as to set forth 
 the Happiness of Heathens, because they are free from Church 
 Censures ? If the Sentoice of the Church will rise in Judgment 
 and condemn Offenders, then you say such Persons do not fall 
 to the righteous Judgment of God. But is not this as true of the 
 Men oi Nineveh, that if they shall rise up in Judgment and con- 
 demn the Impenitent, that then such Persons are not left to the 
 righteous Judgment of God ? 
 
 So that had you been one of our Saviour's Hearers, you must 
 have been as much astonished at his Doctrine, as at the Dean's 
 unwary Expression, and have been obliged to say then, as you 
 have said now, that you have such Notions of the Goodness of God, 
 and of his gracious Designs in the Gospel, that you thiiik it your 
 Duty to declare your Judi^ment, that the Supposition is greatly 
 injurious to the Honour of God and of the Gospel, and the tiling 
 itself impossible to be conceived. -^ 
 
 Your Lordship has here only advanced this Argument against 
 the Significancy of Church Censures, but anyone else may as 
 justly, and to as much Purpose urge it against every Part of 
 Christianity. 
 
 * Matth. xii. 41. f Answ. to Repr., p. 36.
 
 142 T'hree Letters to 
 
 Thus it may serve to prove that it would be better never to 
 have had the Scriptures ; for if any Texts of Scripture shall rise 
 in Judgment and condemn those who disbelieved them, or dis- 
 regarded their Doctrine, then it may be said, much happier are 
 the Heathens, who have nothing of this to fear from any Scrip- 
 tures, but are left to their own Consciences and the righteous Judg- 
 ment of God. 
 
 Again ; As this Argument proves even the Scriptures to be 
 an Unhappiness, so will it prove every Advantage in human 
 Life to be a Misery. 
 
 For it is certain that the Examples of religious Men, the good 
 Advice oio\xx Friends, Siwd the virtuous Commands oi o\ix Parents 
 and Governors, will, if neglected, affect our Condition ; and though, 
 like the spiritual Corrections of the Church, they may not be felt 
 here, yet hereafter they will rise in Judgment and condemn us. 
 May I not here say with your Lordship, if the Case be thus ; 
 if other People's Wisdom, Virtue, Advice or Commands, C2Si affect 
 our State in the next World, then more happy are those who 
 never saw a. good or wise Man in their Lives, and who have nothing 
 to fear from the Advice or Commands of any, but are left to their 
 own Consciences and the righteous fudgment of God. 
 
 So that you cannot condemn the Deans Doctrine as horrible, 
 without condemning it as an horrible thing, that the Men of 
 Nineveh should rise in Judgment and condemn the impenitent 
 Jews; or an horrible thing that the Light of the Gospel, the 
 Blessings of Christianity, and the Advantages of Education, should 
 have any Effect in the next World upon those, who despised 
 them in this World. 
 
 Of the Authority of the Churchy as it 
 relates to Excommunication. 
 
 IN order to vindicate this Doctrine thoroughly, and shew 
 upon what bottom it is founded, I shall, as briefly as I 
 can, state the Nature and Intent of spiritual Punishments, 
 and shew what Effects they have upon Offenders in the 
 other World ; from whence, I persuade myself, it will 
 farther appear, that such Effects do no more exclude Persons 
 from the righteous Judgment of God, than the Heathens are 
 excluded from his righteous Judgment. 
 
 Now that corrupt Members may be cut off from Christian
 
 the "Bishop of Bangor. 143 
 
 Communion, till by their Amendment they recommend them- 
 selves to a Re-admission, is plain from Scripture. This is even 
 granted by your Lordship, that Christians may set a Mark tipon 
 Notorious Offenders, even by refusing to tJieui the peculiar Tokens 
 and Marks of Christian Communion, as well as by avoiding their 
 Cojnpany and Co7iversation* But then your Lordship makes no 
 more ot it, tJian a Right which all Christians have to avoid an 
 open, wilful, and scandalous Sinner ;^ so that this Excommuni- 
 cation, considered as a Church Act, is only the same Power in a 
 Body or Society, of avoiding Persons they abhor ; which is the 
 common Privilege of ever}' single Person, whether in or out of 
 the Church, to shun those he dislikes. 
 
 And all the Excommunication you allow, is this, that as 
 private Persons have a Right to shun and avoid those they 
 dislike, so the Church may exclude such Members as are dis- 
 approved of; and that this judging, or excommunicating, is a 
 Right equally invested in all Christians, and entirely without any 
 Effect upon the Person excommunicated, so as to make his 
 Condition either better or v>orse before God. 
 
 I shall therefore, my Lord, beg leave to shew that the Power 
 of Excommunication, is 3. fudicial Power, which belongs to par- 
 ticular Persons, which they have a Right to exercise from the 
 Authority of Christ ; and that Persons so excommunicated, are 
 not to be looked upon as Persons who are only to be abhorred 
 and avoided by Christians, as any Man may avoid those he 
 dislikes, but as Persons who are to be avoided by Christians, 
 because they lie under the Sejitence of God, and are by his 
 A?ithority turned out of his Kingdom. 
 
 That Excommunication is a Power which belongs only to 
 particular Persons, will appear from the Nature of the Thing 
 itself, as it is an Exclusion of Persons from the Christian 
 Worship : for as only particular Men can officiate in the Christian 
 Worship, and admit People into Communion ; so only those 
 Persons can refuse the Sacrament, and exclude Offenders from 
 Communion. Nothing can be more plain, than that those who 
 can alone administer the Sacrament, can alone exclude Men 
 from it. 
 
 All Persons are admitted conditionally into the Christian 
 Covenant, and have only a Title to the Benefits of it, or the 
 ordinary Means of Grace, as they perform the Conditions of their 
 Admission ; and those same Persons who have alone the 
 Authority to admit them into the Church upon those Conditions, 
 have alone the Authority to exclude them for Non-performance! 
 
 * Page 39. t Page 43.
 
 144 T'hree Letters to 
 
 And their Act of Exclusion is as effectual towards the taking 
 from them all the Privileges of Christians, and as truly makes 
 them Aliens from the Kingdom of God, as their Act of Admis- 
 sion at first entitled them to all the Benefits of Church-Com- 
 munion. For as they have as much Authority to exclude some, 
 as they have to admit others into the Church, the Authority 
 being the same in both Cases, it must be in both Cases equally 
 effectual. 
 
 If your Lordship will say that all People, are equally qualified 
 to admit Persons into the Church, that, Go ye, and baptize all 
 Nations, conferred the same Powers on all Christians ; then 
 indeed it must be granted that Excommunication, or Exclusion 
 from the Church, is a Right equally invested in all Christians. 
 But as sure as Christ gave peculiar Powers to his Apostles, as 
 sure as they left particular Men to succeed them in their Powers, 
 so sure is it that only such Successors can either admit or exclude 
 Persons from Christian Communion. 
 
 Secondly ; That Excommunication belongs to particular 
 Persons, will appear from the Institution of it in Scripture. 
 
 If thy Brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him 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 shall neglect to 
 hear them, tell it unto the Church ; but if he neglect to hear the 
 Church, let him be unto thee as an Heathen Man, and a Publican. 
 Verily I say imto you, zvhat soever ye shall bind on Earth, shall be 
 bound in Heaven ; and •wJmt soever ye shall loose on Earth, shall be 
 loosed in Heaven."^' 
 
 Here, my Lord, is as plain an Institution oi Excommunication, 
 as can well be conceived ; and he who can doubt of it, may 
 doubt whether Baptism be instituted in Scripture. 
 
 First, We may observe that here is an Authority given to the 
 Church over the Offender, and that such an Authority, as neither 
 belonged to private Men, cither separate or united together ; for 
 the Ollender here had first been admonished, by a single Person, 
 then by one or two more, i.e., an indefinite Number, but still here 
 is nothing granted but Admonition ; but as soon as he is 
 brought before the Church, there an Authority appears, and the 
 Offender is to feel its Sentence, let him be unto thee as an 
 Heathen. 
 
 Secondly ; That this Authority did not belong to the Church, 
 considered only as a greater Number of Christians, but as it 
 signified particular Persons who had this Authority from Christ, 
 for the Edification of his Church. 
 
 "• Mattli. xviii. 15.
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor. 145 
 
 For Christ expressly declares in the following Verse, that 
 where two or three are met together in his Name, there is He in the 
 midst of them. 
 
 Here is the Description of that Church before whom the 
 Offender was to be brought, and whose Authority Christ 
 promises to support ; it is two or three met together in his 
 Name. 
 
 Now the Church had not this Authority over the Offender, 
 considered as a Number, i.e., as two or three ; for we see that the 
 Offender had been already before such a Church ; he had been 
 before two or three ; and after Neglect of them, he was brought 
 before another two or three, met together in Christ's Name. 
 Which is a plain Proof that the Offender was not censured by 
 the Church, as it signifies a Number of Christians, but as it 
 implies particular Persons acting in the Name of Christ, and 
 with his Authority. 
 
 Thirdly ; We may observe that the Authority here granted to 
 the Church is a Judicial Authority, such an Authority as affects 
 and alters the Condition of the Person excommunicated, implied 
 in these Words, Let him be unto thee as an Heathen ; that is, as 
 the Bishop of Oxford observes, in the most natural and common 
 Sense of the Words, they sJioiUd look upon him no lotiger as a 
 Member of the Church, but place him amongst Infidels /* and 
 again, as reduced into the State of Heathens.^ 
 
 Now unless it can be said, that a Person who is turned out of 
 the Kingdom of God, and reduced into the State of Heathens, is 
 in the same Condition which he was, when he was in the Church, 
 and had a Right to all the Benefits of Communion ; unless we 
 can say that a Person thus rejected from the Means of Grace, by 
 the Commission of Christ, is in the same Condition with him, 
 who is continued in the Church by the same Commissioji of 
 Christ ; it must be allowed that here is a Judicial Power 
 granted to the Church, and such as affects the Condition of the 
 Offender in the Sight of God. 
 
 Fourthly ; It is to be observed, that this Authority of the 
 Church is made fudicial by the express Promise of God to 
 ratify and confirm it. For after it is said, let him be unto thee as 
 an Heathen, it is declared, that whatsoever they should thus bind 
 on Earth, shojdd be bowid in Heavoi. 
 
 From all this, it plainly appears, that Excommunication is as 
 truly a Divine Positive Punishment, as Baptism is a Divine 
 Positive Blessing ; and that the one as certainly excludes us from 
 the Kingdom of God, as the other admits us into it. For since 
 
 * Ckur. Gov., p. 351. t 3id., p. 356. 
 
 10
 
 146 
 
 T'hree Letters to 
 
 here is as plainly Christ's express Authority to take from some 
 Men the ordinary Means of Grace, and exclude them from the 
 common Benefits of Christianity, as there is his Authority to go 
 and baptize all Nations ; I desire to know, why one is not as 
 truly a Divine Positive Institution as the other ? Is not Christ's 
 Authority as effectual and significant in excluding, as in admit- 
 ting Persons into his Kingdom ? Is not that same Power as 
 able to take away the Privileges of Church-Membership, as it 
 was at first to grant them ? 
 
 If therefore there be any Blessing or Happiness in our being 
 admitted into the Church ; there must be as much Misery and 
 Punishment in our Exclusion from it. For as it implies the Loss 
 of all those Privileges and Favours we were made Partakers of 
 by our Admission into the Church ; so we must needs be 
 punished in the same degree that we were happy. 
 
 If therefore Baptism, a Divine Positive Ifistitution to admit us 
 into the Privileges of Christianity, makes any Alteration in our 
 Condition, as to the Favour of God, i.e., if we are brought any 
 nearer to God by Baptism, than we were before ; then it plainly 
 follows, Excouivnmication , a Divine Positive Institutio}i, which 
 deprives us of all these Privileges of Christianity, and, as the 
 Bishop of Oxford expresses it, reduces Offenders into the State of 
 Heathens, must needs affect our Condition with regard to the 
 Favour of God. 
 
 For if there be anything in Baptism which is just Matter of 
 Joy, there is something equally Terrible in Excommunication ; 
 which, when rightly executed, as effectually makes us Aliens 
 from the Promises of God, as Baptism, when rightly adminis- 
 tered, makes us Children of God, and Heirs of eternal Life. So 
 that he who can ridicule and expose the Terrors and Effects of 
 Excommunication, is acting just as Christian a part, as he who 
 derides and despises the Benefits and Advantages of Baptism. 
 
 Seeing therefore the Church hath as express an Authority to 
 turn some Men out of the Church, as it hath to admit others 
 into it, it is as false an Account of Excommunication , to make it 
 only that common Right which every Man has, to avoid those he 
 dislikes ; as if it should be said, that Admission into the Church 
 by Baptism, implies no more, than that common Right which 
 every Man has to do good Offices for those he likes. Now, my 
 Lord, is Baptism to be administered, because Persons may do 
 good Offices for one another ? Is there a Power in the Church 
 to increase its Members, by admitting others into Communion, 
 for this reason, because People have a common Right to choose 
 their Company.? If not, my Lord, how comes the Exclusion of 
 Members to be nothing but a common Right of avoiding those
 
 the bishop of Bangor, 147 
 
 we dislike ? Are not Persons excluded from all the Benefits of 
 their Admission ? So that if there was any Authority required 
 for the Admission of Persons into the Church, if this Authority 
 was only from God, it is certain that an Exclusion from these 
 Church-Privileges, cannot be executed but by the same Au- 
 thority, which first granted them. For no Person can be 
 deprived of any Privileges, but by that Power which at first 
 granted them. 
 
 When therefore your Lordship recurs to the comvwn Right of 
 Persons to avoid, if they can, those they dislike, in order to state 
 the Nature of Excommunication ; it is just as much to the 
 Purpose, as if 1 should get a Cheinist to examine the natural 
 Qualities of Water, in order to state the true Efficacy of 
 Baptism : for Men no more act by any Powers of their own 
 when they exclude Offenders, than they baptize others into 
 Communion by their own Authority, or than \A^ater unites them 
 to Christ by its natural Qualities. 
 
 Yet your Lordship sets forth the Nature of Excommunication, 
 and the Right the Church has to it, only from that common Right, 
 which all Christians have of avoidifig if they can those they dislike. 
 Thus you say, the Church may excommunicate, because every 
 Person has a Right to Judge, nay he cannot help judging of the 
 Behaviour of Men ;* that every Man will judge him to be a Mur- 
 derer, who takes away his Neighbour s Life unjustly. 
 
 This comes up as truly to the Nature of Excommunication, 
 and is as just an Account of it, as if anyone should set forth the 
 Authority of a British Judge, and show the Extent of his Judicial 
 Power, by saying, he indeed may judge and condemn a Mur- 
 derer, for this is the Right of every Person to judge, and no one 
 can help Judgifig a?id condcnining a Murderer. It is as consistent 
 with Sense, thus to set out the Power of the Judge, as it is with 
 Reason and Scripture, to compare Excommunication to that 
 private Power oi Judgiiig ^r\d Thin ki fig which, everyone enjoys. 
 
 For, my Lord, can it be supposed that when our Saviour tells 
 them, that they should reject such a Person out of the Church, 
 and look upon him as an Heathen, and that he would bind, i.e., 
 confirm their Sentence ; can it be supposed, that he only meant 
 they might think and judge a wicked Person to be a wicked 
 Person, only in such a manner as every Man cannot help Think- 
 ing and Judging .? If our blessed Lord only here intended this, 
 what occasion was there for his Promise to ratify their Judg- 
 ment .'' What need is there of an Assurance, that they shall 
 privately judge, what they cannot help privately judging .^ Or 
 
 * Page 39. 
 
 10 — 2
 
 148 
 
 'Three Letters to 
 
 indeed to what Purpose is any Pron:iise at all made here, if 
 nothing is to be effected ? If 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 Effects are intended in the Judgment of the 
 Church, what can be the meaning of this Promise ? Or rather, 
 since our Saviour has here instituted the Authority, and promised 
 to ratify the Exercise of it, how dares any Christian to compare 
 it to a private personal Power of Judging, or declare that it is 
 without any Effect upon the Condition of Christians ? For, my 
 Lord, either something is here promised to the Sentence of the 
 Church, or there is not ; if there is something promised, then the 
 Sentence of the Church is no more like the personal Sentence of 
 private Men, than the Power of a Judge is like the Power of a 
 private Man ; if you will say there is nothing here promised in 
 these Words, whatsoever ye shall bind on EartJi, shall be bound in 
 Heaven, &c., then you must say that there is nothing at all 
 meant in them ; for it is impossible to shew that they can 
 have any other Meaning, than that of a Promise ; so that if 
 no Promise is made, they are certainly so many dead Letters. 
 
 Again ; That this is di Judicial Power, is also evident from the 
 Case of the incestuous Coi-inthian. St. Paid says, What have I 
 to do, to Judge tlievi also zvhich are without ? Now the Apostle 
 could not have put this Question, if by Judging here had been 
 meant no Authority, but a private Power of judging and think- 
 ing a Sinner to be a Sinner, For a Man can no more help 
 judging a Murderer to be a Murderer, 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 those who are out of the 
 Church, as of those who are within it. So that St. Paul could 
 not mean, What have I to do to think a Murderer to be a Mur- 
 derer which is without the Church, it being every Man's Duty to 
 think as truly of all Things and Persons as he can ? Seeing 
 therefore he plainly intimates that he had a Power of Judging in 
 the Church, which did not belong to him out of the Church, it 
 follows that this Power was Jiidicial and Authoritative ; for a 
 private Power of Judging and Thinking, belongs to every Man 
 with regard to every Thing. 
 
 We shall more easily understand what is meant by the 
 Effects of spiritual Punishments, if we consider them under this 
 Division. 
 
 First, Such as are the primary and intended Effects ; secondly, 
 Such as are only the accidental Effects of them. 
 
 Now as to the primary and intended Effects of spiritual 
 Punishments, they are these.
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor, 149 
 
 First, To preserve the Honour of God and his Church, that ill 
 Members being cut off, it might be presented a glorious CJmrch^ 
 not having Spot or IVrijikle, or any such tiling ; but that it might 
 he Holy, and without Blemish.^ 
 
 Secondly, To reform Offenders, and reclaim them from their 
 Vices ; it is a Discipline given to the Church for the Edification, 
 and not the Destruction of its Members. Thus St. Paul says, 
 the incestuous CorintJiian was to be delivered over to Satan, for 
 the Destruction of the Flesh, that his Spirit might he saved in the 
 Day of the Lord.-f 
 
 Thirdly, To preserve the rest of the Church from the ill 
 Influence of their Example, and that by such Punishments 
 exercised upon others, they might fear, and learn from thence 
 not to offend. 
 
 These are the intended Effects of the Punishments which the 
 Church inflicts, to preserve it a Holy Society, and save the Souls 
 of its Members. 
 
 God Almighty has instituted several Means for the Advance- 
 ment of Virtue, and the Salvation of Mankind ; and amongst 
 others, he has set up this Authority of the Church to promote 
 the same Ends. It is his human, ordinary Means for the Preser- 
 vation of his Church ; and therefore as it cannot operate infallibly, 
 or affect People with a Divine Certainty, it is only conditional, 
 and is to prevail towards the Salvation of Mankind, as far as 
 human and conditional Means can prevail. 
 
 And indeed, it is an Institution which has a very natural 
 Tendency to produce the Eff"ects designed by it. For, consider- 
 ing Christianity as a Covenant with God, wherein our Title to 
 Happiness depends upon our Use of the ordinary instituted 
 Means of Grace, nothing can more naturally induce us to live 
 worthy of such Means, than this Authority in the Church to 
 withdraw them upon our Abuse, and expel us from the Terms 
 of the Covenant. Men would not dare to transgress, when they 
 saw they could neither break the Laws, nor corrupt the Faith of 
 Christianity, without being turned out of the Church, by such a 
 Power as Christ hath set up for that Purpose, and with his 
 Promise to make good its Decrees. They must be very 
 obstinate Sinners, who could be content to lie under a Sentence, 
 which as effectually takes from them all Pretension to Christian 
 Happiness, as their Baptism entitled them to those Pretensions 
 at first. 
 
 The chief Reason why Sinners are generally so little affected 
 with the Horror of their Condition, is because they look upon 
 
 * Ephes. iv. 25. t i Cor. v. 5.
 
 50 T'hree Letters to 
 
 their Punishment at the future Judgment, as a great Distance 
 off; and since they are within the Church, and enjoy the ordinary 
 Means of Grace, they think they can repent in time. But now 
 Christ, by instituting this Church Authority, has suited his 
 DiscipHne to the Weakness and Frailty of our Nature ; and they 
 who are only to be affected with Things present, have a present 
 Judgment to fear; which, though it is only the Judgment of 
 Men, yet is the Judgment of such Men as are commissioned to 
 pronounce it in Christ's Name, and with his Promise to ratify 
 and confirm it. So that they have as much reason to look upon 
 themselves as effectually cast out by God in that Sentence, as 
 they were received into Covenant with God by Baptism ; for 
 there is the same Divine Authority to support them both. 
 
 As to those other Effects of spiritual Punishments in the other 
 World, they are not the intended, but accidental Effects of such 
 Punishments, which are brought upon Offenders by their own 
 wicked Behaviour under them. 
 
 Thus the Salvation of Mankind is the primary intended Effect 
 of Christianity ; yet it may have such Effect upon some Men by 
 their own Impiety in it, as to make it better for them if they had 
 never heard of the Name of Christ. For Christianity may 
 become so much a Punishment to some Persons in the other 
 World, that their Condition may be less tolerable than that of 
 Sodom and Gontoj-rah. But then this is not the intended Effect 
 of Christianity, but an accidental Effect which such Persons 
 bring upon themselves ; who by their own ill Conduct turn a 
 Mercy into a Judgment, and make that which was intended to 
 save them, the accidental Cause of their greater Ruin. 
 
 Thus it is with spiritual Punishments ; they are the merciful 
 Corrections of God intended to prevent our future Misery, but if 
 disregarded, will certainly increase it. This will easily explain 
 what is meant by the Effects of spiritual Punishments in the 
 other World, or how they are suspended till the Offender comes 
 thither. It is not the direct intended Effect of Church Punish- 
 ments to increase the Misery of Sinners, or damn them in the 
 other World ; no more than it is the direct intended Effect of 
 Christianity to increase People's Damnation : But as Christianity, 
 if abused, will be the accidental Cause of their greater Damna- 
 tion who so abuse it ; so the Censures of the Church, when 
 despised, will have this accidental Effect, as to increase the 
 Punishment of those who so despised them. This is the Nature 
 of those Effects, which spiritual Punishments will have upon the 
 Impenitent in another VVorld. 
 
 As for Instance, a Person who is turned out of the Church, 
 may all this while be lustv and strong, and flourish in all the
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor, 151 
 
 Advantages of this Life ; but when he comes into the other 
 World, he may then find that the spiritual Punishment was a 
 sore Evil, that it is ratified by Christ, has increased his Guilt, 
 and will be Matter of Punishment hereafter. 
 
 He will then find that the Censure of the Church has increased 
 his Guilt in these Respects. 
 
 First, As it was a Judicial Sentence pronounced by Christ's 
 Authority, and therefore not to be despised or neglected without 
 great Impiety ; so that let the Sinner have been what he will 
 before, when he continues in his Sins in Contempt of this Tribunal 
 set up in Christ's Name, his Guilt is thereby exceedingly 
 increased. 
 
 Secondly, As it is the most powerful Means, and the very 
 utmost which God can do to reclaim, or even terrify Sinners 
 from their Impiety, as it is the most awakening Call to Repent- 
 ance, an Institution only less terrible than the last Judgment ; 
 those who are not affected with it, must be rendered more odious 
 in the Sight of God, and made ripe for a severer Punishment. 
 
 These, my Lord, are the Effects of spiritual Punishments in 
 the other World ; it is thus that they alter the Condition of 
 Offenders in the Sight of God in regard to his Favour. They are 
 certainly under greater Displeasure, after they have despised the 
 Censures of Church Authority, and have resisted an Institution, 
 which is the last possible Means to recover them. 
 
 In former Times, God has been pleased to send his Prophets 
 to forewarn Sinners of their Destruction, zs Jo)iah to the Men of 
 Nineveh: But in the Christian Dispensation, he governs us by his 
 ordinary Providence; and though he does not send express 
 Messengers to recall Sinners, yet he has instituted a standing 
 Authority in his Church, to censure Offenders, and give them up 
 to Destruction in his Name, unless they immediately repent. 
 And what can we think more dreadful than a Sentence thus 
 pronounced against us by God's Authority, and with his Promise 
 to confirm it? 
 
 Was there anything more awakening or more dreadful in the 
 Preaching oi Jonah, than in this Declaration .'' Jo}iah could only 
 preach and declare, he could execute nothing himself; it was his 
 being sent in God's Name, which created all the Terror, and was 
 the Motive to Repentance. Now though the Church can only 
 censure and declare, yet since it is as truly commissioned to 
 censure in God's Name, as Jonah was sent in God's Name, there 
 is as much reason to dread the Consequences of neglecting the 
 Church, as of not repenting at the Message or Preaching of any 
 Prophet from God. 
 
 I must now beg leave here, my Lord, to lament an Assertion
 
 152 T'hree Letters to 
 
 frotn the Hands of a Christian and Protestant Bishop ; where you 
 declare, that the Exco7innimication of the incestuous Corinthian, 
 neither added to God's Displeasure, nor would the want of it have 
 at all diminished it. Neither if he had died in an impenitent 
 Co7idition, woidd that Setitence have had any Effect in the other 
 World* 
 
 This, my Lord, plainly supposes that there is neither Authority 
 nor Advantage in Excommunication ; for if there were, it is 
 certain that our Abuse of it as an Advantage^ and our Contempt 
 of it as an Authority, must needs increase our Guilt, and con- 
 sequently God's Displeasure. Yet your Lordship here teaches 
 the World, that if the incestuous Corinthian, though Justly cen- 
 sured, and that by an Apostle directing, and the whole Con- 
 gregation joining, had died impenitent, that Sentence would have 
 had no Eff'ect in the other JVorld. 
 
 Let us therefore suppose that some great Patron of Christian 
 Liberty had gone to the disconsolate Corinthian, sorrowing under 
 the Sentence of the Church, and endeavoured to quiet him after 
 this manner. 
 
 * Why do you disquiet yourself with vain Fears about the 
 ' Censure of the Church, which neither hath nor can have an 
 ' Effect upon your Condition as to the Favour of God. Let the 
 ' Apostle and Church be as solemn as they please in the 
 ' Denunciation ; let them in the Name of Christ deliver you over 
 ' to Satan ; yet take Courage, and fear nothing from all this ; 
 ' for you may depend upon it, that, after all, you are but just 
 ' where you were, before this Sentence were passed. And if you 
 ' die impenitent, you have no Effects of this Censure to fear in 
 ' the other World.' 
 
 Now this is the Doctrine your Lordship has taught for the 
 Consolation of those who are, or are likely to be under the 
 Sentence of the Church ; which if it be now found Doctrine, it 
 was as proper to be told the Corinthian then, as it is for your 
 Lordship to teach it now. And if your Lordship had lived then, 
 it would have been as proper to have told the CorintJiiaji, as to 
 tell us now ; and you must have lain under the same Christian 
 Necessity of delivering him from vain Fears, which now con- 
 strains you to set all at liberty from the like Apprehensions. 
 
 St. /*<a:z//, speaking of the Sentence passed upon the CorintJiian, 
 .says. Sufficient to sucli a Man was this Punishment.-^ Now, my 
 Lord, if it have nothing of the Nature of a Punishment, if it has 
 no Effect where it is inflicted, if the Person said to be punished 
 can feel no Effect from it, what strange Language is this ? Can 
 
 * Answ. to Repr., p. 38. t 2 Coj-. ii. 6.
 
 the "Bishop of Bangor, 153 
 
 that be called a Punishment, or a sufficient Punishment, which 
 
 can in no degree be felt, which produces no Effects, or makes no 
 Alteration in the Person where it falls ? 
 
 Again St. Paul tells us, that he had amongst others which 
 had corrupted the Faith, delivered Hyinenetis and Alexayider to 
 Satan, that they might learn not to blaspheme."^ 
 
 Now if this Sentence can have no Effect, if it cannot signify 
 anything to them, if they are just in the same Condition after it, 
 which they were before, why should it teach them not to 
 blaspheme ? Why should a Sentence which they had nothing 
 to fear from, make them any longer afraid to continue in their 
 Errors ? Here was therefore either a pious Fraud made use of 
 by the Apostle, to fright Men from their Heresies by something 
 which was in itself vain and insignificant, or else your Lordship 
 has mightily mistaken the Matter, in declaring that it is vain 
 and insignificant. The Apostle plainly inflicts these Censures, 
 as a Terror to Offenders, and to frighten them from continuing 
 in their evil Courses ; but if, as you say, Persons be just in the 
 same Condition after this Sentence, in which they were before, 
 if it has no Effect upon them, though they are rightly censured, 
 and yet die impenitent, which is what you expressly say of this 
 Cori?ithian, then it is plain they are only pretended Terrors, and 
 that when the Apostles use them as such, they must be charged 
 with using them as a pious Fraud. And it must be owned that 
 your Lordship has very frankly made the Discovery. 
 
 But whoever has Piety enough to believe those First Ambas- 
 sadors of Christ, will clear them from such a Charge, and rather 
 think it possible that you may mistake in your Plilosophy, than 
 they in their Divinity. 
 
 To proceed ; You declare that though the incestuous Corinthian 
 had died in an impenitent Condition, the Sentence of the Church 
 would have had no Effect in the other World: -By which you 
 must mean, that it could not affect his Condition there, so as to 
 increase his Punishment, and that because the Sentence did not 
 add to Gods Displeasure, which he incurs solely upon account of 
 his own Behaviour, and not the Sentence of Men.f As thus, I 
 suppose, your Lordship means, that if an Adulterer is censured 
 by the Church, he is under God's Displeasure solely on account 
 of his Adultery, and not more so, on account of the Sentence of 
 the Church ; which cannot make him more an Adulterer, or 
 more guilty in the Sight of God. It is for this reason that 
 Church Censures are so insignificant, so void of all Effect in the 
 
 * I Tzm. i. 19. i Page 37.
 
 154 T'hree Letters to 
 
 other World ; because it is our Sins alone, and not the Sentence 
 of Men, which loses us the Favour of God. 
 
 Let us therefore, my Lord, suppose that God himself had 
 delivered this Sentence against the Corinthian which the Church 
 did, your Lordship's Doctrine would have procured him the 
 same Ease and Quiet, and taught him to be no more concerned 
 about it, than if it had been a mere Church Censicre. For it is 
 as true in your Lordship's Sense, that the Sentence of God did 
 not add to his Displeasure against him, that he was not angry 
 at him because of his Sentence^ but upon account of the Offender's 
 Beliavionr. But, my Lord, will it therefore follow, that there is 
 nothing to be dreaded in such a Sentence ? Will it follow, that 
 if the Person dies impenitent under it, that it would have no 
 Effect in the other World ? Would your Lordship go about, 
 and preach Liberty to Persons under such a Sentence, and assure 
 them that the Sentence itself could have no Effect, that they 
 were but just where they were before it was pronounced ? 
 Would you think it proper to deliver Men from such Appre- 
 hensions, and persuade them that they are in no Danger 
 from the Sentence of God ? And that because it is not 
 his own Sentence, but their Behaviour which increases his Dis- 
 pleasure. 
 
 This may perhaps appear a little too shocking, to set up for 
 an Advocate for the Laity against the Sentence of God ; but, my 
 Lord, if you were to do so, you would have the same Argument 
 to defend yourself against any Effect in the Divine Sentence, 
 which you now have against any Effect in the Sentence of the 
 Church. It would be then as much to the Purpose to say, that 
 God is not displeased with them, on the account of his own 
 Sentence, but purely for their own Behaviour ; as it is to tell 
 Offenders, that it is not the Sentence of the Church, but their 
 Behaviour which brings them under the Divine Displeasure. 
 
 I must here therefore, my Lord, beg leave to call this a strict 
 Demonstration, that if the Sentence of the Church is not to be 
 feared ; if it hath no Effect, because it is not the Sentence, but 
 our own Behaviour which alone procures us the Divine Dis- 
 pleasure ; if this be true, it is Demonstration, that if God himself 
 was to pronounce this Church Sentence, and turn Offenders out 
 of Communion, that there would be nothing to be feared from it, 
 that it could have no Effect in the other World ; for God's Dis- 
 pleasure against them, would not be occasioned by his own 
 Sentence, but by their Behaviour. So that were the Discipline of 
 the Church in God's own Hands, and were he with his own 
 Voice to threaten Sinners, as the Church now doth, your Lord- 
 ship would be as much obliged to comfort the Laity against any
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor, 155 
 
 Apprehension of any Effect from the Sentence itself, as you are 
 now to deliver them from the Fear of Alan's Judgment. 
 
 Again ; If the Sentence of the Church is not to be dreaded, if, 
 it can have no Effect in the other World, because we incur the 
 Divine Displeasure solely on account of our own Behaviour ; 
 then it is certain, that the Sentence of Christ himself at the last 
 Day can have no Effect in the other World. 
 
 If therefore any unwary Divine, should endeavour to alarm 
 his Congregation wirh the Effects o{ Christ's Sentence at the last 
 Day, your Lordship has taught anyone to reject the Doctrine, 
 as greatly injiiriotis to the Honour of God ; and that such Doctrine 
 ivas also impossible in itself to be conceived, he might presume 
 strictly to demonstrate:* 
 
 A Sentence which makes not a Tittle of Alteration in the Condi- 
 tion of a Man, in the Eyes of God, with regard to his Favour or 
 Displeasure, cannot be said to have any Effect in the other IVorld.-f 
 But the Sentence of Christ at the last Day is of this sort. 
 
 Therefore the Sentence of Christ makes not a Tittle of Alteration 
 in the Condition of a Man, in the Eyes of God, ivith regard to his 
 Favour or Displeasure. 
 
 That the Sentence of Christ makes no Alteration in the Conditioti 
 of a Man ivith regard to the Favour or Displeasure of God, is plain 
 from hence ; that Men incur the Divine Displeasure solely on 
 account of their own Behaviour. 
 
 Thus, my Lord, it is demonstratively certain, that as you have 
 argued against the Effects of the Church's Sentoice in the other 
 World, you have taught anyone to argue against any Effect in 
 the Sentence of Christ in the next World ; and consequently it 
 must be as timvary Doctrine, to frighten People with the Effects 
 of Christ's Sentence, as to terrify them with the Effects of the 
 Sentence of the Church. And you have offered such an Argu- 
 ment for the utter [nsignificancy of this Sentence, as would 
 make it equally insignificant, and void of all Effect, though it 
 was pronounced by God himself. So that as much as you often 
 seem to expose it as the Sentence of weak and fallible Men, yet 
 your Argument does not reject it as 2l fallible Sentence, but as it 
 is a Sentence far from having any Effect. So that if it was 
 pronounced by God himself, it must be as much without Effect, 
 and every Sentence which ever can be pronounced by God, must 
 be without any Effect as to his Favour or Displeasure, because 
 that is solely occasioned by our own Behaviour. Therefore an 
 infallible Sentence can no more have any Effect, than a fallible 
 one, because it is our Behaviour alone which can affect us. 
 
 * Page 36. t Page 36.
 
 156 
 
 T'hree Letters to 
 
 This, my Lord, will be of great use to some People, who will be 
 gflad to find that they have no more Effects to fear from God's 
 Sentence, either in this World or the next, than your Lordship 
 has from the Church. 
 
 Again ; if there be no Effect in the Sentence of the Church in 
 the other World, because our Behaviour alone incurs the Divine 
 Displeasure, then notJiing which God inflicts upon us here, can 
 have any Effect in the other World. 
 
 If therefore God's Judgments were visibly fallen upon some 
 Town or Country, and an u)nvary Preacher should take occasion 
 to excite them to a speedy Repentance, from the sad Effects 
 such. Judgments would have in the other World, if they had not 
 their designed Effects in this, and declare that if they died im- 
 penitent under them in this World, they would feel worse Effects 
 of them in the other World : A Disciple of your Lordship's 
 might thus reprove the Falseness and Cruelty of such Doctrine. 
 ' How can you terrify People with such vain Fears about God's 
 ' Judgments ? Is he provoked against us by his own Thunder 
 'and Lightning ? Do his own Judgments add anything to his 
 ' Displeasure against us ? Can anything but our own Sins and 
 
 * Behaviour create his Displeasure ? Therefore we are certainly 
 ' in the same Condition, as to that, which we were in before his 
 ^Judgments fell upon us ; and if we die impenitent under them, 
 'they can have no Effect in the other World. False then and 
 ' greatly dishonourable to God is your Doctrine, which supposes 
 ' anything can have any Effect of that kind, but our own 
 ' Behaviour, To alarm us therefore with the Effects of such 
 ^ Judgmeiits, is to put false Fears into our Minds, and teach us 
 ' to dread things which are impossible ; for it is impossible that 
 ' anything but our oivn- Behaviour should increase our Punish- 
 
 * ment.' 
 
 Now, my Lord, is it cruel and unwary Doctrine to awaken 
 Sinners under God's Jiidgments to Repentance, from a Sense of 
 the worse Effects of those Judgments in the other World, if they 
 do not bring them to Repentance in this ? If it is not, I desire 
 to know, why it is not as Reasonable to alarm People with the 
 Effects of spiritual Punishments, if disregarded, as with the 
 Effects of God's Judgments, if they are neglected ? What 
 is there in the Nature of the Thing, why one Punishment 
 may have Effect in the other World, and not the other ? They 
 are both equally God's PunisJiments, intended for the same 
 Ends. 
 
 When Persons are rightly turned out of the Church, and 
 denied the Ordinary Means of Grace, they are as truly under 
 God's special Judgment, as a Country which is oppressed with
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor, 157 
 
 Famine ox Pestilence ; the one is his instituted, ordinary J udg- 
 vient,\.o terrify Men from Iniquity; the other is his extraordinmy 
 Judgment, his miraculous Call to Repentance. It is therefore as 
 sound a Christian Doctrine, to say, that if Persons die impenitent 
 under God's extraordinary Judgment, that such Judgment will 
 have no Effect in the other World ; as to say, that if the in- 
 cestuous CorintJiian had died impenitent under the just 
 Sentence of the Church, i.e., God's ordinary Judgment, that such 
 Sentence or Judgment would have had no Effect in the other 
 World. And consequently, to endeavour to terrify Sinners with 
 the Effects of God's Judgments in the other World, if they dis- 
 regard them here, is as much condemned by your Lordship, as 
 the Dean of Cliichester' s Doctrine concerning the Effects of 
 spiritual Punishments in the next World. 
 
 Lastly ; Our blessed Saviour told the Jews that if Jie had not 
 come, they had not had Sin ; but now they have no Cloak Jor their 
 Sin : Which plainly implies,, that his coming into the World 
 altered their Condition as to the Favour of God, because it made 
 them more guilty in his Sight than they were before he came. 
 Yet your Lordship's Argument against the Effects of Church 
 Punishments, directly denies this Doctrine. For your Objection 
 against any Effects in Church Punishments, is full as strong 
 against any Effects in Christ's coming into the World. And if 
 People may be more guilty in the Sight of God, after Christ is 
 come, they may be more guilty after they have been censured by 
 the Church, for the Reason is the same in both Cases. For 
 there can be no Reason given, why Christ's coming should affect 
 their Condition with regard to the Favour of God, but that he 
 had a Divine Mission, and was an Authoritative Call to Repent- 
 ance ; but this is equally true of Excommunication, that it is a 
 Divine Institution, an Authoritative Call to Repentance ; there- 
 fore they must either both be allowed to affect People's Condition 
 with regard to the Favour of God, or neither ; for the Reason is 
 exactly the same in both Cases. 
 
 If therefore a learned Pharisee, seeing a relenting Publican 
 touched with this Declaration of our Saviour's, should have 
 reproved him after this manner : 
 
 ' You need not be concerned at this Person's comiiig into the 
 'World, for his conmig does not increase God's Displeasure 
 ' against you, which can only be raised by your own Behaviour ; 
 ' it is solely on account of that, that you can be out of God's 
 ' Favour. Sinners are out of God's Favour, if this Person had 
 ' never come, and his coming does not add to God's Displeasure 
 'against them ; neither if they die in an impenitent Condition 
 'after he is come, will his coming have any Effect in the other
 
 158 
 
 T'hree Letters to 
 
 ' World, where their Condition will not be determined by his 
 
 * coming, but by their own Behaviour.' 
 
 I should be glad, my Lord, to know what you could have said 
 against such a Declaration, or how a Person who would have 
 told the incestuous Corinthimi, that if he died impenitent under 
 the Censure of the Church, that it would have no Effect in the 
 other World, could have anything to object to the Pharisee, who 
 tells the Ptiblican, if he died impenitent after Christ's coming, 
 that his coining will have tio Effect in the other World. 
 
 The Pharisee has exactly the same Reason, to tell the Publican, 
 that he was neither the more, nor the less, out of God's Favour 
 for Christ's coming, that you have to tell the Corinthian, that /le 
 was neither the more, nor tJic less, out of God's Favour for ivhat 
 was doie by the Church. For the Censure here was right and 
 infallible, and passed in the Name and by the Authority of 
 Christ ; it was passed by an Apostle, and you affirm that Christ 
 zvas in all that the Apostles did ; therefore it may be truly said, 
 that Christ himself came to the Corinthian in this Sentence, it 
 was his Authority and Infallibility which censured him ; and yet 
 you say that if he had died impenitent under this Censure, he 
 had been just where he was before, and it would have had no 
 Effect in the other World. 
 
 Pray therefore, my Lord, let us know how anyone can be 
 more guilty for Christ's coming, or why it shall have any Effect 
 in the other World upon those who die impenitent ? A few 
 Reasons against this Pharisee, would be so many Reasons 
 against your Lordship's Doctrine. For Christ as truly cojnes to 
 Christians in his Institiitions, as he came to XkiO. feivs in Person ; 
 and it is as dangerous to disregard him in the one Appearance, 
 as in the other. 
 
 This Account of Excommunication will, I hope, be thought a 
 sufficient Answer to your Lordship's strict Demonstration, that 
 it has no Effects in the other World, nor adds anything to God's 
 Displeasure. For from this it appears, that when you say, that 
 supposing no such Punishment inflicted upon a wicked Christian, 
 he is under the Displeasure of Almighty God to an equal Degree, 
 as he would be if it ivere inflicted :'^ It is as false as to say, that 
 a wicked few was under the same Displeasure of God before 
 Christ came, as he was afterwards ; or that a Person impenitent 
 under an extraordinary fudgment, is no more out of God's 
 Favour afterwards, than he was before, or if God had never 
 visited him. It is as false as to say, that if God himself was to 
 pronounce the Sentence of the Church, that Persons under it 
 
 * Page yj.
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor 159 
 
 would be just in the same Degree of Favour they were before, 
 or that the Sentence of Christ at the last Day will have no 
 Effect. 
 
 The other Part of your Demonstration proceeds thus ; Ex- 
 communication has no Effect, because supposing it wrongfully 
 inflicted upon a Christian, he is still equally in the Favour of 
 God* 
 
 The whole of this Argument amounts to this, that a j-ight 
 Censure of the Church hath no Effect, because a wrong one. hath 
 not. I should think anyone in a mighty want of Proof, who 
 should say that the Excommunication of the incestuous Corin- 
 thia>i could have no Effect, because the Excommunication of 
 some virtuous Person will not have any Effect ; yet this is your 
 Lordship's Demonstration, that it can signify nothing when it is 
 right, because it signifies nothing when it is ivrong. 
 
 Is it an Argument, my Lord, that when a Bullet flies through 
 a Man's Head it has 7io Effect upon him, because it will have no 
 Effect if it miss him ? Is it a Proof that Motion cannot produce 
 Heat, because Rest cannot produce Heat ? 
 
 If not, how comes it to be an Argument that a right Sentence 
 hath no Effect, because a wrong one hath not the sanie Effect ? 
 
 A right Sentence is as opposite to a wrong one, as Motion is 
 to Rest ; and it is as good Sense to say Motion has no such 
 Effect, because Rest has no such Effect ; as to say a right 
 Sentence has no Effect, because a wrong one has not the same. 
 
 A right Sentence, is the only Excommunication which Christ 
 hath instituted, and to which alone this Effect belongs ; but it is 
 strange Logic to infer, that this Institution cannot have such an 
 Effect, because something which Christ hath not instituted, hath 
 not the same Effect. 
 
 A wrong Sentence is as truly a Breach and Transgressio}i of 
 that Exconiniunication which Christ hath instituted, as Adultery 
 is a Breach of the seventh Commandment ; it is therefore as 
 absurd to say, that Chastity hath not such an Effect, because 
 Adultery hath not the same Effect, as to affirm that a rigJit 
 Sentence hath not such an Effect, because a Violation of that 
 right Sentence hath not the same Effect. Your Lordship's 
 Argument is this, that the Sentence hath not such an Effect in 
 some Circumstances, because it hath not the same Effect in all 
 Circumstances : Which resolves itself into this Proposition, That 
 notJiing can produce any particular Effect, tinless it produce the 
 same Effect in all Circumstances. 
 
 Your Lordship might as well have called it a Demonstration 
 
 * Page 37.
 
 i6o T'hree Letters to 
 
 against all Effects in the World, as against the Effects of spiritual 
 Censures : For there is nothing in the World, no Powers either 
 Natural, Moral, or Political, which produce their Effects but in 
 some supposed right Circumstances ; yet this Ecclesiastical 
 Power is demonstrated away by your Lordship, because it does 
 not produce the same Effect in all Circumstances. 
 
 Farther ; If there is no Effect in a right Sentence of the 
 Church, because there is no Effect in a wrong one ; then it will 
 follow, that there is no Effect in either of the Sacraments when 
 rightly received, because they want such Effect in Persons who 
 do not rightly receive them. It may as often happen that the 
 Sacraments are administered in zvrong Circumstances, and as 
 void of that Effect for which they were intended, as any wrong 
 Sentence of the Church be pronounced ; but does it therefore 
 follow, that there is no Effect in the Sacraments, that they are 
 empty and useless to those who receive them rightly, because 
 they are so to those who receive them otherwise ? Your Lord- 
 ship must either affirm that the Sacraments have no Effect, or 
 that the Opus operatuni is always effectual ; for if you say they 
 have Effect, though not always, then it is certain that the 
 Sentence of the Church may have Effect, though not akvays. 
 Whether your Lordship will own the Popish Doctrine of the 
 Opus operatuni, or deny the Sacraments to be* Means of Grace, 
 that is, to have any Effect, I cannot tell ; but sure I am, if you 
 do not hold one of these Doctrines, you must own the Sacra- 
 ments to have conditional Effects in supposed Circumstances, 
 which will sufficiently confute your own strict Demonstration, 
 that Excommunication can have no Effect, because it has not in 
 all Circumstances. 
 
 Again ; I presume it may very justly be said, that the Christian 
 Revelation hath some Effect towards the Salvation of Mankind ; 
 but then it hath not this Effect alivays and z« all Cases, it is only 
 effectual upon certain Conditions. Now if Excommunication 
 can have no Effect, because it is not effectual when it is wrong- 
 fully pronounced, then the Christian Revelation can have no 
 Effect towards saving those who embrace it as they should, 
 because it has no such Effect on those who embrace it otherwise. 
 The Reason of the Thing is the same in both Cases, and anyone 
 may as justly set forth the Vanity and Insignificancy of the 
 Christian Revelation, because it does not save all its Professors, 
 as your Lordship exposes the Weakness and Vanity of spiritual 
 
 * See the Demonstration of the gross and fundamental Errors, in the Plain 
 Account of the Sacrament, Sr'c.
 
 the bishop of Bangor, i6i 
 
 Censures, because they do not absolutely, and in all Cases, 
 throw People out of God's Favour. 
 
 I hope I have here said enough, to vindicate the Authority 
 and Effects of the spiritual Punishments of the Church, against 
 all your Lordship has advanced against them. 
 
 I shall make an Observation or two more upon this Head, and 
 then proceed to the other Parts of your Answer. 
 
 You say, the incestuous Corinthian zvas never the more or the 
 less in God's Favour for what was done in the CJiurch!^ This 
 Doctrine I have already confuted, and shall now only set this 
 Passage in another Light. Let us suppose that you had said, 
 that no Man is more in God's Favour for beijig rigJitly baptized 
 by the Church. Now if a Person is not more in God's Favour 
 after he is rightly baptized by the Church, than he was before, 
 then it is certain, that there is no need of Baptism by the Church ; 
 for anything is sufficiently proved needless or useless in Religion, 
 if it neither procures nor loses the Favour of God. This is un- 
 deniably certain, that if we are not more in the Favour of God 
 for being duly baptized by the Church, than if we were not 
 baptized at all, that then that Baptism is a useless Trifle. 
 
 Now this is the Doctrine which your Lordship has taught; for 
 he that says the incestuous Corinthian, though justly turned out 
 of the Church, was neitlier the tnore or the less in God's Favour 
 for what was done by the Church ; says likewise, that he who is 
 duly baptized into Covenant with God by the Church, is never 
 the more or the less in God's Favour for being duly baptized by 
 the Church. For if it be a mere Trifle, and altogether insigni- 
 ficant to us, as to the Favour of God, to be turned out of the 
 Church, by such an Authority ; it must be as mere a Trifle to be 
 admitted into the Church by the same Authority. So that he 
 who declares the one, plainly declares the other : For this is 
 evidently plain, that if nothing be lost as to the Favour of God, 
 by our being duly turned 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 rendered us more acceptable to him, those Degrees 
 of Favour and Acceptance must be certainly lost, by our losing 
 that which was the Cause of them. 
 
 He therefore who asserts it is a Trifle to be turned out of the 
 Church, must also assert, that it is as fruitless and trifling a thing 
 to be admitted into the Church. So that all your Lordship's 
 Raillery and Contempt thrown upon human Excommtcnications, 
 
 * A/isw. to Rcpr., p. 43. 
 
 II
 
 162 T'hree Letters to 
 
 falls as directly upon human Baptisjus ; and makes them as truly 
 fruitless Trifles without any Advantage, as it makes Excommu- 
 nication a Trifle without any Punishment. 
 
 This therefore is the Sum of your new Religion, set up out of 
 pure Tenderness to the Laity, to deliver them from the Weight 
 and Burden of Ordinances ; this is to be their Support against 
 human Excommunications, human Benedictions, human Baptisms, 
 &c., that whether before or after Baptism, whether before or 
 after Excommunication, they are still the same CJiildren of God. 
 
 Again, you say, If it be supposed {as it sometimes is upon this 
 Sidyject) that a Person behaves himself under the most undeserved 
 Censures, with any degree of Impatience, Pride, or Stubbornness, 
 and that this displeasetJi Almighty God; it is plain that he i?zcurs 
 no part of that Displeasure, upon account of the Sentence of Men, 
 but solely upon the account of his own Behaviour ; it being his own 
 Behaviour alone, and not the Sentence of Men, whicJi has any such 
 Effect 
 
 Here, my Lord, your Philosophy is upon the stretch, and rather 
 than a Christian Institution should have any Force or Effect, 
 you have let it run such lengths, as to make even the Ten 
 Commandments as mere Trifles as the Sentence of Men. 
 
 As for Instance : Suppose a Person should tell a Friend that 
 he had a great liking to some of his Neighbour's Goods, but that 
 the eighth Commandment made him afraid to take them from 
 him ; if his Friend were but a Master of your Philosophy, he 
 might soon convince him of the Folly of such a Fear. He might 
 tell him, that if it be supposed {as it sometimes is supposed iii this 
 Case) that by his manner of taking Goods from his Neighbour, 
 that he displeaseth Almighty God ; it is plain that he i?icurs no 
 Part of that displeasure upon Account of the Commandment, but 
 solely upon the Account of his own Behaviour ; it being his own 
 Behaviour alone, and 7iot the Commandment, which has any such 
 Effect. He might also assure him, that the Commandme7it itself 
 cannot hurt him, that he is not more or less in God's Favour, 
 for what that Commandment says, but purely for what he him- 
 self does. 
 
 I now, my Lord, freely submit it to the Judgment of common 
 Sense, whether your profound Philosophy, does not as truly make 
 void and set aside the Force and Effect of the Commandment, 
 as the Effect of Excommunication. 
 
 For it is plainly as reasonable to tell a Thief that the eighth 
 Commandment cannot hurt him ; that if he steals, it is not the 
 Commandment, but his own Behaviour alone, which will have 
 any Effect ; as to declare, that an impenitent Offender is neither 
 more or less in the Favour of God for what is done by the Church,
 
 the "Bishop of Bangor, 163 
 
 because even supposing God to be angry at him for his Behaviour 
 towards the Sentence of the Church, yet it is not the Sentence, 
 but his own Behaviour, which causes the Divine Displeasure ; 
 therefore the Sentence, says your Lordship, is a Trifle without 
 Effect. And therefore may it also be said, that the eighth 
 Commandment is a Trifle without Effect ; for it is as true of the 
 Commandment in this Sense, and your Lordship is as much 
 obliged to say that it is our Behaviour against the Command- 
 ment, and not the Commandment itself, which will raise God's 
 Displeasure, as to say it is our Behaviour under the Sentence, 
 and not the Sentence itself, which brings God's Displeasure upon 
 us ; so that it is undeniably plain, that if for this reason the 
 Sentence of the Church be a Trifle without any Effect, that for 
 the same reason the Commandment must be equally a Trifle, 
 and equally without any Effect. 
 
 And now, my Lord, need we not heed the Commandments, 
 because it is not the Commandments themselves which will have 
 any Effect upon us ? Why then are we to be exhorted, and 
 preached up into a Contempt of the Sentence of the Church, 
 because it is not the Sentence itself will have any Effect upon 
 us ? Is it safe to sin against the Authority of the Command- 
 ment, because it is not the Commandment itself which can 
 punish us? If not, where is the Sense, or Reason, or Christianity 
 of telling us, that we need not heed the Sentence of the Church, 
 because the Sentence itself cannot punish us? 
 
 Suppose some High Churchman had writ a Treatise against 
 Stealing, and had carried the Matter so very far, as to talk of 
 the fatal Effect which the eighth Commandment would have 
 upon Offenders, when it should rise up in Judgment and con- 
 demn them. 
 
 Would your Lordship think yourself obliged in regard to the 
 Liberty of those who want other People's Goods, to tell them, 
 that indeed they ought to take care to act with Sincerity in 
 their acquiring the temporal Things of this Life, that they ought 
 to consider with the utmost Impartiality the Nature of Property, 
 and the Conditions of that Original Contract^ which first settled 
 the Rights and Bounds of it, and gave every Man a Right in 
 such or such a Part of the Things of this Life ; but that if they 
 should through Ivipatietice of Want, or Pride, or any other 
 Passion or Prejudice, make too free with their Neighbour's 
 Property, and so displease Almighty God ; would you think 
 yourself obliged to tell them, that the fatal Effects of the eighth 
 Commandment, and its pretended rising up in Judgment here- 
 after, is all Sham and Banter ; and that however God may be 
 displeased with them, yet that Commandment will have no 
 
 II — 2
 
 164 
 
 T'hree Letters to 
 
 Effect upon them ? Would your Love of Liberty, your Concern 
 for the Laity, engage you to give so much Comfort, and preach 
 such smooth things to such a Class of People ? 
 
 Thus much may be fairly affirmed, that you might as well 
 deliver such a sort of People from their Fear of the Command- 
 ment, as to endeavour to persuade impenitent Offenders not to 
 fear the Sentence of the Church. For as the Guilt of Stealing 
 is aggravated by being contracted against the Authority of the 
 eighth Commandment ; so the Guilt of Impenitence is heightened, 
 by a Continuance in it against that Authority in the Church, 
 which is as truly founded by God to prevent the Growth of Sin, 
 as the eighth Commandment was given by God to prevent 
 Stealing. So that he who teaches Offenders to disregard this 
 Sentence, which is authorised by God to awaken and terrify 
 them into Repentance, does the same as if he should teach 
 Thieves to disregard the eighth Commandment, which was 
 given by God to affright People from stealing. 
 
 If it should be here objected, that there is a very great differ- 
 ence betwixt the Duty we owe to the eighth Commandment, and 
 our Duty to the Sentence of the Church ; because the Com- 
 mandment is always right and the same, whereas the Church 
 may err in its Sentence. 
 
 To this it may be answered, that granting all this, that the 
 Church may sometimes err in its Sentence ; yet if it is ever in the 
 right, if it ever can be a fault, or dangerous for Sinners not to 
 submit to, and be corrected by it, this will condemn your Doc- 
 trine, which sets it out constantly, and in all Circumstances, as a 
 Dream and Trifle, and without any Effect. 
 
 Secondly ; Here is no room left for you to plead the Uncer- 
 tainty of the Church's Sentence, in regard to the Certainty of 
 the Commandment ; because you directly set forth your Doc- 
 trine in a Case (that of the incestuous Corinthian) where all 
 was right and just, and yet declare that in that Case it was with- 
 out any Effects ; and that if the incestuous Corinthian had con- 
 tinued impenitent under it, and disregarded it as long as he had 
 lived, it had signified no more to him than if it had never been 
 pronounced. And in this Case, my Lord, and upon this Suppo- 
 sition, that the Authority judges and condemns such Sinners as 
 it ought to do, it is as abominable to tell such 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 Command- 
 ment. And I here challenge all the Reason which ever appeared 
 against the Doctrines of Christianity, to show me, why it is not 
 as agreeable to the Scripture to declare, that if a Thief lives and 
 dies in his Sins of Stealing, that he has nothing to fear from the
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor. 165 
 
 eighth Commandment; as to declare that an impenitent 
 Offender, though y^i-//;/ censured by the Authority of the Church, 
 has nothing to fear from such a Censure^ though he lives and 
 dies in the Contempt of it. 
 
 Thirdly and lastly ; Though the Church may sometimes err 
 in its Authority, and the Commandment is always right ; yet 
 your Doctrine makes it as reasonable to declare the Command- 
 ment without any Effect, as to declare the Sentence of the 
 Church to be without any Effect, For you do not say that 
 Excommunication is a Trifle without any Effect, because it is a 
 Sentence which may sometimes be wrong ; but because, though 
 we should displease God under the Sentence of the Church, yet 
 that Displeasure would not have been occasioned by the Sentence, 
 but by our Behaviom- alone. And this Doctrine plainly makes 
 all the Commandments as mere Trifles and void of all Effect, as 
 it makes the Sentence of the Church so. For it is as true in 
 your Sense, and you are as much obliged to say, that if we sin 
 against the Commandments, and incur the Displeasure of God, 
 that it is not the Commandments, but our Behaviour alone which 
 causes it : And so the Commandments of God have no more to 
 do with the Favour of God, but are as mere Dreams without any 
 Effect, as the human Excommunications you have so much 
 exposed. This, my Lord, is a very compendious Confutation 
 both of the Law and the Gospel ; and is a good reason, why so 
 many of those who have no regard for either, but think Zeal in 
 Religion a Meanness of Spirit, are yet great Zealots for your 
 Lordship's Opinions. 
 
 Of Church-Authority^ as it relates to 
 external Co7nrnunion. 
 
 YOUR Lordship says, / know of 710 Church Authority to 
 oblige Christians to external Communion, nor anything 
 to determine them but their own Consciences* But to 
 show your Desire to be informed, your Lordship 
 frequently calls upon the Learned Cojumittee to 
 declare what the Authority of the Church is. It is something 
 strange, that you should have been so long writing down the 
 Authority of the Church, and yet not know what is meant by 
 
 * Ansu>. to Re fir., p. 112.
 
 1 66 'Three Letters to 
 
 Church Authority ; that you should take so much pains to oppose 
 (as you say) only absolute Authority, and yet not know whether 
 there be any else, or what Authority you have left in the Church, 
 It is yet something stranger that a Bishop of the Church, should 
 be frightening the Laity from a kind of Church Authority which 
 is not claimed over them, and yet be at the same time pre- 
 tendedly ignorant of what sort of Church Authority they are 
 under. Here you have been preaching against that, which they 
 are not concerned with ; but when you should tell them what 
 kind of Authority they are concerned with, you have not one 
 word of Instruction ; but call upon the CoDiniittee to declare, 
 whether there be any such thing as Church Authority which is 
 not absolute. My Lord, if there be not, to what purpose have 
 you so often taken Refuge in the word Absolute? Or where is 
 the Honesty or Reason of saying you have not denied all 
 Authority, but only that which is absolute, if you believe there is 
 no Authority but what is absolute ? If therefore your Lordship 
 has made this Distinction with any degree of Sincerity, if you 
 intended anything more by it, than an artful playing with 
 Words; it plainly lies at your Door to shew what Authority you 
 have not touched ; and that in supposing that which is absolute, 
 you neither have, nor intended to oppose all Authority and 
 Jurisdiction in Matters of Religion. But, instead of this, if the 
 Learned Comuiittee should explain to your Lordship what that 
 Authority is, which is not absolute ; you only venture so far as 
 to say, that if there is any such Authority, you are, for aught that 
 you have said, at liberty to declare for it.* Mighty cautiously 
 expressed, my Lord ! Had a Courtier, who rather intends to 
 attiuse than itiform, and talk artfitlly than sincerely, delivered 
 himself in such inconclusive Terms, it had not been much Matter 
 either of Wonder or Complaint. But for a Bishop, who makes 
 Sincerity to be of more worth than all the Christian Religion ; 
 for this Bishop, in a Cause which he declares himself ready to 
 die in ; in such a Cause, as is of the last Consequence to us all, 
 as Men, Christians, and Protestants ; for this Bishop to say, if 
 there be such an Authority, instead of declaring whether there is 
 or not ; and to say, Jie is at liberty to declare for it, instead of 
 plainly saying whether he ought or not ; however consistent it 
 may be with Sincerity, I am sure it has too much the Appearance 
 of the contrary. 
 
 For seeing you are charged with denying all Authority in the 
 Church, if you consulted Plainness and Sincerity, if you regarded 
 the Information of the Vulgar, and the Peace of the Church, 
 
 * Answ. to Repr., p. 25.
 
 the "Bishop of Bangor, 167 
 
 which way could these Considerations lead you to defend your- 
 self; but either to shew that there was a real Authority in the 
 Church, which you had not opposed; or else plainly to own that 
 you had denied all Authority, because all Authority of every 
 kind is to be denied ? But instead of declaring yourself openly 
 and plainly for the sake of Truth, Peace, and Sincerity, you take 
 Refuge in Words, and secure yourself behind a Cloud of 
 Properly's and Ahsoluteiys, to the Disturbance of honest Minds, 
 and to the Satisfaction of the Profane. 
 
 Since your Lordship calls out so often to be told what that 
 Authority is which obliges us to external Comnmnion, I shall beg 
 leave to offer these following Considerations upon this Head, 
 and hope they will sufficiently both assert and explain that 
 Church Authority or Obligation, which we are all under to join 
 in external Communion. 
 
 Your Lordship says ; I knoiv of no Church Authority to oblige 
 any Christians to external Coniniunion ; nor anything to determine 
 them, but their own Consciences.^ I shall therefore beg leave to 
 observe to your Lordship, what Authority there is to oblige All 
 Christians to external Communioti ; and to show, that they are no 
 more left at liberty in this Matter, than they are at liberty to steal 
 or murder. 
 
 I suppose it is not proper or true, to say, that you know of no 
 Authority to oblige any Christians, or anything to keep them 
 from the Practice of Stealing, but their own Consciences; because 
 there is the express Authority of God against this Practice. Now 
 if it would be improper and false to say this, because the Autho- 
 rity of God has so plainly appeared in it ; I shall easily prove, 
 that it is as false and improper to say, that we have nothing but 
 our Consciences to determine us in the Case of external Com- 
 munion, since the Authority of God is as express in obliging us 
 to this external Coinmuniojt, as in requiring us to be just and 
 honest in all our Dealings. 
 
 I desire no more to be granted me here, than that it is necessary 
 to be a Christian, and that we are called upon by the Authority 
 of God to embrace this Religion as necessary to Salvation. This, 
 my Lord, is the express Doctrine of the Scriptures ; so that I 
 hope I may presume upon it, as granted by your Lordship, that 
 there is an Authority to oblige People to be Christians, and 
 that this Authority makes it as necessary, that they should 
 be Christians, as it is necessary to obey God, and conform to 
 his Will. 
 
 First ; If Christianity be a Method of Life necessary to Sal- 
 
 * Pagre 1 12.
 
 1 68 "Three Letters to 
 
 vation, then we are necessarily obliged to external Communion ; 
 for we can no other way appear to be Christians, either to our- 
 selves or others, but by this external Communion. A Person 
 who lives in a Cloister, may as well be taken for a Field General, 
 as he who is not in external Communion, for a Christian. For 
 the Christian Religion is a Method of Worship distinct from all 
 others, in those Offices and Duties which constitute external 
 Communion ; so that if you are so far obliged to be a Christian, 
 as to serve God differently from other People, you are obliged to 
 external Coniviunion, because that Service which distinguishes 
 the Christian Worshipper from all other People, is such a Service 
 as cannot be performed but in an external Communion in such 
 and such Offices, viz.,Profcssio)is of Faith, Joint Prayers, and the 
 Observance of the Sacraments. External Communion is only 
 another Word for the Profession of Christianity, because the 
 several Duties and Obligations which concern anyone as a 
 Christian, and distinguish him from other People, are Duties 
 which as necessarily imply external Communion, as walking 
 implies Motion. Therefore to ask whether a Christian be 
 obliged to external Commnnion, is to ask whether a Person who 
 is obliged to walk, be obliged to move. The short is this ; No 
 Man can be a Christian, but by taking upon him the Profession 
 of Christianity ; the Profession of Christianity is nothing else 
 but external Communion with Christians ; therefore it is as 
 necessary to be in external Communion, as to be a Christian. 
 
 I hope I need not prove to your Lordship, that there is an 
 Authority to oblige People to the Profession of Christianity; 
 intending here only to prove, that the same Authority obliges us 
 to external Communion. 
 
 Had your Lordship therefore declared to the World, that you 
 know of no Authority to oblige People to be Christians, it had 
 been as iiinocent and triic a Declaration, as this you have made 
 concerning external Communion ; there being plainly the same 
 Authority obliging us to the one, as to the other. For, my Lord, 
 what is implied in external Communion, but our communicating 
 with our Fellow Christians in those Acts of Worship and Divine 
 Service which Christianity requires of us ? And what Marks or 
 Tokens can we shew of our Christianity, but that we are of the 
 Number of those who are baptized into Christ's Church, for the 
 joint Worship of God in that particular Service which the 
 Christian Religion has taught us ? So that if we prove ourselves 
 Christians, we must prove ourselves in this external Communion, 
 because to be a Christian implies no more, than the being of the 
 Number of those who visibly unite and join in such Acts and 
 Offices of Divine Worship, as are proper to Christians. If there-
 
 the "Bishop of Bangor, 169 
 
 fore there be no Authority to oblige us to external Communion, 
 then no one is obliged to be a Christian. 
 
 Secondly ; If there be 7io Authority to oblige, or miything to 
 determine Christians to external Comimmion but their own Con- 
 sciences, then it is plain, it is as lawful for all Christians to be 
 their own Priests, and confine themselves to a private Worship 
 separate from every Christian in the World, as to join in external 
 Communion. For where there is no Authority or Obligation to 
 determine our Practice, there the thing must needs be indifferent ; 
 and to do it or let it alone, must be equally lawful. If there was 
 no Authority which obliged us to be baptized, it would not only 
 be lawful to let it alone, but idle to trouble our Heads about it. 
 The same is true of this external Communion ; if we are under 
 no Law concerning it, it is no part of our Duty either to do it, or 
 let it alone. 
 
 It cannot here be said, that though we are not obliged to 
 external Communion with this or that Church, yet we ought to 
 join with some particular Persons, and not worship God con- 
 stantly by ourselves, and perform no Offices with other People. 
 For if we are obliged to communicate with any one Person in 
 the World, we are to hold Communion with the whole Church of 
 Christ. For we are not obliged to communicate with this or that 
 particular Person on account of any Civil or Natural Relation, 
 but as we are Christians, and from the Coninio7i Nature of our 
 Christianity. Since therefore our Obligation to communicate 
 with any particular Persons, does not arise from any private 
 particular Relation, but from the conimon Nature of our Religion ; 
 this does equally oblige us to hold Communion with all Chris- 
 tians, as with any particular Christians, they being all equally 
 related to us as Christians ; and consequently it is as necessary 
 to hold Communion with the external visible Church, as with 
 any particular Christian. From this also it is plain, that it is as 
 lawful to avoid Communion with every particular Christian in 
 the World, as to refuse Communion with any sound Part of the 
 Church on Earth. 
 
 I beg of your Lordship to produce but one Argument, why 
 any two or three should meet together for the Service of God, 
 which will not equally prove it necessary that Christians should 
 join in external Communion. May it all be laid aside, my Lord .'' 
 Need there be any more of this assembling ourselves together 
 for performing of Duties, which we thought we could not perform 
 separately .'' 
 
 I have shown in my second Letter, that your Lordship cannot 
 consistently with your Principles, urge any Reasons to any Dis- 
 senters to come over to the Church of England ; and here, my
 
 170 'Three Letters to 
 
 Lord, it will appear, that you have not one Argument against 
 the Absenters from all Public Worship. For it would be as odd 
 and unreasonable in your Lordship to offer any Argument to 
 such an Absenter, why he should join in some Public Worship, 
 after you have denied an Authority which obliges us to external 
 Communion, as it would be for an Atheist who had denied 
 the Necessity of any Religion, to persuade a Man to be a sincere 
 Mahometan. 
 
 If your Lordship should tell this Absenter from all Com- 
 munions, that he ought to join with some Communion or other 
 in the Worship of God ; might he not fairly ask your Lordship, 
 how you came to tell the World that you knozv of no AiitJwrity 
 to oblige any Christians, or anything to determine them to 
 external Communion ? Can anyone be obliged to join in Divine 
 Service, who is not obliged to extertial Communion ? Could 
 anyone imagine that if he was not obliged to join in external 
 Communion, that it was not lawful to stay at home ? Could he 
 think that when your Lordship was declaring against any Obli- 
 gation to Church Communion, that you meant he ought to join 
 himself with some of the Dissenters ? Had your Lordship 
 plainly declared, that no Christian need read any Book in the 
 World, could you consistently with yourself offer any Arguments 
 why he should read the Bible ? Yet this is as consistent, as to 
 desire any Person to communicate with any Body of Christians, 
 after you have plainly disowned any Obligation to external 
 Communion. 
 
 For whatever Arguments your Lordship can offer to an 
 Absenter from all Public Worship, may be answered in this 
 manner. ' Either your Arguments for my joining with any 
 ' Christians are invented by yourself, and of your own making, 
 ' or they are not ; if they are Fictions of your Lordship's, and 
 'destitute of any Foundation in the Will or Authority of God, 
 ' then they are vain and to no Purpose ; but that all such Argu- 
 
 * ments are mere Fictions and Inventions of your own, is plain 
 ' from your Lordship's express Declaration, \h2X you kneiv of no 
 
 * Atithority, or anything to oblige or determine Christians to 
 ' external Communion ; so that all the Arguments you can offer 
 ' for my external Communion, are declared by yourself to be 
 
 * such as are of no Authority, or have anything in them to deter- 
 
 * mine me to external Communion.' 
 
 And indeed, had your Lordship first declared that there was 
 no such thing as Figure in Bodies, and then pretended to prove 
 that the World is round, it would be no more miraculous, than 
 first to give out, that no Christians are obliged to external 
 Communion, and afterwards take upon you to persuade anyone
 
 the "Bishop of Bangor, 171 
 
 to join himself to some Body of Christians. Here therefore your 
 Lordship has so preached up and advanced this Kingdom of 
 Christ, that consistently with yourself, you cannot so much as 
 require anyone to be a visible Member of it, or offer the least 
 Shadow of an Argument, why an Absenter should rather go to 
 some Church, than trust to his own Religion at home. Your 
 Lordship wrote a Treatise some Years ago on the Reasonableness 
 of Conformity to the Church of England. But pray, my Lord, 
 where is the Reasonableness of conforming, if we are under no 
 Obligation to conform ? Where is the Reasonableness of doing 
 that, which is not our Duty to do ? Where can be the Reason- 
 ableness of going two or three Miles to Church for the sake of 
 external Communion, if there be no Authority, or anythittg to 
 determine us to external Communion ? Can it be reasonable to 
 spend our Time and some Part of our Wealth in making up 
 such Meetings, as God has not required at our Hands ? 
 
 Your Lordship must either therefore retract what you have 
 said, and allow that there is an Authority \.o oblige us to external 
 Communion, or acknowledge that no Christians are under any 
 Obligations to serve God in any Communion, but may confine 
 themselves to a private Religion, separate from every other 
 Christian in the World. That is, that no one is obliged to 
 worship God in the public Assembly, or join with anyone else in 
 the Service of God. 
 
 Thirdly ; If there be no Authority to oblige us to external 
 Commimion, then it may well be questioned, how your Lordship 
 can answer for your joining in external Communion in the 
 Church of England. Your Lordship knows that the Communion 
 of the Church of England, gives great Offence to the Papist and 
 Protestant Dissenters of all kinds ; how then can your Lordship 
 justify your doing that, which you need not do, which gives so 
 much Scandal to so many tender Consciences } 
 
 W^ill your Lordship be of a Church, though it is this very 
 Church Communion that is so very offensive ? Your Lordship 
 knows that the Animosities and Church Divisions amongst 
 Christians is one of the most sore Evils under the Sun ; that all 
 the Party Heats and Controversies are concerning whom we are 
 to communicate with, and in Defence of particular external 
 Communions. Now, my Lord, what should that Christian do, 
 who is all Sincerity, who believes there is no Obligation to 
 external Communion, and who sees that the pretended Necessity 
 of it, causes all the Difference and Division amongst Christians .-* 
 Can that sincere Person who believes and knows all this, keep 
 at the Head of a particular Communion ? Can he support so 
 unnecessary , so needless an Evil } Can that sincere Person be a
 
 172 'Three Letters to 
 
 Bishop in that Communion, which stands distinguished from 
 other external Communions, chiefly as it is episcopal Conimimion, 
 when he allows there is no Necessity of being in Communion 
 either with Bishops or anybody else ? Could that Pope be 
 reckoned sincere, who should declare that he knew of no 
 Authority, or anything to determine him to exercise the papal 
 Powers, could he be a sincere Christian, if he yet continued to 
 exercise them to the Scandal and Offence of so many Christian 
 Countries ? If he could, so might your Lordship for continuing 
 at the Head of an external Communion, which divides and 
 disturbs Christians, though you know of no Autlwrity to oblige, 
 or anythi?ig to determine yon to this external Communion. 
 
 Surely your Lordship will have more Compassion at last for 
 your dissenting Brethren, more Concern for the Peace of Christ's 
 Kingdom, than to keep up such unnecessary Communions, and 
 disturb so many weak Consciences, by joining externally in the 
 Church of Englafid, when you know of no Authority, or anything 
 to oblige you to join with any Body. 
 
 Suppose the Peace of Great Britain was miserably destroyed 
 by Party Rage and Dispute about the Stars. Would your 
 Lordship head one Party of Star-gazers against another ? 
 Would you join yourself to such a vain and useless Cause at the 
 Expense of the public Peace ? Now, my Lord, if there be 
 notJiing to oblige us to external Coviniunio7i, it is all a Trifie, and 
 mere Star-gazing ; and a Person who appears in the Cause, and 
 at the Head of this external Communion, can be no more a 
 Friend to Christianity, by keeping up such an unnecessary 
 Cause of Division, than he could be a good Subject, who 
 should join in the needless idle Quarrels of Star-gazing Party- 
 men. In a Word, if your Lordship knows of anything that 
 obliges you to continue in the Church of England, you ought 
 not to have said that you know of no Authority to oblige, or any- 
 thing to determine any Christian to external Cotnmunion : But if 
 you know of nothing that obliges you to continue in the Church 
 of England, then you ought rather to leave it, than to bear a 
 part in so needless a Community, and which gives so much 
 Offence to all those who dislike the Terms of it. 
 
 Fourthly ; If there be no Authority to oblige us to external 
 Communion, how comes there to be such a Sin as Schism ? 
 How comes the Schismatic, or Divider of Communions, to be so 
 frequently in the Scriptures ranked amongst the most guilty 
 Offenders ? 
 
 Can it be a Sin to be divided, unless we are under some Obli- 
 gation to be united ? 
 
 It has been always granted that Schism is the Separation of
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor, 173 
 
 ourselves from such a Communion of Christians, as we ought to 
 have held Communion with. Now if separate Worship from 
 any Christians in the World be the Sin of Sc/iisvi, then there 
 must be some Law that obliges those Schismatics to join with 
 those Christians, from whom they separate, and consequently 
 there is an Authority which obliges Christians to external 
 Communion. 
 
 Your Lordship must either shew that Schism does not consist 
 in refusing to communicate with some Christians, or that though 
 it be the damnable Sin of Schism to refuse Communion with 
 some Christians, yet there is no Authority to oblige us to 
 external Communion with any Christians, i.e., that though 
 Schism be a Sin, yet it is the Transgression of no Law. 
 
 The Apostle says, Mark those zvho cause Divisions contrary to 
 the Traditions which ye have learned of me, and avoid thon. 
 My Lord, what strange Language is this, if there is nothing to 
 oblige us to external Communion ? If there is no Obligation 
 to be united, why must they be marked who cause Divisions ? 
 If there be no Authority that requires external Communion at 
 our Hands, why must those Persons be avoided who prevent 
 external Communion ? 
 
 Either the Apostle, or your Lordship must be mightily mis- 
 taken ; the Apostle tells us that Divisions in the Church are 
 contrary to the Doctrine which he had taught, and therefore 
 there is the express Authority of the Apostle to oblige us to 
 external Communion. But your Lordship says there is no 
 Authority to oblige us to this Duty, therefore you must either 
 maintain that the Apostle taught no such Doctrine, though he 
 said he had, or that there is no Authority in his Doctrine to 
 oblige us. 
 
 I suppose, my Lord, that the Apostle by Divisions here means 
 external visible Divisions, because he bids them mark those who 
 cause them, and avoid them ; for invisible internal Divisions can 
 no more be marked, or invisible Schismatics avoided, than we 
 can mark People's Thoughts, or lock out a Spirit. If therefore 
 the Division here spoken of be external Division, then the Sin 
 here condemned is a Breach of external Communion, and con- 
 sequently we are here required by the Apostle to join in external 
 Communion ; unless we can suppose, that the Apostle could 
 condemn those who were externally divided, without meaning 
 that they ought to be externally icnited. 
 
 Fifthly ; If there be no Authority to oblige us to external 
 Communion, then there is no Authority to oblige us to be 
 baptized. For Baptism is an external visible Ordinance of God, 
 which as plainly implies external Communion with others, as
 
 174 T'hree Letters to 
 
 any Contract in the World implies Correspondence with others. 
 And any Person might as well be obliged to bargain and mer- 
 chandise with others, without being obliged to be concerned 
 with others, as be obliged to be baptized, without being obliged 
 to external Communion. 
 
 For as we cannot baptize ourselves, this shows that the 
 Christian Religion is not suited to the State of single independent 
 Persons, but requires our external Communion to the Performance 
 of its Obligations. And as we cannot be baptized by others, 
 but by resigning up ourselves to the Observance of new Laws, 
 this plainly proves that the Person is baptized into a State of 
 Society and external Communion. That Baptism does not leave 
 the baptized Person to a separate independent Worship, is very 
 plain from the following Instances. 
 
 The Church of England, in the Office for Baptism, thus 
 expresses herself: We receive this Person into the Congregation 
 
 of Chris fs Flock, &c. Again,' Seeing now This Person is 
 
 regenerated and grafted into the Body of Chrisfs Church, &c. I 
 should think it very plain, my Lord, to every Reader, that these 
 Passages show that Baptism necessarily implies external Com- 
 munion, and puts it out of the Power of every baptized Person to 
 refuse external Communion, unless he will break through the 
 Conditions of his Baptism. For can we be received into the 
 Congregation of Chrisfs Flock, without being obliged to keep up 
 this Congregation, or to perform any Duties or Offices considered 
 as a Congregation or Flock ? Can we in any Sense be considered 
 as a Congregation or a Flock, but in our Communion in those 
 Offices which shew us to be Christ's Flock .'' Can we be said to 
 be grafted into the Body of Christ's Church, if we are at liberty 
 never to meet as a Church, or act as a Church } 
 
 The Apostle says, For by ojte Spirit zve are all baptized into one 
 Bodyf What can more manifestly denote external Communion, 
 than this Account of Baptism ? Can we be baptized into one 
 Body, and not be obliged to act as a Body ? Can we act as a 
 Body, by running away from one another, and refusing to unite 
 in that Service, into which we are baptized .'* I suppose we are 
 here to be considered as a Christian Body ; but how a Number 
 of People can be a Christian Body, who are not united in 
 Christian Worship, is hard to conceive. 
 
 When therefore you declare that you know of no Authority to 
 oblige Christians to external Communion, you desert the Doc- 
 trines of Christ, as plainly as if you said, that you know of no 
 Authority which obliges People to be baptized. 
 
 Sixthly ; If there be no Authority to oblige, nor anything to 
 
 * I Cor. xii. 13.
 
 the bishop of "Bangor, 175 
 
 determine us to external Communion, then there is no Authority 
 to oblige, nor anything to determine us to communicate in the 
 blessed Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. For if 
 there is any Law which obliges us to join externally in the 
 Observance of this histitution, then it is out of all doubt, that we 
 are obliged to external Communion. Now if you will say that 
 there is no Law of God as to this Matter, then the thing itself 
 must needs be indifferent, and private Mass must be allowed to 
 be as right and lawful, as a joint Communion in the Holy 
 Sacrament. Either therefore you must defend private Mass, 
 or show some Authority against it ; if you can produce any 
 Authority against it, then you produce an Authority for external 
 Communion, and contradict your other Declaration, where you 
 give out, that you do not know of anything to determine us to 
 external Communion. 
 
 From all this it plainly appears, what kind of Authority that 
 is, which obliges us to external Communion ; it is that same 
 Authority which obliges us to be baptized, to receive the Com- 
 vmnioti, to profess the same Faith, to worship God in the public 
 Assemblies, and to avoid the Sin of Schis^n ; or, in a word, that 
 same Authority which obliges us to be CJiristiajis . 
 
 For all the Offices of Christian Worship and Devotion which 
 constitute external Communion, are everyone expressly required 
 by God ; and therefore external CommuJiion, which consists only 
 of these Offices, is equally required by God. 
 
 And this Authority may be very justly called Church 
 Authority, because it arises from the very Nature of the Cktirch, 
 because it is the Institution of the Church, from whence this 
 Obligation to Communion ariseth. For Christ has instituted 
 this Church, in order to oblige Mankind to enter into it for the 
 Salvation of their Souls : As the Church therefore is instituted 
 for this End, the Existence of the Church lays an Obligation 
 upon all, who have any Opportunity, of entering into it ; and 
 this Obligation will last as long as the Church of Christ shall 
 last. The short is this ; God has instituted an Order or Society 
 of People, for the particidar manner of serving and worshipping 
 him ; this Society is not a voluntary one, which we may be 
 Members of, or not, as we please ; but it carries, in its very 
 Nature and lnstitutio7i, an Authority obliging us all, as we hope 
 for Happiness, to be Members of it ; we are obliged to be of the 
 Church, because Christ has instituted \.\i^ Church ; therefore it is 
 the lnstitutio?i 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 Communioji. 
 
 Farther ; This maybe very properly called Church Authority,
 
 176 
 
 'Three Letters to 
 
 because it was in the Church, or that Order of Men, which Christ 
 had instituted, before the Scriptures were written. 
 
 When there was only this Order of Men, before the Writings 
 of the Neiv Testainent were in being, there was then this 
 Authority arising from that instituted Order of Men, which 
 obliged others to enter into Communion with them ; therefore 
 this Authority which began with the Existence of the Church, 
 and flowed from the very Nature of the Church, may very justly 
 be called Cliurch Authority. 
 
 If it should be asked, whether this Authority be absolute ? I 
 answer, it is just as absolute, as that Authority which obliges us 
 to be baptized. Our Saviour has told us, that if we are not 
 baptized, zve shall be damned : Here therefore is an Authority for 
 Baptism ; the Scripture has not said whether this be so absolutely 
 obliging, that there is no room in any Case for a Dispensation ; 
 therefore it is no Case which concerns us. Now the Authority 
 which obliges us to external Connnunion, is just upon the same 
 Terms ; the thing is as plainly required as Baptism ; but whether 
 in any Cases it will be dispensed with, is what we have nothing 
 to do with. If there be any Sincerity, any Weakness, diny Ignor- 
 ance, or the Want of anything which will excuse those who refuse 
 to be baptized, those same Considerations may excuse the Refusal 
 o{ external Conmiunion with the Church. 
 
 This, my Lord, is the Nature of that Church Authority, which 
 obliges to external Commutiion ; it is that very same Authority 
 which obliges us to the Profession of Christianity, or to enter 
 into Covenant with God. For he who is in external Communion 
 with the Church of Christ, is of the Church of Christ, or in 
 Covenant with God ; and he who is not in external Communion, 
 is not of the Church of Christ, nor in Covenant with God ; and 
 consequently it is that same Authority which obliges us to be 
 Christians, or in Covenant with God, which obliges us to external 
 Communion. 
 
 So that when you say, you knoiv of no Church Authority to 
 oblige, or anything to deterniine People to external Communion, it 
 is directly saying, that you know of no Church Authority to 
 oblige, or anything to determine them to the Profession of 
 Christianity, or to enter into Covenant with God. 
 
 If your Lordship should here say, that you only meant, you 
 know of no humati Authority to oblige People to external 
 Communion, &c. 
 
 To this it may be answered, that you might as well have 
 meant nothing at all by it, as have meant this. For, 
 
 First ; Suppose the Question had been, whether there be any 
 Authority, or what Authority it is, which obliges People to be
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor, 177 
 
 baptized? and that in order to settle this Point, you had here 
 declared, that you know of no Church Authority to oblige^ or any- 
 thing to determine them to be baptized, but their ozcn Consciences. 
 
 Could it be thought, my Lord, after this, that you had not 
 denied all Authorifj' for Baptism? Could it be supposed, that 
 by this Declaration, you only meant to deny, that the Authority 
 which obliges us to be baptized, is Human or Civil Authority ? 
 Could anyone who only meant thus much, express himself in 
 this manner ? 
 
 Yet thus it is, that you have expressed yourself in the Dispute 
 concerning our Obligations to external Communion, you knoiv of 
 no Church Atithority to oblige, or anything to determine People to 
 it ; which makes it equally absurd to suppose, that you only 
 deny that our Obligation to external Communion arises from any 
 liuman or civil Authority. 
 
 Secondly; If you only meant to deny an humaji or civil 
 Authority in this Matter, how came you not to say so? How 
 came you not to tell us what Divine or Scripture Authority there 
 is to oblige us ? Is it not as proper and as necessary in a Dispute 
 about this Authority, to declare the true and right Authority, as 
 to protest against the wrong Authority ? But indeed nothing 
 can be more trifling than to say, that you have only denied any 
 human or civil Authority in this Matter. 
 
 For, my Lord, whoever imagined that our Obligations to 
 profess Christianity, that is, to be Alembers of Christ's Church, 
 could proceed from any human Authority? Human Authority 
 may and ought to encourage us in the Practice of our Christian 
 Duties ; but that our Obligation to serve God as Christians, that 
 is, in the external Communion of the Church, should arise from 
 any human Authority, can be supposed by none, but those who 
 imagine Christianity to be a Creature of the State. 
 
 Thirdly ; You not only say that you know of no CJiurcJi 
 Authority \.o oblige, but also add these Words, w^?- anything to 
 determine People to external Communion, but their o'ecn Con- 
 sciences. 
 
 Now, my Lord, if you only meant to deny a human Authority 
 in this Matter ; if you intended to own a Divine Authority to 
 oblige us to external Communion ; how come you to express 
 yourself thus contrary to your Meaning.'' For if you believe 
 there is a Scripture or Divine Authority which obliges us to 
 external Communion, surely this Authority is something, and has 
 some Right to determine us to external Communion ; yet you 
 expressly say that you do not know of anything to determine 
 Christians to external Communion. 
 
 If it was asked, whether Christians are obliged to pray for 
 
 12
 
 lyS 
 
 "Three Letters to 
 
 their Enemies, and you should answer, I do not know any thing 
 to determine them to pray for their Enemies ; would it not be 
 Notisense, and Contradiction after this Declaration, to suppose, 
 that you acknowledge that the Scriptures require Christians to 
 pray for their Enemies ? 
 
 But to suppose, that you acknowledge a Divine or Scripture 
 Authority which obliges to external Communion, after you have 
 expressly declared that you do not know of anytJiing to deter- 
 mine us to external Communion, is equally contradictory. 
 
 Lastly ; You say you do not know of anytJiing to determine 
 Christians to external Communion, but their own Consciences. 
 
 Now this farther shews, that you deny all Divine as well as 
 Human Authority to determine us to external Communion. 
 For if there was a Divine Law which required this Practice, we 
 are no more left solely to our own Consciences in this Practice, 
 than if it was determined by an express human Law. 
 
 For can it be said that the Jeivs had nothing but their own 
 Consciences to determine them to abstain from Blood f Can it 
 be said that Christians have nothing but their own Consciences 
 to determine them to receive the Holy Sacranient ? If this can- 
 not be said, because there is a Divine Law in both these Cases ; 
 then it is as false and absurd to say, that there is nothing but 
 our own Consciences to determine us to external Communion, 
 if there be a Divine Authority which requires this Practice. And 
 consequently, you have plainly denied all Divine or Scripture 
 Authority for external Communion, when you say that you do 
 not know of anything to determine People to external Communio7i, 
 but their oivn Consciences. The short is this ; if you will say, 
 that you own a Divine and So-ipture Authority which obliges us 
 to external Communion ; and if you will allow this Authority 
 to be somethijig, then your Contradiction in this Matter, is as 
 palpable and gross as ever appeared in any Writings ; for you 
 have expressly said, that you do not know of a?iything to deter- 
 mine us to external Communion : But if you own a Scripture 
 Authority that obliges us to external Communion, then your 
 Contradiction proceeds thus, that you do know of something, but 
 you do not know of anything to determine us to external Com- 
 munion. If you will not assert both Parts of this Contradiction, 
 then you must stand to that which you have asserted, viz., that 
 you do not know of anything to determine us to external Com- 
 munion, which I have already shown, is the same thing as 
 declaring, you know of no Authority, or anythi7ig to determine 
 People to profess Christianity, or enter into Covenant with God. 
 But to proceed, 
 
 If you should say that you do not deny an Authority that
 
 the "Bishop of Bangor. 179 
 
 obliges us to external Communion in G€?zeral, but only an 
 Authority that can oblige us to any particular external Com- 
 munion. 
 
 To this I answer, that this is a groundless, false Distinction ; 
 for our Obligatio7i to external Communion with the Church of 
 Christ in general, and our Obligation to external Communion 
 with this or that particular Church, is exactly one and the same 
 Obligation. 
 
 For we are not obliged to join with this or that particular 
 Qhnrch, ioY 2ir\y private, particular Reasons, but because we are 
 obliged to be Christians, or of the Church of Christ. And as no 
 sound Part of Christ^s Church, is more his Church than another 
 sound part, so if we separate from any sound part, we are as 
 truly out of Christ's Church, as if we had separated from every 
 part. And we can give no Reasons for separating from such a 
 part, but such as will equally justify our separating from every 
 part of Christ's Church ; and consequently there can be no 
 Reasons offered why we should be Christians, or of the Church 
 of Christ, but will equally oblige us to enter into that particular 
 part of Christ's Church which offers itself to us. For the whole 
 Intent of entering into this or that particular Church, is only to 
 be a Christian, or of the Church of Christ, and therefore it must 
 be one and the same Authority which obliges us to be Christians, 
 that obliges us also to be of z.\\y particular Church. 
 
 There is a Scripture Authority which obliges us to forgive our 
 Enemies: Now it would be s^s proper to say, that though there is 
 an Authority which obliges us to forgive our Enemies m general, 
 yet that Authority does not oblige us to forgive our particular 
 Enemies, as to say, that though we are obliged to be of the 
 Church of Christ in general, yet we are not obliged to be of this 
 or that particular part of Christ's Church. 
 
 For the Church of Christ in general, as truly consists of these 
 particular Parts, as our Enemies in ge?ieral, consist of our par- 
 ticular Enemies. 
 
 So that, as it is one and the sa?ne Authority which obliges us 
 to forgive our Enemies, that obliges us to forgive our particular 
 Enemies, for it is one and the saine Authority that obliges us to 
 be Christians, that obliges us also to communicate with that 
 paj'ticular sound part of Christ's Church where we live. 
 
 There is therefore no room for this Distinction, to suppose, 
 that though we may be obliged to be of Christ's Church, yet we 
 are not obliged to be of this or that particular sound part of 
 Christ's Church ; it being fully as absurd, as to suppose that 
 we may be obliged to be Christians, and yet not be obliged to 
 be Christians. 
 
 12 — 2
 
 i8o T'hree Letters to 
 
 When therefore you declare, that you know of no Church 
 Authority to oblige, or anytJiing to determine us to extertial 
 Communion, it will be to no purpose to say, that you do not 
 mean Communion with the Church of Christ in general, but only 
 with any particular part of Christ's Church ; for I have shown 
 that this Distinction is false, and fully as absjird, as to imagine, 
 that we may be obliged to obey Christ's Commands in general, 
 but not be obliged to obey h\s particular Commands. 
 
 From what has been said upon this Subject, these following 
 Propositions are plainly true : 
 
 First ; That as our entering into any particular part of the 
 Church, implies our entering into the Church of Christ, or in 
 other Words, our embracing Christianity ; it evidently follows, 
 that the sa)ne Authority which requires us to embrace Chris- 
 tianity, requires us also to enter into that sound part of Christ's 
 Church where we live. 
 
 Secondly ; That this Authority does not arise from any 
 human Laws, or the Power which any Men in what Station 
 soever have over others, but is the Authority of God, who has 
 instituted this Church, in order to oblige all Mankind to enter 
 into it. 
 
 Thirdly ; That this Authority from God, may be very 
 properly called Church Authority, because God manifested this 
 Authority to the World by the Institution of the Church, 
 because it began with the Church, and flowed from its very 
 Nature ; Mankind being therefore obliged to enter into this 
 Church, because there was such a Church instituted by God. 
 
 Fourthly ; That this Account does not in the least make it 
 either unjust or improper, in our spiritual or temporal Governors, 
 to make Laws for our Conformity to this or that part of Christ's 
 Church ; for though the Authority which makes it necessary 
 that we should enter into such a part of Christ's Church, is 
 from God, yet this no more excludes our Governors from 
 requiring the same thing by their Laws, than they are excluded 
 from requiring us to observe any moral Duties, because the 
 same moral Duties are made necessary by the Authority of God. 
 And as our Violation of any moral Duties that are commanded, 
 both by Divine and Human Laws, receives an higher Aggra- 
 vation, so the Guilt of opposing any sound part of Christ's 
 Church is enhanced, by our breaking through the Laws both of 
 God and Man. 
 
 Fifthly ; From this Account of the Authority which obliges 
 us to external Communion, it will be very easy to discover the 
 Weakness and Fallacy of several of your Lordship's Arguments 
 upon this Matter.
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor. i8i 
 
 Thus when you say, It is evident that there is no Choice of 
 Judgment left to Christians, zvhere thet'e is a superior Authority to 
 
 oblige them ; that in Italy, or Spain, or France, they are as much 
 
 obliged by the Church Authority in Italy, Spain, or France, as 
 Christians in England are obliged to a particular external Coin- 
 7nunion in England, by any human A^ithority, as such, in 
 England.* 
 
 Now, my Lord, what could you have thought of less to the 
 Purpose, than these Words thus put together ? For does any- 
 one say, that our Obligation to be of the Church of Englaiid, 
 arises from any human Authority, as such^ in E?igland ? No, 
 my Lord, if human Authority should not only desert the 
 Church, but make the severest Laws against it, yet we should be 
 still under the same Necessity of communicating with it ; because 
 that Necessity is independent of human Laws, is founded upon 
 the Authority of God, and constantly obliges in the same 
 Degree, let the Laws of the State be what they will. 
 
 Granting therefore, my Lord, that the human Authority, as 
 such, in France or Spain, obliges the People of those Kingdoms 
 to conform to those Churches, as truly as the Laws oi Ejigland 
 oblige the People of England to conform to the Church of 
 England. What follows ? Does it follow that therefore the 
 People of France or Spain are as truly obliged to Communion 
 with the Church in those Kingdoms, as the People of England 
 are obliged to Communion with the Church in Etigland ? No, 
 this will by no means follow ; for since we should hold the same 
 Necessity of joining with the Episcopal Church in England, 
 though all the human Laws in Engla^id should forbid us ; since 
 we allow only an accidental and conditional Authority in human 
 Laws as they establish any particular Religion, it follows, that 
 in France and Spain, Cyc., they ought to pay the sajne regard to 
 human Laws, and no more continue in their Church because it 
 is established, than we ought to leave our Church though it was 
 persecuted. The short is this : 
 
 The Church Authority which obliges us to external Communion 
 with zx\y particular "^^iXi of Christ's Church, is that same divine 
 Authority which calls upon us to be baptized, and enter into 
 Covenant with God. 
 
 Now if human Laws, whether of Church or State, strike in 
 with this Authority, then they oblige us, as they do in other 
 Cases, where they require us to do that, which the Laivs of God 
 required before ; but if human Laws, whether of Church or 
 State, require us to enter into such a Communion, as hath not 
 
 * Anszu. to Repr., p. 113.
 
 1 82 'Three Letters to 
 
 the Authority of Christ for it, or forbid our joining with such a 
 Communion as is a true part of Christ's Church, such Laws are 
 no more to be observed, than if they had established Idolatry, or 
 forbid the Worship of the true God. For hujnaii Laws are not 
 supposed to make it our Duty to enter into such a Communion, 
 but are applied as proper means to induce us to do that, which 
 the Lazvs of God had made it our Duty to do before. And it is 
 undeniably true, that though there should be ever so many 
 human Laws to command us to enter into any particular 
 Communion, that we must not comply with such Laws, unless 
 it be in regard to sucJi a Communion, as it was our Duty to enter 
 into, though no such human Laws were in being. 
 
 So that human Laws create no Necessity of external Com- 
 munion, any more than they create the Necessity of praying to 
 God ; but they may be applied as very proper means to induce 
 People to perform the Duty of external Communion, and to 
 perform the Duty of Prayer to God. 
 
 The Question therefore in any Country is not this, whether the 
 Laws either of their CJiurcJi or State require us to enter into such a 
 Communion, but whether it be sucJi a Communion, as it would 
 be our Duty to enter into, were there no Jiuman Laws to enjoin 
 it, whether it be a part of Christ's Church, which we are obliged 
 to enter into on Pain of everlasting Damnation. 
 
 When therefore you say, if the People of England are obliged 
 by an humaji Authority, as such, to enter into the Church of 
 England, then the People of France, Spain and Italy, are as truly 
 obliged by the human Authority there to enter into those par- 
 ticular Communions : you say exceedingly true, but to no more 
 purpose, than if you had made the following Declaration. 
 
 If the People of England are obliged to enter into Communion 
 with the Church of England by any Military Authority, as such; 
 then the People of France, Spain, and Italy, are obliged to 
 Communion with the Churches in Spain, F^'ance, and Italy, by 
 the Jllilitary Authority, as such, in Spain, France, and Italy. 
 
 This, my Lord, is as much to the Purpose as what you have 
 said ; for our Obligation to enter into a particular Part of Christ's 
 Church, is no more founded in any Jiuman Laws, as such, than in 
 any Military Authority, as such ; but is founded in the Will of 
 God, who has instituted the Church on Earth, and made our 
 Salvation depend upon our Entrance into it. This is the 
 Authority which obliges, this is the Necessity which lies upon us, 
 to enter into any Part of Christ's Church. 
 
 If therefore you would show, that in Spain, or France, &c., 
 they are under the same Necessity of being of the Church in those 
 Kingdoms, which the People of England are of being Members
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor. 183 
 
 of the Episcopal Church in Englajtd ; you ought to show that 
 the Established Church in Spain, or in France, is as truly a sound 
 Part of the Church of Christ, as the Established Church in 
 England is a sound Part of the Church of Christ ; and that the 
 way of Worship there, is as certainly that necessary Method of 
 Salvation which Christ has instituted, as the way of Worship in 
 the Church of England, is that necessary ilfcthod of Salvation 
 which Christ has instituted. 
 
 For this is the only Authority or Necessity, which obliges us to 
 enter into any Church in any Part of the World ; namely, a 
 Necessity of being Christians, by entering into that Church which 
 Christ has instituted ; so that if this same Church be in Spaijt, 
 and France, and England, then there is an equal Necessity of 
 being of the Church in each Kingdom ; but if the Church in 
 Spaiji be not the Church which Christ has instituted, and the 
 Church in England be that Church which Christ has instituted, 
 then there is as great a Necessity of refusing to communicate 
 with the Church in Spain, as of joining in Communion with the 
 Church of England. 
 
 This therefore being the Nature of the Authority or Necessity 
 which obliges to external Communion, nothing can be more 
 trifling, than to argue from the Necessity of complying with the 
 Church in one Kingdom, to a Necessity of complying with the 
 Church in all other Kingdoms ; unless you could demonstrate, 
 that because the Established Church in one Kingdom is the true 
 Church of Christ, therefore the Established Church in every other 
 Kingdom is the true Church of Christ. 
 
 Yet your Lordship has spent a great many Pages, in declaim- 
 ing against any Authority or Necessity which can oblige People 
 to communicate with the Church of England ; because then 
 there would be the same Necessity that the People of Spain, and 
 Finance, and Italy, should communicate with the Church in those 
 Kingdoms. But I hope the most ordinary Reader will be able 
 to tell your Lordship, that there is no more good Sense, much less 
 Divinity, in this way of instructing the World, than if you had 
 said, there is no Necessity that the People of England should 
 believe things which are true, because then the People of Spain 
 will be under the same Necessity of believing things which are 
 false ; and again, that there is no Necessity that in this Kingdom 
 we should comply with good Lazvs, because in otlier Kingdoms 
 People will be under the same Necessity of complying with 
 wiciced Laivs. 
 
 But to conclude this Point ; I have here stated the Nature of 
 that Authority or Necessity which obliges us to external Com- 
 munion, that it does not arise from the Laivs of any Men,
 
 184 
 
 T'hree Letters to 
 
 whether in Church or State, but from the Will and Authority of 
 Christ, who has instituted such external Communion, as a necessary 
 Method of Salvation. 
 
 I have shown also, that human Laws, though they, as such, do 
 not create a Necessity of external Communion, yet they have a 
 very proper Significaiicy, and are as useful in this Matter, as in 
 any other Parts of our Duty. 
 
 Of Sincerity and Private ytidgment. 
 
 IF you should here say, that by denying the Necessity of 
 external Communion to arise from Jmman Laws, as such, 
 I have resolved the Choice of a particular Communion 
 into private Judgment. 
 To this I answer ; 
 
 First ; That by entering into any particular Communion, we 
 are to understand the same thing as entering into the Church of 
 Christ, or embracing the Religion which Christ has instituted. 
 
 Secondly ; That when Christ came into the World, People 
 were left to their choice, whether they would embrace Chris- 
 tianity. 
 
 Thirdly ; That Christianity is still upon the same Terms with 
 Mankind, and it is still left to everyone's private Judgment, 
 whether he will comply with the Terms of Salvation. 
 
 Fourthly ; That this does not destroy the Force and Obligations 
 of Authority, or make it without any Effect 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 feared from such Authority, 
 because Men may disown it if they please. For to say there is 
 nothing in Authority, that it is insignificant and without any 
 Effect upon the Condition of Men, if they may use \.\it\x private 
 Judgments, is as ridictdous as to say, there is nothing m the 
 Happiness of Heaven, or Torments of Hell, that they can have 
 no Effect upon the Condition of Men, because Men md^y Judge of 
 these things as they please. 
 
 Fifthly ; There is a Choice of Judgment left to us in every 
 Part of our Duty ; 
 
 Whether we will believe a God, 
 
 Whether we will worship him, 
 
 Whether we will believe in Jesus Christ, 
 
 Whether we will acknowledge a World to come, 
 
 Whether we will believe there is such a Place as Hell.
 
 the bishop of Bangor. 185 
 
 And now, my Lord, is there no Authority for these things, 
 because we are not forced to beh'eve them against our Judg^nents ? 
 Have those who refused to believe in Christ, nothing to fear from 
 his Ajithority, because he appealed to their Reason, and left them 
 to determine for themselves? Is there no Authority for the 
 Torments of Hell, or nothing to be feared from that Authority, 
 by those who deny there is any such Place. 
 
 Now if there can be an Azithority in these Matters, though the 
 Use oi private Judgment is allowed in these same Matters, if this 
 Authority will condemn those who acted contrary to it ; then it 
 is certain, that there may be an Authority or Necessity which 
 obliges us to be of such a. particular Religion, though the Exercise 
 of our private Judgment is allowed in the Choice of our Religion ; 
 and that we may have as much to fear from acting contrary to 
 such Authority, though by following our own Opinions, as they 
 have who act contrary to the Will of God in any other Respect, 
 though by following their own Opinions. 
 
 So that an Authority or Necessity which obliges us to be of 
 this or thsX particular Communion, that is, particular Religion, is 
 as consistent with the Exercise of private Judgment, as the 
 Necessity of believing a God, and worshipping him, is consistent 
 with the Exercise of our private Judgment. 
 
 And if you will say, there is an end of all Authority, if Men 
 may choose one Communion before another ; you must also 
 say, that if Men might consider whether they should follow 
 Christ, then there was an end of all Authority in Christ over 
 them. 
 
 And again ; If Men may reason and consider whether there 
 be a God, or Providence, then there is an end of all Necessity of 
 believing either a God, or Providence. 
 
 If they may consider whether the Scriptures are the Word of 
 God, or SiX\Y particular Doctrines be contained in Scripture, then 
 there is an end of all Necessity of believing the Scriptures to be 
 the Word of God, or of believing d.ny particidar Doctrines to be 
 contained in Scripture. 
 
 If they may consider and examine whether any particular 
 Religion comes from God, then there is an end of all Necessity 
 of receiving any particular Religion from God. 
 
 All this Reasoning is full as just, as to conclude that there is 
 an end oj all Authority to oblige People to a7iy particular Com- 
 munion, if they may consider the Excellency of one Communion 
 above another, which is what you over and over declare. 
 
 Now, my Lord, let us suppose that the Question was, Whether 
 it be necessary to believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God ? 
 Would it not become every honest Man, not only to assert this
 
 1 86 "Three Letters to 
 
 Necessity, but to show wherein it is founded, and explain to 
 every one that Atithority, which calls upon us to receive the 
 Scriptures as the Word of God, and which will rise up in Judg- 
 ment against us, if neglected. 
 
 And what might we not justly think of him, who, instead of 
 showing the Authority or Necessity which obliges us to receive 
 the Scriptures as the Word of God, should deliver himself in this 
 manner. 
 
 ' You are reasoning whether there be 3.ny Ajithority or Necessity 
 ' which obliges you to receive the Scriptures as the Word of God. 
 ' Whereas your very Reasoning upon this Matter, shows there is 
 ' no Necessity or Authority to which you are obliged to submit. 
 ' For since you are allowed to reason and enquire whether this 
 ' be necessary, it is certain, there is an end of all Authority or 
 ' Necessity, to oblige you to receive the Scriptures as the Word 
 ' of God ; and if you do but sincerely follow your own private 
 ' Persuasions, you are entitled to the same Degrees of God\s 
 ' Favour, whether you receive the Scriptures as his Word or 
 ' not.' 
 
 Now, my Lord, thus it is that you have instructed the World, 
 in relation to the Authority which obliges us to external Com- 
 munion. 
 
 The Question is, Whether there be any Authority which 
 obliges us to 2iny particular external Conwiunion? 
 
 Now, my Lord, what has anyone to do in this Dispute, but to 
 show whether Christ has instituted external Communion, or not .'' 
 For on this alone must the Necessity of it depend. And if it 
 appears that external Communion be instituted by our Saviour 
 as a Method of Salvation, then it will follow, that we are under 
 a Necessity, as we hope for Salvation, of being in that particular 
 Method or Manner of external Communion, which Christ has 
 instituted ; so that unless it can be shown, that all pretended 
 Christian Communions, are as truly that MetJiod, or particular 
 Communion which Christ has instituted, as any other Com- 
 munion is ; it must be as necessary to be in some one particular 
 Communion, as it is necessary to obey Christ; and as dangerous 
 to join in some other Communions, as it is dangerous to despise 
 his Authority. 
 
 But now your Lordship, instead of considering what external 
 Communion is i?tstittited, and what Necessity arises from such 
 Institution, or where we may find such external Communion, 
 amongst the n\?ir\y pretended Christian Communions, has wholly 
 passed over this Point, and determined the Question, by telling 
 us, that since we are allowed the Use of our Reason in the 
 Choice of Religion, it matters not what Authority we oppose,
 
 the "Bishop of Bangor. 187 
 
 either of God or Man, and that there can be no Necessity of our 
 being of any partiailar Communion, but where our private Judg- 
 ment sincerely directs us. 
 
 Thus you say ; If the Excellency of one Coniniunio7i above aiwtJier 
 may be regarded, then there is an End of all human Authority to 
 oblige us to one particular extei'nal Communion* And to show 
 that you can as easily destroy all Divine Authority or Necessity 
 of any particidar Communion, or Religion, you tell us, that our 
 Title to God's Favour cannot depend upon our actual being or con- 
 tinuing in any particular Method, but upon our real Sincerity.'^ 
 So that here the Sincerity of private Judgment as effectually 
 destroys all divine Authority and Necessity of any particular 
 Communion or Religion, as it destroys that which is huj>ian ; 
 and we are rendered as happy and as high in the Favour of God, 
 for breaking his Laws, as if we had observed them. 
 
 For here it is proved, that there is no Necessity of any par- 
 ticular Communion or Religion, not because there is none insti- 
 tutedhy God, but because, whether instituted or not, our sincere 
 Persuasion will equally justify us, whether it complies with or 
 opposes such Institution. 
 
 But to proceed. 
 
 I shall now show, how this Doctrine of yours of Sincerity 
 exposes all the Terms of Salvation as delivered in Scripture. 
 
 In the Scripture we find that Baptism is made a Term ot 
 Salvation ; but if Sincerity zvithout Baptism be as certain a Title 
 to the Favour of God, as Sincerity with Baptism, then it is plain, 
 that not to be baptized, is as much a Condition or Tei-m of Salva- 
 tion, as Baptism is a Tcj'm of Salvation. For, if Baptism zvith 
 Sincerity was more a Term or Condition of God's Favour, than 
 no Baptism with Sincerity, then it is certain that it is not 
 Sincerity alone that procures the Favour of God : And it is as 
 certain, that if Sincerity alone procures us the Favour of God, 
 then Baptism is no more a Term of Salvation, than the Refisal 
 of Baptism is a Term of Salvation. So that this Doctrine makes 
 Baptism, and the Refusal of Baptism, either equally Terms, or 
 equally no Terms of Salvation ; equally advantageous, or equally 
 insignificant. 
 
 When therefore our Blessed Saviour says, that except we are 
 baptized we cannot enter into the Kingdom of God,]; and he that 
 is not baptized shall be damned ; according to this Doctrine of 
 yours, we may also say just the contrary, that except we refuse 
 Baptism we cannot enter into the Kingdom of God ; and he that 
 is baptized shall be damned. 
 
 * Answ. to Repr., p. 1 15. t Preserv.^ p. 90. % fob iii. 3.
 
 1 88 'Three Letters to 
 
 This, my Lord, is very shocking ; but I shall easily show that 
 these Assertions are as proper and as just, as the contrary 
 Assertions, if your Doctrine of Sincerity be right. 
 
 For, since your Doctrine puts the sincere Acceptance, and the 
 sincere Refusal of Baptism, upon the same Foot as to the Favour 
 of God, there can be no more Danger in sincerely revising 
 Baptism, than in sincerely accepting of Baptism. Now if there 
 is no more Danger in the one Practice than in the other, it must 
 be plain to the most ordinary Understanding, that it is as just 
 and proper to declare 07te Practice dangerous as the other ; that 
 is, it must be as proper to say, he that is baptized shall be 
 da>nncd, as to say, he that is not baptized shall be dainned. 
 
 Now I know your Lordship cannot, upon these Principles, 
 show, that it is more dangerous to refuse Baptism sincerely, than 
 to receive Baptism sincerely ; and so long as this is granted, you 
 must allow that it is as just to fix danger upon Baptism itself, as 
 upon the want of Baptism. And consequently, all your Reason- 
 ings upon this Subject are one continued Censure upon our 
 Blessed Saviour's Doctrine in relation to Baptism, which accord- 
 ing to your Notions, is only as just and proper, as the quite 
 contrary would have been. 
 
 Again, our Saviour tells us, that except we eat the Flesh of the 
 Son of Man, and d7'i7ik his Blood, we have no Life in us* 
 
 Here we see, the eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of 
 the Son of Man is an instituted Term of Salvation, and insisted 
 upon by our Saviour ; but if your Doctrine be true, we may as 
 well declare the contrary to be a Term of Salvation, and say, 
 except tue siiicerely refuse to eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of 
 the Son of Man, we have 7io Life in us. 
 
 For, my Lord, if Sincerity in refusing to eat this Flesh, be the 
 same Title to God's Favour that the eating o{\\. with Sincerity is, 
 it is plain, there is no more Advantage in eating, than in not 
 eating; and consequently it is as well to say, that except we 
 forbear eating the Flesh of the Son of Man we have no Life in 
 us, as to say, that except we eat the Flesh of the Son of Man we 
 have no Life in us ; there being plainly from this Doctrine, no 
 more Danger in forbearing to eat, than in eating ; nor any more 
 Necessity of eating, than of forbearing to eat, since both these 
 Practices are equally good and advantageous with Sincerity, and 
 equally bad and insignificant without it. 
 
 And now, my Lord, let the World judge, whether you could 
 have thought of a Doctrine more contradictory to the express 
 Words of our Saviour, and all the instituted Terms of Salvation, 
 
 ^ John vi.
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor, 189 
 
 than this of yours about Sincerity, which makes it no more 
 necessary to observe the instituted Terms of Salvation, than to 
 break them ; and which also makes it as proper, to declare it as 
 dangerous to observe such Institutions, as to reject them. This I 
 have shown particularly in Baptism, where your Doctrine makes 
 it as proper to say, he that is baptized shall be dajnned, as to say, 
 that he who is not baptized shall be damned ; and in the same 
 manner does it contradict and confound the Scriptures, and 
 make the contrary to every Institution as innch a Means of 
 Salvation, as the Institution itself 
 
 Your Lordship has given us a Demonstration, as you call it, 
 that your Doctrine of Sincerity and private Persuasion is right. 
 
 Thus you ask: JV/iat is it that justified the Protestants 
 
 in setting up their ozvn Bishops ? Was it, that the Popish Doc- 
 trines were actually corrupt, or that the Protestants were persuaded 
 in their oivn Consciences, that they were so ? The latter without 
 doubt. And then comes your Demonstration, in this manner ; 
 take away from them this Persuasion, and they are so far from 
 being justified, that they are condemned for their Departure ; 
 give them this Persuasion again, they are condemned if they do 
 not separate.^ 
 
 You want to be shown the Fallacy in this Demonstration, 
 which I hope I shall show to your Satisfaction. 
 
 It is granted, that Corruption in Religion is no fustification 
 of those who leave it, unless they are persuaded of that Cor- 
 ruption. 
 
 It is also granted, that they who are fully persuaded that a 
 Religion is sinful, are obliged to separate from it, though it 
 should not be sinful. But then it does by no means follow, that 
 they who leave a true Religion, and they who leave a false 
 Religion, through their particular Persuasions, are equally justified, 
 or have an equal Title to the same Degree of God's Favour. 
 
 Here lies ihe great Fallacy in this Argument, that you use the 
 same Word {viz., justified) in relation to both these People in the 
 very same Sense; whereas if they 2ive justified (if this Word must 
 be used) it is in a very different Sense and different Measure, and 
 they are not entitled to the same Degree oi God's Favour. Now, 
 a Fallacy in this Point destroys the whole Demonstration, for 
 the Question wholly turns upon this Point, Whether they who 
 are sincere in a true Religion, and they who are sincere in 2i false 
 Religion, are equally justified and entitled to the same Degrees 
 of God's Favour ? 
 
 This very Thing was objected to you by the learned Committee, 
 
 * Prefer., p. 85. Anstu. to Repr., p. 103.
 
 1 90 'Three Letters to 
 
 who said, that an erroneous Conscience was never, till now, allowed 
 wholly to justify Men in their Errors* 
 
 To which you have no better Answer to make than this, That 
 it must eitJicr Justify tkejn, or not justify them. It must either 
 v^hoWy Justify them, or not Justify them at all.f 
 
 My Lord, I suppose a Man is justified by his living soberly, 
 righteously, and godlily in this present World. I ask therefore, 
 Does his living soberly justify him wholly, or does it not justify 
 him at all? If it justifies him zoholly, then there is no occasion 
 of his living righteously ^.x\d godlily ; if it does not justify him at 
 all, then there is no need of his living soberly. 
 
 Your Answer to the Committee has just as much Sense or 
 Divinity in it, as there is in this Argument. 
 
 Here I must desire, that it may be observed, that the Question 
 is not, Whether Sificcrity in any Religion, does not recommend 
 us to the Favour of God .'' But whether we are entitled to the 
 same Degrees of God's Favour, whether we are sincere in a true 
 or false way of Worship ? 
 
 I shall therefore farther consider this Point. 
 
 First ; If true and right Religion hath anything in its own 
 Nature to recommend us to God, then Sincerity in this true and 
 right Religion must recommend us more to God, than Sincerity 
 in di false and zvrong Religion ; because we have a Recommenda- 
 tion from our Religion, as well as from our Sincerity in it. For 
 instance, if it be in any Degree in the World more acceptable to 
 God, that we should follow Christ, than Mahomet, our Sincerity 
 in following Christ, must recommend us to just so much more of 
 God's Favour, than our Sincerity in following Mahomet ; as it is 
 more acceptable to him that we should follow one than the other. 
 Now to say that true and 7'ight Religion, has nothing in its own 
 Nature to recommend us to God, is saying, that things true and 
 right are no more acceptable to God, than things y^/jr^ and wrong; 
 but as it would be Blasphemy to say this, so it is very little less, 
 to say, that Sincerity in a false and wrong Religion, is just the 
 same Justification or Rccommendatio7i to the Favour of God, that 
 Sincerity in the true and right Religion is. 
 
 Farther ; The whole End and Design of Religion, is to recoin- 
 mend us to the Favour of God. If therefore we can suppose a 
 Religion instituted by God, which does no more, as such, recom- 
 mend us to the Favour of God, than a Religion ifivented by Men 
 or Devils, as such, recommends us to the Favour of God ; then 
 we must also suppose, that God has instituted a Religion, which 
 
 * Rcpr., p. 7. t Answr. to Repr., p. 95.
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor, 191 
 
 does not at a// answer the general E?2d and Design of Religion, 
 viz., the recommending us to the Favour of God. 
 
 Unless therefore we will profanely declare, that God has 
 instituted a Religion, which, as such, does us no Service, nor any 
 better promotes the general End oi Religion, than any corrupt 
 Inventions of Men, we must affirm, that Sincerity in his Religion 
 will entitle us to greater Degrees of his Favour, than Sincerity 
 in a Religion not from Him. 
 
 Secondly ; If there be any real Excellency or Goodtiess in one 
 Religion, which is not in another, then it is certain, that Sincerity 
 does not equally justify us in any Religion ; and on the contrary. 
 it is as certain, that if Sincerity in any Religion does entitle us to 
 the same Degrees of God's Favour, then there is no such thing as 
 any real Excellency or Goodness in one Religion, which is not in 
 another. 
 
 When you are charged with destroying all Difference between 
 Religions, by this Account of Sincerity, you retreat to an Answer 
 as weak as could possibly have been thought of. Thus you say; 
 What I said about private Persuasion, relates to the Justification 
 of the Man before God, and not to the Excellency of one Com- 
 munion above another, whicJi it leaves fust as it found it.^ 
 
 Here, my Lord, you suppose that one Religion may very 
 much exceed another Religion in Goodness and Excellency, and 
 yet that this Goodness and Excelle?icy has nothing to do with the 
 fustification of Persons ; for you say, you were not speaking of the 
 Excellency of one Communion above another, but of what relates 
 to the fustifcatio?i of a Man, ^-c, which plainly shows, that you 
 do not allow the Excelleficy of Religion to have anything to do 
 with the Justification of Men ; for if you did, it must have been 
 necessary to speak of the Excellency of one Religion above 
 another, when you were speaking of what it is which justifies a 
 Man before God. 
 
 Now, my Lord, to grant that there is an Excellency and Good- 
 ness in some Religion, and yet exclude this excellent and good 
 Religion, from having any more in it to justify and recommend 
 us to the Favour of God, than what is to be found in any other 
 Religion less excellent ; is just as good Sense, as to allow, that 
 some Food is much more excellent and proper than other Food ; 
 and yet exclude this most excellent proper Food, from having 
 anything in it to preserve Health and Strength, more than in any 
 other Food. 
 
 For the Goodness and Excellency of Religion, is as truly a 
 relative Goodness and Excellency, as the Goodness and Excel- 
 
 * Answ. to Repr., p. 113.
 
 192. 'Three Letters to 
 
 lency of Food is a relative Goodness and Excellency. And as 
 that Food can only be said to be better than another Food, 
 because it has a better Effect upon the Body than any other 
 Food ; so that Religion can only be said to be better than 
 another, because it raises us higher in the Favour of God than 
 any other Religion. 
 
 It is therefore most certain, that if any one Religion can be 
 said to be better than another, it must be, because one Religion 
 may be of more Advantage to us than another. 
 
 For as Religion in general is good, because it does us good, and 
 brings us into Favour with God ; so the particular Excellency 
 and Goodness of any Religion, must consist in this, that it does 
 us a more particular Good, and raises us to higJier Degrees of 
 God's Favour, than a less excellent Religion would have done. 
 
 So that when your Lordship talks of the Excellency of one 
 Religion above another, as having nothing in it, as such, to re- 
 commend us to higher Degrees of God's Favour, or effect our 
 Justification ; it is full as absurd, as to say, that though one kind 
 of Learning may be more excellent than another kind of Learning, 
 yet no Men are more excellcrit or valuable, for having one kind of 
 Learning rather than another. 
 
 For as no kind of Learning can be said to he peculiarly excel- 
 lent, but because it gives some peculiar Excellency to those who 
 are Masters of it ; so no kind of Religion can be said to be 
 more excellent than another, unless those who profess it, reap 
 some Advantage from it, which is not to be had from a Religion 
 less excellent. 
 
 From all this it appears, first, that there can be no such thing 
 as any Goodness or Excellency in one Religion above another, 
 but as it procures dL peculiar Good and Advantage to those who 
 profess it. 
 
 Secondly ; That your Lordship can allow no other Goodness 
 or Excellency in Religion, even from your own express Words, 
 but what implies as great an Absurdity, as to allow of good 
 Food, good Learning, or good Advice, which can do nobody any 
 good at all. 
 
 For since you expressly exclude the Goodness ox Excellency oidSiy 
 Religion, from having any part in recommending us to the Favour 
 of God, and will only allow it to carry us so far, as Sincerity 
 in a ivorse Religion will carry us ; it is certain, that this ^^^^ and 
 excellent Religion, is just as good as that, which does us no good 
 at all. 
 
 So that whether you will yet own that you have destroyed 
 all the difference betwixt Religions, or not, I cannot tell ; yet I 
 imagine, everyone will see that you have only left such a Good-
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor, 193 
 
 ness in one Religion above another, as can do nobody any good 
 at all. 
 
 The short is this ; If you will own there is no Excellency in one 
 Religion above another, then you are guilty of making Christianity 
 no better than MaJiojiietanism ; but if you will acknowledge a 
 Goodness and Excellency 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 alike, this 
 is as absurd, as to say, such a thing is imich better for us than 
 any other thing, and yet assert, that any other thing will do us as 
 nincJi good as that. 
 
 I have, I hope, sufficiently confuted yonr Doctrine of Sincerity, 
 from the Nature of Religion. I shall now, in a word or two, 
 examine it farther, by considering the Nature of Private Per- 
 suasion, which can do all these mighty things. 
 
 And, first, I deny that Persnasiou was the only thing which 
 justified the Protestants, or which recommends People to the 
 Favour of God in the Choice of a Religion ; and that, because if 
 \\\€\x private Persuasion was founded in Pride, PrcJ7idice,ivorldly 
 Interest, or anything, but the real Truth, and the Justice of the 
 Cause, that ihcxv private Persuasion did not justify them before 
 God ; nor had they, upon this Supposition, so good a Title to 
 his Favour, as those who did not reform. 
 
 If you say, that Persons cannot be sincere in their Persuasions, 
 who are influenced by Pride, or Prejudice, or any false Motive : 
 To this I answer ; 
 
 First ; That according to your oii')i Principles, that Man is to 
 be esteemed sincere, who thijiks himself to be sincere. For, as it 
 is a first Principle with you, that a Man is justified in point of 
 Religion, not because he observes what in its own Nature is true 
 and rigJit Religion, but because he observes that which he thinks 
 to be true and right Religion ; so according to this Principle, a 
 Man is to be accounted sincere, not because he acts up to true 
 and just Principles of Sincerity, but because he thinks in his own 
 Mind, that he does act up to such j'ust and true Principles of 
 Sincerity. So that, my Lord, Sincerity it seems is as truly a 
 private Persuasion, as Religion is a private Persuasion ; and 
 therefore anyone may as easily think himself truly sincere, and 
 yet not have true Sincerity, as he may think himself in the true 
 Religion, and yet not be in the true Religion. 
 
 Unless therefore you v/ill maintain, that a Person who is mis- 
 taken in his Sincerity, and mistaken in his Religion too, who 
 hath neither true Religion, or true Sincerity, hath as good a 
 Title to the Favour of God as he who is truly sincere, and in a 
 true Religion, you must give up this Cause of Sincerity, For it 
 
 13
 
 194 T^hree Letters to 
 
 is demonstrable from your ow)i Principles, that anyone may as 
 often happen to be mistaken in his Sincerity, and take that for 
 Sincerity which is not Sincerity, as he may be mistaken in his 
 Religion, and take that for Religion which is not Religion. 
 
 And consequently it is as reasonable to talk oi sincere Persons 
 who are influenced by wrong Motives^ as to talk of Persons being 
 justified in Religion, who live in a. false Religion. 
 
 So that, my Lord, this is the Result of your Doctrine, that 
 Persons neither truly sincere, nor in the true Religion, are yet 
 entitled to the same Degrees of God's Favour, with those who 
 are truly sincere in the t7'ue Religion. 
 
 The short is this, according to a Maxim of your own, you are 
 obliged to acknowledge that Man to be sincere, who thinks him- 
 self to be sincere; because you say a Man is to be esteemed 
 Religious, not because he practices true Religion, but because 
 he thinks he practices ti'ue Religion ; therefore you must say, 
 that a Man is sincere, not because he is truly sincere, but because 
 he thinks himself to be sincere. 
 
 It is also diS possible and as likely for a Man to be mistaken in 
 those things which constitute true Sincerity, as in those things 
 which constitute true Religion. 
 
 And therefore if this Sincerity be the only and the same Title 
 to God's Favour in any Religion, it follows, that Sincerity, though 
 influenced by false Motives, and in a false way of Worship, is as 
 acceptable to God, as a sincere Persuasion governed by right 
 Motives, in a true and instituted way of Worship. 
 
 So that all the fine things which you have said of Sincerity, 
 as implying in it all which is rational and excellent, are come to 
 nothing ; and you are as strictly obliged to allow that Man to 
 be sincere, who mistakes the Grounds and Principles of true 
 Sincerity, because he thinks himself to be sincere, as to allow 
 that Person to be justified in his Religion, who mistakes the true 
 Religion, because he thinks himself in the true Religion. 
 
 So that it is not Sincerity, q.s it contains all that is ratio7ial zxidi 
 excellent which alone justifies, but as it may be an idle, vain, 
 whimsical Persuasion, in which People think themselves in the 
 right. This Persuasion, though founded in the Follies, Passions, 
 and Prejudices of human Nature, consecrates every Way of 
 Worship, and makes the Man thus persuaded as acceptable to 
 God, as he who through a right use of his Reason, serves God in 
 that Method which he has instituted. 
 
 I shall end this Point with only this Observation, that how- 
 ever hearty a P'riend you may be to the Christian Religion your- 
 self, this I dare say, that the heartiest Enemy it has, will thank 
 you for thus defending it. And they who with all the Distinctions
 
 the "Bishop of 'Bango?\ 195 
 
 betwixt Religions confounded, and maintain that we have nothing 
 to hope or fear but from our own Persuasions, are the only- 
 Persons who can call you thexr proper Defender. 
 
 Of the Reformation. 
 
 I PROCEED now, in a Word or two, to show, that the 
 Necessity of Communion with any particular Church, and 
 the Effects of Excommunication, are perfectly consistent 
 with the Principles of the Reformation. 
 
 You say, If there be a Church Authority to oblige People 
 
 to external Conininnion, 1 beg to knozv, How can the Reformation 
 
 itself be justified ? For there zuas then an Order of Church- 
 men, vested zuith all spiritual Authority ; there ivas tJierefore a 
 
 Church Authority to oblige Christians, a Pozver of some over others. 
 What zuas it therefore to zvliich zve ozve this very Church of 
 England ?* 
 
 To this it may be answered, 
 
 First ; That this Argument proceeds upon a false Supposition, 
 namely, that it is the Lazvs of any Me?t, which obliges us to 
 external Communion. Which I have already shown to be as 
 false, as to suppose that it is the Lazvs of any Men which obliges 
 us to be Christians. 
 
 Secondly ; That there may be a 7-eal and a great Authority 
 which obliges us to external Communion, though this Authority 
 be not founded in any liuman Lazvs ; for there is as real and 
 apparent an Authority for Baptism and the Supper of the Lord, 
 and other Parts of external Communion, as if they were the 
 express Matter of any human Laws. 
 
 Thirdly ; That the Laws of Men in this Affair of Religion, 
 are of the same Obligation and Force that they are in other 
 Matters. If they command Things indifferent, they are to be 
 obeyed for the Authority of the Command ; if they enjoin 
 Things in their own Nature good, the Necessity of Obedience 
 is greater ; but if they command Things unlawful, we are not to 
 comply, but obey God rather than Man. 
 
 Fourthly ; The Question therefore at the Reformation was 
 not. Whether the Laza^s of the Pope or the Prince were on the 
 side of the Church of Rome ? But whether that FaitJi and those 
 Institutions which constitute the Christian Religion, were with 
 
 •■' Ansrv. to Repr., p. ii8. 
 
 \\ — 2
 
 196 
 
 T'hree Letters to 
 
 the Reformers^ or with the Papists. For the Church Authority 
 which obliged tJicm then, and which obhges now to external 
 Communion, was not an Authority which obliged them to 
 comply with any number of Bishops, or any State Laws, but to 
 enter into Communion with that Bishop or Bishops, who observed 
 that way of Worship which Christ had instituted. The Necessity 
 of being in external Communion, does not oblige us to be \\\ 
 Communion with the Pope or any Number of Bishops as sucJi, 
 whose Authority we may happen to be born under ; but it 
 obliges us to be in that Communion, which is that Way or 
 Method of Salvation which Christ has instituteel. 
 
 So that though we should grant, that at the Reformation we 
 broke through the human Laws of the Chiireh, which required 
 us to continue in Communion with the Church oi Rome, it will 
 by no means follow, that we broke through that Authority which 
 obliges us to external Communion, because that Authority is not 
 founded in any huuian Lazvs, but is the Authority of Christ, 
 requiring us to observe all those things which constitute external 
 Communion. For as it is the Authority of Christ which obliges 
 us to be Christians, so that same Authority obliges us to enter 
 into that Communion, where the Institutions and Faith of Christ 
 are preserved. 
 
 When therefore you say, if Church Authority (meaning human 
 Laws) be a sjijficient Obligation upon them to determine them, 
 then our Forefathers ought not in Conscience to have separated 
 froju the Chuj'ch of Rome :* 
 
 This, my Lord, is no more to the Purpose, than if you had 
 said, if the King of France has a Right to be obeyed all over 
 Europe, then all over Europe they ought in Conscience to obey 
 him. 
 
 For since it is neither pretended, nor allowed, that human 
 Laws are a sujfcient Obligation to external Communion, to argue 
 from this Supposition is as foreign to the Purpose, as to suppose 
 that the King of France was Governor of all Europe. 
 
 The next Step you take is also very extraordinary, where 
 having rejected Jiunmn Authority from being a sufficient Obliga- 
 tion to external Communion, you thus proceed, But if Men are 
 their own fudges by the Laws of God and of Christ in this Matter ; 
 if they have a Right to use their fudgment, and be determined by 
 
 it ; then here is a fustification of the Refor7nation, and 
 
 particularly of tJie Pj'otestant CJiurch (^yEngland.-f 
 
 The most co7nplaisant Justification, my Lord, that could 
 possibly have been thought of, because it as peculiarly justifies 
 
 * Page 118. t Page 181.
 
 the "Bishop of Bangor. 197 
 
 all the Enemies of the Church oi England, of what kind soever, 
 as it justifies the Protestant Church oi England. 
 
 For your Argument proceeds thus ; if there be no human 
 Authority to which we are absolutely obliged to submit, but have 
 a Right to use our own Judgments, then the Reformation is 
 justified. Here we see the Doctrines of the reformed Church 
 are not taken into the Question ; she is not said to be justified, 
 as being a true Church, or as preserving those Orders and 
 Institutions, which constitute the true Church ; but is justified, 
 because Men may use their Reason, and not enter into any 
 Communion which human Laws have happened to establish. 
 Now if we of the Church o{ England diVQ justified in the Choice 
 of our Religion, because no human Laws have an absolute Power 
 to oblige us to be of any particular Religion, then all People, 
 whether Papists or Protestants, whether Quakers, Ranters, Jews, 
 Turks, and Infidels, are equally justified in the Choice of their 
 partictdar Ways of Worship, because human Laws have not an 
 absolute Power to oblige them to be of any particular Religion. 
 So that though you call this a Justification of the Protestant 
 Church oi England, you might as justly have called it a Justifi- 
 cation of Quakers, Jews, Turks, and Infidels : For it is as truly a 
 Justification of every one of them, as it is a Justification of the 
 Church of England. 
 
 But to proceed. 
 
 How comes it, my Lord, that the Reformation is justified, 
 because People may use their Reason, and are not under a 
 Necessity from human Laws of being of this or that Church? 
 Why must the Reformation be right and just, because human 
 Laws are not sufficient to hinder a Reformation. Is there no 
 other Authority that can make any particular Religion necessary, 
 because human Authority cannot ? May it not be our Duty to 
 be of this Communion, and a Sin to enter into another Com- 
 munion, though humati Laws as such cannot make the one a 
 Duty, or the other a Sin ? Does Baptism, the Supper of the 
 Lord, and a Belief m Jesus Christ, cease to be necessary, because 
 that necessity does not arise from human Laws ? 
 
 Now if Things may be necessaiy to Salvation, though they are 
 not made so by Jiuman Authority, then it is no Justification of 
 the Reformation to say, that the Reformers might use their 
 Reason, and not choose that Religion which Jiuman Laws com- 
 manded them to choose ; this will be no Justification, till it 
 appears, that they chose that Religion which the Authority of 
 God required them to choose. 
 
 For it would be Nonsense to say, People are justified for 
 having such a sort of Baptism, because the Necessity of Baptism
 
 198 
 
 "Three Letters to 
 
 does not arise from human Laws. Yet this is as good Sense, as 
 to say, such a People are justified in their Religion, because no 
 Religion is made necessary by Jmman Laws. For as they are 
 only justified in Point oi Baptism, who observe such Baptism, as 
 the Authority of God has appoiyited, so are they only justified in 
 their Religion, who enter into that Religion which the Authority 
 of God has instituted. 
 
 But your Lordship has no sooner shown that human Authority, 
 as such, cdiunot oblige us to be of a.ny particular Religion, but you 
 presently congratulate your Readers upon an entire Freedom 
 from all Authority in Religion, and without once mentioning 
 that the Reformation is right and just, because of the Orders, 
 Doctrines or Institutions, which it maintains; you say it is justi- 
 fied for such a Reason, as justifies in an equal Degree every 
 Religion, and every Change of Religion in the World. You 
 have so far justified it, as to show 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 instituted Terms of 
 Salvation had something to do with the Justification of Chris- 
 tians ? Yet you can justify People without any regard to them. 
 Who would not think that a Religion is unjustifiable, if it is con- 
 trary to the Religion instituted by Christ ? Yet your Lordship 
 has justified all Changes in Religion, without any regard to the 
 Institutions of Christ solely for this Reason, because Men may 
 use their own Judgment, and not submit to the Laws of Men, as 
 such, in the Choice of Religion. As if, because they are not to 
 be altogether governed by the Commands oi Men in the Choice 
 of a Religion, neither are they to be determined by the Authority 
 of God, or any more tied down to his Institutions, than to human 
 Laws. Who would think that no Change in Religion is danger- 
 ous, because Religion is only instituted by God, and has his 
 Authority to make it necessary? Yet your Lordship banishes 
 all Danger from every Change of Religion, and pronounces the 
 same Safety in every Opinion, because People are under no abso- 
 lute human Authority. 
 
 It is very surprising, after all this, to see your Lordship break- 
 ing out into passionate Expressions for the Cause of the Reforma- 
 tion, and so often declaring, that it is for the sake of the Refor- 
 mation that you have taken so much Pains, and with so much 
 Pleasure, in your late Writings. 
 
 Now it seems, your Adversaries have undermined the very 
 Foundations of the reformed Church of England ; and that in 
 this Manner. 
 
 First ; They justify the Church oi England, by showing that
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor, 199 
 
 it maintains all those Orders, Institutions, and Doctrines, which 
 Christ has made necessary to Salvation ; that it is a true Church, 
 because it consists of all those Things, which by the histitiition 
 of Christ constitute a true Church. 
 
 For this, your Lordship rebukes them as Enemies to the 
 Reformatio)i^ as Friends to Popery ; and declares that the Pro- 
 testants are not justified because they have chosen a true and 
 rigJit Religion, but because they tJiink they have chosen a true 
 and right Religion. 
 
 Again, your Adversaries insist upon the Necessity of entering 
 into Communion with the Church of Englatid, because it is a 
 true Church of Christ ; and declare those guilty of the heinous 
 Sin of Schism, who separate from her Communion. 
 
 Here again you condemn them, as conspiring the Ruin of the 
 Reformation, because if the Dissenters are not justified in their 
 Separation from the Church of England by their private Per- 
 suasion, neither is the Church of England to be justified for its 
 Separation from Rome. So that the Difference between your 
 Lordship and your Adversaries, in relation to the Reformed 
 Church of England is this. 
 
 They support and recommend this Church, because it con- 
 tains all the necessary Doctrines and Institutions of Christ, and 
 consequently give it an Advantage over every other way of 
 Worship, which is either corrupted or defective, in these Doctrines 
 and Institutions of Christ. 
 
 But you support and recommend it (pardon the Expressions) 
 not from anything which relates to it at all, but from private 
 Persuasion ; and consequently allow every Religion in the 
 World to be as fust, and good, and safe, if Men are but so 
 persuaded. 
 
 They defend the Church of England, by showing what it is, 
 and by asserting the Truth of its Doctrines. 
 
 You have no Title to be mentioned amongst its Defenders, 
 but as you may be called a Defender of Quakers and Fanatics, 
 Jews and Turks, and every Religion in the World, which any- 
 one thinks to be right. 
 
 To proceed ; As a farther Defence of the Reformation, you 
 ask, How did the first Reformers behave themselves ? Did they 
 not think and speak of them (viz.. Absolution and Excommunica- 
 tion) as having nothing to do with the Favour of God, as human 
 Engines, and mere Outcries of human Terror? A^id did they 
 mean by this to claim to themselves the Right of Absolution, 
 which they had denied to others, because they were fallible and 
 weak Men ; or to assert a Power of Excommunication, so as to 
 affect Men s eternal Salvation, to themselves in one Church, which
 
 200 'Three Letters to 
 
 they had disregarded and trampled upon in another ? No : They 
 treated all Excommunications as alike, and upon an equal foot ; 
 and could upon no other Account neglect and disregard them as 
 they did, but because God had not given to any Man the Disposal 
 of his Mercy or A tiger* 
 
 The Argument, my Lord, here proceeds thus : First ; That all 
 Absolutions and Excommunications must have been esteemed 
 alike, and equally insignificant by our Reformers, because they 
 were not terrified at the Excommunications of the Church of 
 Rome, nor thought an Absolution from that Church necessary. 
 
 Secondly ; That the Reformers having thus disregarded these 
 Powers in that Church, ought not to pretend, that the same 
 Powers have any more Effect when they exercise them in this 
 Church. 
 
 To this it may be answered, that if we ought not to pretend 
 to afiy Effects in Absolution or Excommunication, because we 
 disregarded tJiose Powers as exercised by the Church of Rome ; 
 that then we ought not to pretend the Necessity of any Faith, 
 because we disregarded the Faith of the Romish Church ; nor 
 the Necessity of any Sacraments, nor the Necessity of the 
 Canonical Writings, because we disregarded the Canonical Books 
 of the Church of Rome. And it is as good Sense to cry out 
 here, ' Did they not treat their Sacraments as mere Inventions 
 ' of Men ? Did they mean by this to claim to themselves a 
 ' Power to make Sacraments necessary in one Church, which 
 ' Power they had trampled upon in another ? Did they deny 
 ' the Necessity of seven Sacraments there, in order to assert the 
 
 * Necessity of two Sacraments here ? No : They treated all 
 ' Sacraments as alike, and upon an equal foot with respect to 
 
 * God's Favour, and could upon no other Account neglect and 
 ' disregard them as they did, but because God's Favour or 
 ' Displeasure was no ways affected by any Sacraments.^ 
 
 Here let common Sense judge, whether this Argument of 
 yours, showing the Unreasonableness of pretending to any 
 Significancy in Excommunicatioji , because we disregarded the 
 Excommunication of the Church of Rome, does not prove it as 
 unreasonable to insist upon the Necessity of any Faith, or any 
 Sacraments, or any Canonical Books, because we denied the 
 Romish Creed, the Romish Sacraments, and Canon of Scripture ? 
 
 For our Reformers no more intended to show that Excom- 
 munication was a Dream and Trifie, because they disregarded 
 the Excommunication of the Church of Rome, than they in- 
 tended to show that all Sacraments, all Faith, and all Scripture, 
 
 * Answ. to Repr., pp. 121, 122.
 
 the bishop of Bangor, 201 
 
 were Dreams and Trifles, by their not owning either the Sacra- 
 ments, or the Creed, or the Canon of the Church of Rome. And, 
 my Lord, what a worthy Defender of Christianity and the 
 Reformation would he be, who should ask us what we mean by 
 the Necessity of Sacraments, or Faith, or Scripciire, since we 
 have not allowed the Necessity either of the Romish Sacraments, 
 Faith, or Scripture ? Yet such a Defender is your Lordship, 
 who contends that we ought to reject Excommunication as a 
 Trifle and Dream, because we disregarded the Excommunication 
 of the Church of Rome. 
 
 I have now gone as far in the Examination of your Doctrines, 
 as my present Design will allow me, and am apt to think that 
 in this and v^y former Letters, I have gone so far, as to show, 
 that a i&\M more such Defences of CJiristianity and the Reforma- 
 tion, as you have given us, would complete their Ruin, as far as 
 human Writifigs can complete it. 
 
 And had you meant ever so much harm to CJiristianity and 
 the ReformatioTi, I believe no one who wishes their Confusion, 
 would have thought you could have taken a better way to obtain 
 that End, than by writing as you have lately written. 
 
 For he must be a very Bitter Eneiny to them both, who would 
 not think it sufficient to set Christianity and Mahometanism, the 
 Reformation and Quakerism, upon the same foot. 
 
 And he must be very slow of Apprehension, who does not 
 see that to be plainly done, by resolving all into private Per- 
 suasion, and making Sincerity in every Religion, whether true or 
 false, the same Title to the same Degrees of God's Favour. 
 
 I shall not with your Lordship make any Declarations about 
 my oivn Sincerity ; I am content to leave that to God, and to 
 let all the World pass what Judgment they please about it. 
 
 / a7n^ Your Lordship' s 
 
 Most Humble Servant^ 
 
 JVilliam Law,
 
 20 2 T'hree Letters to 
 
 Postscript. 
 
 T 
 
 "^HE Learned Committee observed to your Lordship, 
 that an erroneous Conscience was never, till now, 
 alloiued wholly to justify Men in their Errors. 
 
 This Observation I have shown to be true andy?/^"/, 
 as it implies, that though Sincerity in an erroneous 
 way of Worship should in some degree or other recommend 
 Men to the Favour or Mercy of God, yet it is not that entire 
 Recommendation to his Favour, which is effected by our sincere 
 Obedience in the true way of Salvation : That is, though it 
 should justify them in some degree, yet it cannot justify them in 
 that degree, in which they are justified, who sincerely serve God, 
 in that true Religion which he himself has instituted. 
 
 Now our Justification, as it is effected by the Merits of Christ, 
 is in 07ie and the same degree ; but as our Justification is effected 
 by our own Behaviour, it is as capable of different degrees, as 
 our Virtue and Holiness is capable of different degrees ; and it 
 is also necessary that our Justification be more or less, accordiig 
 as our Holiness is more or less. 
 
 Yet in answer to this Observation of the Learned Committee, 
 you say, it must either justify them, or not justify them; it must 
 either justify them wholly, or fiot justify them at all. This, my 
 Lord, is as contrary to the Scripture, as it is to the Observation 
 of the Committee. For our blessed Saviour, speaking of the 
 Publicaji, says, / tell you, this Alan went down to his House 
 justified, rather than the other* 
 
 Here, my Lord, is as plain a Declaration o^ Degrees in Justifi- 
 cation, as can well be made, so far as Justification can be effected 
 by our own Behaviour. 
 
 For, it is plain, the Publican was not z£'/^(?//;/ justified, because 
 then there would be no need of his embracing Christianity ; it 
 is also plain, that he was justified in part, or else he could not 
 be said to be justified rather than the Pharisee. 
 
 If therefore your Answer confutes the Observation of the 
 Learned Committee, it must also confute this Passage of Scripture. 
 
 I shall only add one word in relation to another Point. 
 
 I have already shown the Falseness and evil Tendency of 
 your Argument against Excommunicatioyi, which you asserted 
 to be a Dream and Trifle without any Effect, because it is our 
 
 * Luke xviii. lo, ^c.
 
 the "Bishop of "Bangor. 20 
 
 J 
 
 own Behaviour alone which can signify anything to us with regard 
 to the Favour of God. Now, my Lord, this Pliilosophy strikes 
 at the very Vitals of the Christian Religion : For, if this Sentence 
 can have no Effect, if it is a Dream and Trifle, because it is otir 
 Behaviour alone on which the Favour of God depends ; then how 
 shall we account for these Passages of Scripture, which attribute 
 owx J nstificatio7i to the Me^-its and Death of Christ. As thus ; 
 Jesus Christ, zuho gave Jiiinself for our sins /* 
 In zuhoni we have Redemption througJi his Blood ;-\ 
 Being justified by his Blood, we shall be saved from wrath.X 
 It is the constant, uniform Doctrine of Scripture, that our 
 Reconciliation and Peace with God, our Justification and Sancti- 
 fication before God, is owing to the Merits and Death of Christ. 
 But if what you have said be true, that it is our Behaiiour alone, 
 which procures the Favour of God, then 'C^o. Blood oi Christ must 
 be as truly without any Effect, as Excommunication is without 
 any Effect. 
 
 For if the Favour of God depends entirely upon o\xx Behaviour 
 alone, then it can depend upon nothing else ; and if it depend 
 upon nothing else, then everything else is equally trifling and 
 without any Effect as to that Purpose ; and consequently every 
 Passage in Scripture which ascribes our Acceptance ivith God to 
 the Merits and Blood of Christ, is as much condemned by your 
 Doctrine, as the Effects of Excommunication are condemned 
 by it. 
 
 Whether your Lordship did not perceive the Inconsistency of 
 this Doctrine, with that Satisfaction and Rcdemptioji which the 
 Scriptures teach ; or whether you knowingly intended to oppose 
 this Doctrine, is, what I shall leave to everyone's own Judgment. 
 Thus much I shall only say, that as you have here directly con- 
 tradicted this first Principle of the Christian Religion, if it is not 
 what you intended, I hope you will, for the sake of Christianity, 
 venture to declare, that though you have asserted, that it is our 
 Behaviour alone, yet it is not our Behaviour alone, but more par- 
 ticularly the Merits and Death of Christ, which recommends us 
 to the Favour of God. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
 * Gal. i. 3. f Ephes. i. 7. i Rom. v. 9.
 
 UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA 
 
 AT 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 LIBRARY
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below 
 
 NOV 12 vm 
 
 APR 2 91949 
 JWAY 13 194^ 
 
 SEP 6 1$4t 
 
 AUG Jl 1360 
 
 (RARY L9ANS 
 
 m29 
 
 FOUR WEEKS FKOM DATE Of RKOK 
 
 ^ON-R£N£WABLE 
 
 V\<X«v*^A»-'' ' 
 
 acn 11972 
 
 FFB 1 5 1973 
 
 ^ f 
 
 RENEWAL A pi; 
 ID URL ^ ^ 
 
 2 4^^85 
 
 P»b*#«^ 
 
 kD/URL 0Ct|12'89 
 27 
 
 JIOIA 
 
 
 Form 1,-9 
 25m -2, '43(3205) 
 
 S I99t
 
 3 1158 01003 7421 
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 000 856 825 5