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 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 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. /*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\