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

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

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

There is an Institution, my Lord, in the yet E­stablish'd 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 express Order of our own Church, your Lordship teaches the Layity, 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 baptiz'd the Sa­maritans, the Apostles sent Peter and John to them, who having pray'd, and laid their Hands on them, they receiv'd the Holy Ghost, who before was fallen upon none of them; only they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus.

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

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

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

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

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

[Page 5] 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 God's 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 condemn'd it as Trifling and Wicked; as Trifling, because it is an Human Benediction; as Wicked, because it supposes Grace confer'd by the Hands of the Bishop. If therefore any baptiz'd Persons should come to your Lordship for Confirmation, if you are sincere in what you have deliver'd, your Lordship ought, I humbly conceive, to make them this Declaration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Page 9] Agreeable to the Sence 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. 2 dly, That the Holy Ghost is confer'd through Human Hands. 3 dly, That it is by the Hands of a Bishop that the Holy Ghost is confer'd.

If therefore your Lordship is right in your Doctrine, the Church of England is evidently most corrupt. For if it be dishonourable and affronting to God, to expect his Grace from any Human Hands; it must of necessity be 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 e­stablish'd such an Iniquity by Law, and made the Form of it so necessary? How can your Lordship answer it to your Layity, for taking the Character or Power of a Bishop from such a Form of Words? You tell them, it is affront­ing to God, to expect his Grace from Human Hands; yet to qualifie your self for a Bishoprick, you let Human Hands be laid on you, after a manner which directly supposes you thereby re­ceive the Holy Ghost! Is it wicked in them to expect it from Human Hands? And is it less so in [Page 10] your Lordship, to pretend to receive it from Hu­man Hands? He that believes, 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 was 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 intirely Unlawful to submit to the Form of such an Ordination. But, my Lord, receive thou the Holy Ghost, &c. is as impious a Form, according to your Lordship's Doctrine, and equally injurious to the Eternal Power and Godhead, as the other. For if the Grace of God can only be had from his own Hands, would it not be as innocent in the Bishop to say, Re­ceive then Power to sustain all things in Being, as to say, Receive the Holy Ghost, by the Imposition of my Hands? And would not a Compliance with 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.

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

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

[Page 12] I shall now proceed to say something upon the Consecration of the Lord's Supper; which is as much expos'd as a Trifle, by your Lordship's Doctrine, as the other Institutions. St. Paul says. The Cup of Blessing which we bless, is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ? My Lord, is not this Cup still to be bless'd? Must there not therefore be such a thing as an Human Benediction? And are Human Benedictions to be all despis'd, though by them the Bread and Wine become Means of Grace, and are made the Spiritual Nourishment of our Souls? Can any one bless this Cup? If not, then there is a Difference be­tween Human Benedictions: Some are authori­zed by God, and their Blessing is effectual; whilst others, only are vain and presumptuous. 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 an 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 bless'd only by God's Ministers, then how can your Lordship answer it to God, for ridiculing and abusing Human Benedictions; and telling the World, that a particular Order of the Clergy are not of any necessity, nor can be of any Advantage to them. For if the Sacrament can only be bless'd by God's Ministers; then such Ministers are as necessary, as the Sacraments themselves.

[Page 13] St. Paul says, the Cup must be bless'd: If you say, any one may bless it, then, though you contemn the Benedictions of the Clergy, you allow of them by every body else: If every 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 Ope­ration of that same Spirit, in the Ministers whom Christ hath sent? They are employed in the same Work that he was. He left his Authority with them; and promis'd, that the Holy Spirit should remain with them to the End of the World; that whatsoever they should bind on Earth, should be bound in Heaven; and what­soever they should loose on Earth, should be loosed in Heaven; that whosoever despises them, despises Him, and Him that sent him. And yet your Lordship tells us, we need not to trouble our Heads about any particular Sort of Clergy; that all is to be transacted betwixt God and our selves; that Human Benedictions are infignisi­cant Trifles.

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

Now it's strange, that God should be 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 whole Jewish Dispensation, but a Method of God's Providence; where his Blessings and Judg­ments were dispens'd by Human Hands? What is the Christian Religion, but a Method of Salva­tion, where the chief Means of Grace are of­fer'd and dispens'd by Human Hands? Let me here recommend to your Lordship, the excellent Words of a very Learned and Judicious Prelate on this Occasion.

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

[Page 16] You tell us, that Authoritative Benediction is another of the Terms of Art used by your Protestant Adversaries; in which they claim a Right, in one Re­gular 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 ^†; your Lordship calls the Sacerdotal Benediction a Term of Art; too plain an Intimation, tho' in more remote and somewhat softer Terms, that in the Sence of a Certain Father of the Church, her Clergy are little better than so many Jug­glers.

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

[Page 17] There is a superstitious Custom (in your Lordship's Account it must be so) yet remaining in most Places, of sending for a Clergyman to minister to sick Persons in imminent Danger of Death: Even those who have abus'd the Clergy all their Lives long, are glad to beg their 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 Abimelech, tho' he knew the Integrity of his Heart, till Abraham had prayed for him. He is a Prophet, said God, he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live, (Gen. 20. 7.)

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

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

We read also, that Joshua was full of the Spirit of Wisdom; for Moses had laid his Hands upon him, (Deut. 34. 9.) Was it not as absurd, my Lord, in the Days of Joshua, for Human Hands to bless, as it is now? Did there not then lie the same Ob­jection against Moses, that there does now against the Christian Clergy? Had Moses any more Na­tural 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 powerful 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 refer'd to apply to Job. My Servant Job shall pray for you; for him will I accept, (Job 42. 8.) Might not Eliphaz, here have said, shall I so far affront God, as to think I can't be bless'd with­out the Prayers of Job? Shall I be so weak or senseless, as to imagine, my own Supplications and Repentance will not save me; or that I need apply to any one but God alone, to quail­fie me for the Reception of his Grace?

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

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

Now, my Lord, this is what we mean by the Authoritative Administrations of the Christian Clergy; whether they be by way of 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 Aaron, or any of God's former Ministers. We are assur'd,, that Christ sent his Apostles, as his Father had sent him; and that therefore they were his true Successors: And since they did commission others to succeed them in their Office, by the Imposition of Hands, as Moses commission'd Joshua to succeed him; the Clergy who have succeeded the Apostles, have as Divine a Call and Commission to their Work, as those who were call'd by our Saviour; and are as truly his Successors, as the Apostles themselves were.

[Page 20] From the Places of Scripture above mention­ed, it is evident; and indeed, from the whole Tenour of Sacred Writ, that it may consist with the Goodness and Justice of God to depute Men to act in his Name, and be ministerial towards the Salvation of others; and to lay a Necessity upon his Creatures of qualifying themselves for his 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 thro 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 Layi­ty, that all is to be transacted between God and themselves; and that they need not value any particular sort of Clergy in the World.

I leave it to the Great Judge and Searcher of Hearts, to judge, from what Principles, or up­on what Motives your Lordship has been induc'd to teach tesethings: But must declare, that for my own part, if I had the greatest Ha­tred to Christianity, I should think, it could not be more express'd, than by teaching what your Lordship has publickly 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 [Page 21] themselves, instead of submitting to the ordinary Methods of Salvation appointed by God.

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

Neither, my Lord, do the Christian Clergy pretend to this despotick Empire over their Flocks: They don't assume to themselves a 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 receiv'd their Commission from those whom Christ sent with full Authority to send others, and with a Promise that he would be with them to the End of the World. From this they conclude, that they have his Authority; and that in 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.

[Page 22] And what is there in this Doctrine, my Lord, to terrifie the Consciences of the Layity? What is there here, to bring the prophane Scandal of Priestcraft upon the Clergy? Could it be any ground of Abimelech's hating Abraham, because that Abraham was to reconcile him to God? Could Eliphaz, justly have any Prejudice against Job, because God would hear Job's Intercession for him? Why, then, my Lord, must the 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 abus'd 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 has entrusted to us. We are to watch for their Souls, as those who are to give an Ac­count. Why then must we be treated as arro­gant Priests, or Popishly affected, for pretending to have any thing to do in the Discharge of our Ministry, with the Salvation of Men? Why must we be reproach'd with Blasphemous Claims, and Absurd Senseless Powers▪ for assuming to bless in God's Name; or thinking our 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 Infirmities with the rest of Mankind? Were not Abraham, and Job, [Page 23] 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's Chair? Did not the Apostles assure their Followers, that they were Men of like Passions with them? But did they therefore disclaim their Mission, or Apostolical Authority? Did they teach, that their Natural Infirmities made them less the Ministers of God, or less necessary to the Salvation of Men? Their 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 Ear­then Vessels, ( i.e. this Authority committed to mere Men) that the Excellency of it may be of God, and not of Men. The Apostle happens to differ very much from your Lordship. He says, such weak Instruments were made use of, that the Glory might redound to God? Your Lordship says, to suppose such Instruments to be of any Benefit to us, is to lessen the Sovereignty of God, and in consequence, his Glory.

Your Lordship imagines, you have sufficiently destroy'd the Sacerdotal Powers, by shewing, that the Clergy are only Men, and subject to the common Frailties of Mankind. My Lord, we own the Charge; and don't claim any Sacerdo­tal Powers from our Personal Abilities, or to ac­quire any Glory to our selves. But, weak as we are, we are God's Ministers; and if we are ei­ther afraid or asham'd of our Duty, we must pe­rish [Page 24] in the Guilt. But is a Prophet therefore proud, because he insists upon the Authority of his Mission? Can't a Mortal be God's Messen­ger, and employ'd in his Affairs, but he must be insolent and assuming, for having the Resolution to own it? If we are to be reprov'd, for 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 if the Natural Weakness of Men makes them in­capable of being the Instruments of conveying Grace to their Brethren; if the Clergy can't be of any Use or Necessity to their Flocks, for this Reason; then it undeniably follows, that there can be no positive Institutions in the 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 intrinsick Power to cleanse the Soul, or [Page 25] purifie from Sin. But your Lordship will not say, because it has only the common Name of Water, that therefore it cannot be a Means of Grace. Why then may not the Clergy tho' they have the common Nature of Men, be constituted by God, to convey his Graces, and to be ministe­rial to the Salvation of their Brethren? Can God consecrate inanimate Things to Spiritual Pur­poses, and make them the Means of Eternal Happiness? And is Man the only Creature that he can't make subservient to his Designs? The only Being who is too Weak for an Omnipotent God to render effectual towards attaining the Ends of his Grace?

Is it just and reasonable, to reject and despise the Ministry and Benedictions of Men, because they are Men like our selves? And is it not as 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 Leprosie, Very wisely remonstrated. Are not Abana and Phar­lPar, Rivers of Damascus, better than all the Waters of Israel?

[Page 26] This, my Lord, discover'd Naaman's great Li­berty of Mind; and 'tis much this has not been produc'd before, as an Argument of his being a Free-Thinker. He took the Water of Jordan to be only Water; as your Lordship justly observes a Clergyman to be only a Man: And if you had been with him, you could have inform'd him, that the washing seven times was a mere Nicety and Trifle of the Prophet; and that since it is God alone who can work miraculous Cures, we ought not to think, that they depend upon any external Means, or any stated Number of 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 [...]; your Lordship may be right in despising any particular Order of Clergy; because they are but Men. Your Lordship is certainly as right, or as wrong, as he was.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Lord, how comes it, that we cannot alter the Scriptures? Is it not, because they are Di­vinely inspir'd, and dictated by the Holy Ghost? And since it is express Scripture, that the Priest­hood is instituted and authoriz'd 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 Au­thoriz'd Ordainers, from the Apostolical Times, in order to constitute a Christian Priest. For since a Commission from the Holy Ghost is necessary for the Exercise of this Office; no one now can [Page 30] receive it, but from those who have deriv'd 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 Authoriz'd by the Holy Ghost, who have not receiv'd 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 Manuscripts, through which the Scriptures have been transmitted thro' different Ages and Languages, should be all true ones, and none of them forg'd; that this was a thing subject to so great Uncertainty, that God could not hang our Salvation on such Niceties. Suppose, for Proof of this, he should appeal to the 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 easie.

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

The Clergy have their Commission from the Holy Ghost: The Power of conferring this Commission of the Holy Ghost, was left with the Apostles: Therefore the present Clergy can­not have the same Commission, or Call, but from an Order of Men, who have successively con­vey'd his Power from the Apostles to the present time. So that, my Lord, I shall beg leave to lay it down, as a plain, undeniable, Christian Truth, that the Order of the Clergy is an Order of as necessary Obligation, as the Sacraments; and as unalterable as the Holy Scriptures; the same Holy Ghost being as truly the Author and Founder of the Priesthood, as the Institutor of the Sacraments, or the Inspirer of those Divine Oracles. And when your Lordship shall offer any fresh Arguments to prove, that no particular sort of Clergy is necessary; that the Benedicti­ons and Administrations of the present Clergy [Page 32] of our most Excellent Church, are Trifling Niceties; if I cannot shew, 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 of the Old and New Testament.

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

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

[Page 34] Thus when the Bishop or Priest intercedes for the Congregation, 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 commission'd by God▪ to bless in his Name, and be effectually ministerial in the Conveyance of his Graces; or as the Prayer of one who is left with us in Christ's stead, to carry on his great Design of saving us; and whose Bene­dictions are ever ratify'd in Heaven, but when we render our selves, in one respect or other, incapable of them.

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

Your Lordship sets up in this Controversie for an Advocate for the Layity, against the Arrogant Pretences, and False Claims of the Cler­gy. My Lord, we are no more contending for our selves 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.

[Page 35] Who is to receive the Benefit of that Com­mission which we assert, but They? Who is to suffer, if we pretend a False one, but Our selves? Sad Injury, indeed, offer'd to the Layi­ty! 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 Undertaking, 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 Rights of the Christian Church, has carry'd this Christian Liberty to as great Heights as your Lordship. And tho' 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 allure me, that he has cast no Contempt upon the Church, no Re­proach upon the Evangelical Institutions, or the Sacred Function, but what has been secon­ded by your Lnrdship, I would never have plac'd your Lordship in the same View with [Page 36] so scandalous a Declaimer against the Ordinan­nances of Christ. Whether I am right or not, in this Charge, I freely leave to the Judgment of those to determine, who are acquainted with both your Works. Yet this Author, my Lord, has been treated by the greatest and best Part of the Nation, as a Free-thinking Infidel. But for what my Lord? Not that he has declar'd 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 reproach'd every par­ticular Church, as such, and deny'd all Obli­gation to Communion; because he has expos'd Benedictions, Absolutions and Excommunicati­ons; deny'd the Divine Right of the Clergy, and ridicul'd the pretended Sacredness and Ne­cessity of their Administrations, as mere Nice­ties and Trifles, tho' 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 administred, equally valid, and deny'd any particular Me­thod necessary to Salvation. Yet after all this prophane Declamation, he allows, my Lord, that Religious Offices may be appropriated to particular Men, call'd Clergy, for Order sake only; and not on the Account of any peculiar Spiritual Advan­tages, Powers or Privileges, which those who art set apart for them, have from Heaven ^*.

[Page 37] 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-mention'd Author? Is it for any thing, but the sake of a little external Order or Conveniency? Is there any Christian Law that obliges to observe this kind of Order? Is there any real essential Difference between Per­sons rank'd into this Order? Is it a Sin for any body, especially the Civil Magistrate, to leave this Order, and make what other Orders he prefers to it? This your Lordship cannot resolve in the Affirmative; for then you must allow, that some Communions are safer than others, and that some Clergy have more Authority than others.

Will your Lordship say, that no particular Or­der can be necessary; 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 confess'd by your Lordship, That in Religion no Laws, but those of Christ, are of any Obligation. So that, tho' you don't dis­claim all external Order and Decency your [Page 38] self, yet you have taught other People to do it if they please, and as much as they please.

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

If you should reprove such a one, as an Eng­lishman, for acting in Opposition to the English Laws of Decency and Order; he would answer, That he has nothing to do with such Trifles; That Christ was sole Lawgiver in his 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 [Page 39] 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 pare 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's as lawful for any Man to be his own Priest, as to solli­cit 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 believ'd; yet the Belief of no particular Truth is ne­cessary.

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

[Page 40] I must observe here, your Lordship does not reject this Absolution, because the Claim of it is not founded in Scripture; but by an Argument drawn from the nature of the Thing: Because you imagine, such Absolution requires Infallibi­lity for the Execution 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 Lord, who can see any Repugnancy in the Reason of the Thing it self? Is it not as easie to conceive, that our Lord should confer his Grace of Pardon by the Hands of his Ministers, as by Means of the 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 Argument proves too much; and makes as short work with every In­stitution of Christianity, as with this Power of Absolution.

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

[Page 41] Your Lordship's Argument is this: Christians have their Sins pardon'd 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.

2 dly, This Argument subverts all Authority of the Christian Religion it self, 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 Sacraments. So that tho' your Lordship has form'd this Argument only against this Absolving Power; yet it has as much Force against the Sacraments, and the Christian Re­ligion it self. For if it be absurd to suppose, that the Priest should absolve any one, because he cannot be certain that he deserves Absolution; does it not imply the same Absurdity, to suppose, that he should have the Power of Administring the Sacraments, when he cannot be infallibly [Page 42] rtain, that those who receive them, are duly qualified? If a Possibility of Error destroys the Power in one Case, it as certainly destroys it in the other. Again, if Absolution cannot be Authoritative, unless it be Infallible; then, it is plain, that the Christian Religion is not an Authoritative Means of Salvation; because all Christians are not infallibly sav'd: Nor can the Sacraments be Authoritative Means of Grace; because all who partake of them, do not infalli­bly obtain Grace.

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

But why amuse, my Lord? Are the Texts of Holy Scripture to be treated as only Matter of Amusement? Or does your Lordship know of a­ny Age 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 specify'd, did not belong them? But however, your Lordship has taught your Layity to believe what we argue from this Text, all Amusement; and told them, [Page 43] They may securely answer, that it is impossible for them to depend upon this Right as any thing certain, till they can prove to you, that every thing spoken to the Apostles, belongs to Ministers in all Ages ^†. The Security of this Answer, my Lord, is founded upon this False Presumption, viz. That the Clergy can claim no Right to the 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 Layity. If it is well founded, then the Clergy can't possi­bly prove, they have any more Right to the Exercise of any Part of their Office than the Layity. Do they pretend to Ordain, Confirm, to admit or exclude Men from the Sacraments? By what Authority is all this done? Is it not, because the Apostles, whose Successors they are, did the same things? But then, say your Lordship's well-instructed Layity, this is no­thing to the purpose: Prove your selves A­postles; prove, that every thing said to the Apostles, belongs to you; and then it will be allow'd, that you may exercise these Powers, because they exercised them: But as this is im­possible to be done; so it is impossible for you to prove, that you have any Powers or Autho­rities, because they had them.

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

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

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

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

If your Lordship had employ'd all this O­ratory against worshipping the Sun or Moon, it had just affected your Adversaries as much as this. For whoever taught, that any Set of Men could Absolutely bless, or withold Bles­sing, independent of God? Whoever taught, that the Christian Religion, or Sacraments, or [Page 46] Absolution sav'd People on course, or without proper Dispositions? Who ever claim'd such an Absolving Power, as to set himself above God, and to take from him the Disposal of his own Blessings and Curses? What has such extrava­gant Descriptions, such Romantick Characters of Absolution, to do with that Power the Clergy justly claim? Cannot there be a Necessity in some Cases of receiving Absolution from their Hands, except they set themselves above God? Is God robb'd of the Disposal of his Blessings, when in Obedience to his own Commands, and in virtue of his own Authority, they admit some as Members of the Church, and exclude others from the Communion of it? Do they pretend to be Channels of Grace, or the Means of Par­don, by any Rights or Powers naturally inhe­rent in them? Do they not in all these things consider themselves as lnstruments of God, that are made ministerial to the Edification of the Church, purely by his Will, and only so far as they act in Conformity to it? Now if it has pleas'd God to confer the Holy Ghost in 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 injur'd, be­cause his own Institutions are obey'd? Cannot he dispense his Graces by what Persons, and on what Terms he pleases? Is he depriv'd of the Dis­posal of his Blessings, because they are be­stow'd on Persons according to his Order, and in obedience to his Authority? If I should [Page 47] affirm, 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 prescrib'd?

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 Christians 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 of Pardon, and which has no Pretence to such Grace, but in obedience to his Order, and in virtue of his Promise, be thus destructive of his Prerogative? Where is there any Diminution of his Honour or Authority, if such Actions of the Clergy are made necessary to the Salvation of Souls in some Circumstances, as their washing in Water, or their receiving Bread and Wine? Cannot God institute Means of Grace, but those Means must needs be above Himself? They owe all their Power and Efficacy to his Institution; and can operate no farther than the Ends for which he instituted them. How then is he De­thron'd for being thus obey'd?

[Page 48] My Lord, you take no notice of Scripture; but in a new Way of your own contend against this Power, from the Nature of the Thing: Yet I must beg Leave to say, this Power stands upon as sure a Bottom, and is as consistent with the Goodness and Majesty of God, as the 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 receiv'd 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 Texts 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 exercis'd. Every instituted Means of Grace is Conditional; and is only then effectual, when it is attended with such Cir­cumstances, as are requir'd by God. If the Cler­gy, thro' Weakness, Passion or Prejudice, ex­clude [Page 49] Persons from the Church of God, they injure only themselves. But, my Lord, are these Powers nothing, because they may be ex­ercis'd in vain? Have the Clergy no Right at all to them, because they are not Absolutely infallible in the Exercise of them?

Can you prove, my Lord, that they are not necessary, because they have not always the same Effect? May not that be necessary to Sal­vation, which is only effectual on certain Con­ditions? Is not the Christian Religion neces­sary to Salvation, tho' all Christians are not sav'd? Are not the Sacraments necessary Means of Grace, tho' the Means of Grace obtain'd there­by is only Conditional? Is every one necessa­rily improv'd in Grace, who receives the Sacra­ment? Or is it less necessary, because the sa­lutary 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 obtain'd in due and proper Cir­cumstances? Is Absolution nothing, because if witheld wrongfully, it injures not the Person who is deny'd it; and if given without due Dispositions in the Penitent, it avails nothing? Is not this equally true of the Sacraments, if they are deny'd wrongfully, or administred to unprepar'd Receivers? But do they therefore cease to be standing and necessary Means of Grace?

[Page 50] The Argument therefore against this Power, drawn from the Ignorance or Passions of the Clergy, whereby they may mistake or pervert the Application of it, can be of no Force; since it is as Conditional as any other Christian Institution. The Salvation of no Man can be endanger'd by the Ignorance or Passions of any Clergyman in the Use of this Power: If they err in the Exercise of it, the Consequences of their Error only affect themselves. The Admi­nistration of the Sacraments is certainly entrust­ed to them: But will any one 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 gratifie the Pride of Clergymen, or encourage them to Lord it over the Flock of Christ. If you could suppose an Atheist or a Deift in Orders; he might be arrogant, and domineer in the 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 Benediction to any of his Flock? Can he injure or offend the least of these; and will not God take Account? Or, if they fall through his Offence, will not their Blood be re­quir'd at his Hands?

[Page 51] Neither is there any thing in it that can en­slave the Layity to the Clergy; or make their Salvation depend upon their Arbitrary Will. Does any one think his Salvation in danger, be­cause the Sacraments (the necessary Means of it) are only to be administred by the Clergy? Why then must the Salvation of Penitents be en­danger'd, 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, The A­postles might possibly understand the Power of Remitting and Retaining Sins, to be that Power of Laying their Hands upon the Sick ^*.

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

2. The Power mention'd here, was something that Jesus promis'd he would give them 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 look'd upon as the highest in the Apostolical Order. But if it related only to the Power of Healing, it could not be so; For the Seventy, who were inferiour to the Apostles, had this Power.

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

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

Let us now consider the Commission 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 give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on Earth, shall be loosed in Heaven.

Now, my Lord, how should it enter into the Thoughts of Peter, that nothing was here 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? I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; that is, according to your Lordship, I will give thee Power to heal the Sick. [Page 54] Can any thing be more contrary to the plain obvious Sence of the Words? Can any one be said to have the Keys of the Kingdom of 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 Powers in that Kingdom; or be said to have the Keys of it, who is only empower'd to cure Distem­pers? Could any one be said to have the Keys of a Temporal Kingdom, who had no Temporal Power given him in that Kingdom? Must not he therefore who has the Keys of a Spiritual Kingdom, have some Spiritual Power in that Kingdom?

Christ has told us, that his Kingdom is not of this World. Your Lordship has told us, that it is so foreign to every thing of this World, that no Worldly Terrors or Allurements, no Pains or Pleasures of the Body, can have any thing to do with it. Yet here your Lordship teaches us, that He may have the Keys of this Spiritual Kingdom, who has only a Power over Diseases. My Lord, are not Sickness and Health, Sight and Limbs, Things of this World? Have they not some relation to Bodily Pleasures and Pains? How then can a Power about Things wholly confin'd to this World, be a Power in a Kingdom that is not of this World? The Force of the Argument lies here: Our Saviour has assur'd us, that his Kingdom is not of this World: Your Lordship takes it to be of so Spiritual a Nature, that it ought not, nay, that it cannot be encou­rag'd [Page 55] or establish'd by any Worldly Powers. Our 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 deliver'd to the Apostles.

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

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

This, without putting any Force upon the Words, is your Lordship's own Interpretation; which ex­poses the Honour and Authority of Scriptures as much as the greatest Enemy to them can wish. If our Saviour cou'd mean by these Words, only a Power of healing Distempers; or if the Apostles un­derstood them in that Sence, 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 Layity, your Lordship has another Interpre­tation for them: You say, if they (the Apostles) did apply this Power of remitting Sins to the certain Ab­solution of particular Persons, it is plain, they could do it upon no other Bottom but this; that God's Will, and good Pleasure, about such particular Persons was infal­libly communicated to them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

You go upon these Words: If we look back upon 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 Sence of the Words, the Power of declaring, that the Man's Sins were forgiven by God ^*.

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

This, my Lord, is the first obvious Sence of the Words; and therefore I take it to be the True Sence. But your Lordship can look back upon them, till you find, that Christ has not this Power, though he claims it expressly; but that he only intends a Power of doing some­thing or other, which no more imports a 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 ex­press'd himself, to have satisfy'd your Lordship that he really had it? He must have told you, that he had not this Power; and then possibly, [Page 60] 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 claim'd 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 it self; and it is so expressly asserted in Scripture; it is just Matter of Surprize, that your Lordship should carry your Reader from a plain consistent Sence of the Words, to either this or that Something or o­ther, the Origin whereof is only to be sought for in your Lordship's own Invention; rather than not exclude Christ from a Power which he declar'd he had, and declar'd he had it for this very Reason, that we might know that he had it. Our Saviour has told us, that the Way to Hea­ven is narrow. Your Lordship might as reasona­bly prove from hence, that he meant, it was broad, as that he did not mean he could forgive Sins, when he said, that ye may know, that the Son of Man hath Power on Earth to forgive Sins.

Your Lordship has rejected all Church Authori­ty, and despis'd the pretended Powers of the Clergy, for this reason; because Christ is the sole King, sole Lawgiver, and Judge 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 [Page 61] not be allow'd to be capable of pardoning his own Subjects.

This Doctrine, my Lord; is deliver'd, I sup­pose, as your other Doctrines, out of a hearty Concern and Christian Zeal for the Privileges of the Layity; and to shew, 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 Sins, to what End could he either erect, or how could he support his Kingdom, which is only in the great and last Design of it, to consist of Ab­solv'd Sinners? He that cannot forgive Sins in a Kingdom that is erected for the Re­mission of Sins, can no more be sole King in it, than he that has no Temporal Power, can be sole King in a Temporal Kingdom. Therefore your Lordship has been thus mighty serviceable to the Christian Layity, as to teach them, that Christ is not only sole King, but no King in his Kingdom.

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

[Page 62] 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 Commission given to them, imply'd either a Power of Releasing Men from their Bodily Afflictions; or of declaring such to be par­don'd, whom God had assur'd them that he had pardon'd: And this is all that you here allow to Christ himself.

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

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

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

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

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

But your Lordship says, the Reason why our Saviour thus expressed Himself, Thy Sins are forgiven Thee, was plainly to keep up that true Notion, that God alone forgiveth Sins. There­fore, my Lord, according to this Doctrine, our Saviour was oblig'd not to claim any [Page 64] Power that was peculiar or appropriated to God, alone. For if this be an Argument, why He should not forgive Sins, it is also an Argument, that He ought not to claim any other Pow­er, any more than this; which is proper to God, and only belongs to Him. But, my Lord, if He did express himself thus, that he might not lay Claim to any thing that was peculiar to God, how came He in so 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 Worship the Son, even as the Father? That He was the Son of God; That he was the Way, the Truth, and the Life?

Are not Evangelical Faith, Worship and Trust, Duties that are solely due to God? Does He not as much invade the 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? [Page 65] Now, if Christ did not assume a Power to forgive Sins, because God alone could forgive Sins, it is also as unaccountable, that He should exercise other Authorities and Powers which are as strictly peculiar to God, as that of forgiving Sins. As if a Person should disown that Christ is Omniscient, because Omniscience is an Attribute of God Alone; and yet confess his Omnipotence, which is an Attribute equally Divine.

But farther, my Lord: Did our Saviour thus designedly express himself, least He should be thought to assume any Power which was 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 own'd it. He had been condemn'd by this Argument, as teaching false Doctrine.

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

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

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

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

You your self, my Lord, have allow'd him to be absolute Ruler over the Consciences of Men; to be an arbitrary Dispenser of the Means of 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 Lordship) to rule over the Con­sciences of Men, to give Laws of Salvation, and to act in these Affairs with an uncontroulable Power, as to forgive Sins?

My Lord, let their Common Sense here 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 your self) and can make or unmake Laws relating to it; can dispense or withold Grace as he pleases in this Spiritual Kingdom, all which Powers are purely Divine, yet you say he cannot forgive Sins, tho' every express Power which you have allow'd him over the Consciences of Men, be as truly a Divine Power as that of forgiving Sins. Has not Christ a proper and personal Power to give Grace to his Subjects? Is he not Lord over their Consciences? And are not these Powers as truly appropriated to God? And has not your Lord­ship often taught them to be so, as that of For­giveness of Sins? Is it not as much the Prerogative [Page 69] of God to have any natural intrinsick Power, to confer Grace, or any Spiritual Benefit to the Souls of Men, as to forgive Sins? Has not your Lord­ship despis'd all the Administrations of the Cler­gy, because God's Graces can only come from himself, and are only to be receiv'd from his own Hands? The Conclusion therefore is this, either Christ has a Personal intrinsick Power to confer Grace in his Kingdom, or he has not; if you say he has not, then you are chargable with the Collusion of making him a King in a Spiritual Kingdom, where you allow him no Spiritual Power: If you say he has, then you fall into this Contradiction, that you allow him to have Di­vine Powers, tho' he cannot have Divine Pow­ers; that is, you allow him to give Grace, tho' 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 declar'd, as Words can consequentially declare any thing, that you do not believe Christ to be God, yet profess your self Bishop of a Church, whofse Liturgy in so many repeated Testimonies declares the contrary Doctrine, and which 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 shew why he could not forgive Sins, or Deny him to be Perfect God, and then shew how [Page 70] you can sincerely declare your Assent and Consent to the Doctrines 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 Foundation, i. e. a Demonstration in the strictest Sense of the Words, that all Church-Communion is unnecessary.

Your Lordship sets it out in these Words.

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

The Truths of the Christian Religion have the same Nature and Obligation, whatever our Opini­ons are of them, and those that are necessary to be believed, continue so, whither we can perswade our selves to believe them or not. I suppose your Lordship will not say, that the Ar­ticles of Faith and necessary Institutions of the Christian Religion, are no otherways necessary, than because we believe them to be so, that our Perswasion is the only Cause of the Necessity; but if their Necessity be not owing merely to our belief of them, then it is certain that our Dis­belief of them, cannot make them less necessa­ry. If the Ordinances 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 Ordinances, notwith­standing that People have different perswasions in these Matters, presuming that our Opinions can no more alter the nature or necessity of Christ's Institutions, than we can believe Error into Truth, Good into Evil, or Light into Darkness. I shall [Page 72] think my self no Heretick against the Nature of Things, tho' I tell a Conscientious Socinian, that the Divinity of Christ is necessary to be believed, or a Conscientious Jew, that it is necessary to be a Christian in order to be saved. But if your Lordships Demonstration was accepted, we should be oblig'd to give up the necessity of every Doctrine and Institution, to every 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 Perswa­sion.

Your Lordship's Invincible Demonstration pro­ceeds thus.

We must not insist upon the Necessity of joyning with any particular Church, because then 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 joyn with it, and if they comply against their Consci­ences, the Danger is the same.

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

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

I will suppose the Case of a Conscientious Jew; 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 [Page 73] the Faith of Christ. What, replies he, would you direct me to do? If I embrace Christianity against my Conscience, I am out of God's 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 Jew is to obey his Conscience, and to be left to the uncovenan­ted, unpromised Terms of God's Mercy, whilst the Conscientious Christian is entitled to the express and promised favours of God.

There is still the same absolute necessity of believing in Christ, Christianity is still the only Method of Salvation; tho' the sincere Jew can­not so perswade himself; and we ought to de­clare it to all Jews and Unbelievers whatsoever, that they can only be sav'd 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 Jew may think it is not so? It may as well prove, that the Moon is no larger than a Man's Head, because an honest ignorant Countryman may think it no larger.

Is there any Person of Common Sense, who would think it a Demonstration, that he is not obliged to go to Church, because a Conscienti­ous Dissenter will not? Could he think it less [Page 74] necessary to be a Christian, because a sincere Jew cannot embrace Christianity? Could he take it to be an indifferent Matter, whether he believed the Divinity of Christ, because a Conscientious Socinian cannot? Yet this is your Lordship's in­vincible Demonstration, 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 obligatory Force, whether we reason rightly about them or not; and that they who believe and practice accor­ding to them, are in express Covenant with God, which entitles them to his Favour; whilst those who are sincerely Erronious, have nothing but the sincerity of their Errors to plead, and are left to such Mercy of God, as is without any Promise. Here, my Lord, is nothing frightful or absurd in this Doctrine, they who are in the Church which Christ has founded, are upon Terms which entitles them to God's Favour; they who are out of it, fall to his Mercy.

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

[Page 75] Your Lordship must have Doctrines that will save all People alike, in every way that their Perswasion leads them to take: But, my Lord, there needs be no greater Demonstration against your Lordship's Doctrine, than that it equally 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 Demonstration.

Your Lordship indeed only instances in a par­ticular Person, Mr. Nelson; but your Demonstrati­on is as serviceable to any other Person who has left any other Church whatever. The Conscien­tious Quaker, Muggletonian, Independant, or Socini­an, &c. have the same right to obey Conscience, and blame any Church that assumes a Power of censuring them, as Mr. Nelson had; and if they are censur'd by any Church, that Church is as guilty of the same Heresie against the Nature of Things, as that Church which censur'd Mr. Nel­son, or any Church that should pretend to cen­sure any other Person whatever.

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

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

Some People have only taught us the innocency of Error, and been content with setting forth its harmless Qualities; but your Lordship has been a more hearty Advocate, and given it a Power over every Truth and Institution of Christiani­ty. If we have but an erronious Conscience, the whole Christian Dispensation is cancell'd; all the Truth and Doctrines in the Bible are De­monstrated 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 Demonstration, (from the Case of an erroneous Conscience) would have seen the absurdity of pretending to necessary Doctrines, and insisting [Page 77] upon Church-Communion; but it must be acknow­ledged your Lordship's new invented Engine for the Destruction of Churches; and it may be expect­ed the good Christians of no 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 serves the Jew and Socinian, &c. as much as any other sort of People. Tho' this sufficiently appears, from what has been already said, yet that it may be still more obvious to the Common Sense of every one, I shall reduce these Doctrines to Practice, and suppose for once, that your Lordship intends to convert a Jew, a Quaker, or Socinian.

Now in order to make a Convert of any of them, these Preliminary PROPOSITIONS are to be first laid down according to your 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. page 90.

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

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

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

Propos. V. That there is no such Thing as any real Perfection or Excellency in any Religion, that can justify our adhering to it, but that all is founded in our Personal Persuasion. Which your Lordship thus proves, When we left the Popish Do­ctrines, 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 any one else, in leaving any Church, how true soever its Doctrines are; and consequently there is no such Thing, as any real Perfection or Excellency in any Religion con­sider'd in it self, but it is right or wrong according to our Perswasions about it. Preserv. page 85.

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

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

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

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

These, my Lord, are your Lordships own 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 Jew; use any Argument whatsoever to convert them, and you shall have a sufficient Answer from your own Propositions.

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

Will your Lordship tell him, that the Truth of Christianity is so well asserted, that there is no Excuse left for Unbelievers? He will answer from Propos. V. That all Religion is founded in per­sonal Persuasion; that as your Lordship does not believe that Christ is come, because he is actually come, but [Page 80] because you think he is come; so He does not disbelieve Christ because he is not actually come, but because he thinks he is not come. So that here, my Lord, the Jew gives as good a reason why he is not a 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 can't possibly have any better Success; any one may see from your Propositions, that no Argument can be urg'd but what your Lordship has there fully answered. For since you allow nothing to the Truth of Doctrines, or the 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 that he is in?

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

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

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

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

He will answer you from Propos. IX. That God's Graces are only to be received immediately from 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 Propos. III. That nothing loses us the Favour of God but a wicked Insincerity. And from Propos. V. That as your Lordship be­lieves such Things, not because they are actually to be believ'd, but because you think so; so he disbelieves them, not because they are actually false, but because he thinks so.

Will your Lordship tell him he is insincere?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope, my Lord, that I have delivered no­thing here, that needs any Excuse or Apology to the Laity, that they will not be perswaded, thro' any vain Pretence of Liberty, to make themselves Parties against the first Principles of Christianity; or imagine, that whilst we con­tend for the positive Institutions of the Gospel, [Page 84] the Necessity of Church-Communion, or the Excellency of our own, we are robbing them of their natural Rights, or interfering with their Privileges. Whilst we appear in the Defence of any part of Christianity, we are engag'd for them in the common Cause of Christians. and I am perswaded better things of the Laity, than to 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 Controversie, by calling upon the Laity to assert their Libertys, as if they were in Danger from the Principles of Christianity. —But, my Lord, what Liberty does, any Lay­man lose, by our asserting, that Church-Com­munion is necessary? What Privilege is taken from them by our teaching the Danger of certain Ways and Methods of Religion? Is a Man made a Slave because he is caution'd against the Prin­ciples of the Quakers, against Fanaticism, Popery, or Socinianism? Is he in a State of Bondage, because the Sacraments are necessary, and none but Epi­scopal Clergy ought to administer them? Is his Freedom destroy'd because there is a particular Order of Men appointed by God to minister in Holy Things, and be serviceable to him in re­commending him to the Favour of God? Can any Persons, my Lord, think these things breaches upon their Liberty, except such as think the Commandments a Burden? Is there any more Hardship in saying, thou shalt keep to an Episcopal Church, than thou shalt be bap­tiz'd? Or in requiring People to receive parti­cular Sacraments, than to believe particular [Page 85] Books of Scripture to be the Word of God? If some other Advocate for the Laity, should, out of Zeal for their Rights, declare that they need not believe one half of the Articles in the Creed; if they would but assert their Liberty, He would be as true a Friend, and deserve the same Applause, as he who should assert the Ne­cessity of Church-Communion, is inconsistent with the natural Rights and Liberties of Man­kind.