A SECOND LETTER TO THE Bishop of
BANGOR;
Wherein his Lordship's NOTIONS OF
Benediction, Absolution,
and
Church-Communion
Are prov'd to be Destructive of every Institution of the
Christian Religion.
To which is added, a POSTSCRIPT, In Answer to the OBJECTIONS that have been made against his former Letter.
By
WILLIAM LAW,
M. A.
The Second Edition.
LONDON:
Printed for
W. INNYS
at the
Prince
's
Arms
in St.
Paul
's Church-Yard. 1717.
Price One Shilling.
ERRATA.
PAGE 81. Line 20. for sincere,
read
insincere. p. 83. l. 11. for easily, r. equally, p. 84. l. 12. for Liberty, r. Liberties. Ibid. l. 20. for, of
Quakers,
r. of the
Quakers.
p. 87. l. 4. for themselves, r. them. Ibid. l. 15. for can, r. can't. Ibid. l. 19. for 12
th,
r. l
st.
p. 88. l. 30. for Kings, r. things.
MY LORD,
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.
Preservative,
p.
98.
Again, you say, that
to expect the Grace of God from any Hands, but his own, is to affront him—
P. 89.
.
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.
P. 101.
It is evident from these Maxims (for your Lordship asserts them as such) that whatever Institutions are observed in any Christian Society, upon this Supposition, that thereby Grace is 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, 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?
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.
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
First Volume of Sermons.
.
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.
My Friends, for the sake of
Decency
and
Order,
I have taken upon me the Episcopal Character; and, according to Custom, which has long prevaild against Common Sence, am now to lay my Hands upon you: But, I beseech you, as you have any Regard to the Truth of the Gospel, or to the Honour of God, not to imagine, there is any Thing in this Action, more than an useless empty Ceremony: For if you expect to have any Spiritual Advantage from
Human Benedictions,
or to receive Grace from the Imposition of a Bishop's Hands, you affront God, and in effect, renounce Christianity.
Pray, my Lord consider that Passage in the Scripture, where the Apostle speaks of
Leaving the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ, and 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 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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
This will have no Weight with any Reasonable Man, against the Censures of the Church, or any other Ordinance of the Gospel, that they make the Intervention of other Men necessary to our Salvation; since it has always been God's ordinary Method, to dispense his Blessings and Judgments by the Hands of Men
Dr.
Potter
's Church-Government,
p.
336.
.
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.
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
Page 91.
. An ingenious Author, my Lord, (in the Opinion of many, if not of most of your Friends) calls the
Consecration
of the Elements
Conjuration
Rights of the Christian Church.
; 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.
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 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?
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.
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 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.
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,
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 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 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?
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.
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.]
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.
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 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, 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 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.
'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.
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.
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 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 131.
.
Agreeable to this, your Lordship owns, that you are not against the
Order,
or
Decency,
or
Subordination belonging to Christian Societies
Answer to Dr.
Snape,
p. 48.
.
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 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 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.
Preservative,
p.
92.
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.
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 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
Page 93
.
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,
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
Page 94.
. 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.
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 94.
.
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
Page 91.
.
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 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 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?
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 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?
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?
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
Pagex
.
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 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. 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.
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 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 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 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
Page
. No, my Lord; whoever. 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
Preservative,
p.
94.
.
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, 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 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.
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.
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 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? 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 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 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 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 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 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.
I am not now going to accuse you of a Heresie against Charity, but of a Heresie against the Possibility and Nature of Things.
As thus,
Mr.
Nelson
(for Instance) thinks himself oblig'd in Conscience to Communicate with some of our Church. Upon this you declare he hath no Title to God's Mercy; and you and all the World allow, that if he communicates with you whilst his Conscience tells him it is a Sin, he is self-condemn'd and out os God's Favour. That Notion, (viz.
the Necessity of Church-Communion
) therefore, which implies this great invincible Absurdity, cannot be true.
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 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 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 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 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.
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 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 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.
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 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 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.
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?
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,
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, 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 Books of Scripture to be the Word of God? If some other Advocate for the Laity, should, out of Zeal for their Rights, declare that they need not believe one half of the Articles in the Creed; if they would but assert their Liberty, He would be as true a Friend, and deserve the same Applause, as he who should assert the Necessity of Church-Communion, is inconsistent with the natural Rights and Liberties of Mankind.
I am,
My LORD,
Your Lordship's most Humble Servant, William Law.
POSTSCRIPT.
I Hope your Lordship will not think it Unnatural or Impertinent, to offer here a word or two in answer to some Objections against my former Letter.
To begin with the Doctrine of the uninterrupted Succession of the Clergy.
I have, as I think, prov'd that there is a Divine Sommission requir'd to qualifie any one to exercise the Priestly Office, and that seeing this Divine Commission can only be had from such particular Persons as God has appointed to give it, therefore it is necessary that there should be a continual Succession of such Persons, in order to keep up a Commission'd Order of the Clergy. For if the Commission it self be to descend thro' Ages; and distinguish the Clergy from the Laity; it is certain the Persons who alone can give this Commission must descend thro' the same Ages, and Consequently an uninterrupted Succession is as necessary, as that the Clergy have a Divine Commission. Take away this Succession, and the Clergy may as well be Ordain'd by one Person as another; a Number of Women may as well give them a Divine Commission, as a Congregation of any Men, they may indeed appoint Persons to Officiate in Holy Orders, for the sake of
Decency
and
Order;
but then there is no more in it, than an external
Decency
and
Order,
they are no more the Priests of
God,
then those that pretended to make them so. If we had lost the Scriptures, it would be very well to make as good Books as we could, and come as near them as possible; but then it would be not only Folly, but Presumption, to call them the Word of God. But I proceed to the Objections against the Doctrine of an uninterrupted Succession.
First,
It is said, that there is no mention made of it in Scripture, as having any relation to the being of a Church.
Secondly,
That it is subject to so great Uncertainty, that if it be necessary, we can't now be sure we are in the Church.
Thirdly,
That it is a Popish Doctrine, and gives them great Advantage over us.
I begin with the
1st
Objection, that there is no mention made of it in the Scriptures, which tho' I think 1 have sufficiently answer'd in this Letter, I shall here farther consider.
Pray, my Lord, is it not a true Doctrine, that
the Scriptures contain all things necessary to Salvation?
But, my Lord, it is no where expresly said, that
the Scriptures contain all things necessary to Salvation.
It is no where said, that no other Articles of Faith need be believed. Where does it appear in Scripture, that the Scriptures were writ by any Divine Command? Have any of the Gospels or Epistles this Authority to recommend them? Are they necessary to be believ'd, because there is any Law of Christ concerning the Necessity of believing them?
May I reject this uninterrupted Succession, because it is not mention'd in Scripture? And may I not as well reject all the Gospels? Produce your Authority, my Lord, mention your Texts of Scripture, where Christ has
hung the Salvation of Men
upon their believing, that St.
Matthew
or St.
John
wrote such a Book seventeen Hundred Years ago. These, my Lord, are
Niceties
and
Trifles
which are not to be found in Scripture, and consequently have nothing to do with the Salvation of Men.
Now if nothing be to be held as necessary, but what is expresly required in so many Words in Scripture, then it can never be prov'd that the Scriptures themselves are a
standing Rule of Faith in all Ages,
since it is no where expresly asserted, nor is it any where said, that the Scriptures should be continued as a Rule of Faith in all Ages. Is it an Objection against the Necessity of a perpetual Succession of the Clergy, that it is not mention'd in the Scripture? And is it not as good a one against the
Necessity
of making Scripture the
standing Rule of Faith in all Ages,
since it is never said, that they were to be continu'd as a standing Rule in all Ages? If things are only necessary for being said to be so in Scripture, then all that are not thus taught are equally unnecessary, and consequently it is no more necessary that the Scripture should be a fix'd Rule of Faith in all Ages, than that there should be Bishops to ordain in all Ages.
Again, where shall we find it in Scripture, that the Sacraments are to be continued in every Age of the Church? Where is it said, that they shall always be the ordinary Means of Grace necessary to be observ'd? Is there any Law of Christ, any Text of Scripture, that expresly asserts, that if we leave the Use of the Sacraments, we are out of Covenant with God? Is it any where directly said, that we must never lay them aside, or that they will be
perpetually
necessary? No, my Lord, this is a
Nicety
and
Trifle
not to be
found in Scripture: There is no Stress laid there upon this Matter,
but upon things
of a quite different: Nature.
I now presume, my Lord, that every one who has common Sense plainly sees, that if this Succession of the Clergy be to be despis'd, because it is not expresly requir'd in Scripture; it undeniably follows, that we may reject the Scriptures, as not being a
standing Rule of Faith in all Ages;
we way disuse the Sacraments, as not the
Ordinary Means of Grace in all Ages;
since this is no more mentioned in the Scriptures, or
expresly
requir'd, than this uninterrupted Succession.
If it be a good Argument against the Necessity of Episcopal Ordainers, that it is never said in Scripture, that there shall
always
be such Ordainers; it is certainly as conclusive against the Use of the Sacraments in every Age, that it is no where said in Scripture they shall be used in
All Ages.
If no Government or Order of the Clergy be to be held as necessary, because no such Necessity is asserted in Scripture; it is certain this concludes as strongly against
Government,
and
the Order it self,
as against any
Particular
Order. For it is no more said in Scripture, that there shall be an Order of Clergy, than that there shall be any
particular
Order; therefore if this Silence proves against any
particular
Order of Clergy, it proves as much against
Order it self.
Should therefore any of your Lordship's Friends have so much Church-Zeal as to contend for the Necessity of
some Order,
tho' of no particular Order; he must fall under your Lordship's Displeasure, and be prov'd as meer a
Dreamer
and
Trifler,
as those who assert the Necessity of Episcopal Ordination. For if it be plain, that there need be no
Episcopal Clergy,
because it is not said there shall
always
be Episcopal Clergy; it is undeniably plain, that there need be
no Order
of the Clergy, since it is no where said, there shall be
an Order
of Clergy: Therefore whoever shall contend for an Order of Clergy, will be as much condemn'd by your Lordship's Doctrine, as he that declares for the Episcopal Clergy.
The Truth of the Matter is this, If nothing is to be esteemed of any Moment, but counted as mere
Trifle
and
Nicety
among Christians, which is not
expresly
requir'd in the Scriptures; then it is a
Trifle
and
Nicety,
whether we believe the Scripture to be a
standing Rule of Faith
in all Ages, whether we use the Sacraments in
all Ages,
whether we have any Clergy at all, whether we observe the Lord's Day, whether we baptize our Children, or whether we go to publick Worship; for none of these things are expresly required in so many Words in Scripture. But if your Lordship, with the rest of the Christian World, will take these things to be of Moment, and well prov'd, because they are founded in Scripture, tho' not in
express Terms,
or under
plain Commands;
if you will acknowledge these Matters to be well asserted, because they may be gather'd from Scripture, and are confirm'd by the universal Practice of the Church in all Ages, (which is all the Proof that they are capable of) I don't doubt but it will appear, that this
successive Order of the Clergy
is founded on the same Evidence, and supported by as great Authority, so that it must be thought of the same Moment with these things, by all unprejudic'd Persons.
For, my Lord, tho' it be not expresly said, that there shall
always
be a
Succession of Episcopal Clergy,
yet it is a Truth founded in Scripture it self, and asserted by the universal Voice of Tradition in the first and succeeding Ages of the Church.
It is thus founded in Scripture: There we are taught that, the Priesthood is a
Positive Institution;
that no Man can take this Office unto himself; that neither our Saviour himself, nor his Apostles, nor any other Person, however extraordinarily endow'd with Gifts from God, could,
as such,
exercise the Priestly Office, till they had God's express Commission for that purpose. Now how does it appear, that the Sacraments are Positive Institutions, but that they are consecrated to such Ends and Effects, as of themselves they were no way qualify'd to perform? Now as it appears from Scripture, that Men,
as such,
however endow'd, were not qualify'd to take this Office upon them without God's Appointment; it is demonstratively certain, that Men so call'd are as much to be esteem'd a
Positive Institution,
as Elements so chosen can be call'd a
Positive Institution.
All the Personal Abilities of Men conferring no more Authority to exercise the Office of a Clergy-Man, than the natural Qualities of Water to make a Sacrament: So that the one Institution is as truly Positive as the other.
Again. The Order of the Clergy is not only a
Positive
Order instituted by God, but the different Degrees in this Order is of the same Nature. For we find in Scripture, that some Persons could perform some Offices in the Priesthood, which neither Deacons nor Priests could do, tho' those Deacons and Priests were inspir'd Persons, and Workers of Miracles. Thus
Timothy
was sent to ordain Elders, because none below his Order, who was a Bishop, could perform that Office.
Peter
and
John
laid their Hands on baptiz'd Persons, because neither Priests nor Deacons, tho' Workers of Miracles, could execute that Part of the Sacerdotal Office.
Now can we imagine that the Apostles and Bishops thus distinguish'd themselves for nothing? That there was the same Power in
Deacons
and
Priests
to execute those Offices, tho' they took them to themselves? No, my Lord; if three Degrees in the Ministry are instituted in Scripture, we are oblig'd to think them as truly distinct in their Powers, as we are to think that the Priesthood it self contains Powers that are distinct from those of the Laity. It is no more consistent with Scripture, to say that
Deacons
or
Priests
may ordain, than that the Laity are Priests or Deacons. The same Divine Institution making as truly a Difference betwixt the Clergy, as it does betwixt Clergy and Laity.
Now if the Order of the Clergy be a
Divine Positive
Institution, in which there are different Degrees of Power, where some alone can Ordain,
&c.
whilst others can only perform other parts of the sacred Office; if this (as it plainly appears) be a Doctrine of Scripture, then it is a Doctrine of Scripture, that there is a Necessity of such a Succession of Men as have Power to ordain. For do the Scriptures make it necessary that
Timothy
(or some Bishop) should be sent to
Ephesus
to ordain Priests, because the Priests who were there could not ordain? And do not the same Scriptures make it as necessary, that
Timothy
's Successor be the only Ordainer, as well as He was in his Time? Will not Priests in the next Age be as destitute of the Power of Ordaining, as when
Timothy
was alive? So that since the Scriptures teach, that
Timothy,
or Persons of his Order, could
alone
ordain in that Age; they as plainly teach, that the Successors of that Order can
alone
ordain in any Age, and consequently the Scriptures plainly teach a Necessity of an
Episcopal Succession.
The Scriptures declare there is a Necessity of a Divine Commission to execute the Office of a Priest; they also teach, that this Commission can only be had from particular Persons: Therefore the Scriptures plainly teach, there is a Necessity of a
Succession of such Particular Persons,
in order to keep up a truly
Commission'd Clergy.
Suppose when
Timothy
was sent to
Ephesus
to ordain Elders, the Church had told him, We have chose Elders already, and laid our Hands upon them: That if he alone was allowed to exercise this Power, it might seem as if he alone had it; or that Ministers were the better for being ordain'd by his particular Hands; and that some Persons might imagine they could have no Clergy, except they were ordain'd by him, or some of his Order; and that seeing Christ had no where made an express Law, that such Persons should be necessary to the Ordination of the Clergy; therefore they rejected this Authority of
Timothy,
lest they should subject themselves to
Niceties
and
Trifles.
Will your Lordship say, that such a Practice would have been allow'd of in the
Ephesians?
Or that Ministers so ordained, would have been receiv'd as the Ministers of Christ? If not, why must such Practice or such Ministers be allow'd of in any after-Ages? Would not the same Proceeding against any of
Timothy's Successors,
have deserv'd the same Censure, as being equally unlawful. If therefore the Scripture condemns all Ordination but what is Episcopal; the Scriptures make a
Succession
of
Episcopal Ordainers
necessary. So that I hope, my Lord, we shall be no more told that this is a Doctrine not mention'd in Scripture, or without any Foundation in it.
The great Objection to this Doctrine is, that this
Episcopal Order of the Clergy,
is only an Apostolical Practice; and seeing
all
Apostolical Practices are not binding to us, sure this need not.
In answer to this, my Lord, I shall first shew, that tho' all Apostolical Practices are not necessary, yet some may be necessary.
Secondly,
That the Divine unalterable Right of Episcopacy is not founded
merely
on Apostolical Practice.
To begin with the
First;
The Objection runs thus,
All Apostolical Practices, are not unalterable or obligatory to us, therefore no Apostolical Practices are.
This, my Lord, is just as Theological, as if I should say all Scripture-Truths are not Articles of Faith, or Fundamentals of Religion, therefore no Scripture-Truths are: Is not the Argument full as just and solid in one Case as the Other? May there not be that same Difference between some Practices of the Apostles and others, that there is betwixt some Scripture-Truths and others? Are all Truths equally important that are to be found in the Bible? Why must all Practices be of the same Moment that were Apostolical? Now if there be any Way, either divine or humane, of knowing an Article of Faith, from the smallest Truth or most indifferent Matter in Scripture, they will equally assist us in distinguishing what Apostolical Practices are of perpetual Obligation, and what are not. But it is a strange way of Reasoning, that some People are fallen into, who seem to know nothing of
Moderation,
but jump as constantly out of one Extream into another, as if there was no such Thing as a middle Way, or any such Virtue as
Moderation.
Thus either the Church must have an
absolute uncontroulable Authority,
or none at all; we must either hold
all
Apostolical Practices necessary, or
none at all.
Again, if no Apostolical
Practices
can be unalterable, because all are not, then no Apostolical
Doctrines
are necessary to be taught in all Ages, because all Apostolical
Doctrines
are not; and we are no more oblig'd to teach the
Death, Satisfaction
and
Resurrection
of Jesus Christ, than we are oblig'd to forbid the
eating of Blood and Things strangled.
If we must thus blindly follow them in all their Practices, or else be at liberty to leave them in all, we must for the same Reason implicitly teach all their
Doctrines,
or else have a Power of receding from them all.
For if there be any Thing in the Nature of
Doctrines,
in the
Tenour
of Scripture, or the
Sense
of Antiquity, whereby we can know the difference of some
Doctrines
from others, that some were
Occasional Temporary
Determinations, suited to particular States and Conditions in the Church, whilst others were such general
Doctrines
as would concern the Church in all States and Circumstances; If there can be this difference betwixt Apostolical
Doctrines,
there must necessarily be the same difference betwixt Apostolical
Practices,
unless we will say, that their
Practices
were not suited to their
Doctrines.
For Occasional
Doctrines
must produce Occasional
Practices.
Now may not we be oblig'd by some
Practices
of the Apostles, where the Nature of the Thing, and the Consent of Antiquity shew it to be equally necessary and important in all Ages and Conditions of the Church, without being ty'd down to the strict observance of every Thing which the Apostles did, tho' it plainly appears, that it was done upon
accidental
and
mutable
Reasons. Can we not be oblig'd to observe the
Lord's Day
from Apostolical
Practice,
without being equally oblig'd to
Lock the Doors
where we are met, because in the Apostles Times they lock'd them for fear of their Enemies.
My Lord, we are to follow the
Practices
of the Apostles, as we ought to follow every Thing else, with
Discretion
and
Judgment,
and not run headlong into every Thing they did, because they were Apostles, or yet think that because we need not practise after them in every Thing, we need do it in nothing. We best imitate them, when we act upon such Reasons as they acted upon, and neither make their
Occasional
Practices
perpetual
Laws, nor break thro' such General Rules, as will always have the
same reason
to be observ'd.
If it be ask'd, how we can know what Practices must be observ'd, and what may be laid aside? I answer, as we know
Articles
of Faith from
lesser Truths;
as we know
Occasional
Doctrines from Perpetual Doctrines, that is, from the
Nature
of the Things, from the
Tenour
of Scripture, and the
Testimony of
Antiquity.
Secondly,
It is not true, that the
Divine unalterable Right
of Episcopacy is founded
merely
upon Apostolical Practice.
We do not say that Episcopacy cannot be changed,
merely
because we have Apostolical Practice for it; but because such is the Nature of the Christian Priesthood, that it can only be continued in that Method, which God has appointed for its Continuance. Thus, Episcopacy is the
only
instituted Method of continuing the Priesthood; therefore Episcopacy is
unchangeable,
not because it is an Apostolical Practice, but because the Nature of the Thing requires it: A positive Institution being only to be continued in that Method which God has appointed; so that it is the Nature of the Priesthood, and not the Apostolical Practice alone, that makes it necessary to be continued. The Apostolical Practice indeed shews, that Episcopacy is the Order that is appointed, but it is the Nature of the Priesthood that assures us that it is
Unalterable:
And- that because an Office which is of no significancy, but as it is of Divine Appointment, and instituted by God, can no otherways be continued, but in that way of Continuance which God has appointed.
The Argument proceeds thus; The Christian Priesthood is a Divine positive Institution, which as it could only begin by the
Divine Appointment,
so it can only descend to after Ages in such a Method, as God has been-pleased to appoint.
The Apostles (and your Lordship owns, Christ was in
all
that they did)
Answer to Dr.
Snape.
instituted Episcopacy
alone,
therefore this Method of Episcopacy is unalterable, not because an
Apostolical Practice
cannot be laid aside, but because the Priesthood can only descend to after-Ages in such a Method as is of Divine Appointment.
So that the Question is not fairly stated, when it is asked, whether Episcopacy, being an Apostolical Practice, may be laid aside? But it should be asked, whether an instituted particular Method of continuing the Priesthood be not necessary to be continued? Whether an appointed Order of receiving a Commission from God be not necessary to be observ'd, in order to receive a Commission from Him? If the Case was thus stated, as it ought to be fairly stated, any one would soon perceive, that we can no more lay aside Episcopacy, and yet continue the Christian Priesthood, than we can alter the Terms of Salvation, and yet be in Covenant with God.
I come now, my Lord, to the Second Objection,
That this uninterrupted Succession is subject to so great uncertainty, that if it be necessary, we can never say that we are in the Church.
I know no Reason, my Lord, why it is so uncertain, but because it is founded upon
Historical Evidence.
Let it therefore be considered, my Lord, that Christianity it self, is a
Matter of Fact,
only convey'd to us by
Historical Evidence.
That the
Canon of Scripture
is only made known to us by
Historical Evidence;
that we have no other way of knowing what Writings are the word of God; and yet the Truth of our Faith, and every other Means of Grace depends upon our Knowledge and Belief of the Scriptures. Must we not declare the Necessity of this Succession of Bishops, because it can only be prov'd by
Historical Evidence,
and that for such a long tract of Time?
Why then do we declare the belief of the Scriptures, necessary to Salvation? Is not this equally putting the Salvation of Men upon a
Matter of Fact,
supported only by
Historical Evidence,
and making it depend upon Things done seventeen hundred Years ago? Cannot
Historical Evidence
satisfie us in one Point, as well as in the other? Is there any Thing in the Nature of this Succession, that it can't be as well asserted by
Historical Evidence,
as the Truth of the Scriptures? Is there not the same bare possibility in the Thing it self, that the Scriptures may in some important Points be corrupted, as that this Succession may be broke? But is this any just Reason why we should believe, or fear, that the Scriptures are corrupted, because there is a Physical Possibility of it, tho' there is all the Proof that can be requir'd of the contrary? Why then must we set aside the Necessity of this Succession from a
bare possibility of
Error, tho' there is all the Proof that can be requir'd, that it never was broken, but strictly kept up?
And tho' your Lordship has told the World so much of the
Improbability, Nonsense,
and
Absurdity
of this Succession, yet I prormise your Lordship an Answer when ever you shall think fit to shew,
when;
or
how,
or
where
this Succession broke, or
seem'd
to break, or was
likely
to break.
And till then, I shall content my self with offering this Reason to your Lordship, why it is
morally impossible,
it ever should have broken in all that Term of Years, from the Apostles to the present Times.
The Reason is this; it has been a receiv'd Doctrine in every Age of the Church, that no Ordination was valid but that of Bishops: This Doctrine, my Lord, has been a constant Guard upon the
Episcopal Succession;
for seeing it was universally believ'd that Bishops
alone
could Ordain, it was
morally impossible,
that any Persons could be receiv'd as Bishops, who had not been so Ordain'd.
Now is it not
morally impossible,
that in our Church any one should be made a Bishop without
Episcopal Ordination?
Is there any possibility of forging Orders, or satealing a Bishoprick by any other Stratagem? No, it is
morally impossible,
because it is an acknowledg'd Doctrine amongst us, that a Bishop can only be ordain'd by Bishops? Now as this Doctrine must necessarily prevent any one being a Bishop without
Episcopal Ordination
in our Age, so it must have the same effect in every other Age as well as ours; and consequently it is as reasonable to believe that the Succession of Bishiops was not broke in any Age since the Apostles, as that it was not broke in our own Kingdom within these forty Years. For the same Doctrine which preserves it forty Years, may as well preserve it forty hundred Years, if it was equally believ'd in all that space of Time. That this has been the constant Doctrine of the Church, I presume your Lordship will not deny; I have not here enter'd into the Historical Defence of it, this, and indeed every other Institution of the Christian Church
aving been lately so well defended from the Ecclesiastical Records by a very excellent and
dicious Writer.
Original Draught of the Primitive Church.
We believe the Scriptures are not corrupted, because it was always a received Doctrine in the Church that, they were the
standing Rule of Faith,
nd because the Providence of God may well be suppos'd to preserve such Books, as were to con
ey to every Age the Means of Salvation. The
ame Reasons prove the great improbability that his Succession should ever be broke, both be
ause it was always against a receiv'd Doctrine
break it, and because we may justly hope
e Providence of God would keep up his own
nstitution.
I must here observe, that tho' your Lordship often exposes the Impossibility of this Succes
on, yet at other times, even you your self, and
our Advocates assert it. Thus you tell us,
That the Papists have one regular Appointment or un
terrupted Succession of Bishops undefil'd with the
uch of Lay-hands.
Preserv. p. 80.
Is this Succession then such an
improbable, impossible
Thing, and yet can your Lordship assure
that it is at
Rome;
that tho' it be-seventeen
undred Years old there, yet that it is a true
ne? Is it such
Absurdity,
and
Nonsence,
and every Thing that is
Ridiculous
when we lay claim to it; and yet can your Lordship assure us that it is not only possible to be, but
actually
is in being in the Church of
Rome?
What Arguments, or Authority can your Lordship produce to shew that there is a Succession there, that will not equally prove it to be here?
You assert expresly, that there is a
true Succession
there; you deny that we have it here; therefore your Lordship must mean, that we had not Episcopal Ordination when we separated from the Church of
Rome.
And here the Controversie must rest betwixt you and your Adversaries,
whether we had Episcopal Ordination then;
for as your Lordship has expresly affirm'd, that there is this uninterrupted Succession in the Church of
Rome,
it is impossible that we should want it, unless we had not Episcopal Ordination at the
Reformation.
Whenever you? Lordship shall please to appear in Defence of the
Nagg's-head Story,
or any other Pretence against our Episcopal Ordination when we departed for
Rome,
we shall beg leave to shew our selves so far true Protestants. as to answer any
Popish
Arguments your Lordship can produce.
Here let the
Common Sense
of the Laity be once more appeal'd to: Your Lordship tells them that an
uninterrupted Succession
is improbable, absurd, and,
morally
speaking,
impossible,
and, for this Reason, they need not trouble their Heads about it; yet in another Place you positively affirm, that this true
uninterrupted Succession
is actually in the Church of
Rome:
That is, they are to despise this Succession, because it never was, or ever can be, yet are co believe that it
really
is in the
Romish
Church. My Lord, this comes very near
saying
and
unsaying, to the great Diversion of the Papists.
Must they not not laugh at your Lordship's
Protestant Zeal,
which might be much better call'd the
Spirit
of Popery? Must they not be highly pleas'd with all your Banter and Ridicule upon an
uninterrup
ed Succession,
when they see you so kindly except theirs? And think it only
Nonsense
and
Absurdity,
when claim
d by any other Church? Surely, my Lord, they must conceive great Hopes of your Lordship, since you have here rather ch
se to contradict your self, than not vouch for their Succession: For you have said it is morally impossible, yet affirm that it is with them.
The third Objection against this
uninterrupted Succession,
is this, that it is a
Popish Doctrine,
and
gives Papists advantage over us.
The Objection proceeds thus, we must not assert the Necessity of this Succession, because the Papists say it is only to be found with them. I might add, because some mighty zealous Protestants say so too.
But if this be good Argumentation, we ought not co tell the
Jews,
or
Deists,
&c. that there is any Necessity of embracing Christianity, because the
Papists
say Christians can only be saved in their Church.
Again we ought not to insist upon a true Fait
because the
Papists
say, that a true Faith is on
in their Communion. So that there is just
much Popery in teaching this Doctrine, as
asserting the Necessity of Christianity to a
or the Necessity of a right Faith to a
Socinian,
&c.
I shall only trouble your Lordship with a Wor
or two concerning another Point in my forme
Letter. I there prov'd that your Lordship ha
put the whole of our Title to God's Favou
upon Sincerity,
as such,
Independent of ever
Thing else. That no Purity of Worship, no excellence of Order, no Truth of Faith, no Sort o
Sacraments, no Kind of Institutions, or any Church,
as such
can help us to the least Degree of God's Favour, or give us the smallest Advantage above any other Communion. And consequently that your Lordship has set sincere
Jews, Quakers, Socinians, Muggletonians,
and all
Hereticks
and
Schismaticks
upon the same Bottom, as to the Favour of God, with sincere Christians.
Upon this, my Lord, I am called upon to prove that these several Sorts of People can be
Sincere
in your account of Sincerity. To which, my Lord, I make this Answer, either there are some sincere Persons amongst
Jews, Quakers, Socinians,
or any kind of
Hereticks
and
Schismaticks,
or there are not; if there are, your Lordship has given them the same title to God's Favour, that you have to the sincerest Christians, if you will say, there are no sincere Persons amongst any of them, then your Lordship Damns them all in the Gross, for surely Corruptions in Religion, profess'd with unsincerity, will never save People.
I have nothing to do to prove the Sincerity of any of them, if they are Sincere, what I have said is true, if you will not allow them to be Sincere, you condemn them all at once.
Again, I humbly suppos'd a Man might be sincere in his
Religious Opinions,
tho' it might be owing to
some ill Habits,
or
something Criminal
in Himself, that he was fallen into such or such a way of Thinking. Bus it seems this is all
Contradiction;
and no Man can be sincere, who has
any Faults,
or whose
Faults
have any
Influence
upon his way of Thinking.
Your Lordship tells all the
Dissenters,
that they may be easie, if they are sincere; and that it is the only Ground for Peace and Satisfaction. But pray, my Lord, if none are to be esteemed
sincere,
but those who have no Faults, or whose Faults have no Influence upon their Perswasions, who can be assur'd that he is
sincere,
but he that has the least Pretence to it, the
Proud Pharisee?
If your Lordship or your Advocates were desir'd to prove your Sincerity, either before God or Man, it must be for these Reasons, because you have no ill Passions or Habits, no faulty Prejudices, no past or present Vices that can have any Effect upon your Minds. My Lord, as this is the only Proof that any of you could give of your own Sincerity in this Meaning of it, so the very Pretence to it would prove the Wane of it.
FINIS.
BOOKS Printed for, and Sold by W INNYS, at the Prince's Arms in St. Paul's Church-Yard.
PHysico-Theology:
Or, a Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God, From his Works of Creation, with large Notes, and many curious Observations. By
William Derham,
Rector of
Upminster
in
Essex,
Canon of
Windsor,
and
F. R. S.
The Fourth Edition,
8vo.
Astro-Theology:
Or, a Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God, from a Survey of the Heavens. Illustrated with Copper-Plates. The Second Edition, 8
vo.
By the same Author, 1715.
Remarks upon the Lord Bishop of
Bangor
's Sermon, entitled,
The Nature of the Kingdom,
or
Church of Christ.
Humbly address to his Lordship. By
Robert Marsden,
B. D. A
chdeacon of
N
t
ingham,
and late Fellow of
Jesus College
in
Cambridge.
The Second Edition, 1717.
The Bishop of
Bangor
's late Sermon, and his Letter to Dr.
Snape
in Defence of it, answerd. And the dangerous Nature of some Doctrines in his
Preservative,
Set forth in a Letter to his Lordship. By
William Law,
M. A. The Sixth Edition.
A Treatise of
Algebra,
in Two Parts: The First treating of the Arithmetical, and the Second of the Geometrical Part. By
Philip Ronayne,
Gent. 1717.
Practical Discourses upon the Lord's Prayer: Preach'd before the Honourable Society of
Lincolns-Inn.
By
Thomas Mangy,
A. M. Chaplain at
Whitehall
and Fellow of St.
John
's
College
in
Cambridge. Publish'd by the special Order bf the Bench.
The 2
d Edition,
8vo. 1717.
An Enquiry after Happiness in Three Parts: 1
st,
Of the Possibility of obtaining Happiness:
2d.
Of the true Notion of Human Life: 3
d,
Of Religious Perfection. By
Lucas,
D. D. late Prebendary of
Westminster.
The 5
th
Edition, in Two Volumes 8
vo.
1717.
Directions for Studying. 1
st,
A general System or Body of Divinity. 2
d,
The 39 Articles of Religion. To which is added. St.
Jerom
's Epistle to
Nepo
ianus.
By
Tho Bennet,
D. D. The 2
d Edition.
1717. Where may be had all his other Works.