7

authority, they admit fome 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 thefe things confider themselves as inftruments of God, that are made minifterial to the edification of the church, purely by his will, and only fo far as they act in conformity to it? Now if it has pleafed God to confer the Holy Ghost in ordination, confirmation, &c. only by them, and to annex the grace of pardon to the impofition of their hands, on returning finners; is it any blafphemy for them to claim and exert their power? Is the prerogative of God injured, because his own inftitutions are obeyed? Cannot he dispense his graces by what perfons, and on what terms he pleases? Is he deprived of the disposal of his bleffings, because they are bestowed on perfons according to his order, and in obedience to his authority? If I should affirm, that bishops have the fole power to ordain and confirm, would this be robbing God of his difpofal of those graces that attend fuch actions? Is it not rather allowing and fubmitting to God's own disposal, when we keep close to thofe methods of it, which himself has prefcribed?

Pray, my lord, confider the nature of facraments. Are not they neceffary to falvation? But is God therefore excluded from any power of his own? Has he for that reafon, fet bread and wine in the Eucharift, or water in baptifm, above himself? Has he put the falvation of men out of his own power, because it depends on his own inftitutions? Is the falvation of Christians lefs his own act and deed, or lefs the effect of his own mercy, because these facraments in great measure contribute to effect it? Why then, my lord, muft that impofition of hands, that is attended with his grace of pardon, and which has no pretence to fuch grace, but in obedience to his order, and in virtue of his promife, be thus deftructive of his prerogative? Where is there any diminution of his honour or authority, if fuch actions of the elergy are made neceffary to the falvation of fouls 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 himfelf? They owe all their power and efficacy to his inftitution; and can operate no farther than the ends for which he inftituted them. How then is he dethroned for being thus obeyed?

of

My lord, you take no notice of Scripture, but in a new way your own contend against this power, from the nature of the thing: yet I must beg leave to fay, this power stands upon as fure a bottom, and is as confiftent with the goodness and majesty of God as the facraments. If the annexing grace to facraments, and making, them neceffary means of falvation, be a reasonable inftitution of God; fo is his annexing pardon to the impofition of hands by the clergy on returning finners. The grace or bleffing, received in either cafe, is of his own giving, and in a method of his own prefcribing. And how this fhould 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 exprefs texts of Scripture; and of delivering his pardons to penitent finners. Your lordship difowns this claim, as making fallible men the absolute dispensers of God's bleffings, and putting it in their power to damn and fave 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 fo exercifed. Every inftituted means of grace is conditional; and is only then effectual, when it is attended with fuch circumstances as are required by God. If the clergy, through weaknefs, paffion, or prejudice, exclude perfons from the church. of God, they injure only themselves. But, my lord, are these powers nothing, because they may be exercifed in vain? Have the clergy no right at all to them, because they are not abfolutely infallible in the exercise of them?

募

Can you prove, my lord, that they are not neceffary, because they have not always the fame effect? May not that be neceffary, to falvation, which is only effectual on certain conditions? Is not the Christian religion necessary to salvation, though all Christians are not faved? Are not the facraments neceffary means of grace, though the means of grace obtained thereby is only conditional? Is every one neceffarily improved in grace who receives the facrament? Or is it lefs neceffary, because the salutary effe&s of it are not more univerfal? Why then must the imposition of hands be less neceffary, because the grace of it is conditional, and only obtained in due and proper circumftances? Is abfolution nothing, because if withheld wrongfully, it injures not the perfon: who is denied it; and if given without due difpofitions in the

penitent, it avails nothing? Is not this equally true of the facraments, if they are denied wrongfully, or administered to unprepared receivers? But do they therefore cease to be standing and neceffary means of grace?

The argument therefore against this power, drawn from the ignorance or paffions of the clergy, whereby they may mistake or pervert the application of it, can be of no force; fince it is as conditional as any other Christian inftitution. The falvation of no man can be endangered by the ignorance or paffions 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 facraments is certainly entrusted them: but will any one fay, that the facraments are not neceffary to falvation; because they may, through ignorance or paffion, make an ill ufe of this truft?

There is nothing in this doctrine to gratify the pride of clergy-men, or encourage them to lord it over the flock of Chrift. If you could fuppofe an Atheist or a Deift in orders; he might be arrogant, and domineer in the exercise of his powers: but who, that has the leaft fenfe of religion, can think it matter of triumph, that he can deny the facraments, or refuse his benediction to any of his flock? Can he injure or offend the least of thefe; and will not God take account? Or, if they fall through his offence, will not their blood be required at his hands?

Neither is there any thing in it that can enflave the laity to the clergy; or make their falvation depend upon their arbitrary will. Does any one think his falvation in danger, because the facra. ments (the neceffary means of it) are only to be administered by the clergy? Why then muft the falvation of penitents be endangered, or made dependent on the fole pleasure of the clergy, because they alone can reconcile them to the favour of God? If perfons are unjuftly denied the facraments, 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 reafon to fear, but God will, notwithstanding, accept them, provided they be in other refpects proper

objects of his favour.

But to proceed; your lordship fays, "The Apostles might posfibly understand the power of remitting and retaining fins, to be that power of laying their hands upon the fick."

Is this poffible, my lord? Then it is poffible, 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 fick was already conferred upon them. Therefore if no more was intended to be given them in this text, it cannot be interpreted, as having entitled them properly to any power at all. 2. The power mentioned here, was fomething that Jefus promifed he would give them hereafter: which plainly supposes they had it not then: but they then had the power of healing, therefore fomething else must be intended here.

3. The power of the keys has always been looked upon as the highest in the apoftolical order. But if it related only to the power of healing, it could not be fo: for the Seventy, who were inferior to the Apoftles, had this power.

4. The very manner of expreffion in this place, proves, that the power here intended to be given, could not relate to healing the fick, or to any thing of that nature; but to fome spiritual powers, whose effects fhould not be vifible; but be made good by virtue of God's promife. Thus, "Whomfoever ye shall heal on earth, I will heal in heaven," borders too near upon an abfurdity. There is no occafion to promise to make good fuch actions as are good already, and have antecedently produced their effects. Perfons who were reftored to health, to their fight, or the use of their limbs, did not want to be affured, that the Apoftles, by whom they were restored, had a power to that end; the exercife of which power proved and confirmed itself. There was no need therefore of a divine affurance, that a perfon who was healed, was actually healed in virtue of it. But when we confider this promife, as relating to a power whofe effects are not visible; as the pardon of fins, the terms whereby it is expreft, are most proper and it is very reasonable to fuppofe God promifing, that the fpiritual powers exercifed by his minifters on earth, though they do not here produce their vifible effects, fhall yet be made good and effectual by him in heaven.

Thefe reafons, my lord, I fhould think, are fufficient to convince any one, that the Apoftles could not poffibly understand these words in the sense of your lordship.

Let us now confider the commiffion given to Peter. Our Saviour faid to him, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will "build my church, and the gates of hell fhall not prevail against "it: and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of

heaven; and whatfoever thou fhalt bind on earth, fhall be "bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou fhalt loose on earth, "fhall be loofed in heaven."

Now, my lord, how should it enter into the thoughts of Peter, that nothing was here intended, or promifed by our Saviour, but a power of healing; which he not only had before, but also many other difciples, who were not Apoftles? "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven;" that is, according to your Jordfhip, "I will give thee power to heal the fick." Can any thing be more contrary to the plain obvious fenfe of the words? Can any one be faid to have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, because he may be the inftrument of reftoring people to health? Are perfons members of Christ's kingdom, with any regard to health? How then can he have any powers in that kingdom, or be faid to have the keys of it, who is only empowered to cure distempers? Could any one be faid to have the keys of a temporal kingdom, who had no temporal power given in that kingdom? Muft not he therefore who has the keys of a spiritual kingdom, have fome fpiritual power in that kingdom?

Chrift has told us, that his kingdom is not of this world, Your lordship has told us, that it is fo 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 fpiritual kingdom, who has only a power over diseases. My lord, are not sickness and health, fight and limbs, things of this world? Have they not fome relation to bodily pleasures and pains? How then can a power about things wholly confined 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 affured us, that his kingdom is not of this world: your lordship takes it to be of so spiritual a nature, that it ought not, nay, that it cannot be encouraged or established by any worldly powers. 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 fays, they were the keys of his kingdom which he gave them. Suppofe any fucceffor of the Apostles fhould 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 confidering that they are only the keys of a spiritual,