declaration would signify nothing: because the Church, in its priesthood and sacraments, derives its authority only from Jesus Christ, which the persecution of the civil powers cannot reach; much less can their allowance turn it into an human authority, and render it of none effect. But we shall see hereafter, how all this is overthrown, by another plea which the Dissenters (forgetting this) have made use of to defend their separation from the Church of England. To s say, that the Church of Christ is founded upon the doctrines taught by the Apostles, is a gross mistake. Doctrines can no more confer authority of office to Church ministers, than a statute book in England can make a justice of the peace; whose power must come to him by personal deputation. A written law does nothing, till there comes an executive power, lawfully ordained, to administer and bring it to effect. Let any Dissenter shew us the text or doctrine that will make a priest. We can soon shew him one which tells us how priests must be made. No man taketh this honour to himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron; who was called by an outward consecration from a person whom God had commissioned to consecrate: and the power thus given descended by succession to his posterity. The power of absolution was given by Christ to the Christian ministry, and without this power there can be no such thing as a Church of Christ. The priesthood had the power of absolution under the law of Moses; and even the priests of heathenism were never considered as the representatives of the people, but of the God to whom they belonged; to pronounce blessings and forgive sins in his name. But the Presbyterians are so far from claiming this power to themselves (though supposed to be in all the priests of the world), that they

mock at it in us, and call it popery and juggling; and a Church so rejecting a power essential to the nature of priesthood, is in a state of abjuration against its own existence.

3. They say, the Church of England hath imposed such articles of faith, as the Gospel hath not imposed; for which imposition Christ hath given no authority.

This objection extends to every Church upon earth, that requires any articles of faith as terms of Church communion; and it proves too much if it proves any thing. The Gospel, it is true, imposes nothing but baptism, and its faith in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: all other articles are intended for the defence and security of this one in its proper extent. And such articles will be more or less, according to times and occasions, as the adversaries of the faith assault it on different sides, and with different principles of offence. The Gospel does not require that we should renounce the world, the flesh, and the devil: nor set down the Apostles' Creed, as a condition of communion: and, if we had a mind to be perverse and captious, we might argue, that a man may come to a Christian baptism with his mouth shut, and not say one word for himself, because the Gospel hath not set down the form, nor specified the terms of the baptismal covenant; though the intention or sense of it (what we are to renounce, and what we are to belive) is clear throughout the New Testament. The Church of England hath articles expressly against Popery but the Gospel hath imposed no such articles; it knew nothing of Popery; and the principle of the Dissenters would leave us defenceless against the Papists, as well as all our other enemies, and is contrary to the fundamental principle of all society, and even of nature itself. We have no occasion here to

enquire what the articles of the Church of England are; because the objection extends to all articles whatsoever, except such as are set down in the Scripture, which sets down nothing but baptism; and is so brief in its accounts, that every true principle of the Christian faith might be evaded, if we were to lay hold of some short expressions, and make them exclusive, contrary to common rules of reasoning, the plainest facts, and the nature of the case, as some have done; particularly the celebrated Mr. Locke, who contends, that the Christian Gospel has but one article, namely, that Jesus Christ is the Messiah; whereas the one great condition of salvation, in the Gospel, is baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; therefore the great fundamental article of the Gospel, is that of faith in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

4. From the preceding article, which asserts that the Church of England hath imposed articles which Christ hath not imposed; it is argued, that in opposing the Church of England, they oppose an invasion of the kingly authority of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ doth not act in person, but hath commissioned his Church to act for him, and hath promised to be with it, and support its authority, to the end of the world. Therefore, to argue for Jesus Christ against his Church, is to set up Jesus Christ against himself; and the like objection may be made against all the Churches in the world: which, so far as they act for their own just rights, under Jesus Christ, may be said to act against him. Every true Church is bound to assert and defend the faith it hath received: but its enemies will call this necessary defence an imposition, and then contend, that they are free from all obligation. But with what grace doth this argument

come from the party, who imposed their own solemn league and covenant on men's consciences in this kingdom, at the peril of their lives and fortunes, and proscribed them as malignants if they refused to take it; for which there certainly is neither precedent nor precept in the Gospel? How marvellously do the opinions of men change, when they argue for themselves, and when they argue against us!

5. To explain away the offence of schism, it is farther argued, that as there were schisms among the Corinthians, when it does not appear that there was any separation; so there may be a separation where there is no schism: because Christians may still be united in heart and affection, though they perform the offices of religion in different places and in different ways.

The history of facts in this country gives us a different prospect of things, and indeed it is preposterous to suppose, that if we sow in schism, we shall reap in unity; or, in other words, that if we murder and mangle the body of the Church, we shall preserve charity, which is the life and soul of it. It is true, we shall not dispute much about any thing, if we are indifferent to every thing: but misguided religious zeal is not of this insipid character. The ordinance of Parliament of the 11th of August, 1645, for putting in execution the Directory, has these words :-" If any person or persons whatsoever shall, at any time or times hereafter, use, or cause the aforesaid book of Common Prayer to be used in any church, chapel, or public place of worship, or in any private place, or family, within the kingdom of England, or the dominion of Wales, or port and town of Berwick; every person so offending herein, shall, for the first offence, pay the sum of five pounds of lawful English money: for the second of

fence, ten pounds; and for the third, shall suffer one whole year's imprisonment, without bail or mainprize." This law was one of the fruits of schism; and there never was a law more severe and cruel. The king was then living, and the private worship of his family is not excepted. But these were days of religious madness; we know better now. So it is said; but I fear with very little truth. What would not that persecuting spirit do, if it had power, which is so conspicuous in the Syllabus of Mr. Robinson's Lectures, a dissenting teacher at Cambridge? How fresh is the remembrance (or ought to be) of the riots in London, which shook the kingdom, and brought us so nearly to ruin in a few days; all conducted by a fanatic Presbyterian, with a rout of forty thousand disorderly people at his heels? And if the principles of fanaticism can perform such wonders here, even in a man without learning, without parts, without morals, without sense; how dreadful may their effects be upon a future occasion! and who can tell how soon that occasion may happen? especially as Dr. Priestley, another dissenting teacher, is now threatening us with impending ruin, from himself and his party; who give us warning, that they have long been, and are now, conveying gunpowder under our foundation, to blow up the old rotten fabric of the Church of England? Neither is that zeal totally departed which produced the cruel edict of 1645, against the use of our Liturgy; a Dissenter (to my knowledge) having been lately heard to declare, that every Common Prayer Book in England ought to be burned! and this was from a person, who, abstracted from these paroxysms of religious bigotry, was of a peaceable and quiet temper! Add to this, that practice, which is almost universal with the Dissenters, of forcing their servants and dependants into the worship