and was taken away in wrath. You are to give God hearty thanks that he hath taken this your brother out of the miseries of this sinful world, though you have the strongest reason to believe that he is gone down to realms of greater misery below. And you are to profess, before God, that you hope the man rests in Christ, and pray that you yourselves may rest in Christ in the same manner as this your brother doth, even though you have every reason to think that he died in his sins, and is therefore not gone to be with Christ, where nothing that is defiled can ever be admitted. Strange! and extremely shocking! What can the people think, Sir! what must infidels and deists think! when they hear you in the morning denouncing from the scriptures, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man that doeth evil, and assuring them, that, without holiness, no man shall see the Lord; but, in the evening, shall hear you, from the Common Prayer, declaring, before God, your hope of the eternal happiness of one of the most debauched and profligate men in your parish; and applying to him such lofty expressions of confidence and hope, as can be applicable only to a person of the most shining and exemplary life.

Do you imagine, Sir, people do not think? Can you wonder deism prevails? that the priesthood is ridiculed? and that your good sermons are not more effectual to reform a corrupt world? To me (and doubtless to thousands of your own church) this appears to be a most indecent prostitution of your sacred character and office, a trifling and prevarication with things of everlasting moment, and laying a fatal snare in the way of many, who, seeing their debauched neighbour dismissed to the other world, with such confidence of his good estate, suppress their just

fears, and say, I shall have peace, though I add drunkenness to thirst.*

But there is a farther very strange and extraordinary circumstance attending this matter, viz. that it involves the church in a manifest contradiction and absurdity; for it damus and saves the same individual persons. Whom it damns when* living it saves when dead. Arians and Socinians, you know, Sir, your church declares without doubt to perish everlastingly. But let these very men die, and your church as solemnly declares that God hath, in his great mercy, taken them to himself, and that it hopes they rest in Christ; or in other words, that the man whom I pronounce without doubt to be damned, I yet hope that he is saved; i. e. I hope without hope.

I shall press you no further on this point, but proceed to your next observation, in which you endeavour to establish not only the use, but the church's divine right, of making ceremonies from the instance of the holy kiss. "The kiss of charity, used in the apostolic church, you ask, was it a rite of divine appointment, or was it "not?" I answer, that I apprehend this kiss of charity cannot properly be called a divine institution, nor be said to be ordained by the apostles. The greeting with a kiss, was an ancient established usage, not only amongst the Jews, but the Gentile nations also. This usage, therefore, or ceremony, was not ordained by the Apostles, but only by their advice regulated and directed to a moral and religious end. It is as if they had said, "it is your custom when you meet to salute each "other with a kiss; see that it be a pure, a chaste,

* Two of our most eminent archbishops, Drs. Sancroft and Tillotson, have expreffed their strong disapprobation of fome parts of this office; the former of whom declared, "that he was

fo little fatisfied with it, that, for that very reason, he never took any paftoral charge upon him." Vide Calamy's Defence of moderate Nonconformity. Part II. page 222.

+ Letter II. page 2.

166 or holy kiss, a token of unfeigned charity, "friendship, and peace."

66

66

"But, if this ceremony of the holy kiss was "not of divine appointment, (which probably, "you say, is the truth of the case,) but a merely "ecclesiastical, prudential institution, ordained "by the Apostles without any precept from the "Lord, or any particular direction of the Holy Spirit:"---then Sir, I, without the least hesitation, say, it was not at all obligatory as a law upon the consciences of christians; they might, or they might not practice it, without sinning against God. Even the Apostles had no dominion over the faith and practice of christians, but what was given them by the special presence and spirit of Christ, the only Lawgiver, Lord, and Sovereign of the church. They were to teach only the things which he should command them. Whatever they enjoined under the influence of that spirit, was to be considered and obeyed as the njunction of Christ. But, if they enjoined any. hing in the church, (which I can by no means admit,) without the peculiar influence and direction of this spirit, i.e. merely as fallible unassisted men, in that case, their injunctions had no authority over conscience: every man's own reason had authority to examine and discuss their injunctions, and, as they approved themselves to his private judgment, to observe them or not. Should we grant then what you ask, "that the church in "the present age, has the same authority and power, as the church in the apostolic age, con"sidered as not being under any immediate and extraordinary guidance of the Holy Ghost;" ---What will you gain by it? This same authority and power is, you see, Sir, really no power nor authority at all.

I proceed next--"to the point of discipline, the want of which, you say, is objected to your

G

"church; but you will represent the real state of "it, and then shew that we really as much want "it ourselves."* We will attend to your own account of it, which cannot be suspected of being too severe. You acknowledge "that the disci

66

pline of the church is of great moment towards "the edification of its members; and that the "fault is unpardonable when church governors "let it fall, through a supine carelessness and "neglect:---that there is a great prostration of "discipline in the church of England :---that it "is ruined amongst you:---that the distempers * of the times are evidently too strong for it:--"that those who sit at the helm find it prudent "not to bear up too much against the impetuosity " of the storm, but to give way till the madness of "the people be still:---that the discipline of the "church has not been carried to any degree of "perfection, and now lies under a general relax"ation.---That your people are often indulged in "all their unreasonable demands and disorderly "ways, to prevent their putting in execution "their threat, 'that they will go to the meeting:' "and, finally, that you have at least the shadow "and form of discipline, and trust in God that "these dry bones will one day live."+

This, it must be owned, is very ingenuously and frankly spoken. And can you blame then the dissenters, Sir, for joining themselves to churches where that godly discipline is observed, which you confess to be of such great moment to the edification of christian people, and which your church is continually wishing for, but never attempts to have restored. But here you retort, andintimate as greata want of discipline amongst us. "What are there no scandalous sinners, you "ask, no fornicators, adulterers, extortioners, "&c. received into your churches! I must beg

*Letter III. p. 12.

Letter III. pages 12, 13, 14, 17, 22, 28. Ibid. page 23.

your pardon if I demur upon this. For, I could never perceive the doors of the meeting were "ever shut against any. And, if such profligate persons be not admitted to sit at the Lord's ta"ble, they need not fear being admitted to all "other parts of your worship." your worship." And is not this, Sir, exactly right? Ought not our church doors to be always kept open, that whoever will may come, and be witness to our way of worship. Such profligate persons, therefore, may come if they please, and hear their sins reproved, and be exhorted to repentance and amendment of life. They are then where they ought to be, under the preaching of the word; the means appointed by God, to convince and reclaim the profligate and corrupt. Were not the doors of the church at Corinth kept open in the Apostles' days, for infidels to come in, and be present at their worship? Vide 1 Cor. xiv, 23.* But, to the table of the Lord, to partake of the children's bread, you seem convinced, that, in our churches, such profligate persons are not suffered to come. And is not this the true order and discipline of the christian church? But is it the same, Sir, in your church? Are not some of the most profane and abandoned of men, rakes, debauchees, blasphemers of God, and scoffers at all religion, often seen upon their knees around your communion-table, eating the childrens' bread, and partaking of the holy elements to qualify for a post? Dare your ministers refuse them? No! they dare not refuse the most impious blasphemer the three kingdoms afford, when he comes to demand it as a qualification for an office in the army or fleet, without exposing themselves to such vexatious and expensive suits at law, as very few of the clergy would be either able or willing to undertake.

* If therefore, the whole church be come together into one place -and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, &c.