church for the reafons you every where give against this authority, conclude as ftrongly against any degrees of authority, as that which is truly absolute.

ift, You difown the authority of any Chriftians over other Chriftians; becaufe they are the "fervants of another mafter." (p. 16.) Now this concludes as ftrongly against any authority, as that which is abfolute: for no one can have the leaft authority over those that are entirely under another's jurifdiction. A small authority over another's fervant is as inconfiftent as the greatest.

2dly, You reject this authority, because of the objects it is exercised upon, i. e. matters purely relating to confcience and falvation. Here this authority is rejected, because it relates to confcience and falvation; which does as well exclude every degree of authority, as that which is absolute. For if authority and

confcience cannot fuit together, confcience rejects authority, as fuch; and not because there is this or that degree of it. So that this argument banishes all authority.

3dly, Your lordship denies any church-authority; because Chrift doth not" interpofe to convey infallibility, to affert the true interpretation of his own laws." Now this reafon concludes as full against all authority as that which is abfolute: for if infallibility is necessary to found an obedience upon in Chrift's kingdom, it is plain, that no body in Chrift's kingdom hath any right to any obedience from others, nor confequently any authority to command it, no members or number of members of it being infallible.

4th, Another reafon your lordship gives against Church authority, is this; "That it is the taking Chrift's kingdom out of his hands, and placing it in their own." (p. 14.) Now this reafon proves as much against authority in general, or any degrees of it, as that which is abfolute. For if the authority of others is inconfiftent with Chrift's being King of his own kingdom, then every degree of authority, fo far as it extends, is an invafion of fo much of Chrift's authority, and ufurping upon his right.

The reafon likewife which your lordship gives to prove the Apostles not ufurpers of Chrift's authority, plainly condemns every degree of authority which any church can now pretend to.

They were no ufurpers; because he then interpofed to convey infallibility; and was in all that they ordained: fo that the authority was his in the ftricteft fenfet." So that where he does Anfwer, p. 38.

Sermon, p. 15.

not interpofe to convey infallibility, there every degree of authority is a degree of ufurpation; and confequently, the prefent church having no infallibility, has no right to exercise the leaft degree of authority, without robbing Chrift of his prerogative.

Thus it plainly appears, that every reafon you have offered against church authority concludes with as much strength against all authority as that which is abfolute. And therefore Dr. Snape has done you no injury in charging you with the denial of all authority.

There happens, my lord, to be only this difference between your Sermon and the Defence of it, that that is fo many pages against church authority, as fuch; and this is a confutation of the Pope's infallibility. It is very strange that fo clear a writer, who has been fo long enquiring into the nature of government, fhould not be able to make himself understood upon it: that your lordship should be only preaching against the Pope, and yet all the Lower Houfe of Convocation fhould unanimously conceive, that your doctrine therein delivered, tended to fubvert all government and difcipline in the church of Chrift.

And my lord, it will appear from what follows, that your lordship is even of the fame opinion yourself; and that you imagined you had banished all authority, as fuch, out of the church, by thofe arguments you had offered against an abfolute authority. This is plain from the following paffage, where you ridicule that which Dr. Snape took to be an authority, though not abfolute. When Dr. Snape faid, that no church authority was to be obeyed in any thing contrary to the revealed will of God; your lordship triumphs thus: "Glorious abfolute authority indeed, in your own account, to which Christ's subjects owe no obedience, till they have examined into his own declarations; and then they obey not this authority, but him *."

Here you make nothing of that authority which is not absolute; and yet you think it hard to be told that you have taken away all church authority. That which is abfolute, you exprefsly deny: and here you fay, that which is not abfolute, is nothing at all. Where then is the authority you have left? Or how is it that Christ has impowered any one to act in his name?

Your lordship fights fafe under the protection of the word abfolute; but your aim is at all church power: and your lordship

*Anfwer, p. 27.

makes too hafty an inference, that because it is not abfolute, it is none at all. If you ask where you have made this inference, it is on occafion of the above-mentioned triumph; where your your lordship makes it an infignificant authority, which is only to be obeyed fo long as it is not contrary to Scripture,

Your lordship feems to think all is loft as to church power; because the doctor does not claim an absolute one; but allows it to be subject to Scripture; as if all authority was absolute, or else nothing at all. I fhall therefore confider the nature of this church power, and fhew that though it is not abfolute, yet it is a real authority, and is not such a mere nothing as your lordship makes

it.

An abfolute authority, according to your lordship, is, what is to be always obeyed by every individual that is fubject to it, in all circumftances. This is an authority that we utterly deny to the church. But, I prefume, there may be an authority inferior to this, which is nevertheless a real, authority, and is to be esteemed as fuch; and that for these reasons:

First, I hope it will be allowed me, that our Saviour came into the world with authority. But it was not lawful for the Jews to receive him, if they thought his appearance not agreeable to those marks and characters they had of him in their Scriptures. May I not here fay, my lord, "Glorious authority of Christ indeed, to which the Jews owed no obedience, till they had examined their Scriptures; and then they obey, not him, but them!"

Again, the Apostles were sent into the world with authority: but yet, thofe who thought their doctrines unworthy of God, and unfuitable to the principles of natural religion, were obliged not to obey them. "Glorious authority indeed, of the Apostles, to whom mankind owed no obedience, till they had firft examined their own notions of God and religion; and then they obeyed, not the Apoftles, but them!"

I hope, my lord, it may be allowed, that the facraments are real means of grace: but it is certain, they are only conditionally fo, if those that partake of them, are endowed with fuitable difpofitions of piety and virtue. "Glorious means of grace of the facraments which is only obtained by fuch pious difpofitions; and then it is owing to the difpofitions, and not the facraments." Now, my lord, if there can be fuch a thing as inftituted real means of grace, which are only conditionally applied, I cannot

fee why there may not be an instituted real authority in the church, which is only to be conditionally obeyed.

Your lordship has written a great many elaborate pages to prove the English government limited; and that no obedience is due to it, but whilft it preferves our fundamentals; and, I fuppose, the people are to judge for themselves, whether these are safe or not. Glorious authority of the English government, which is to be obeyed no longer than the people think it their intereft to obey it!

Will your lordship fay, there is no authority in the English government, because only a conditional obedience is due to it, whilst we think it fupports our fundamentals? Why then must the church authority be reckoned nothing at all, because only a rational conditional obedience is to be paid, whilft we think it not contrary to Scripture? Is a limited, conditional government in the ftate, fuch a wife, excellent, and glorious conftitution? And is the fame authority in church such abfurdity, nonsense, and nothing at all, as to any actual power?

If there be fuch a thing as obedience upon rational motives, there must be fuch a thing as authority that is not abfolute, or that does not require a blind, implicit obedience. Indeed, rational creatures can obey no other authority; they must have reafons for what they do. And yet because the church claims. only this rational obedience, your lordship explodes fuch authority

as none at all.

Yet it must be granted, that no other obedience was due to the Prophets, or our Saviour and his Apostles: they were only to be obeyed by those who thought their doctrines worthy of God. So that if the church has no authority, because we must first confult the Scriptures before we obey it; neither our Saviour, nor his Apostles had any authority, because the Jews were first to confult. their Scriptures, and the Heathen their reafon, before they obeyed them. And yet this is all that is faid against church authority; that because they are to judge of the lawfulness of its injunctions, therefore they owe it no obedience: which falfe conclufion, I hope, is enough expofed.

If we think it unlawful to do any thing that the church requires of us, we must not obey its authority. So, if we think it unlawful to submit to any temporal government, we are not to comply. But I hope it will not follow that the government has no authority, because some think it unlawful to comply with it. If,

we are fo unhappy as to judge wrong in any matter of duty, we muft nevertheless act according to our judgments; and the guilt of disobedience either in church or ftate, is more or lefs, according as our error is more or lefs voluntary, and occafioned by our own mifmanagement.

I believe I have fhewn, first, that all your lordship's arguments against church authority conclude with the fame force againft all degrees of authority. Secondly, that though church authority be not absolute in a certain fenfe; yet, if our Saviour and his Apoftles had any authority, the church may have a real authority: for neither He nor his Apoftles had fuch an abfolute authority as excludes all confideration and examination: which is your notion of abfolute authority.

Before I leave this head, I muft obferve, that in this very answer to Dr. Snape, where you would be thought to have expofed this abfolute authority alone, you exclude all authority along with it. You afk the Doctor*, "Is this the whole you can make of it, after all your boafted zeal for mere authority?” You then fay, "Why may not I be allowed to fay, no man on earth has an abfolute authority, as well as you?" My lord, there can be no understanding of this, unlefs mere authority and abfoIute authority be taken for the fame thing by your lordship.

But, my lord, is not the smalleft particle of matter, mere matter? And is it therefore the fame as the whole mafs of matter? Is an inch of fpace, because it is mere fpace, the fame as infinite fpace? How comes it then, that mere authority is the fame as abfolute authority? My lord, mere authority implies only au thority, as a mere man implies only a man: but your lordship makes no difference between this, and abfolute authority; and therefore hath left no authority in the church, unless there can be authority, that is not mere authority, i. e. matter, that is not mere matter; or fpace, that is not mere space.

When the church enjoins matters of indifference, is she obeyed for any reason, but for her mere authority? But your lordship allows no obedience to mere authority; and therefore no obedience, even in indifferent matters.

the

Thus do thefe arguments of yours lay all wafte in the church: and I muft not omit one, my lord, which falls as heavy upon ftate, and makes all civil government unlawful. Your words are

Anfwer, p. 26.