hofe that religion which the authority of God required them to chufe.

For it would be nonfenfe to fay people are juftified for having fuch a fort of baptism, because the neceffity of baptifin does not arife from human laws. Yet this is as good fenfe, as to fay, fuch a people are justified in their religion, because no religion is made neceffary by human laws. For as they are only justified in point of baptifm, who obferve fuch baptifm, as the authority of God has appointed, so are they only justified in their religion, who enter into that religion which the authority of God has instituted.

But your lordship has no fooner fhewn that human authority, as fuch, cannot oblige us to be of any particular religion, but you presently congratulate your readers upon an entire freedom from all authority in religion, and without once mentioning that the Reformation is right and juft, because of the orders, doctrines, or inftitutions, which it maintains you fay it is juftified for fuch a reafon as juftifies in an equal degree every religion, and every change of religion in the world. You have fo far justified it, as to fhew that it is as well to be of it, as of any other church; and as well to be of any other church as of it.

Who would not think, my lord, that the inftituted terms of falvation had something to do with the juftification of Chriftians? Yet you can juftify people without any regard to them. Who would not think that a religion is unjustifiable, if it is contrary to the religion instituted by Chrift? Yet your lordship has justified all changes in religion, without any regard to the inftitutions of Chrift, folely for this reason, because men may use their own judgment, and not submit to the laws of men, as fuch, in the choice of religion. As if because they are not to be altogether governed by the commands of men in the choice of a religion, neither are they to be determined by the authority of God, or any more tied down to his inftitutions, than to human laws. Who would think that no change in religion is dangerous, because religion is only inftituted by God, and has his authority to make it neceffary? Yet your lordship banishes all danger from every change of religion, and pronounces the fame fafety in every opinion, because people are under no abfolute human authority.

It is very furprizing, after all this, to fee your lordship breaking out into paffionate expreffions for the cause of the Reformation, and so often declaring that it is for fake of the Refor

mation that you have taken fo much pains, and with fo much pleasure, in your late writings.

Now it seems your adversaries have undermined the very foundations of the reformed church of England; and that in this

First, They justify the church of England, by fhewing that it maintains all thofe orders, inftitutions, and doctrines, which Chrift has made neceffary to falvation; that it is a true Church, because it confifts of all thofe things which by the inftitution of Christ constitute a true church.

For this, your lordship rebukes them as enemies to the reformation, as friends to Popery; and declares, that the Proteftants are not justified because they have chosen a true and right religion, but because they think they have chofen a true and right religion.

Again, your adversaries infift upon the neceffity of entering into communion with the church of England, because it is a true church of Chrift; and declare those guilty of the heinous sin of schism, who feparate from her communion.

Here again you condemn them, as confpiring the ruin of the Reformation, because, if the Diffenters are not justified in their feparation from the church of England by their private persuasion, neither is the church of England to be juftified for its feparation from Rome. So that the difference between your lordship and your adverfaries in relation to the reformed church of England, is this:

They support and recommend this church, because it contains all the neceffary doctrines and inftitutions of Christ, and consequently give it an advantage over every other way of worship, which is either corrupted or defective in these doctrines and inftitutions of Chrift.

But you fupport and recommend it (pardon the expressions) not from any thing which relates to it at all, but from private perfuafion; and confequently allow every religion in the world to be as juft, and good, and fafe, if men are but fo perfuaded.

They defend the church of England, by fhewing what it is, and by afferting the truth of its doctrines.

You have no title to be mentioned amongst its defenders, but as you may be called a defender of Quakers and Fanatics, Jews and Turks, and every religion in the world, which any one thinks to be right.

To proceed; As a farther defence of the Reformation, you afk, "How did the firft reformers behave themselves? Did they not think and fpeak of them (viz. absolution and excommunication) as having nothing to do with the favour of God, as human engines, and mere outcries of human terror? And did they mean by this to claim to themselves the right of abfolution, which they had denied to others, because they were fallible and weak men; or to affert a power of excommunication, so as to affect men's eternal falvation, to themfelves in one church, which they had disregarded and trampled upon in another? No: they treated all excommunications as alike, and upon an equal foot; and could, upon no other account, neglect and difregard them as they did, but becaufe God had not given to any man the disposal of his mercy or anger *."

The argument, my lord, here proceeds thus: First, That all abfolutions and excommunications must have been esteemed alike, and equally infignificant by our reformers, because they were not terrified at the excommunications of the church of Rome, nor thought an abfolution from that church neceffary.

Secondly, That the reformers having thus difregarded these powers in that church, ought not to pretend that the fame powers have any more effect when they exercise them in this

church.

To this it may be answered, that if we ought not to pretend to any effects in absolution or excommunication, because we difregarded thofe powers as exercifed by the church of Rome; that then we ought not to pretend the neceffity of any faith, because we difregared the faith of the Romish church; nor the neceffity of any facraments, nor the neceffity of the canonical writings, becaufe we difregarded the canonical books of the church of Rome. And it is as good sense to cry out here," Did they not treat their facraments as mere inventions of men? Did they mean by this to claim to themselves a power to make facraments neceffary in one church, which power they had trampled upon in another? Did they deny the neceffity of feven facraments there, in order to affert the neceffity of two facraments here? No: they treated all facraments as alike, and upon an equal foot, with refpect to God's favour, and could upon no other account neglect and disregard them as they did, but because God's favour or displeasure was no ways affected by any facraments."

Here let common fenfe judge, whether this argument of yours

*Answer to Repr. p. 121, 122.

fhewing the unreasonableness of pretending to any fignificancy in excommunication, because we difregarded the excommunication of the church of Rome, does not prove it as unreasonable to insist upon the neceffity of any faith, or any facraments, or any canonical books, because we denied the Romish creed, the Romish facraments, and canon of Scripture?

For our reformers no more intended to fhew that excommunication was a dream and trifle, because they difregarded the excommunication of the church of Rome; than they intended to fhew that all facraments, all faith, and all Scripture, were dreams and trifles, by their not owning either the facraments, or the creed, or the canon of the church of Rome. And, my lord, what a worthy defender of Chriftianity and the Reformation would he be, who fhould ask us what we mean by the neceffity of facraments, or faith, or Scripture, fince we have not allowed the neceffity either of the Romish facraments, faith, or Scripture? Yet fuch a defender is your lordship, who contends that we ought to reject excommunication as a trifle and a dream, because we difregarded the excommunication of the church of Rome.

I have now gone as far in the examination of your doctrines as my present defign will allow me, and am apt to think that in this and my former letters, I have gone fo far as to shew, that a few more fuch defences of Chriftianity and the Reformation, as you have given us, would compleat their ruin, as far as human writings can compleat it.

And had you meant ever fo much harm to Christianity and the Reformation, I believe no one who wishes their confufion, would have thought you could have taken a better way to obtain that end, than by writing as you have lately written.

For he must be a very bitter enemy to them both, who would not think it fufficient, to set Christianity and Mahometanism, the Reformation and Quakerism upon the same foot.

And he must be very flow of apprehenfion, who does not fee that to be plainly done, by refolving all into private persuasion, and making fincerity in every religion, whether true or false, the fame title to the fame degrees of God's favour.

I fhall not with your lordship make any declarations about my own fincerity; I am content to leave that to God, and to let all the world pass what judgment they please about it.

I am your lordship's

Moft humble fervant,
WILLIAM LAW.

POSTS CRIP T.

an

THE learned Committee obferved to your lordship, that “ad erroneous conscience was never, till now, allowed wholly

to justify men in their errors."

This obfervation I have fhewn to be true and juft, as it implies that though fincerity in an erroneous way of worship should in some degree or other recommend men to the favour or mercy of God; yet it is not that entire recommendation to his favour, which is effected by our fincere obedience in the true way of falvation: that is, though it fhould juftify them in fome degree, yet it cannot justify them in that degree, in which they are justified, who fincerely ferve God, in that true religion which he himself has inftituted.

Now our juftification, as it is effected by the merits of Christ, is in one and the fame degree; but as our juftification is effected by our own behaviour, it is as capable of different degrees, as our virtue and holiness is capable of different degrees; and it is also necessary that our justification be more or less, according as our holiness is more or less.

Yet in answer to this obfervation of the learned Committee, you fay, "it muft either justify them, or not justify them; it must either justify them wholly, or not justify them at all." This, my lord, is as contrary to the Scripture, as it is to the observation of the Committee. For our bleffed Saviour, speaking of the publican, fays, "I tell you, this man went down to his houfe juftified, rather than the other *.”

Here, my lord, is as plain a declaration of degrees in justification, as can well be made, so far as justification can be effected by our own behaviour.

For, it is plain, the publican was not wholly justified, because then there would be no need of his embracing Chriftianity; it is also plain, that he was juftified in part, or else he could not be faid to be justified rather than the Pharifee.

If therefore your answer confutes the obfervation of the learned Committee, it must also confute this paffage of Scripture.

8

* Luke xviii. 10, &c.