་

gain. And how is it? If this was a folemn facrament, and though dangerous, neceffary for all Christians to partake of: I say-How is it that. St. Paul, in all his writings, this Epistle excepted, fays not a word about it; either to enforce its obfervance, or to warn his converts of their danger in receiving it unworthily? Were the Corinthians better or worse than the Theffalonians, Galatians, Romans, Ephefians, Philippians, Coloffians, and Hebrews; that they were thus diftinguifhed? And how is it, that writing inftructions to two bishops of his own appointing (Timothy, and Titus) for their own conduct, the duties of their office, &c. not a word is faid of this neceffary duty; this dangerous ceremony? If fuch it was, here then appears a manifest neglect of a neceffary duty, even in the great apostle Paul; and, for his advocates, I can think of no better way to extricate him from this difficulty; than to fuggeft a fufpicion at least that verses 23 to 29 were interpolated in this Epiftle: if this could be proved, it would exculpate the faint from a very heavy charge which now lays against him, viz. The introducing an apparent falfity, in a very folemn manner. Is it not a duty incumbent on the priesthood, to write fomething for him who has wrote fo much for them; particularly in this Epiftle? The compilers, however they might fupprefs the acknowledgment of the obligation, appear to have been fully fenfible of the advantages to be

derived

derived from it; by their having, from the faid Epiftle, made four quotations to be used in this ceremony, that in a very artful manner enforce liberality from the flock to the fhepherd. Some may call this fleecing the fheep, instead of feeding them but as it was optional, I hold it a much better method than the prefent: it was then accepted as a gift, thankfully; it is now demanded as a due, haughtily: and this due, ill understood, is often held as a rod of compulfion over those who would, in political matters, ufe the freedom of their birth-right. One obfervation more, and I have done with this ceremony': if the rulers of our church were affured or even believed he

that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and ⚫ drinketh damnation to himself,' why did they confent to thofe laws which force this dangerous ceremony upon millions, who otherwife would never have rifqued it? But this, like oaths, by being made too, much too common in civil departments, lofes all its confequence as a religious

ceremony. i.

In the Vifitation of the Sick,' I fhall notice one article only, the abfolution. This, in imitation of St. Paul (noticed page 285) is in other fervices introduced cautiously, and pronounced covertly but here it is improved into an abfolute power, and pronounced boldly. The priest fays -Our Lord Jefus Chrift, who hath left power to his church, to abfolve all finners who truly repent

1

repent and believe in him, of his great mercy forgive thee thine offences and by his authority committed to me, I abfolve thee from all thy fins,

in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft, Amen.' This power of abfolution here claimed, and exercised with confidence, at leaft in appearance; is a matter of confequence and requires investigation. We are here told, it is a power delegated by Chrift to his church; that is, to the priests of the church. How do they prove this delegation? or rather (for they do not attempt, as they do in other cafes, to prove it by quotations) upon what grounds were they encouraged or rather témpted to affert it? becomes a neceffary enquiry. In the four Gofpels, I can find but two; and those fo weak that they cannot fupport the structure raised upon them the firft is in Matthew ch. xvi, v. 19, where Jefus fays to Peter- Whatsoever thou 'fhalt bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven • and whatfoever thou fhalt loofe on earth, fhall be loofed in Heaven.' The fecond is in John ch. xx, v. 23, where Jefus fays to ten of his difciples Whofe foever fins ye remit, they are remitted unto them: and whofe foever

:

fins ye retain, they are retained.' (I have already, page 88, commented upon Peter's fituation immediately after this fingular promife. And in page 205, I have remarked the differences in the account given of this laft fpeech, by the four evangelists.)

evangelifts.) The first of these quoted speeches, is given by Matthew only; and the fecond, by John only they indeed were the only evangelists who were prefent; and had they agreed perfectly in their account of this matter, what doth it prove? Why that ten of the apoftles had on earth, power to forgive or retain the fins of those who came within their obfervation: but it doth not prove that they delegated this power; or that they had even the power of fo doing. (John ch. xv, v. 16, and the fimilar ch. xvi, v. 23, cannot be adduced, I think, as extending to this mat ter.) Nay, it cannot, I believe, be proved that they ever exercised it themfelves; or ever made any declaration that they could if they would. In the Acts of the Apoftles, we perceive many proper opportunities offered for making this declaration; and for ufing the power, if they had it, to advantage. One proof of both, I fhall adduce from ch. iii. The first miracle particularized, was performed by Peter and John at one of the temple gates a man, lame from his infancy, was placed there to folicit alms: Peter did not, in imitation of his mafter, fay to the man- Son thy fins be forgiven thee; arife, take up thy bed, and go thy way.' (Vide Mark ch. ii.) but In the name of Jefus Chrift of Nazareth, 'rife up and walk and when the fpectators demonftrated their aftonishment at this cure; Peter did not fay-This we have performed by virtue of a power

a power delegated to us by Jefus himself; but Ye men of Ifrael, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our

own power or holiness we had made this man to walk.' And in ch. v. at their fecond examination before the high prieft, &c. they faid— The • God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye flew and hanged on a tree. Him hath God 'exalted with his right hand, to be a Prince and

Saviour, for to give repentance to Ifrael, and

forgiveness of fins.' They did not add-and this power he hath delegated to us-but- And we are witneffes of these things: and fo is alfo the Holy Ghoft, whom God hath given to them ' that obey him.' And we find they were difmiffed from both these examinations with no other reproof or charge but that they should not again speak or teach in the name of Jefus. Had they pretended a power of forgiving fins; furely it would have provoked the refentinent or contempt of the high priest, chief phiests, and rulers of the fynagogue before whom these examinations were made; they, in the second, ordered the apostles to be beaten, but it was for preaching the name of Jefus in defiance of the command given to them at the end of the firft; wherein Peter and John appeared bold, unlearned, ignorant men. The priests, &c. were inclined to treat them more rigorously; but were diffauded by a fenfible and popular doctor of the law; the fame, I apprehend,

at