Letter I.

Inclined to enter into the Communion of the Church of Rome.

By William Law, M.A.
London:

Printed by J. Phillips, in George-Yard, Lombard-Street, for H. Payne, at No. 67, Pall-Mall. 1779.

Letters to a Lady inclined to enter the Romish Communion.

Madam,

Your complaint against the church, as chargeable with permitting the licentiousness of the press, is not just; for the church, as such, has no more right to regulate or restrain the press, than to make laws about peace or war, or prohibit gentlemen from wearing swords, or corrupting the world with the free use of their riches and power. The licentiousness of the press is certainly a great evil, and has dreadful effects; but the church has no other support against it, but that which it has against the world, the flesh, and the devil. It may be as suitable to the wisdom and goodness of God, and answer the same ends of his All-wise Providence, to suffer these times to fall under the trial of a persecution from the press, as to suffer former ages to be so dreadfully persecuted by merciless tyrants: and it may be as unreasonable to think the church defective in not restraining the licentiousness of the press, which betrays so many Christians into infidelity, and staggers weak minds; as to think the Providence of God was defective in suffering tyrants to exercise such cruelty in former ages upon Christians, as forced numbers of them into apostasy.

I cannot pass by one thing in your papers, though it is a digression from the matter in hand. You say, "You think the Scriptures are in nothing plainer than in the doctrine of predestination and absolute decrees, in the strictest sense; nay, you think hardly anything is so plain as that is: yet you are afraid to think upon that doctrine, it so perplexes you; you see undeniable reasons for believing it, but cannot answer the difficulties that attend it." But if it were thus, Madam, would you not see too many undeniable reasons or causes why your friend was in such a state as he is in, or why this or that church was in such a condition? For, if all things are effects of absolute decrees in the strictest sense, to inquire why any man or men are in such a state or condition, is to ask why fire is not water? Suppose you were told that God sent angels and spirits to exhort trees to be of no shape, or mountains to turn themselves into birds: would not the manifest absurdity of such a thing.

sufficiently prove to you the absolute impossibility of it? could you think it a matter of dispute, or solemn inquiry? But if you are told, that God sends angels and prophets to exhort mankind to forsake their sins and practise holiness, on pain of eternal punishment, when they are under eternal absolute decrees, and fatal necessity of being what they are; is not the absurdity as great as in the former case, heightened with the addition of the highest injustice? Religious duties, and exhortations to them, necessarily suppose some degree of liberty: if, therefore, it be plain from Scripture, that mankind are under absolute decrees, it must be plain also, that there are, in Scripture, no exhortations to religious duties, no suppositions that men are capable of receiving or rejecting good advice, amp;c., for these things can no more subsist together, than the opposite parts of a direct contradiction.

All that is plain in Scripture about predestination, is only this: God has an eternal knowledge of, and exercises an eternal providence over all things that are; the justice, wisdom, and goodness of which, are not possible to be comprehended by creatures of our size, but are to be believed and adored by all that are capable of piety, humility, and faith towards God. And to pretend to know the nature of God's decrees, or the effects of them; how far they ordain, and how far they permit; how far they inwardly or outwardly influence our wills; to pretend to any absolute knowledge in such secrets of Divine Providence, or to state them according to our comprehensions of them; is much more unreasonable, than to pretend to state the methods by which God supports the vegetable and animal world. When we look into the methods of God's predestination or providence, we should only be affected with it, as St. Paul was, when he cried out, O the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!' But now, Madam, if St. Paul had thought it the plainest thing in Scripture, that all mankind are under absolute decrees in the strictest sense, could he have cried out as he did? could he have said, that God's ways were past finding out,' if he had found them to be in absolute decrees? To return:

Another reason for your apprehending a not sufficient safety in the church of England, proceeds thus: you say, If people were to live up to the obligations of Christianity, the world would then be only too happy a place, and we should have no temptation to wish for a remove. Whence then,' you ask, is this great defection?' And then you conclude thus: Surely, was our religion, as by law established, such as it ought to be, God's grace would more sensibly attend the use of his ordinances, and we should see all in earnest in things of the greatest con 'cernment.' It may be answered, First, Had you lived in any of the ages preceding the reformation, I believe the complaint of a general defection might have been more justly made; and, therefore, the reformation cannot be justly charged with it. Secondly, If you were now a member of the Romish church in any nation abroad, perhaps you might have full as great, if not greater reason, to put the same question as you have here. Thirdly, As it would be unreasonable to think, that the Jews so frequent falling into abominable idolatry, was owing to some defect in the state of their church, or the benefit of their ordinances; so it may be as unreasonable, to impute the corruptions of Christians to any defect in their church, as an external means of holiness. And as the rites and institutions of the Jews not having their proper effect upon their hearts, could not be imputed to any defect in their ordinances, but to that which was in their own power; so ordinances of Christians not having their true effect upon the hearts of Christians, ought not to be imputed to any want of God's grace attending his ordinances, but to that liberty which we have of rendering them useless. Fourthly, You think, 'If all Christians were such as their religion requires them to be, the world would be too happy a place to wish for a remove.' This, Madam, proceeds upon mistake; for were Christians such as their religion requires them to be, they could have no happiness but in the hope of a remove: for there is nothing in the nature or design of Christianity, to turn this world into a state of happiness considered in itself. Christian perfection is nothing else, but a continual struggle with the world, the flesh, and the devil; and they that live best up to its rules, must be 'of all men most miserable,' were it not for their faith and hope of a remove. 'They who do not find this life a cross, have not found the way to heaven.' And though morality, as such, has a good influence on the peace and happiness of civil societies; yet Christian piety is to proceed so much further, has so much to oppose both within and without us, our corrupt nature has so much need of fiery trials and purifications, that it is one end of our Saviour's crucifixion and sufferings to show us, that 'all his followers must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.' It is no objection, therefore, against Christianity, or the excellency of any particular church, that it does not put an end to the troubles and vexations of human life. Fifthly, To build any doctrine, or form any judgment, upon a supposed general corruption, is proceeding with great uncertainty: for though we cannot help seeing a great and general corruption of Christians in this part of the world where we live; yet, how general it is, what proportion it bears to the body of Christians, how far it is more or less than in other parts of Christendom, is not to be known by us. When the prophet complained to God, that 'All Israel was fallen away;' the answer was, that 'There were seven thousand men in Israel, who had not bowed the knee to Baal.' How many hundred thousands there may be in our church, who are receiving the continual benefits of God's ordinances; and have a better right to complain of the defections and corruptions of others, than either you or I may have; is only known unto God, and can by no means be known to either of us. Can you think the state of your own family, an argument of the want of God's grace attending the ordinances of the church? Do you know of no near relations or friends, who are serious Christians, happy in the enjoyment of their religion, and sincerely bent upon doing their duty to God? I persuade myself, you have not been without very strong domestic proofs of the power of religion, and the happy effects of such means as the church affordeth to preserve its members in a state of holiness and piety: and how can you tell what numbers of families may be in the same, or a much better state? Every private person, who has hardly ever been out of the town in which he was born, is apt to think, that he knows the religious state of the world; whereas the greatest experience, founded upon the best means of information, must leave everyone in great ignorance of it: and much more difficult is it, to pretend to state how far the disorders of Christians are owing to the external state of the church, the fitness of its institutions, or to the internal liberty which all have, of rendering the means of grace ineffectual to them. To observe the general corruption of Christians, may be a very useful reflection; but it is only so, when it moves us to a profound humility, excites our zeal in the reformation of our own lives, and fills us with tenderness, charity, and intercession for those who neglect it. Lastly, To ask, 'Why such a state of things?' or, 'How, supposing a sufficiency of Divine Grace, men could be in such a state?' is an unreasonable anxiety, and blamable curiosity: for what is there in all the Bible, to make us think ourselves qualified, either to ask or answer such questions; or, that any part of our duty depends upon the knowledge of them? Nay, it is the very end and intent of all Revelation, to silence such inquiries; and to show us how that disorder of heart and mind from whence they proceed, is to be cured. Where could there be any room for that infant simplicity, that profound humility, that implicit faith, that high adoration of the infinite ways and methods of an infinitely wise and good Creator, if such questions as these could be solved by us? How unreasonably should we be told of the blindness and disorder of our nature, if we could measure or fathom such depths of an Infinite Provi

dence? For what could be a secret to us, if we knew the nature of man, and the nature of God, to perfection? But, without such knowledge, it cannot be possible for us to see how far the Eternal Providence of God, and the liberty of man, have been jointly the cause of so many different states of perfection, or corruption, in human life. You would not think it proper in any one, to be anxious in his inquiries into the reason of the fall of angels, or why their state seems to be irrecoverable, or why God seems to be represented as treating our fall with more compassion than theirs. You would think it very blamable in a man, to be at a stand in his religion, to doubt whether he should be all zeal, and love, and devotion to God, for his mercies in Christ Jesus, 'for the means of grace, and for the hope of glory,' because he could not resolve these difficulties relating to the state of angels, or the justice of God's dealings with them. Now it is the same unreasonable anxiety, to want to know how so many Christians, in a sufficient state of grace, can fall into such corruptions; as to want to know how angels could fall, or fall as they did. Such anxieties as these, are to have no allowed place in the meek and lowly spirit of the followers of Jesus Christ, but are all to be buried in a profound resignation to the adorable Providence of God: and if, through weakness and infirmity, they sometimes intrude upon our minds, we must resist them, as we do other thoughts that are contrary to piety.

I agree with you, in your opinion of the methods made use of to begin and carry on the reformation; the bare history of it is satire enough. But then, the history of Popes, written by persons of their own communion, the methods of gaining and supporting the papal power, and the frequent unjust executions of it, are as large and undeniable a history of scandal. So that there seems to be little room for private judgment to form any opinion concerning the excellency of one church above the other, on that account; or to think, that God's blessing must be with the one, and not with the other, because of those external means which have been called in to their assistance. You wonder, that God's judgments did not suddenly overtake the reformers; and many seemingly good and learned Christians have often wondered, that the papal tyranny has so long escaped them. From whence, I think, we may collect, how much we are out of our way, when we are guessing at the fitness of God's judgments: and, perhaps, they may then be executing in the severest manner, when we are wondering why they do not fall. I have so much trust and confidence in the Goodness of God in the care of his church, that I hope the means of Christian salvation are fully preserved both in the English and Romish communion, for all such as are disposed Let us suppose that it was the lust of Henry VIII. and the temporal claims and usurpations of the Pope, that occasioned the schism: that Henry, to support himself, commits sacrilege of all kinds, and stops at no injustice; that the Pope, to preserve his power, excites to rebellion, and calls subjects from their natural allegiance: supposing all this injustice on both sides, does it follow, that communion in either or both churches became unlawful to these, who had not only had no hand in the beginning or continuance of such injustices, but heartily grieved for them, and prayed to God to put an end to them? Usurpations and false claims appeared on each side, and the King and the Pope seem to be equally blamable in the measures they took to support them. The convocation in England, and the council of Trent, proceeded in such a manner, as to leave it very doubtful, which of them contributed most to establish the schism. But was the church lost, when it became thus divided? Were baptism, the holy eucharist, and all the sacred offices of Divine worship, no longer of any benefit to the true lovers of Jesus Christ, friends to holiness, purity, and unity? Did they lose the means of salvation, pray to and worship God in vain, receive fruitless sacraments, not because they were unworthy to receive the benefits of them, not because they had done anything ill themselves, but because they did not govern their governors, and do that which they had neither power nor any right to do? How comes it to be an uncontested maxim in religion, that the personal vices of the priest do not render the sacraments useless to those who receive them from his hands? Is it not, because it is too absurd, too contrary to Scripture, to common reason, the goodness of God, and the ends of the sacraments, to suppose the contrary? Is it not, because all sins are personal; and only so far chargeable upon any person, as they are his own voluntary acts?

Should it be objected, 'That there is a contagion in schism; and that all in a schismatical communion are affected with it, and as such in a state of schism': It is answered, The contagion of schism is just like the contagion of all other sins; so far as we are accessory to anything sinful, either in aiding, defending, or approving it, so far we are under the contagion or guilt of it: and so far as the cause, or continuance of schism, can be chargeable upon any man, by what he does in a schismatical communion; so far is he under the guilt or contagion of schism, and no further. And to suppose that schism, the greatest and most dreadful of any sin, may be imputed to a man, without his having any hand in it, though at the same time it is allowed to be great injustice to charge a man with the guilt of the smallest offence in which he had no concern, is surely too gross an absurdity. Further, to make those people chargeable with the guilt of a schism, which they did not begin or continue by any act of their own; who have every sentiment of humility, charity, and meekness, that is contrary to it; who have nothing in their heart and spirit that is schismatical; to charge such persons with the contagion of schism, only because their governors, spiritual and temporal, make and have made laws prejudicial to the peace and unity of the church; is as absurd, as to conclude a man of an honest and just spirit guilty of injustice, because he lives under a master who makes little or no conscience of what he does, but is very tyrannical and oppressive.

Again, should it be asked, 'How can you communicate with a schismatical church, without partaking of its schism; since your act of communicating is an approbation of its terms of communion, and by that means is a consenting to and partaking of that which is schismatical in it?' It is answered, If I communicate with a church because it has such terms of separation from others, and am glad to see it so divided, and others so excluded from it; then, by communicating with a schismatical church, I partake of its schism. But if I communicate with it, not because it is so divided, or has such terms of communion; but because it is a church, and has the means of salvation in it; because it has an authority, though an abused authority, over me; and because I cannot renounce its communion, and enter into any other church, without making myself a party with those who also schismatically condemn and divide from its communion; if these are the principles that keep me in the communion of any church, neither entering into it because it is divided, nor leaving it because I dare not abet the principles that divided from it; it seems to be against all the principles of equity, reason, and religion, to lay schism to my charge. For what is it that has made the schism, but the unreasonable quarrels, and unjust claims of the governors on both sides? Can I undo what they have done, by my changing sides? can I clear myself of schism, by being a party with one against the other, when both are to blame in what they do? can I be made guilty by schismatical laws, which had none of my consent nor approbation? I stay in the church of England, because Providence has placed me in its communion, and because it has the terms of salvation; I wish everything that is schismatical in it was removed, by those who have a power of removing it; I do not go over to the church of Rome, because that would be showing my approbation of those reasons on which the governors of that church proceed in their division from others, and would make me guilty of all the wrong steps that they have taken. This is not the case of those who are educated in that church; they may be free from all the schismatical or unjust proceedings of their governors, as the private members of any other church may; but it seems to be the case of those that renounce the church of England for that of Rome: such an act, I think, must make them a party to all that the church of Rome has done in relation to the schism. These seem to be the only principles of piety and religion, for serious Christians to found their peace upon, in this divided state of the church, where the division is wholly owing to the unreasonable claims and uncharitable proceedings of the governors on both sides, and where both retain all that is of the essence of religion. The whole of this matter seems to stand thus:

First, The beginning of this schism could only be charged upon those, on both sides, who began it, and acted as causes of it; it could not take away the means of salvation, or render sacraments useless to those who were no way assistant to it.

Secondly, The continuance and guilt of the schism can only be charged upon those, on both sides, who continue or help to continue it, either as defending what is already wrong done, or by proceeding in further unjustifiable methods; but cannot take away the terms of salvation, on either side, from those who have no hand in continuing it, but wish to see everything removed that is prejudicial to the peace and unity of the church of Christ.

Thirdly, The contagion or guilt of schism is contracted as the guilt of any other sin is, only by personal acts of concurrence in that which is schismatical. And to suppose that the contagion or guilt of schism may be secretly and unknowingly conveyed to those, that are in a state of spirit and life contrary to all that is schismatical; is as absurd as to say, that an innocent man may be secretly and knowingly involved in the guilt of a murder, which with all his heart and hand he desired to prevent.

Fourthly, Supposing churches thus schismatically divided by the unreasonable and unjust proceedings of the governors on both sides, all the private members of each communion are in great danger of being more or less involved in the guilt of schism: 1st, As they are in danger of being educated in schismatical principles, in fury, and party zeal, in hatred and contempt of those who are of a different church, and by that means made blind and furious defenders of unjust and schismatical laws, and so involved in the guilt of them in some degree. 2ndly, As they are thereby much exposed to the temptation of temporal motives, to take an advantage of the divided state of the church, and, by being clamorous defenders, writers, and preachers of certain principles, make their court either to prince or people. 3rdly, As honest and well-meaning minds are thereby exposed to great mistakes in religion; to be content with their state, because they are zealously affected to certain notions; to be ignorant what spirit they are of; and to place the perfection of Christianity in the exercise of those passions, which Christ came into the world to destroy. These are the miserable effects of schism, to which the private members of each communion are constantly exposed; and whether we look at home or abroad, we shall find equal proofs of this observation. So that, though a man is not necessarily a schismatic, because he lives in a schismatical communion; yet he is in great danger of thereby entering into schismatical principles and passions, and of living in false and erroneous notions of religion; for the religion of the Gospel seems to be unobserved, unthought of, whilst both parties are contending for a national orthodoxy: and though the Unity of the Church of Christ is the common pretence for which all passions and all arms are employed, yet it seems to be schism only that is defended on both sides. A man need only look into the controversy on both sides, to see the miserable effects of division; how sadly time, and parts, and learning, are employed in wrangle, calumny, and misrepresentation, in furnishing fresh matter for the corruption of our hearts, for hatred and schism to subsist upon. To such a height have learning and orthodox labours carried this hatred and schism, that every attempt for clearing up misunderstandings, and showing that Christians need not hate one another as they do, is, by both parties, treated as the attempt of some false brother, or enemy to the Christian religion; and he that should only say unto them, as Moses said unto the Israelites, 'Sirs, ye are brethren, why do ye wrong one to another?' might have Moses's reward for his pains. What is, therefore, left for us to do, Madam, but to devote ourselves to such penitence, piety, and prayer, as the Heavenly Spirit of the Gospel requires of us; and to make the best use of the sacraments and institutions of Christ, that the present state of the church affordeth? We can neither stay in one communion, nor go into another, but we are in the same state, as to the Unity of the Church; every part is in a state of division, and chargeable with contributing to the cause of it. The thing that we are to look for, therefore, is, not to be out of a divided part of the church, which is impossible, till it pleases God to alter the state of Christendom; but, that we may live in these divided schis-

matical and uncharitable parts of Christendom, free from schismatical principles and passions, and wholly attentive to everything that the most ardent love of God, the most perfect love of our neighbour, and the highest imitation of the Spirit, Life, and Sufferings of our blessed Saviour, require of us.

Observe, Madam, in the first place, All this reasoning proceeds upon a supposition, that the divided state of Christendom is truly chargeable upon that, which every divided part contributes towards it; so that the schism is not the schism of any one part, but of every part of whole Christendom unreasonably and uncharitably at variance in itself: to lay this schism separately either upon the Grecian, Roman, or Reformed church, seems equally unreasonable, and the effect of the same passion and partiality.

Secondly, It supposes the means of salvation to be fully preserved in these divided parts. This, as to the church of England, seems to be plainly granted by the church of Rome; since history attests, that the Roman Catholics, for several years after the reformation, contented themselves with our communion.

Thirdly, This reasoning does not suppose, that the great divided parts of Christendom are equally to blame as to the schism; or that they have the same number of corruptions, or false demands, that occasion it. Two persons may be both unreasonable, and justly chargeable with a difference betwixt them; but yet one may have more practices or tempers to recede from than the other, in order to peace; and this may be the case of the divided churches.

Fourthly, It does not suppose, that each divided communion, though containing the full means of salvation, is equally desirable, or has all the same helps to piety and holiness of life that the others have. If you ask, whether the church of Rome or England has the most helps to a solid and substantial piety, it is more than I pretend to answer; and, perhaps, it is a question, that cannot be absolutely or strictly determined, by considering those churches absolutely in themselves. For as most of the practices and usages, that are not of the essence of religion, but are mutable in their nature, and only appointed by ecclesiastical authority as helps to that which is essential to piety, may be more or less subservient to those ends in some different ages and places of the world, than in others; so that which has the nature of an excellent communion at one time and place, may not have that same excellence at every other time and place: thus, those very same usages, which may serve to carry people of such a climate and time to great perfection and piety, may lead away people of another nature and age from true religion. Had you and I learned our religion in Italy or Spain, perhaps we might not have had half that seriousness in religion, or regard for piety, that we now have; and many people that are now saints in those countries, had they been educated in our church, might perhaps have fallen into libertinism. So that the excellency of one communion above another, as to these helps to piety, is very difficult to be stated by us, who know not for whom such things are best, and for whom they are not. In this respect, therefore, we are humbly to submit to the Providence of God; and piously to believe, that His Goodness overrules this vast disorder and differences in churches, so as to make them subservient to the benefit of all parties that are disposed to make a right use of them. And confused as the world appears to be by the effects of these divisions, yet, for aught we know, Christianity, thus rent and torn, thus condemning and condemned, thus various in its outward forms, may continually present unto God a greater number of souls purified by faith and good works in Jesus Christ, than if the church had continued united in that state it was in before the reformation. The unreformed part of the church seems to have received no small benefit from the reformation itself; first, as it raised an uncommon spirit of piety in many of their members, on account of the reproaches that were cast upon their communion: and secondly, as it put their governors under a necessity of departing from some practices, of removing some scandals, and of being more careful to prevent those idolatries and superstitions, with which their adversaries charged them in so violent a manner, and with so much appearance of reason.

That which seems sufficient to prevent all scrupulous anxiety in private persons, is this: I am a private member of a church that has the full means of salvation in it; whether the practices and usages in which it differs from other churches, be fitter for the age and place in which I live, or would have a better effect upon myself and the generality of its members, than those of other churches, I cannot tell; and as I have no ability, so I have no call or commission to judge in these matters; they belong to those who, by the Providence of God, have the care of this church: and if, from any supposed bitterness of another communion, I renounce this, in order to enter into that, I then quit my private station of safety, and by such an act make myself a party in the schism, and become a defender of the principles and proceedings of those who are and have been the causes of the schism. And if the divisions of Christendom be more or less the common crime of all the divided parts, then private persons cannot get out of a blamable communion by changing sides, but seem to have reason to content themselves with that communion which appears to want nothing, but the union that every other church equally wants. And though it is an easy thing for private persons to find books that have determined this point with great positiveness, and make one communion only right, and all others wrong, yet I cannot think in this manner; I see too much to be liked and disliked in every communion, to think that any side is free from objection, or that salvation is only to be had in one communion. And notwithstanding all sides pretend the primitive perfection to be with them, yet I believe all must alter their modern terms of communion, before the causes of the division can be laid to any one divided part exclusive of every other.

You seem much pleased with Dr. Hickes's propositions concerning the Catholic church. Those propositions contain, perhaps, nothing erroneous in them; as they are an ideal description of such a state of order, as is truly consistent with the doctrines and institutions of Christ. But if you consider them any further, than as an ideal or speculative description of what the church might have been; if you consider them as a true description of its necessary state; and of such a church as every Christian must be a member of, in order to be of the true church; then these propositions have nothing to be liked in them, and they can be of no use to any Christian in the world to lead him to the true church. The reformation itself, in which Dr. Hickes received his orders, and of which he was a sufficiently zealous defender, could have no foundation upon these propositions; and it would be the last extravagance to suppose, that the nonjuring church was founded upon these propositions. If there are nonjurors that think the true catholic church is only in their communion, I think they are a thousand times less pardonable, than those that think so of the church of Rome. The nonjurors have no foundation to consider their communion as a distinct church from the established, or in a state of greater purity. Either they consider its laws and doctrines as theirs, or they do not: if they do, then the purity of that church is theirs also; if they do not, then they are new reformers without authority, and deserters of that which they accuse the conforming clergy of having deserted. If I could not communicate with them, but upon the terms of declaring the nullity and invalidity of the sacraments in the church of England, I should sooner communicate with the church of Rome upon the same terms. But if no church would receive me, but upon the terms of unchurching all the rest; I should think my best private prayers would be more acceptable to God in the unity and peace of my own heart, than outward communion with only one part purchased at that rate.

But Dr. Hickes's propositions you take to be a true account of the primitive state of the church, as it was at first instituted; and you suppose that, for the peace and good of the church, this state might receive alterations, and the Bishop of Rome be invested with that power which he long enjoyed, and now claims. Now, Madam, this concession is sufficient to deliver you from all those scruples you are under, about the claim and authority of the Bishop of Rome over you. For, first, If this authority given him against the primitive constitution, was then just and valid, because it was given for the supposed good of the church; must not the taking away that authority be as just and valid, upon a supposed good of the church? In the giving him that authority, there was primitive institution against it; but in the taking it away, nothing was altered but their own mere human provision. And if great episcopal or national churches came under that authority by their own consent, upon their own reasoning about the good of the church; they must have the same power to recede from such authority, when the good of the church shall seem to them to require it. And if they are right, or wrong, in either of these cases, either as to first giving or afterwards taking away this power; it is a right and wrong that does not affect private Christians, or the church as a means of salvation in Christ Jesus, but wholly relates to themselves.

But secondly, Supposing this power thus given, yet what was given was only spiritual power; and if this spiritual power is turned into temporal, and become a temporal tyranny, not only over spiritual persons, but over all temporal princes, and pretends further to exercise this temporal tyranny by virtue of its spiritual power; are not all bishops and churches under the greatest necessity to seek for temporal protection against a temporal tyrant, and to recall that spiritual authority, which was only a human grant, and which had been perverted to such bad ends?

Besides, if, as you observe from Dr. Cave, patriarchs were at first instituted, because of the increase of bishops, and the different state of nations, in the first spreadings of the church; does not this sufficiently show, that the institution of patriarchs, or the nature of their power or districts, has nothing Divine in it, or of necessary observation to the nature of the church? Does it not show, that their institution arose from temporal changes in the church, and that the reason of them must follow the nature of the church? If, therefore, the temporal state of the church gave the existence, and the manner of existence, to the first patriarchs, must not the present temporal state of the church be as good reason for any changes in the nature of patriarchs? The temporal state of the church, from the apostolic age to the institution of the first patriarchs, was very little different; but in the present temporal state of the church, and its manner of existence in the established laws of so many kingdoms and nations upon the earth, there is an incon ceivable difference from what it was at the first institution of patriarchs; and is it not against all reason to ask what patriarchs were fifteen hundred years ago, to know what they ought to be now? Patriarchs were what they were then, because the temporal state of the church required them to be what they were: but the present state of the church is infinitely different from what it was then; is there not, therefore, the same reason for an infinite difference in the present patriarchs, from those of former times? If, in the early growth of churches, patriarchs of such a kind were found convenient for peace and good order in the state of the church; may not a much different alteration in the church be as good a reason either for having no patriarchal power, or of a very different nature from that which has been ratified in primitive councils? or must we stay, till we can have just such primitive councils as those were; that is, must we stay for an impossibility, before we can know that it is lawful to make that a rule for us now, which was a rule to them? If a patriarch, fifteen hundred years ago, was found a convenient president over several churches; and a patriarch now over several different churches established by civil laws under several different kings and princes, be found inconvenient and prejudicial to the common peace; can any serious Christian find matter of uneasiness, because of modern changes in patriarchs, or even upon their total abolition? Can it be any reason for my being afraid of the Bishop of Rome's patriarchal power over me, because an ancient council, before there was any national church in the world established by civil laws, says, Let the rights and jurisdictions of ancient patriarchs be observed.' Can this possibly be any rule for the rights or pretence of the Bishop of Rome above fourteen hundred years after that council; or that a decree in favour of ancient patriarchs, suitable to the state of the church at that time, can be of any authority for retaining a patriarchal power turned into the greatest temporal tyranny, and when the state of the times has nothing in common with the state of those ancient times? Lastly, Supposing this patriarchate of Rome to be unnecessarily dissolved, what is the crime, and whose is it? The crime is a mistake in a human provision concerning the external good government of bishops; and if this mistake be made criminal through human passions, it is still only the crime and guilt of human passions in our governors. So that I see no foundation for scruples of piety in private persons, on this account.

Another reason for your inclination to the Romish communion, is on the account of some excellent books written by persons of that communion.' You think their persons must have been 'very acceptable to God, and that they had very large assistances 'from him.' I think you judge exceeding right in both respects; I think the same of a great many more of their writers, and bless God for the knowledge I have had of them. As I consider their church, and all its members, as my brethren in Christ, and as nearly related to me as any Protestants; so it is the same satisfaction to me, to receive benefit from their church, as from that of England; and I am as glad to find the increase of piety, or any extraordinary instances of it amongst them, as amongst ourselves. In my own heart I drop and forget all those divisions and distinctions which the enemy hath set up amongst us, and desire God to receive me and my devotions, as united with and recommended by all His Church in Heaven and on earth; and by this oblation of myself to God, I trust to be received by him as truly of the same communion with all his saints, as if I had been a member of every particular church in which any of them lived. By this means I have the same comfort and joy, from the piety and prosperity of one part of the church, as from another: and being of this particular church, not because it is externally so divided, but because there is no other part free from the same external division, I consider every saint as a proof and testimony of God's blessing upon that church of which I am a member.

If the sentiments that I here send you are errors, I earnestly beg of God to prevent your being deceived by them; and of his great mercy to pardon and deliver me from them: but if they are agreeable to truth and piety, I hope his Holy Spirit will assist you to find your peace and satisfaction in them. These are the prayers which I make to God both for you and myself, and hope that you will do the same both for yourself and me.

I am,
Madam,
Your sincere friend,
WILLIAM LAW.
May 24th, 1731.