tion, as to the present passage, is found in the Eucharist alone, to the institution whereof, the necessity here included is previous and preparatory, as were also his predictions of his death. Every plain reader understands this verse of the holy sacrament; and here the necessity of reception in both kinds by the laity, as well as the clergy, is clearly determined. In what follows too ver. 65, transubstantiation, or the literal construction of flesh and blood, is as clearly precluded. It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I speak unto you, both on this, and on other occasions, they are spirit, and they are life, and are to be understood spiritually of that life, which is to be fed and maintained by the spiritual nourishment of the soul, provided for it at the expense of my life. 60. Ibid. x. 36. Said a fortiori and ad hominem. 61. Ibid. xiv. 9. (He that hath seen me hath seen the Father) in the same sense of spiritual discernment. Philip had never seen Christ in any other sense. Even among ourselves, we can have no other sight of one another. Thus only a spirit can be seen. In the spiritual sense the Father and the Son are one Being. 62. Ibid. xix. 15. (We have no king but Cæsar) in this arraignment of Christ before Pilate, a sub-governor of Judea, there was such a complication of designs in the interfering parties, as one would imagine, could not possibly be all of them accomplished; and yet all were. Christ was to fulfil the prophecies, which foretold his death. The high priest and Pharisees were determined to take his life. Pilate, still preserving some appearance of a just judge, was to bring the Jews, if that might be, to a public acknowledgment of the Roman power over Judea, as founded on right. Christ could not plead guilty, for he had committed no sin; nor not guilty, for he was then guilty of all our sins: neither could this distinction be mentioned to a heathen judge, who would have taken it for distraction. Our Saviour, therefore, as a sheep before her shearers, was dumb. The innocence of our Saviour being acknowledged by the judge, the Jews were desired to take Christ, and crucify him, pursuant to their outcry for his blood. But they answered, that though they had a law which inflicted death on his offence of calling himself the Son of God, yet they had no power to execute it, which was the same as pleading their right, and at the same time complaining, that the power of life and death had been taken from them by the Romans. After this, Pilate hearing Christ declare himself a King, asked the Jews if he should crucify their King? As soon then, as they were by their malice compelled to own, they had no king but Cæsar, the very thing that Pilate was driving them to, he gave up Christ to their clamours. Their so soon afterward taking up arms against the Romans, shewed they had as little sincerity as justice in their declaration, and brought on that excision of their nation, wherewith Providence chastised their enormous guilt, by the hands of those very Ro mans. 63. Ibid. xx. 23. The authority and power of conferring absolution on penitents, wherewith our gracious Saviour hath so clearly vested his ministerial successors whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained, having been abused by the church of Rome into a lucrative market of pardons and indulgences, it is no wonder that Luther, and all our first reformers, should have taken infinite offence at a practice, so flagitious, and so directly contrary to the command of Christ, freely ye have received, freely give.' This however should not have been a reason, as it was with too many, for rejecting all absolutions. They who threw off the scriptural government of the church, for a reason of the same kind, acted consistently with themselves, and, I fear, with the nature of their new-invented orders, in not allowing them the power of absolution, however inconsistent they have been in both with the word of God. Our church having strictly adhered to both the original orders of Christ's and the Holy Spirit's appointment, hath also adhered to the absolving power wherewith those orders were vested. It seems therefore to me surprising, that many of our divines reject this power, as ill founded or misunderstood. Between the words of our blessed Saviour, and their own opinions, they have been forced to whiffle and nibble at a sort of medium, whereof neither they, nor their readers, can make any thing better than nonsense. The true doctrine is, and must be this. For the consolation of his church, and particularly of such as class with the penitent publican in the gospel, Christ hath left with his bishops and presbyters a power to pronounce absolution. This absolution is on condition of faith and repentance in the person or persons receiving it. On sufficient appearance of these, and on confession, made with these appearances in particular persons, the bishop or presbyter, as the mes It senger of Christ, is to pronounce it. But he cannot search the heart, God only, who can, confirms it. His act in pronouncing is not the less authoritative on account of the aforesaid conditions, as his acts in consecrating and administering the Lord's supper are not less peculiarly his office, or authoritative, because the benefits of that sacrament are conveyed through his hands, only on the same conditions, whereof, as to their reality and sufficiency in the receiver, he can be but an imperfect judge. As Christ hath been pleased to place his inestimable benefits in earthen vessels, and to communicate them by men, though of like passions with other men, yet duly authorized, his real disciples will humbly receive them in his way of conveyance, and not presumptuously snatch at them in ways of their own. When a great number of subjects have rebelled against their king, and he in his mercy sends forth his servants to proclaim a pardon to all such as are willing to lay down their arms, and return to their duty, those servants can proclaim the pardon to those only who have thrown away their arms, and supplicated for mercy. Yet, of such as do, some may but dissemble, and the king may know them, and by banishment distinguish them from the rest. does not follow however, that this or that rebel may take upon him to pronounce his majesty's pardon to his partisans in rebellion, whether conditionally or unconditionally. So much is due to majesty and mercy, as to take this from the servants of both, duly authorized, and not at random from others. The preaching of God's word, the administration of his sacraments, the denunciation of his judgments, and the proclamation of his pardons, are so connected with, and dependent on one another, as to make up but one and the same commission, rather than distinct or separate parts of it. It is our wisdom to take all together; and it will be a desperate folly to take only such as we like in it, and to leave the rest, as men that deal with one another in a common bargain, and not with God, on his own undeserved grant. Excommunication was, from the beginning, inflicted on persons guilty of notorious crimes; and humility, contrition, confession in case of sins, whether venial or heinous, if secret, were practised also from the beginning, and down through every age of the church, in order to the enjoyment of her inestimable privileges, and had never ceased to be practised, but because men, vainly calling themselves Christians, grew too proud for these means of true reformation; and other men, as avaricious as these were proud, took upon them for money to lead them through by-paths to a reconciliation with God, as if God could not see what impious wretches they were, both guides and guided. The power of absolution is remarkably exercised by St. Paul, though absent, and depending on both report and the information of the Holy Spirit, in regard to the Corinthian excommunicated for incest. The apostle, speaking in the character of one to whom the authority of absolution had been committed, saith to the church of Corinth, To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also,' 2 Cor. ii. 10. Thus the penitent was pardoned, and restored to communion by delegated authority in the person of Christ, lest such a one should be swallowed up with over-much sorrow, lest Satan should get an advantage over us. As these reasons for compassion still remain, it seems evident that the church should still retain the same power of shewing that compassion, as far as human understanding may direct its application. and 64. Ibid. xxi. 24. (We know that his testimony is true) attestation of the church and Christians for the person who wrote this gospel, and for the truth of its contents. 65. Acts v. 4. It is most evident here, that lying to the Holy Ghost was lying to God, which could not be if the Holy Ghost is not God. 66. Ibid. ix. 6. (Four hundred years) from the birth of Isaac to the emigration of the Hebrews out of Egypt, during all which time the posterity of Abraham sojourned in a strange land, Canaan, and Egypt, under the princes of those countries, and were generally ill treated. 67. Ibid. ix. 7. (Heard a voice) but no words. 68. Ibid. x. 27. (Can any man forbid water, that these should be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we?) The pretence of the Quakers, who say they have received the baptism of the Holy Ghost by fire, and therefore despise water-baptism as a beggarly element, is hereby condemned by the application of water-baptism to Cornelius and his family, after they had already been baptized by an infinitely better spirit than that which such pretenders claim, in order to vilify the ordinance of Christ, although his Holy Spirit in St. Peter had thus ordered its administration to persons, already endued with the true and real Holy Ghost, and for that very reason, because they had previously received the Holy Ghost. 69. Ibid. xiii. 2, 3. (The Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, they laid their hands on them, and sent them away.) Here a regular ordination and mission are prescribed by the Holy Ghost for two men, already endued with the Holy Spirit, as requisite in them to a full and authoritative exercise of their ministry. What then can we think of their presumption, who take this ministry upon them, without being either ordained or sent? 70. Ibid. xvii. 23. (Unknown God.) It hath been conjectured, and not without reason, that this altar was one of those erected by Epimenides throughout the city, on each of which a black ram was offered, when thereby the plague of Athens was stayed. Perhaps the Greek word ayvworos was intended to signify the incomprehensible, as well as the unknown God. 71. Ibid. xix. 24. (Shrines.) Little models of Diana's temple, with an image of that goddess, made of silver, and sold about to her devotees. 72. Ibid. xxi. 15. (Carriages) should be baggage. 73. Ibid. xxii. 9. (Heard not the voice) the intelligible voice, perhaps because spoke to Paul in the Hebrew tongue, which the soldiers or party of Paul might not have understood, and which none of the Romans, and very few of the Jews at that time did. That Christ did on that occasion speak in the Hebrew tongue, St. Paul himself afterward tells king Agrippa. 74. Ibid. xxiii. 5. (I wist not that he was the high priest) and how could he? For if we believe Josephus, Annas was not at that time high priest, neither indeed had there, for many years before, any high priest been constituted according to the Mosaic law. Besides, Paul could not at that time confess any man to be high priest, but Christ; and the little apology he makes afterward is but a civil compliment due to any man in mere apparent authority, and justified by his own doctrine. Rom. xiii. 1. 75. Ibid. From the twentieth verse of the last chapter in this book to the end, it is probable, that the gospel was first preached by St. Paul in Rome; and that he, not St. Peter, was the founder of the church in that city, when, as yet, there were few, if any, Christians there. It is true, he was met at Appii-Forum by some men, whom Luke calls brethren, ver. 15, but so he might style them as mere Jews; for that they were not yet Christians, appears very probable from their inquiring, what he thought concerning the sect of Christians, when they met him again at Rome, |