"What else do we when we pretend to absolve "conscience? We may use a hundred distine"tions if we please; we may say that the abso"lution is not authoritative, but declaratory; or, "that it is not judicial, but ministerial; but, if you "would speak to be understood, you must say " that, with respect to any real internal effect, it "is NOTHING: and you will speak truth too; for, "all the rest, if you will preserve to God his pre"rogative to forgivesin, are words without mean"ing." Vide pages 37, 38, 39, 51, 52.

Yet at this shadow every clergyman in England presumptuously grasps. He publicly claims, and, when called upon, presumes to exercise this power of forgiving sins, which is the prerogative of Almighty God alone.

But, if the absolution, as to any real effect, be acknowledged by our own learned doctors to be NOTHING, what must be the public claim and the exercise of it? What it is I forbear to say. The enemies of christianity will, with insulting pleasure tell.

I shall only add, that there is one remarkable instance in which this sacerdotal absolution has been given, undersuch circumstances as rendered it peculiarly indefensible.

When Charles II. came to the close of his profligate life, three bishops attended him; who, severally, by very free and serious admonitions, endeavoured to alarm his conscience, and to rouse him to some sober and penitential reflections. The king gave them the hearing, but answered not a word. He was six or seven times pressed to receive the sacrament, and a table, with the elements, was brought into the room, but the king refused. Bishop Ken then asked him if he desired ABSOLUTION OF HIS SINS: which the king not declining,---behold! in this unimpressed, impenitent state of mind, the bishop pronounced it over him; and, in the name of the sacred Tri

nity, and as by authority from Almighty God,

GAVE HIM THE FULL FORGIVENESS OF ALL HIS

SINS. Bishop Burnet, in the History of his own Times, 8vo. edit. Vol. II. * says, "Bishop Ken " was very much blamed for pronouncing abso"lution over the king, as he expressed no sense " of sorrow for his past life, nor any purpose of "amendment. It was thought to be a prostitu"tion of the peace of the church to give it to

one who, after a life led as the king's had been, " seemed to harden himself against every thing "that could be said to him,---and soon after died, "r recommending his mistress and illegitimate "children to the care of his brother, but said not a word of his queen, nor of his people, nor of "his servants, nor of the payment of his debts, nor a word of religion."

* Page 312.

A

APPENDIX.

Number I.

THE Restoration of Charles II. and the Act of Uniformity, which was passed soon after it, are two of the most important parts of the English history. By these events, the character and the state of the Dissenters were greatly affected: but it is a part of our history which is either little understood or much misrepresented, especially in many of the sermons which are annually preached on the thirtieth of January. Since, therefore, this unrighteous Act of Uniformity, which silenced and ejected two thousand of our brave and virtuous clergy, is the foundation on which the present church of England is built, and the cause of our separation from it; we beg leave to represent to the impartial public some of the disgraceful circumstances which attended that event; circumstances, which will shew the baseness, ingratitude, and iniquity of those transactions; which ought to be transmitted as a proper warning and instruction to indignant posterity.

To this purpose we observe, in the first place, that the Puritan, or Presbyterian clergy, were the only body of men, in the whole kingdom, who had the courage to oppose and to protest openly against the trial and condemnation of Charles I. With great danger to themselves they presented

Dd

a bold remonstrance to the General and Council of war, the then ruling powers, warning them in the name of God, and conjuring them in the most solemn manner, to desist from their violent proceedings against the king. This long and spirited protest was signed by above fifty of the principal Presbyterian ministers in and about London, and presented Jan. 18, 1648---9.* "The "Presbyterians, and body of the city, (says Bi"shop Burnet,) were much against it, and were " every where fasting and praying for the king's "preservation." + Archdeacon Echard says, "Cromwell first pulled down the Presbyterians, "and then destroyed the King,---and that almost "all the Presbyterian ministers in London, and

very many in the several counties, and a few "of the Independents themselves,declared against "the design, in their sermons, in conferences, in " monitory letters, petitions, protestations, and " public remonstrances: they earnestly begged, "that, contrary to so many oaths and impreca"tions, contrary to public and private faith, &c. " they would not defile their own hands and the " kingdom with royal blood." Abundant proof of the same might be brought from Clarendon, Rapin, &c. We proceed to observe,

Secondly: That the Presbyterians had the principal hand, and were the chief agents, in restoring King Charles II. to the throne. This appears, beyond doubt, from the united testimony of the history of those times.

When Charles II. came to Scotland, Lord Clarendon says, expecting force from that kingdom to restore him, "to his father's throne, and "the parliament of England, resolved to send an

army against him, all the Presbyterian party

"greatly opposed it:---they were bold in contradicting Cromwell in the house, and crossing "all his designs in the city."*

The first solemn conference which was had with General Monk, to induce him to restore the king, was "at Northumberland-house, with the "Earl of that name, the Earl of Manchester, "Hollis, Sir William Waller, Lewis, and other " eminent persons, who were looked upon as the "heads and governors of the moderate Presby"terian party. In this conference, the king's " restoration was proposed, in direct terms, as "absolutely necessary:---the London (Presby"terian) ministers talked loudly in the same strain, "without exposing themselves to the danger of

naming the king, which yet they did not long "forbear: every body understood they thought "it necessary the people should return to their "allegiance."+

"Monk, (says Rapin,‡) knowing how the "Presbyterians stood effected, employed, his "confident (probably Clarges) to make a secret

agreement with some of their chiefs for the " restoring of the king, Charles II. by their " means."---Monk comes with his army to London, and, having restored the secluded members to their seats in the house, thereby made it properly a Presbyterian parliament. "It conti"nued sitting but twenty-five days; in which time " several steps were made which clearly disco"vered that they were by no means disinclined " to the king. For, 1. They ordered a general "discharge of all the imprisoned friends of the "king. 2. They repealed the oath for the ab"juration of Charles Stuart, and all the royal fa"mily. 3. They voted Monk to be general of