AN ANSWER TO THE Dissenters Pleas FOR SEPARATION, OR AN ABRIDGEMENT OF THE LONDON CASES; WHEREIN The Substance of those Books is digested into one Short and Plain Discourse.  
CAMBRIDGE, Printed at the University Press, for Alexander Bosvile at the Sign of the Dial over against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet. 1700.   

Imprimatur.  


GUL. DAWES, Procan.  
HUMF. GOWER, SS. Theol. pro D na Margareta Prof.  
GUL. SAYWELL, Coll. Jes. Praefect.  
JA. JOHNSON, Coll. Sid. S. Magist.     

THE PREFACE.  
THAT Collection of Cases and other Discourses, which was lately written by the most Eminent of the Conforming Clergy, to recover Dissenters to the Communion of the Church of England, has met with such an Universal Approbation, that I need not speak any thing in commendation of it. Therefore I shall wave all discourse of that nature, and only give a short account of this Abridgement.  
The Collection itself being large and dear, it was thought convenient to reduce it to a less Bulk and smaller Price; that those Persons who have not either Money to buy, or Time to peruse so big a Volume, may reap the benefit of it upon easier terms. This, I presume, will justify my Design, if I have not failed in the prosecution of it.  
I have used my best endeavours to avoid obscurity, and all those other faults which are often charged upon Abridgements; and I hope I may venture to say, I have omitted nothing that is material; tho' the Number of these sheets is not the Sixth part of those that contain the Original. For the Learned Authors of the Collection do frequently glance, and sometimes Discourse largely, upon the same Subject: so that by avoiding Repetitions and blending all the Substance together, I have much lessened the Expense of Money and Time. This and some other advantages arise from the Digestion into Chapters; which could not have been gained, if I had made a distinct Abridgement of every single Discourse.  
I hope, I have fairly Represented the Sense of my Authors; but if I have mistaken or injured it in any particular, I am sorry for it, and do hearty beg Pardon of Them and the Reader.  
The 11th and 12th Chapters, I am sure, are exact; for they have received the A. Bp. of York's own Corrections, for which I am obliged to return his Grace my humblest Thanks. Other parts I have submitted to the Censure of other worthy Persons, to whose Judgement I shall ever pay the greatest Deference: but I have reason to suspect myself for what I have received no Assistance in; and therefore I desire the Reader to Correct me, when he finds occasion.  
I have followed not only my own Opinion, but the Directions of several very judicious Persons, in the omission of A. Bishop Tillotson's Discourse of Frequent Communion; which is wholly foreign to the Design of the Collection.  
The Quotations in the London Edit. 1698. which I follow, are very badly Printed; and therefore, if any mistakes of that Nature have crept into this Book, I hope they will not be charged upon me. Many of them appeared false at first View; and many I knew not what to make of: but some of them I have ventured to Correct.  
God Almighty grant, that this weak endeavour may be of some Service at least towards the Cure of those Divisions, which have endangered the Ruin of the Best Church in the World.  
St. John's Coll. in Cambridge, Octob. 2d. 1699. Tho. Bennet.   

A Catalogue of those Books, the Substance of which is contained in this Abridgement.  

1. ARchbishop Tennison's Argument for Union, taken from the true Interest of those Dissenters in England, who profess and call themselves Protestant's.  
2. Archbishop Sharp's Discourse concerning Conscience. In two parts.  
3. Bishop Grove's Persuasive to Communion with the Church of England.  
4. Bishop Patrick's Discourse of Profiting by Sermons.  
5. Bishop Fowler's Resolution of this Case of Conscience, whether the Church of England's Symbolising, so far as it doth, with the Church of Rome, makes it unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England.  
6. His Defence of the Resolution, etc.  
7. Bishop Williams' Case of Lay-Communion with the Church of England.  
8. His Case of Indifferent things used in the Worship of God.  
9 His Vindication of the Case of Indifferent things, etc.  
10. Dr. Hooper's Church of England free from the Imputation of Popery.  
11. Dr. Sherlock's Resolution of some Cases of Conscience, which respect Church-Communion.  
12. His Letter to Anonymus, in Answer to his Three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about Church-Communion.  
13. Dr. Hicks' Case of Infant-Baptism.  
14. Dr. Freeman's Case of Mixt-Communion.  
15. Dr. Hascard's Discourse about Edification.  
16. Dr. Calamy's Discourse about a Scrupulous Conscience.  
17. His Considerations about the Case of Scandal, or giving offence to Weak Brethren.  
18. Dr. Scott's Cases of Conscience resolved, concerning the Lawfulness of joining with Forms of Prayer in Public Worship. In two parts.  
19 Dr. Claget's Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayers, etc.  
20. Dr. Resbury's Case of the Cross in Baptism.  
21. Dr. Cave's Serious Exhortation, with some Important Advices relating to the late Cases about Conformity.  
22. Mr. Evans' Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament.    

The CONTENTS.  

THe Introduction, containing an Argument for Union, taken from the true Interest of those Dissenters in England, who profess and call themselves Protestant's. pag. 1  
CHAP. I. Of the Necessity of living in constant Communion with the Church of England. pag. 15  
CHAP. II. The use of Indifferent things in the Worship of God, no objection against our Communion. pag. 31  
CHAP. III. Of the Lawfulness and Expediency of Forms of Prayer. pag. 48  
CHAP. IV. Objections against our Morning and Evening Service and Litany, Answered. pag. 90  
CHAP. V Of Infant-Baptism. pag. 103  
CHAP. VI Objections against our Form of Baptism, and particularly that of the Sign of the Cross, Answered. pag. 126  
CHAP. VII. Objections against our Communion-Office, and particularly that of Kneeling at the Sacrament, Answered. pag. 135  
CHAP. VIII. The Objection of our Symbolising or Agreeing with the Church of Rome, Answered. pag. 171  
CHAP. IX. The Objection of Mixt-Communion Answered. pag. 194  
CHAP. X. The Pretences of Purer Ordinances, and Better Edification among the Dissenters, Answered. pag. 210  
CHAP. XI. The Pretence of its being against one's Conscience to join with the Church of England, Answered. pag. 228  
CHAP. XII. The Pretence of a doubting Conscience Answered. pag. 249  
CHAP. XIII. The Pretence of a scrupulous Conscience Answered. pag. 277  
CHAP. XIV. The Pretence of Scandal, or giving Offence to Weak Brethren, Answered. pag. 292  
The Conclusion, containing an earnest Persuasive to Communion with the Established Church of England. pag. 309    

THE INTRODUCTION, Containing An ARGUMENT for UNION, Taken from the true Interest of those Dissenters in ENGLAND, who Profess and call themselves PROTESTANT'S.  
'TIS plain, that the ready way to overthrow a Church, is first to divide it; and that our Dissensions are Divisions properly so called. How mortal these breaches may at last prove, any man may easily foretell; and therefore 'tis the business of every good man to dissuade from them. One way of doing this is to show Dissenters calmly and plainly, that their ends are not likely to be obtained; and that by the means they use, they will bring upon themselves those very evils, which they fear, and hope to remove.  
This Argument I design to handle by way of Introduction to the following Discourse; and in the Management of it I intent to show, First what those ends are, which are proposed by the Wiser and better Dissenters; and Secondly, that the ends which they propose, can never be procured by the dissettlement of the Church of England.  
The Dissenters ends are two; First, the establishing of themselves, either as a National Church or as several distinct Churches; Secondly and chief, the farther advancement of the Reformed Religion, by the removal of Popery and making the Protestant Religion more pure and perfect, than it is or can be under the present constitution of the Church of England.  
First then, as for the establishing of themselves as a National Church, 'tis impossible that all of them should be United. For what Communion can the Presbyterians have with Arians, Socinians, Anabaptists, Fifth-Monarchy-Men, Sensual Millenaries, Behmenists, Familists, Seekers, Antinomians, Ranters, Sabbatarians, Quakers, Muggletonians, Sweet-Singers? Such a medley of Religions cannot frame amongst them any common Scheme, in which their assents can be United.  
Nor can any Prevalent Party hope to establish themselves as a National Church; because they want Episcopacy, which hath obtained in England since its first Conversion, and is so agreeable to the Scheme of the Monarchy, and will not easily be exchanged for a newer model by the general consent of the English, who are naturally tenacious of their ancient Customs. Again, all the Parties amongst us have of late declared for mutual forbearance; and therefore they cannot be consistent with themselves, if they frame such a National Constitution, by which any man who dissents from it shall be otherwise dealt with, than by personal conference; which also he must have liberty not to admit, if he be persuaded it is not fit or safe for him. Now such a Body without any other Nerves for its Strength and Motion; for the encouragement of those who are Members of it, and the discouragement of those who refuse its Communion, will not long hold together; nor hath it means in it sufficient for the ends to which it is designed. And indeed by this means the Spiritual Power of Excommunication will be rendered of none effect. For what Punishment, what Shame, what Check will it be to cross and perverse men; if being shut out of the National Church, they may with open arms and with an applause due to real Converts, be received into this or the other particular Congregation, as it best suits with their good liking?  
Some persons Think, that since they gathered Churches out of Churches, there are not many true and proper Presbyterians in England; and if this be true, Independency is the prevalent side: but I know not how a National Church can be made up of separate Independent Churches. For each Independent Congregation is a Church by its self, and has besides the general Covenant of Baptism, a particular Church-Covenant; and therefore 'tis difficult to imagine, how all of them can be United into one entire Society.  
But be it supposed, that the Presbyterians are the most Numerous and prevalent Party; yet experience shows how hard a work it is for all of them to form themselves into a Church of England. In the late times of public disquiet, tho' they had great power and fair opportunities, and seemed nigh the gaining of their point, yet they widely missed of it. There were in the Assembly of Divines, some for an Independent, others for an Erastian Interest. 
(a) Vid. Whitlock's Memoirs, p. 116. & 189. Harm. Consent. p. 20.  There were a Party in the Nation, who were then called Dissenting Brethren; who hated the Directory, and Printed a Remonstrance against Presbytery, and reproached the Presbyterians in the same Phrases, which they had used against the Church-Liturgy. 
(b) Testim. to the Truth of J. C. p. 31.  Some Presbyterians did openly confess that their hopes were not answered, and that instead of a Reformation they had a Deformation in Religion.  
Those Independents, who adhered to that part of the House which joined with the Army, prevailed for a season; but they also were disturbed by the Lilburnists, Levellers, and Agitators. 
(c) Mist of Godlin. Anno 1649. Wynstanl. in Sts. Paradise. c. 5. p. 54, etc. Whitlock's Memoirs, p. 430. Salmon's Rout. in Pref. & p. 10, 11, etc. Hist. of Indep. part 2. p. 153. View of the late Troubles. p. 366.  Then Wynstanly published the Principles of Quakerism, and Enthusiasm broke forth. Joseph Salmon a Member of the Army published his Blasphemies and defended his Immoralities; and Printed a Book in which he set forth himself as the Christ of God. Cromwell favoured Enthusiasm, and together with Six Soldiers Preached and Prayed at Whitehall; and confessed to a person of condition (from whom I received it, as did others yet living) that he Prayed according to extraordinary impulse; and that not feeling such impulse (which he called supernatural) he did forbear to Pray, oftentimes for several days together. At last he and his House of Commons were publicly 
(d) Whitlock's Memoirs, p. 592, 606, 624. Burroughs' Trumpet of the Lord. p. 2.  disturbed by Quakers, bespattered in their books, his Preachers interrupted by them in his own Chapel before his face; and himself conspired against by those who called themselves the free and well affected People of England. Other Memorials might be produced relating to the hopeful Rise, mighty progress and equal declension of the Presbyterian Party: but in short, the longer the Church of England was dissetled, the greater daily grew the Confusion; so that those very distractions prepared the Way for the Restitution of the King and the Church.  
Now if Dissenters could not settle themselves when they had such fair opportunities, much less can they do it now; because, First the platform of Discipline so much applauded and contended for in the Reigns of Q. Elizabeth and K. James, has been partly tried, and lost some of that Reverence which several had for it. Secondly, there is not now such an Union amongst Dissenters as appeared at the beginning of the late Troubles. Thirdly, those who then favoured the Discipline, do now incline to Independency and plead for Toleration. Fourthly, the sincere Zeal and Power of many Pious Men of Quality, who favoured the Discipline in the simplicity of their hearts, could not then settle it; much less will it now succeed, since these Men have seen such Revolutions, and discovered the Vile interests of many under pretence of Pure Religion. These have seen their error, and will not be a second time engaged. Lastly, by reason of the gross Hypocrisies, numberless Parties and Opinions, Irreligious Books and Laxation of Discipline in those Wars, Atheism has much increased; and they say that some undisguised Sceptics and Atheists have, since the King's return, been much used in the Cause of our Dissenters; and surely such hands cannot do, what well meaning zeal could not effect.  
Nor can they settle themselves as several distinct Parties by a general Toleration. For First, some Dissenters believe some of the Parties to be incapable of forbearance, as maintaining Principles destructive of Christian Faith and Piety. This Opinion they still have of Antinomians, Quakers and Muggletonians; and they formerly declaimed against the Toleration of Erastians' and Independents. 
(e) Harmon. Consent. p. 12.  Nay many Ministers declared a Toleration to be an appointing a City of Refuge in men's Consciences for the Devil to fly to— a Toleration of Soul-murther, the greatest murder of all others, etc. Secondly, there is no firmness in this Union; for the Union that lasteth, is that of the Concord of Members in an Uniform Body. Thirdly, Parties cannot be kept equal in number and interest, but one will always prevail and be favoured as the Religion of the State. And it is natural for the strongest to attempt to subdue all the rest; so that they will not be at peace, but in perpetual discord.  
Some indeed think, this inclination to the swallowing up of all other Parties is to be found almost only in the Romish Church: But there is something of it to be discerned (I will not say in all Churches, for our own suffered Bonner himself to live, yet) in all Factions and Parties; tho' the inequality of Power makes it not seem to be alike in all of them. Parties, who are not (otherwise than in show) concerned for Religion, will perpetually covet after Power; and Parties that are conscientious in their way, will do the same. For they withdraw from others, because they think Communion with them to be unlawful; and if they think those of another way (without Repentance) to be lost eternally, Charity will urge them to reduce them; and they will think, that suffering them to wander declares them to be contented with their condition.  
Besides, experience shows that where there is Power there is little forbearance; and the same men, as their conditions alter, speak of Mercy or Justice. Thus did the 
(f) Vid. August. Cont. Petil. Lib. 2.  Donatists of old, and the 
(g) Mr. Calamy's great dang. of Cou. Ref. p. 3.  Heads of the Discipline in the late Times. Those that removed to New England for Liberty of Conscience, when they had gotten footing there, refused Indulgence to Anabaptists and Quakers, and use them to this day with great severity. The 
(h) Whitlock's Memoirs. p. 276.  Commons in 47 gave Indulgence to all, but those that used the Common Prayer. The Dutch suffer none to speak against those Doctrines, which the State hath Authorised; and the Remonstrant Party contend for Superiority, whenever they have any encouragement. The Popish Orders mortally hate, and (were they not restrained) would soon devour one another. And Gittichius his behaviour towards 
(i) Ruari Epist. par. 1. p. 415, 416.  Ruarus a Socinian of better temper, shows the spirit of the Socinians, those great asserters of Liberty in Religion. The Quakers themselves, when formed into a society, began to Excommunicate and Domineer; and G. Fox 
(k) Spirit of the Hart. p. 41.  declared, he never liked the word Liberty of Conscience, and would have no Liberty given to Presbyterians, Papists, Independents and Baptists.  
I proceed now to the Second and Chief end of the Dissenters, the removal of Popery and perfecting the Protestant Religion. As for the removal of Popery, 'tis plain that the ruin of our Church, called by Diodati the Eye of the Reformed Churches, will rather advantage it both at home and abroad. For she being more like the Primitive Pattern than some others of the Reformation, can better answer the Papists Objections, than those that are cramped in a few points; and therefore if Dissensions ruin her, Popery will the sooner spread over Foreign Reformed Countries. And since the Romanists are so powerful, diligent and cunning; have so much Learning and interest; and pretend to antiquity, miracles, etc. nothing can secure us from them at home, but the Christian constitution and strong nature of the Primitive, Learned, Pure, Loyal and Pious Church of England; which is a National Body already formed, that is able to detect the Forgeries of Rome, and hath not given advantage to her by running from her into any extreme.  
Monsieur Daille, who was not likely to be partial in this matter, and was at that time engaged in a Controversy with one of our Divines, 
(l) De Confess. adv. Hammond. c. 1. p. 97, 98.  says, As to the Church of England, purged from Foreign wicked superstitious Worships and Errors, either impious or dangerous, by the rule of the Divine Scriptures, approved by so many and such illustrious Martyrs, abounding with Piety towards God and Charity towards Men, and with most frequent examples of good works, flourishing with an increase of most Learned and wise Men from the beginning of the Reformation to this time; I have always had it in just esteem, and till I die I shall continue in the same due veneration of it. And indeed it is strange, that any who know other Churches and States, should be displeased at ours, which so much excels them. Now is it probable, that such a Church should have less strength in it for the resisting of Popery, than a number of divided Parties, the best of which is not so Primitive, Learned, United, Numerous or Legal; and is but of yesterday?  
These Parties have scarce any formed way of keeping out Popery; for what hinders a crafty Jesuit from gathering and modelling a particular Congregation? And what a gap do they leave open for Seducers, who take away all legal Tests, and admit strangers to officiate upon bare pretence of spiritual illumination!  
The Romanists have more powerful ways of drawing men from the Dissenting Parties, than from the Church of England. For Men separate (too frequently) through weakness of imagination, for which the Church of Rome has variety of gratifications. They will offer strictnesses to the severe, and mental Prayer to those who contemn or scruple Forms. They have Mystical Phrases for such, who think they have a new notion when they darken understanding with words; and accordingly the third part of a very mystical Book, written by Father Benet a Capuchin, was reprinted in London in 46, with a 
(m) A Bright Star centring in Christ our Perfection. Printed for H. Overton, in Popes-head Alley.  new Title and without the Author's Name, and it passed amongst some of the Parties for a Book of very sublime Evangelical Truths. They use much gesture and great show of Zeal in Preaching. They have rough cords and mean garments, bare feet and many other great shows of Self-denial. They have Processions and other Rites to humour the soppishness of others. But our Church is sufficient for this encounter. She designs to make Men good by making them first judicious; but some others desire to bring them to their side by catching of their imaginations; and so some new device shall, in time, bring them over to a new Party.  
Dissension itself amongst Protestants weakens their interest; and that which weakens one side strengthens another. Many that are wearied with endless wrangling, are too apt for quiet sake to run to infallibility. Some Dissenters prepare the way for Popery by running into another extreme to avoid it. By decrying Episcopacy, Liturgy, Festivals, etc. as Popish, they condemn that as Popish which is decent and Christian, and so bring Popery into reputation. For men will be apt to say, if such good things be Popish, surely that which is Popish, is also Primitive and Evangelical. What we have examined is good, and probably the rest may be of the same kind.  
It appears also from the History of our late Wars, that Popery gains ground by the ruin of our Church. For it made such a progress in those times, that the Dissenters charge the Jesuits with the King's murder; thereby tacitly owning, that they had so great a power over some of them, as to make them their instruments in it. 'Tis evident to any man that Popery was not then rooted out; 
(n) Vid. Rob. Mentit de Salmonet, Hist. des troubles de la grand Bret. lib. 3. p. 165. Short view of the troub. p. 564. Arbit. gov. p. 28. Whitl. Mem. p. 279, 280, 282. Exact. Coll. p. 647.  'tis notorious, that many Priests and other Papists fought and acted for the Parliament against the King; Nay, in 49, there was a design to 
(o) ibid. p. 405.  settle the Popish Discipline in England and Scotland. The Papists generally sheltered themselves under the Vizor of 
(p) Edwards' Gangr. par. 2, p. 10.  Independency. A College of Jesuits was settled at 
(q) B. of Heref. Narrat. to the Lds. p. 7.  Come in 52; and 155 were reconciled to Rome that year· Cromwell 
(r) Cromwel's Declar. Oct. 31. 1655.  said, that he had some proof that Jesuits had been found amongst the Discontented Parties; and Dr. Bayly the Papist 
(s) Dr. Bayly's Life of Bp. Fisher. p. 260, 261.  courted him as the hopes of Rome. One of his Physicians 
(t) Elen. mot. Par. 2. p. 347.  saith, he was Treating with the Papists for Toleration, but broke off, because they came not up to his Price, and because he feared it would be offensive. We are 
(u) Hist. Indep. Part 2. p. 245, etc.  told also that an agreement was made in 49 even with Owen Oneal that bloody Romanist; and that he in pursuance of the Interest of the State, raised the Siege of Londonderry. A great door was opened to Romish Emissaries, when the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy were by public order taken away; and the Doctrine of the unlawfulness of an Oath, revived in those days by 
(w) Cotton's Lr. Exam. p. 4, 5. Simplicit. defence. p. 22. Min. of Lond. Test. p. 18.  Williams, Gorton, etc. helped equivocating Papists to an Evasion; as I fear it may the Quakers at this day. It was the Church of England that kept out Popery in those times. The patiented sufferings of her Members proved that they were not Popish or earthlyminded; and the Writings of Laud, Chillingworth, Bramhal, Cousins, Hammond, etc. kept men steadfast in the Protestant Religion.  
To this we may add, that the Papists themselves think their Cause is promoted by our Divisions, as appears from 2 Jesuits, viz. Campanella in his discourse of the Spanish Mon. cap. 25. p. 157. Printed at Lond. in English in 54. and Contzen's Polit. Lib. 2. Cap. 18. Sect. 9 And they act accordingly; for they widen our breaches that themselves may enter, and hope that we shall be dissolved at last by our distempers. They expose Protestants as a Disunited People; and ask men how they can in prudence join with those, who are at Variance among themselves?  
As for the design of advancing the Protestant Religion to greater Purity and Perfection by dissetling the Church, it is not likely to be effected for six reasons. First, the dissetling that which is well settled, corrupteth Religion by removing Charity, which is the Spirit of it. It lets men lose that cannot govern themselves; it moves men to Atheism, Idolatry and contempt of the Church, and confirms them in sin. It exposes the Church for a prey to the Enemy, as it did formerly in Africa and Egypt. Those that descent from a National Church, generally move for alterations in it, when there is a ferment in the State; and in such seasons a Church may be pulled in sunder, but there is not temper enough to set it together to advantage. State-dissenters generally begin Revolutions with the pretence of Reforming Religion; and wellmeaning Dissenters (when in such hands) can establish nothing, but what pleases their secular Leaders. A change in the Church naturally produces some change in the State; and who can secure the event for the better? None can foresee all the ill consequences of disturbances. When the vessel is stirred, the lees come up; and Religion is made less pure by commotions. Politicians promise fair, and use conscientious men to serve a turn; but afterwards they take other measures. Men may intent well, but by using the illegal Arm, they frequently render that which was well settled, much worse by their unhinging of it.  
Secondly, in the Times of Usurpation, which began with pretence of a more Pure Religion, our Dissensions caused great Corruptions both in Faith and Manners. The War was Preached up as the Christian Cause; and many believed that God would not lay the greatest villainies to the charge of an elect person. The instances of their extravagancies are endless; and the Lords and Commons, as well as the Ministers, were 
(u) Vid. Ordin. Feb. 4. 1646. Min. Testim. p. 31.  highly sensible of them.  
Thirdly, if by Purity of Religion be meant such Doctrine, Discipline and Life, as the Gospel teaches, and a removal of human inventions; that Purity is in our Church already: and as for her Injunctions, they are (like those of the Primitive Church) Rules of Ecclesiastical Wisdom in pursuance of the general Canons in Holy Writ. But if by Purity of Religion be meant a fewness of parts; as the Quakers believe their way is purer, because they have taken away Sacraments and outward Forms; by the same reason the Papists may say, that their Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is more pure than that of the Protestants, because they have taken the Cup from it. But it must be considered, that that which makes a Pure Church, is like that which makes a pure Medicine; not the fewness of the ingredients, but the goodness of them, how many soever they be, and the aptness of them for the procuring of health. Therefore our Church being already Pure, the ruin of it will not tend to the purity and advancement of the Protestant Religion.  
Fourthly, the establishing of contrary parties by a Toleration is not the way to perfect Religion, any more than the suffering of divers Errors would be the means of reforming them. One principle only can be true; and a mixture of Sacred and Profane is the greatest impurity.  
Fifthly, Many Dissenters are not like to improve Christianity, because they lay aside the Rules of discretion, and rely not on God's assistance in the use of good means; but depend wholly upon immediate illumination without the aids of prudence.  
Sixthly, Our Church has already better means to promote Pure Religion, than any the Dissenters have proposed. Any Church may be improved in small matters; but 'twere very imprudent to change the present model for any that has yet been offered. We have all the necessaries to Faith and Godliness; Primitive discipline, decency and order are preserved; We have as many truly pious Members as any Nation under Heaven, and such excellent Writers and Preachers as God ought to be praised for: whereas amongst the Parties the folly and weakness of Preachers is delivered solemnly as the dictate of God's Holy Spirit.  
I may add also, that the Dissenters Doctrine of God's secret Decrees, their Ordination by Presbyters without a Bishop, their long unstudied effusions, their leaving the Creed out of the Directory for public Worship, their sitting at the Lord's Supper (and that sometimes with the Hat on) their alteration of the Form of giving the holy Elements, and their forbidding the observation of Festivals, were not so conducive to the edifying of the Body of Christ, as those things which were in the late Times illegally removed by them.  
It is easy enough to alter a Constitution; but 'tis extreme difficult to make a true and lasting improvement.  
To conclude, since it appears that Dissenters are not like to obtain their ends of establishing themselves, of rooting out Popery, and promoting Pure Religion, by overthrowing the Church of England; therefore they ought both in Prudence and Charity to endeavour after Union with it.   

CHAP. I. Of the Necessity of living in constant Communion with the Established Church of England.  
THAT I may discourse with all possible clearness, it will be necessary before I proceed, to explain a few things. 1. What is meant by a Christian Church. 2. What Church-Communion is. 3. What is meant by Fixed Communion and by Occasinal Communion.  
I. Then a Church is a Body or Society of Men separated from the rest of the World, and united to God and to themselves by a Divine Covenant. It is a Body or Society in opposition to particular Men and to a confused multitude. For tho' it does consist of particular men, yet those men are considered not in a private capacity, but as united into a regular Society. For God is not the Author of confusion. And if the meanest Societies cannot subsist without order, much less the Church of God, which is a Society instituted for the most spiritual and supernatural ends. The Jewish Church had exact order; and the Christian Church with respect to the Union and Order of its parts is not only called a Body, but a spiritual building, Holy Temple, and the House of God.  
But then the Church is One body in opposition to many bodies. The Jewish Church was but One, and therefore the Christian, which is grafted into the Jewish, is but One. The Church is called the Temple of God, and the Temple was but One by the command of God. Christ also tells us, that there should be but one fold under one shepherd, Joh. 10.16. And indeed it is extremely absurd to say, that the Christian Church, which has the same Foundation, the same Faith, the same Promises, the same Privileges; should be divided into separate Bodies of the same kind. For certainly where everything is common, there is One Community. 'Tis true, distinct men, tho' of the same common nature, have distinct Essences, and this makes them distinct persons; but where the very essence of a Body or Society consists in having all things common, there can be but one Body. And therefore if one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, be common to the whole Christian Church; and if no Christian has any peculiar privileges; then there is but one Church.  
I add, that the Church is a Body or Society of Men separated from the rest of the World; upon which account Christians are called the Chosen or Elect People of God, having a peculiar Faith, Laws, Rites, etc. which are not common to the whole World. It is also a Society of Men united to God and to themselves by a Divine Covenant. It is united to God, because it is a Religious Society; and the Men are united to themselves, because they are one Society. But the chief thing to be observed is, that the Union is made by a Divine Covenant. Thus God made a Covenant with Abraham, of which Circumcision was the Seal; and the Christian Church is nothing else, but such a Society of Men, as are in Covenant with God through Christ. I suppose all Men will grant, that God only can make a Church; and that the only visible way he has of forming a Church is by granting a Church-Covenant, which is the Divine Charter whereon the Church is founded; and by authorising some persons to receive others into this Covenant by such a form of admission as he shall institute, which form under the Gospel is Baptism. So that to be taken into Covenant with God, and to be received into the Church is the same thing; and he is no Member of the Church, who is not visibly admitted into God's Covenant.  
From what has been said it plainly follows, 1. That a Covenant-State and a Church-State are the same thing. 2. That every professed Christian, who is received into Covenant, as such, is a Church-Member. 3. That nothing else is necessary to make us Members of the Christian Church, but only Baptism, which gives us right to all the privileges of the Covenant. 4. That no Church-State can depend upon human Contracts and Covenants, and therefore the Independent Church-Covenant between Pastor and People is no part of the Christian Church-Covenant; because it is no part of the Baptismal vow, which is one and the same for all Mankind, and the only Covenant which Christ has made. And why then do the Independents exact such a Covenant of Baptised persons, before they admit them to their Communion? 5. That it is absurd to gather Churches out of Churches, which already consist of Baptised persons. For there is but one Church, which is founded upon a Divine Covenant, and this we are made Members of by Baptism; if therefore an Independent Church-Covenant be necessary, than the Baptismal Covenant is of no value, till it be confirmed by entering into a particular Church-Covenant. 6. That if the Church be founded on one Covenant, than the Church is but one. For those that have an interest in the same Covenant are Members of the same Church; and tho' the Universal Church, for Man's conveniency, be divided into several parts or Congregations, yet it cannot be divided into two or more Churches. So that two Churches which are not Members of each other, cannot partake in the same Covenant, but the divider forfeits his interest in it. A Prince indeed may grant the same Charter to several Corporations; but if he confine his Charter to the Members of one Corporation, those who separate from the Corporation, forfeit their interest in the Charter. Thus has God granted a Charter or Covenant, and declares that by this one Covenant he Unites all Christians into one Church, into which we are admitted by Baptism; and therefore if we separate from this one Church, we forfeit our interest in it. God has not made a particular Covenant with the Church of Geneva, France, or England, but with the one Catholic Church; and therefore if we do not live in unity with the Catholic Church, we have no right to the blessings promised to it.  
II. By Church-Communion I mean Church-Society. To be in Communion with the Church, is to be a Member of it. And this is called Communion, because all Church-members have a common right to Church-privileges, and a common obligation to the duties of Church-Members. 'Tis true, this word Communion is commonly used to signify Praying, hearing and receiving the Sacrament together; but strictly speaking those Offices are not Communion, but an exercise of Communion. Church-Communion is Church-Union; for as a member must be united to the Body, before it can perform the natural action of a member: so a man must be in Communion with the Church, before he has a right to Pray, etc. And therefore, tho' a man that is not in Union or Communion with the Church, should perform those Offices; yet the performance of them does not make him a Member of the Church, but an Intruder. Such Offices are acts of Communion, if performed by Church-Members; but not otherwise. So that to be in communion with the Church is to be a Member of it; and by being a Member a man has a right to the blessings promised to it, and an obligation to perform the Offices of Church-Society, viz. obedience to the Church's authority, joining in Prayers, etc. and he that acts otherwise, renounces his Communion with it.  
From what has been said I observe, 1. That Church-Communion principally respects not a particular, but the Universal Church, which is but one all the World over. For Membership may extend to the remotest parts of the World, if the body, whereof we are Members, reach so far: and Baptism makes us members of the Universal Church, because it admits us into the Covenant, which God made with the Universal Church. 2. That every act of Christian Communion, such as praying, etc. is an act of Communion with the whole Catholic Church, tho' it must be performed in a particular Congregation, because all Christians cannot meet in one place. Thus do we as Fellow-Members Pray to God the Common Father of Christians, in the Name of Christ the Common Saviour of Christians, for the same Common blessings, for ourselves and all other Christians. Thus also the Supper of the Lord is not a private Supper, but the Common Feast of Christians, and an act of Catholic Communion. 3. That the only reason, why I am bound to live in Communion with any particular Church, is because I am a Member of the whole Christian Church. For I must live in Communion with the whole Christian Church; and this cannot be done without actual Communion with some part of it. So that I have nothing else to do but to consider, whether that part of the Catholic Church wherein I live, be so sound that I may lawfully live in Communion with it; and if it be, I am bound to do so under peril of Schism from the Catholic Church. 4. That those Churches which are not Members of each other, are separate Churches; because the Catholic Church being but one, all particular Churches ought to be Members of it. To make this plain, I shall lay down some few Rules, whereby we may certainly know what Churches are in Communion with each other, and which are Schismatical Conventicles.  
1. There must be but one Church in one place; because private Christians ought to join with those Christians with whom they live; and to withdraw ourselves from ordinary Communion with the Church in which we live into separate Societies, is to renounce its Communion; and when there is not a necessary cause for it, is a Schismatical separation. Every particular Church must have its limits, as every Member in the Body has its proper place: but when there is one Church within the bowels of another, it is a notorious Schism. This is the case of our Dissenters, who refuse to worship God in the same assemblies with us. Distinct Churches at a distance may be of the same Communion: but distinct Churches in the same place can never be of the same Communion; for than they would naturally unite. So that all separation from a Church wherein we live, unless there be necessary reasons for it, is Schism.  
'Tis true, a Nation may permit those Foreigners that are among them, to model their Congregations according to the Rules of those Churches, to which they originally belong; and that without any danger of Schism. For a bare variety of Ceremonies makes no Schism between Churches, while they live in Communion with each other. Now every particular National Church has Authority over her own Members to prescribe the rules of Worship: but as she does not impose upon other Churches, at a distance; so she may allow the same liberty to the Members of such Foreign Churches, when they live within her jurisdiction. For tho' all true Churches are Members of each other, yet each Church has a peculiar jurisdiction; and therefore for the Church of England to allow Foreigners to observe their own Rules, is not to allow separate Communions, but to leave them to the Government of that Church, to which they belong. So that distinct Congregations of Foreigners, who own the Communion of our Church, tho' they observe the customs of their own, are not Schismatical, as the separate Conventicles of our Dissenters are.  
2. Those are separate Churches, which divide from the Communion of any Church, from any dislike of its Doctrine, Government or Worship. For in this case they leave the Church, because they think it unsafe to continue one body with it. Two Churches may be in Communion with each other, and yet not actually Communicate together, because distance of place will not permit it: but it is impossible that two Churches, which renounce each others Communion, or at least withdraw ordinary Communion from each other from a professed dislike, should still continue in Communion with each other. Because they are opposite Societies, sounded upon contrary Principles, and acting by contrary Rules, and pursuing contrary ends, to the ruin and subversion of each other.  
3. Those are separate Churches which do not own each others Members as their own. The Christian Church is but one Household and Family and whoever makes two Families of it, is a Schismatic. If Christians in the same Kingdom hold separate Assemblies under distinct kinds of Government and different Governors, and condemn each others constitution and modes of Worship, and endeavour to draw away Members from each other; they cannot be thought to be one Church. And indeed we may as well say, that several sorts of Government in the same Nation, with distinct Governors, distinct Subjects and distinct Laws, that are always at Enmity and War with each other, are but one Kingdom; as we may say, that such Congregations are but one Church.  
III. I am to explain what is meant by Fixed and by Occasional Communion. By fixed Communion the Dissenters understand an actual and constant Communicating with some one particular Church, as fixed Members of it. By occasional Communion they mean praying, hearing and receiving the Sacrament at some other Church (of which they do not own themselves to be Members) as occasion serves; that is, either to gratify their own curiosity, or to serve some secular end, or to avoid the imputation of Schism. Now fixed Communion is the only true notion of Communion, for occasional Communion does not deserve the name of Communion. For I have proved that he, who is not a Member, cannot perform an act of Communion; and therefore it is as plain a contradiction to talk of an occasional act of Communion, as of an Occasional Membership. Since every act of Communion is an act of Communion with every sound part of the Catholic Church, therefore the exercise of Christian Communion is equally fixed and constant, or equally occasional with the whole Catholic Church.  
'Tis true, in one sense we may be Members of a particular Church, that is, we may live under the Government of a particular Bishop in a particular National Church; but yet every act of Communion performed in this particular Church is an act of Communion with every sound part of the Catholic Church. So that wherever I Communicate, whether in that Church in which I usually live, or in any other particular Church, where I am accidentally present, my Communion is of the same nature. Now our ordinary Communion with those Churches where our constant abode is, may be called fix't Communion; and our Communion with those Churches where we are accidentally present, may be called occasional Communion; and all this may be done without Schism, because all these Churches are Members of each other: but we cannot lawfully join sometimes with the established Church and sometimes with a separate Congregation; because the case is vastly different. For the established Church and the Dissenters Congregations are not Members of each other, but separate Churches. Now 'tis impossible for any man to be a Member of two separate Churches; and whatever acts of worship we join in with other Churches, of which we are no Members, they are not properly acts of Communion.  
Having thus explained the Three foregoing particulars, I proceed to the main business, which was to show, that it is the indispensable duty of all English men to live in constant Communion with the established Church of England. This I shall do by showing,  
First, That Communion with some Church or other is a necessary duty.  
Secondly, That constant Communion with that Church, with which occasional Communion is lawful, is a necessary duty; from whence I shall make it appear,  
Thirdly, That it is necessary to continue in constant Communion with the established Church of England.  
I. Then, it is plain, that Communion with some Church or other is a necessary Duty. Because to be in Communion is to be a Member of Christ; and he that is a Member, has a right to the Privileges and an obligation to the duties of a Member; and 'tis certain that Communion in Prayers, etc. is none of the least Privileges of Christianity, and that 'tis the duty of a Member to Communicate in Religious Offices. But to put the matter out of all doubt, I shall offer Five things, to prove that external and actual Communion is a necessary duty.  
1. Baptism makes us Members of the visible Church of Christ; but there can be no visible Church without visible Communion, and therefore every visible Member is bound to visible Communion, when it may be had. 2. This is Essential to the notion of a Church, as it is a Society of Christians. For since all Societies are instituted for the sake of some common Duties and Offices, therefore some duties and offices must be performed by the Society of Christians; especially since the Church consists of different Offices and Officers, as Pastors, etc. Eph. 4.11. which are of no use, if private Christians are not bound to maintain Communion with them in all Religious Offices. 3. The nature of Christian worship obliges us to Church-Communion. For we are bound to worship God according to Christ's institution, that is, by the hands of the Ministry authorised for that purpose, Acts 2.42. and therefore tho' the private Prayers of Church-members are acceptable, yet none but public Prayers offered up by the Ministers are properly the Prayers of the Church and acts of Church-Communion. Nay the Lord's Supper, which is the principal part of God's worship, is a Common Supper or Communion-Feast, and cannot possibly be celebrated but in actual Communion. 4. The exercise of Church-Authority, which consists in admitting men to, or excluding them from the external acts of Communion, supposes that Church-members are obliged to visible Communion. 5. If Separation from Religious Assemblies be to break Communion, as it plainly appears to be from 2 Cor. 6.17. 1 Joh. 2.19. Heb. 10.25. then to live in Communion with the Church, requires our actual Communicating with the Church in all Religious duties. Accordingly to have Communion with any, is to partake with them in their Religious Mysteries, 1 Cor. 10.20, 21. so that tho' we must first be in a state of Communion, before we have a right to Communicate; yet we cannot preserve our Church-state without actual Communion. And a right to Communicate without actual Communion, which is an exercise of that right, is worth nothing; because all the blessings of the Gospel are conveyed to us by actual Communion.  
This is sufficient to prove the necessity of actual Communion with the Church, when it may be had; for when it can't be had, we are not obliged to it. But then the greater difficulty is, whether it be lawful to suspend Communion with all, because the Church is divided into Parties. Now a man may as well be of no Religion, because there are different Opinions in Religion; as Communicate with no Church, because the Church is divided into Parties. For 'tis possible to know which is a true and sound part of the Catholic Church; and when we know that, we are bound to maintain Communion with it. Indeed if Divisions excuse from actual Communion with the Church, than Church-Communion never was or can be a duty; for there were Divisions even in the Apostles times. But the rule is plain; for we are bound to Communicate with the Established Church, if it may be done without sin. The advantage lies on the side of Authority, and to separate from such a Church is both disobedience and Schism.  
But what is meant by Suspending Communion? These men will not say that it is lawful never to worship God in any public Assemblies during the divisions in the Church; and therefore they mean, that in case of such Divisions they may refuse to enter themselves fixed and settled Members of any Church, but Communicate occasionally with them all. But I have already shown how absurd this distinction of fixed and occasional Communion is; and that whoever is a Member of the Church is a fixed and not an occasional Member; and that every act of Communion is an act of fixed Communion. So that when men Communicate occasionally, as they speak, with all the different Parties of Christians in a divided Church, they either Communicate with none or with all of them. If with none, than they maintain Communion with no Church, which I have proved it to be their duty to do: but if they Communicate with all, than they are Members of separate and opposite Parties; that is, they are contrary to themselves, and on one side or other are certain to be Schismatics.  
II. I am now to show in the 2d. place, That Constant Communion is a necessary duty, where occasional Communion is lawful. Every true Christian is in Communion with the whole Christian Church, that is, is a Member of the whole Church; and therefore he must constantly perform the acts of Communion in that part of the Church in which he lives. So that he cannot without sin Communicate only occasionally with that Church, with which he may and aught to Communicate constantly, as being constantly present there. There cannot be two distinct Churches in the same place, one for constant, and another for occasional Communion, without Schism; and therefore where my constant abode is, there my constant Communion must be, if there be a true and sincere part of the Catholic Church in that place. For it is not lawful to Communicate with two distinct and separate Churches in the same place, as for instance, sometimes with the Church of England, sometimes with the Presbyterians; because this is directly contrary to all the principles of Church-Communion. For to be in Communion with the Church is to be a Member of it; and to be a Member of two separate and opposite Churches, is to be as contrary to ourselves as those separate Churches are to each other; and whoever Communicates with both those Churches, on one side or other Communicates in a Schism. So that if Schism be a very great sin, and that which will damn us as soon as Adultery or Murder, than it must needs be unlawful and dangerous to Communicate with Schismatics.  
Nothing less than sinful terms of Communion can justify our separation from the established Church wherein we live; for otherwise there could be no end of Divisions, but men might new model Churches as often as their fancies alter. That is a sound and Orthodox part of the Catholic Church, which has nothing sinful in its Communion; otherwise no Church can be sound and Orthodox. Now that Man that separates from such a sound part of the Church, separates from the whole Church, because the Communion of the Church is but one. Since therefore those who Communicate occasionally with the established Church, do thereby own that there are no sinful terms of Communion with it; and since he who separates from that established Church where there are no sinful terms of Communion, is guilty of Schism; therefore a Man is obliged to join constantly with that Church, with which he owns it lawful to Communicate occasionally.  
III. Now if these things be true, which I have so plainly proved, than it will easily be made appear in the Third place, that it is necessary to continue in constant Communion with the established Church of England. For since a Man is obliged to join constantly with that Church, with which he owns it lawful to join occasionally; therefore it is plain, that all English Men are obliged to join constantly with the established Church of England, because they may lawfully Communicate with it Occasionally. But if any Man say that 'tis not lawful to Communicate occasionally with the established Church of England, I doubt not to make it appear in the following discourse, that he is greatly mistaken.  
'Tis not my present business to prove, that the Pastors of Dissenting Congregations ought to subscribe to the Articles, etc. For tho' that matter may be easily made out, yet 'tis Foreign to my purpose; my design being only to satisfy Lay-Dissenters, and to show that they may lawfully join with our Church, because than it will appear to be their duty to do so constantly. And certainly if the Case of Lay-Communion were truly stated and understood, the People would not be far more averse to Communion with the Parish-Churches, than the Nonconforming Ministers, who have often joined with us. And as the Ministers by bringing their Case to the People's, may see Communion then to be lawful, and find themselves obliged to maintain it in a private capacity: so the People by perceiving their Case not to be that of the Ministers, but widely different from it, would be induced to hold Communion with the Church.  
It appears therefore from what I have already said, that if that part of the Church in which we live be a true and sound part of the Catholic Church, than we are obliged to maintain constant Communion with it. And that the Established Church of England is such a true and sound part of the Catholic Church, even our Dissenters themselves have fully proved. For all or most of those, with whom I am to Treat, have joined in our solemn Offices of Devotion; which they could not lawfully do, if our Church were not a true and sound part of the Catholic Church of Christ. But I shall not insist upon that personal argument; because I design to descend to particulars, and to show First, that our Church is a true and sound part of the Christian Church, and Secondly, that those Pleas which the Dissenters make use of to excuse their separation from her, are vain and frivolous.  
First, Then, the Established Church of England is a true and sound part of the Catholic Church. That 'tis a true Church, appears from the Confession of the most Eminent and Sober 
(a) Bayly's Dissuasive, c. 2. p. 21. Corbet's Discourse of the Religion of England, p. 33. Non-Conformists not Schismatics, p. 13. See Ball's Friendly Trial, c. 13. p. 306. Letter of Ministers in Old England to Ministers in New England, p. 24.  Non-Conformists; nay the Old Non-Conformists undertake to 
(b) A Grave and Sober Confut. p. 1. etc. p. 57  prove it, and so does the 
(c) Jerubbaal, or the Pleader impleaded, p. 18. & 27.  Author of Jerubbaal; and if I should proceed to particulars, I might fill a Volume with 
(d) Concerning her Doctrine, See the Opinion of the Presbyt. in Corbet's Discourse. §. 21. p. 43. Baxter's 5 Disp. Pref, p. 6. of the Independents in the Peace Offering, p. 12. See also Baxter's Def. of his Cure, part 1. p. 64. part 2. p. 3. Wadsworth's Separ. yet no Schism, p. 60, 62. Throughton's Apology, c. 3. p. 106. and of the Brownists in their Apol. p. 7. Anno 1604. See also Bayly's Dissuasive, c. 2. p. 20, 33. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separ. part 1. §. 9 p. 31. for Opinions concerning her Worship, See Hildersham's Lect. 26. on Joh. p. 121. Contin. of Morn. Exercise, Serm. 4. p. 91. Throughton's Apology, p. 104. Peace Offering, p. 17. for Opinions concerning the Truth, sufficiency and ability of her Ministry, See Bradshaw's Unreasonableness of Separ. p. 16, 27, 37. Grave and Mod. Confut. p. 28. Apologet. Narrat. p. 6. Cotton's Infant Baptism. p. 181. for the defence of the Ordination of our Ministry, See Jus Divi. Minist. Evangel. part 2. p. 12, 16, 17, 25, etc. Jus Diu. regim. Eccles. p. 264, etc. Cawdry's Independency a great Schism, p. 116. and his defence of it, p. 35, 37.  Testimonies. 'Tis true they own her to be a true Church upon different Grounds, because some of the Dissenting Writers are for a National, and others for a Congregational Church; but they 
(e) Jus div. Min. Evangel. p. 12, etc. Brinsly's Church-Remedy, p. 41, 42. Cawdry's Independency a great Schism, p. 60, 89, 132, 172. Tombes's Theodulia, §. 15, 16. pref. etc. 9 §. 3. Crofton's Reformation not Separation p. 10. and Bethshemesh Clouded, p. 101, etc. Church Refor. p. 42. Corbet's account of the Principles, &c, p. 26. Throughton's Apology, p. 103. Baxter's defence of his Cure, part 2. p. 178. Cotton's way cleared, p. 8. his Letter, p. 3. Hooker's Survey, pref. & part 1. p. 47. Goodwin on the Ephes. p. 447, 448, 449.  all agree in this that the Church of England is a true Church, tho' they say she is a corrupted one. Nay our 
(f) Grave and Mod. Confut. p. 6. Goodwin's Zion Coll. visited. Bradshaw's Unreasonableness of the Separation, p. 97.  Brethren do not only grant her to be a true Church, but also declare her to be one of the most valuable, if not the very best in the world. But I shall say no more of this matter, only I refer the Reader to Mr. Baxter's Cure of Ch. divis. dir. 56. p. 263.  
That the Established Church is also a sound, as well as a true part of the Catholic Church might easily appear by an examination of it; but I shall not enter upon so large a work, because it is not necessary: for I conceive that our Dissenters will be not only willing but forward to acknowledge it, when I shall have answered those objections which they are pleased to make against our Communion, and shown that those Pleas which they raise from them, are by no means sufficient to make Separation lawful. I proceed therefore to the several Pleas, and design to examine them in their natural order.   

CHAP. II. The use of indifferent things in the Worship of God, no objection against our Communion.  
THE First Objection against our Communion is drawn from the use of indifferent things. Our Adversaries say, that indifferent things may not lawfully be used in the worship of God, and that our Communion is therefore unlawful, because we require men to use such indifferent things. Now that this objection may be fully answered, I shall do four things; viz.  
First, I shall show what is meant by indifferent things.  
Secondly, I shall show that indifferent things may be lawfully used in divine Worship.  
Thirdly, I shall consider how we may know, what things are indifferent in the worship of God.  
Fourthly, I shall show, how we are to determine ourselves in the use of indifferent things with respect to the worship of God.  
I. Then, I shall show what is meant by indifferent things. All actions are either duties or sins, or indifferent, that is, such as are neither duties nor sins. Duties or sins are so, either in their own nature or by Divine Law. That which is commanded is a duty; that which is forbidden is a sin; but that, which is neither commanded nor forbidden, is indifferent; because 'tis neither duty nor sin; and we may either choose or refuse it without sin. For where no law is, there is no transgression; Rom. 4.15. Duty is duty, because 'tis commanded; and sin is sin, because 'tis forbidden; and indifferent is indifferent, because 'tis neither commanded nor forbidden. So that we may as well know by the silence of the Law what is indifferent, as we may know by its Authority what is a duty or a sin. For where there is no Law for or against, the matter is indifferent. As for instance, suppose there should be a dispute concerning days set apart for the service of God; how must this be determined, but by the Law of Nature or Revelation? Now if neither the Law of Nature nor the Law of Revelation say any thing of the observation of such days, than we are at liberty to observe or not to observe them.  
II. Indifferent things may be used in the Divine worship; as appears, 1. From the consideration of the Gospel-rules of worship, which (except what relate to the two Sacraments) are taken from the Nature of the thing, and were the same in all Ages; viz. such as respect Order, Decency and Edification. 1 Cor. 14.26, 40. So that we are no otherwise bound, than all the world ever was; and therefore, since others have always determined the outward circumstances of worship, we have also the same liberty. The Rules themselves are general, and the Apostles rarely descend to particulars; but whenever they do, they show how far Custom, Charity and the reason of the thing ought to govern us; (as in the case of a Man's being uncovered in God's worship, 1 Cor. 11.4, 7.) for they thought it impossible or not worth their while, to tie all Nations to the same Modes, since God may be honoured by one as well as the other. If it be said, that when things are determined in general, the particulars are therein Virtually determined, and so are not indifferent; I answer, that then nothing is indifferent, since there are general rules about every thing. As for example, all Meats are now lawful to Christians; but yet there are general rules, by which we are determined in the use of them, such as our own constitution, etc. but those rules do not make the Meats to be other than indifferent. So there are general rules for God's worship; but yet the particulars are indifferent, and prudence is to regulate them. The general rules of Order, Decency and Edification depend upon variable circumstances, and may be different according to those circumstances. That thing may tend to Order, Decency and Edification in one Country or Age, which in another may tend to the contrary. Thus being covered in the Church, and the Custom of Love-Feasts, etc. were once thought decent; but afterwards the opinions of Men altered. So that Order, Decency and Edification being changeable things as circumstances vary, only general rules can be prescribed; but the particulars must be left to Authority to determine.  
2. Our Saviour and his Apostles did use indifferent things, which were not prescribed, in Divine Worship. Thus he joined in the Synagogal Worship, John 18.20, etc. tho' (if the place itself were at all prescribed) the manner of that Service was not so much as hinted at. Thus he used the Cup of Charity in the Passover, tho' it was not instituted; Luke 22.16. The Feast of Dedication was an human institution, yet he vouchsafed to be present at it. Nay he complied with the Jews in the very posture of the Passover, which they changed to Sitting, tho' God had prescribed Standing. The Apostles also observed the hours of Prayer, which were of human institution, Acts 3.1. Now if Christ and his Apostles did thus under the Jewish Law, which was so exact in prescribing outward Ceremonies; certainly we may do the same under the Gospel. I may add, that the Primitive Christians not only complied with the Jews in such Rites as were not forbidden, but also had some ritual observations taken up by themselves. Thus they 
(a) 1 Tim. 5.10. Ambros. De Sacram. lib. 3. cap. 1.  washed the Disciples feet in imitation of Christ, and 
(b) Tertull. De Orat. cap. 14.  used Love-Feasts; till they thought it convenient to lay them aside. From whence it appears that prescription is not necessary to make a Rite lawful; 'tis enough if it be not forbidden.  
If it be said, that these usages of the Christian Church were civil observances, and used as well out of God's worship as in it; and therefore what there needed no institution for, might be lawfully used without it; I answer, 1. That this justifies most of our usages; for a white Garment was used in civil cases as a sign of Royalty and Dignity, etc. 2. A civil observance, when used in Religious worship, either remains civil, when so applied; or is religious, when so applied. If it be civil, then kneeling in God's worship is not religious, because 'tis a posture used in civil matters. If it be religious, than a rite that is not prescribed, may be used in worship to a religious end. 3. 'Tis evident, that 
(c) Buxtorf. Exere. Hist. S●c. Caen.  neither the washing of feet nor the holy Kiss were used as civil rites; and that the latter is called by the Fathers the Seal of Prayer and the Seal of Reconciliation. 4. If a rite's being civil makes it lawful in Divine worship, than any civil rite may be used in worship, and consequently all the ridiculous practices of the Church of Rome would be warrantable. 5. If a rite's being civil makes it lawful in worship, then how can our Adversaries say, that nothing is to be used in worship, but what is prescribed by GOD, except the Natural circumstances of action? For there are many civil Rites which are not natural circumstances of action. Feasting and Salutation are civil usages; but Divine worship can be performed without them. And if these and the like were anciently used in worship, than we have the same liberty to introduce such customs.  
3. If things indifferent, tho' not prescribed, may not be lawfully used in God's worship, than we cannot lawfully join with any Church in the World. For all Churches do in some instances or other take the liberty of using, what the Scripture has no where required. Thus the 
(d) Vid. August. Epist. 118, 119. Basil. De Sp. S. cap. 27. Ambros. De Sacram. lib. 2. cap. 7. & lib. 3. cap. 1.  ancients observed the Feasts of the Passion, Resurrection, etc. Stood in their devotions on the Lord's Day, etc. These things they all agreed in, and thought it unlawful to act against an universal practice. Besides, some Churches had peculiar customs within the bounds of their own Communion. The Church of Rome fasted on Saturdays, others indifferently on any Day. That of Milan washed the feet of persons to be Baptised, but that of Rome did not. Thus in our days some receive the Lord's Supper kneeling, others standing, etc. So that if we must have an Institution for every thing done in the worship of God, and if we must join in nothing which has it not, than we cannot be members of any Church in the World. Nor indeed can I learn how a Christian can, with a good conscience, perform any part of God's worship, if this principle be admitted for true. For habits and gestures are not determined in Scripture, and God's worship cannot be performed without them; and if they are unlawful, for not being commanded, than a man must sin every time he Prays or receives the Sacrament.  
Nay those that condemn the use of such things as are not commanded, do in their practice confute their opinion. For where, I pray, are they commanded to sprinkle the Children that are Baptised? or to receive the Lord's Supper sitting? or to use conceived Prayers? or to touch and kiss the Book in Swearing? Or to enter into a particular Church-covenant? Nay where do they find that the Scripture saith, that there is nothing lawful in divine worship, but what is prescribed; or that what is not commanded is forbidden? Where are we told, that God will be angry with us for doing that, which he has not forbidden? Our brethren themselves will allow, that the time and place of God's worship may be prescribed by Authority; and why then may not necessary circumstances, such as gestures and habits, be thus determined, tho' they be not commanded? Certainly the command of a lawful power does not make that unlawful, which was not forbidden, and by consequence was lawful before.  
They say indeed, that Nadab and Abihu sinned, because they offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not, etc. Leu. 10.1, etc. and therefore there must be a command to make any thing lawful in divine worship. But to this I answer, that the phrase not commanded is constantly applied to such things as are absolutely forbidden. The fire also is called strange; which phrase when applied to matters of worship, signifies as much as forbidden. Thus strange incense, Exod. 30.9, 24. is such as was forbidden, because it was not rightly made; strange vanities is but another word for strange Gods, Jer. 8.19. and thus the fire of these Men was strange, that is forbidden fire. For there was scarce any thing belonging to the Altar, of which more is said than of the fire burning upon it. Leu. 9.24. & 6.12. & 16.12. 'Twas lighted from Heaven, and was to be always burning. When atonement was to be made by incense, the coals were to be taken from thence, and therefore surely 'twas peculiar to those offices. Nay just after the account of the extraordinary way of lighting the fire, follows this relation of Nadab and Abihu, to show wherein they offended. For before it was the office of Aaron's Sons to put fire upon the Altar; and now they suffered for attempting to do as formerly, because Heaven had declared to the contrary. There was also a Conformity between the punishment and the sin; for as fire from the Lord consumed the burnt-offering, so fire from the Lord consumed them. So that their case seems like that of Vzzah, 1 Chron. 13.7, 10, & 15.2. for they acted contrary to God's command. I may add that in other places also the phrase not commanded is applied to things forbidden; such as are called abominations, that is, idolatrous worship, false Prophets, etc. Deut. 17.3, 4. Jer. 7.31. & 19.5. & 32.35. so that since the phrase is always spoken of things plainly forbidden, 'tis a sign, that 'tis rather God's forbidding that made them unlawful, than his not commanding.  
But, say they, why should the phrase be used at all in such matters, if not commanded is not the same as forbidden? To this I answer, that not commanded is only a softer way of speaking, which is usual in all languages, and frequently to be met with in Scripture. Thus God says, that hypocrites choose that in which I delighted not, Is. 66.4. that is, their abominations, as we read, v. 3. So the Apostle says, the Gentiles did things not convenient, Rom, 1.28, 29. that is, envy, murder, etc. And the phrase not commanded is of the like kind, when the things it's applied to, are alike abominable. Besides, if not commanded be the same as forbidden, than the very notion of indifferent things is destroyed, and there is no indifferent thing in the world; because a thing indifferent is, as I said before, that which is neither commanded nor forbidden.  
But 'tis said, that all things not commanded in God's Word are additions to it; and that such additions are unlawful, because God says, Ye shall not add unto the Word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, Deut. 4.2. and the Scribes are condemned, Matth. 15.9. because they taught for doctrines the Commandments of Men. Now to this I reply, that if by adding to the Word they mean doing what the Word forbids; or appointing somewhat else instead of what God has appointed; or expounding away the design of the Word; or making that which is not the Word of God, to be of equal authority with it, as the Scribes did; or giving the same efficacy to human institutions as God does to his; if I say by adding to the Word they mean any of these things, we think that adding to the Word is unlawful. And if by diminishing they mean neglecting what the Word requires, or thinking God's institutions not complete, we think that diminishing from the Word is unlawful. But if they say, that doing any thing not commanded in the worship of God, tho' it have none of the ingredients before spoken of, is a sinful adding to the Word; we therein differ from them. 1. Because Christ and his Apostles and all Churches have done things not commanded. 2. Because this destroys the nature of indifferent things; which cannot be indifferent, if they be sinful additions to God's Word. Besides, adding is adding to the Substance, and diminishing is diminishing from the Substance; so that when the Substance remains entire without debasement or corruption, it cannot be called an addition or diminution in the Scripture-sence. However our Adversaries themselves are really guilty of what they charge upon us; for they forbidden, as absolutely unlawful, to use any thing in the worship of God, which is not prescribed; and certainly he that forbids what the Scripture does not forbid, does as much add to it, as he that commands what the Gospel doth not command.  
As for the Words of the 2d Commandment, Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image, etc. they do by no means prove, that we must worship God by no other Religious rites, than what he has prescribed. 'Tis true, we are there commanded to worship none besides God, and to worship God in a manner suitable to his Nature and agreeable to his Will: but surely rites instituted by Men for the Solemnity of God's Service are not there forbidden. It has been said indeed, that Ceremonies, being invented by Man, are of the same nature with images; but we must observe, 1. That Images are expressly forbidden, and Ceremonies are not. 2. That Images tend to debase God in the thoughts of those that worship him after that Manner, but Ceremonies do not; and therefore Ceremonies are not a breach of the 2d. Commandment. Ceremonies are not Essential parts of Divine Worship, but only circumstances of it; and certainly our Brethren cannot find fault, that such circumstances are used to further Devotion. For they themselves do plead for sitting at the Lord's Supper, etc. upon this very account, because they think such external circumstances do further Devotion.  
But, say they, if there be not a Rule for all things belonging to the Worship of God, the Gospel would be less perfect than the Law; and Christ would not be so faithful in the care of his Church, as Moses, who was faithful in all his house, Heb. 3.2. Therefore as Moses laid down all the particular Rules for God's Worship under the Law, so has Christ under the Gospel; and it is as dangerous to add, as to detract from them. Now to this I answer, that the design of the Epistle to the Hebrews is to compare Moses and Christ, or the Law and the Gospel, and to show the exact Correspondence between the Type and the Antitype; and not to show that our Saviour had as particularly prescribed the Order of Christian Worship, as Moses had that of the Jewish. The Gospel is not so particular in the Circumstantials of Worship as the Law was; and we must not affirm that it is, because we would have it so. We cannot prove, that Christ has actually done this, because we imagine that he should have done it. We may better argue, that since these things are not expressly determined under the Gospel, as they were under the Law; therefore they are left to the determination of our Superiors, whom we are commanded to obey. Nor are the sufficiency of Scripture and faithfulness of Christ, to be judged of by what we fancy they should have determined, but by what they have. Since we do not find in the Scriptures such particular prescriptions in Baptism as in Circumcision, nor in the Lord's Supper as in the Passover, nor in our Prayers as in the Jewish Sacrifices; therefore 'tis plain, that the sufficiency of Scripture and faithfulness of Christ do respect somewhat else, and that they are not the less for want of them. Christ was faithful as Moses to him that appointed him, in performing what belonged to him as a Mediator, and discovering to Mankind in Scripture the Method and Means, by which they may be saved; and the sufficiency of Scripture appears in its being a sufficient means to that end, and it's putting Men into such a State, as will render them capable of attaining to it.  
III. I am next to consider, how we may know, what things are indifferent in the worship of God. To this I might answer briefly, that in things forbidden by human Authority, the not being required in Scripture; and in things required by human Authority, the not being forbidden in Scripture, is a Rule, whereby we may know, what things are indifferent in the worship of God. But because things in their nature indifferent, may become unlawful in their use and application, therefore I shall add the following particulars.  
1. Things are called indifferent from their general Nature, and not as if they were never unlawful; for they are lawful or unlawful, as they are used and applied. 2. A thing may not be required or forbidden by one Law, which is by another; and that may be indifferent in one state which is not in another; and therefore when we say a thing is indifferent, we must consider the Case and Law which it respects. Thus to discourse about common affairs is a thing indifferent; but it is unlawful, when practised in the Church, and in the midst of Religious Solemnities. 3. As there are certain Rules, which we are to respect in common conversation, and which even in that case ought to tie us up in the use of things (otherwise) indifferent: so there are some Rules, which we must have a regard to in the administration of Divine worship. And as in common matters the nature of the thing, in actions the end, in conversation the circumstances are to be heeded, viz. time, place, persons; as when, where, before whom we are covered and uncovered, etc. so in sacred matters, the nature of the thing, in the decency and solemnity of the worship; the end for which it was appointed, in the Edification of the Church; and the Peace, Glory and Security of that, are to be respected. By these Rules we are to judge of the indifferency of things in God's service. But because these Rules are general; and Decency, Edification and Order are variable according as circumstances altar; and because different men have different opinions of them; therefore I shall give more particular Directions.  
1. Some things are so notoriously agreeable or opposite to Decency, Edification and Order, that common reason will be able to judge of them. Thus 'tis plain, that a tumultuous speaking of many together is less for Edification, and has more of confusion, than the orderly speaking of one by one; and service in an unknown Tongue does less conduce to Edification, than when 'tis in a Language commonly understood. But, 2. There are other things which are not so evident; and therefore for the clearing of them we may observe;  
1. That Decency, Order and Edification depend upon each other, and must not be considered asunder. And therefore we must not throw down the bounds of public Order, and bring all things into confusion, for the sake of Edification, or because we think any matter indecent. What is against public Order and Practice, is for that reason indecent, were there no other reason to make it so. So that if we would judge aright of either of these, we must judge of them together; and as Order alone is not enough to make a thing Decent, which is in itself indecent; so Decency or particular Edification is not enough to recommend that, which cannot be introduced without the disturbance of public Order.  
2. That when the case is not apparent, we should rather judge by what is contrary, than by what is agreeable to these rules. We know better, what things are not, than what they are; and therefore, since we better know what is indecent than decent, disorderly than orderly, against Edification than for it, it's best to take this course in judging about it. As for instance, if we would inquire into the decency of the posture to be used in the Lord's Supper, or the Edification that may arise from it; it may not perhaps be so easy for a Man to judge of the greater Decency and Edification of kneeling or sitting; but if he find that the posture enjoined is not indecent or destructive of Piety, and of the ends for which the ordinance was instituted, he is therewith to satisfy himself. If, says St. Austin, Epist. 118. what is enjoined be not against Faith or good manners, it is to be accounted indifferent; and I may add, if it be not indecent, disorderly and destructive of Piety, it's lawful.  
3. That if the case be not apparent, and we cannot easily find out how the things enjoined are decent, etc. we are obliged to be cautious how we condemn an action, which those men practise whom for other things we cannot condemn. When we find that they argue, and produce Experience and Reason for it, and we have a whole Church against our Opinion, we should be apt to think the fault may be in ourselves; and that 'tis for want of understanding and insight, for want of use and Trial, and by reason of some prejudices, that we thus differ in our judgement from them. We see what little things do determine men ordinarily in these matters, how addicted they are to their own ways and customs; and therefore we should think again. So may we be reconciled to the rites of a Church, as we are to the customs and habits of a Nation, which at first seem as indecent, as the Ceremonies of a Church can do. In short, we have reason to suspect, 'tis a Zeal without Knowledge, when we presume to set our Judgement, Reason and Experience against the Judgement, Reason and Experience of the Christian World.  
iv I am now to show in the last place, how we are to determine ourselves in the use of indifferent things, with respect to the worship of GOD.  
1. Then as particular Persons, solitary and alone, we may forbear to use what is indifferent, when no Law of Man requires it; and we may freely use it, when no Law of Man forbids it. 2. In our conversation with others we must so use our Liberty, as shall be less to the prejudice and more to the benefit of those we converse with. We may act or forbear in compliance with Persons of weaker Judgement. But 3. as we are Members of a Church, we are to obey the commands of it. For if the not grieving a Brother or endangering his Soul obliges us to restrain the exercise of our Liberty, much more does the Peace of the Church oblige us to the same. Let every one please his neighbour, for his good to Edification, Rom. 15.2. that is, to his improvement in Knowledge, Grace, or Piety, and the promoting of Concord and Charity. Now Edification is chief so with respect to the whole, as the Church is the House of God, 1 Pet. 2.5. and every Christian is a Stone of it, and therefore aught to study what may be for the Edification of the whole. And how is that, but by promoting Love, Peace and Order, and taking care to preserve it? For so we 
(e) 1 Cor. 14.26. 2 Cor. 10.8. 1 Tim. 1.4. Rom. 14.19. 1 Thess. 5.11. Eph. 4.12, 16.  find Peace and Edifying, Comfort and Edification, Union and Edification joined together, as the one promotes the other. And therefore as the good and Edification of the Church is to be always in our Eye; so 'tis the Rule by which we ought to act in all things lawful; and to that end we should comply with its customs, observe its directions, and obey its orders, without reluctancy and opposition.  
If any Man seem, or have a mind to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God; 1 Cor. 11.16. Whatever might be urged, the Apostle concludes, we have no such Custom, etc. The Peace of the Church is to a peaceable mind sufficient to put an end to all disputes about it; and since the Peace of the Church depends upon the observation of its customs, that is infinitely to be preferred before scrupulosity and niceness, or a mere inclination to a contrary practice. There must be somewhat established; and the very change of a custom, tho' it may happen to profit, yet doth disturb by its Novelty, says St. Austin, Epist. 118. Infirmity in a Church is better than confusion; and in things which neither we nor the worship are the worse for, but the Church the better for observing, Peace and Order are to be preferred far before niceties; and certainly neither we nor the service of God can be the worse for what God has concluded nothing in. In a word, what St. Austin and his Mother received from St. Ambrose is worthy to be recommended to all; That in all things not contrary to Truth and good Manners, it becomes a good and prudent Christian to practise according to the custom of the Church where he comes, if he will not be a scandal to them, nor have them to be a scandal to him. Epist. 118, & 86.  
And if the custom and practice of a Church must oblige a good Man; much more ought it so to do, when 'tis Established by Law, and backed by Authority. For then to stand in opposition, is not only an Offence but an Affront; 'tis to contend, whether we or our Superiors shall Govern; and what can be the issue of such a temper, but distraction? 'Tis pleaded, that there should be a Liberty left to Christians in things undetermined in Scripture; but there are things which they must agree in, or else there can be nothing but confusion. For instance, what Order can there be, if Superiors may not determine, whether Prayers shall be long or short, and the like? To conclude, when the Scripture does neither require nor forbid an action, we ought to obey the Orders of the Church in the performance or omission of it.  
But 'tis said, That if we be restrained in the use of indifferent things, we are also restrained in our Christian Liberty, which the Apostle exhorts us to stand fast in, Gal. 5.1. Now to this I answer; 1. This is no argument to those that say, there is nothing indifferent in the worship of God; for then there is no matter of Christian Liberty in it. 2. A restraint of our Liberty, or receding from it, is of itself no violation of it. The most scrupulous Persons plead, that the strong aught to bear with the weak, and give them no offence by indulging that Liberty, which others are afraid to take; and why, I pray, is a Man's Liberty more damaged, when restrained by Superiors, than when 'tis restrained by another's Conscience? If it be said, that the Superiour's command restrains it perpetually; I answer, that the case is still the same; for the Apostle who knew his own Liberty, supposes that it would not be damnifyed, tho' it were restrained for his whole life. For, says he, if Meat make my Brother to offend, I will eat no Flesh while the World standeth; 1 Cor. 8.13. and this he would not have said, had he not thought it consistent with standing fast in that Liberty, etc. 3. Christian Liberty is indeed nothing else, but freedom from the restraints, which the Jewish Law laid upon men. This is that Liberty which we are exhorted to stand fast in; and I think, that in obeying the orders of our Church, there is no danger of Judaisme. But we must note that Christian Liberty consists, not in our being freed from the act of observing the Jewish Law; but in being freed from the necessity of observing it. For the Apostles and first Christians did observe it for some time upon prudential considerations; but they did so, not out of necessity, but in condescension to their weak Converts. And if they could observe some Judaical Rites without infringing their Christian Liberty; certainly we may safely use a few indifferent Ceremonies.  
From what has been said it plainly appears, that the use of indifferent things is no objection against living in Communion with our Established Church; and this is enough to satisfy those Persons, who upon no other account, than that of a few harmless impositions, are guilty of separation from her. But because they have some particular objections against some particular things imposed by her, therefore I shall not satisfy myself with proving the lawfulness of using indifferent things in general, but endeavour to satisfy all their scruples which relate to single instances, as I shall have occasion to treat of them in the following Chapters.   

CHAP. III. Of the Lawfulness and Expediency of Forms of Prayer.  
THE next objection against our Communion is the use of Forms of Prayer. This the Dissenters judge to be unlawful, or at least not expedient; and they think it a sufficient excuse for their separation from us. I shall therefore in this Chapter endeavour to rectify their mistakes; 1. By showing that both Scripture and Antiquity do warrant Forms of Prayer. 2. By answering their objections against Forms of Prayer. And 3. by proving that the imposition of Forms of Prayer may be lawfully complied with.  
First then I shall show, that both Scripture and Antiquity do warrant Forms of Prayer. The Dissenters indeed require us to produce some positive command of Scripture for the use of Forms of Prayer; but this is needless, because I have shown in the foregoing Chapter, that things not commanded may be lawfully used in Divine worship. However, for their full satisfaction I shall endeavour to prove these Two things; 

1. That some Forms of Prayer are commanded in Holy Scripture.  
2. That tho' no Forms were commanded, yet Forms are as Lawful as extempore Prayers.    
I. Then, some Forms of Prayer are commanded in Holy Scripture. I do not say that God's Word commands us to use none but Forms; but I affirm that several Forms of Prayer are enjoined in God's Word. Thus Numb. 6.23, etc. the Priest is commanded to Pray for the People in this very Form of words, The Lord bless thee, etc. And Deut. 21.7, 8. the People are enjoined to say, Be merciful, O Lord, etc. and 26.13, etc. I have brought, etc. Look down from thy Holy, etc. David also by Divine inspiration appointed the Book of Psalms for the public service, as appears by the Titles of many of them. And tho' some of them have no Titles at all, yet we find they were delivered by David into the hands of Asaph and his Brethren, for Forms of Praise and Thanksgiving, 1 Chron. 16.7. and accordingly Hezekiah commanded the Levites to make use of them, 2 Chron. 29.30. This Liturgy also was renewed by Ezra, Ezr. 3.10, 11. Besides our Saviour says, When ye Pray, say, Our Father, etc. in which he does as plainly prescribe that very Form, as 'tis possible. Nay had he said, use this Form, it could not have been more expressive of his intention to impose it as a Form.  
If it be said, that the Lord's Prayer is not a Form, but only a Pattern or Directory of Prayer; because our Saviour, Matt. 6.9. commanded his Disciples to Pray after this manner, Our Father, etc. I answer, 1. When the same matter is mentioned ambiguously in one Text, and plainly in another, than the doubtful or ambiguous Text must be determined by the plain one. Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Matt. 6.9. may be as well translated Pray in these words, as Pray after this manner; but I confess, we cannot certainly know from that Text, whether Christ commands us to use that very Form, or one like it. But then the words, Luke 11.2. When ye Pray, say, Our Father, etc. are so express a command to use that very Form, that nothing can be plainer; and therefore the other Text must be determined by them. 2. Our Saviour gave this Prayer not after the manner of a Directory, but of a Form. Had he designed it for a Directory, he would have bidden them to call upon God for such and such things: whereas he gives them a Formed Prayer, and bids them say it; and we may reasonably suppose, that he intended we should use it as a Form, since he gave it as such. 3. Tho' the words in St. Matthew were only a Directory, yet those in St. Luke are a Form of Prayer. For the former were delivered in the Sermon upon the Mount, in the second year after his Baptism; but the latter upon another quite different occasion in the third year after it. Therefore 'tis probable, that the Disciples understood those in St. Matthew only as a Directory; and requested our Saviour afterwards to give them a Form. For, 4. the occasion of Christ's giving them this Prayer in St. Luke, was their requesting him to Teach them to pray, as John taught his Disciples. For 'twas the custom of the Jewish Doctors to Teach their Disciples a particular Form of Prayer; and St. John had done the same, and the Disciples desire, that Christ would do so too. For neither St. John's, nor our Saviour's Disciples could be ignorant how to Pray; but their request was, that Christ would give them his particular Form according to the Jewish custom; and this Form he gave them, which we call the Lord's Prayer.  
But 'tis objected, that supposing our Saviour did prescribe it as a Form, yet it was only for a time, till they should be more fully instructed and enabled to Pray by the coming of the Holy Spirit. For, say they, before Christ's Ascension the Disciples had asked nothing in his Name, Joh. 16.24. but all Prayers after Christ's Ascension were to be offered in his Name, Joh. 14.13, 14. & 16.23. Now this Prayer has nothing of his Name in it; and therefore was not designed to be used after his Ascension; and accordingly, say they, in all the New Testament we have not the least intimation of the Disciples using this Form. But this objection is of no force, if we consider the following particulars.  
1. That our Saviour has not given us the least intimation, that he prescribed this Form only for a time, and not for continual use. And if we may pronounce Christ's Institution to be null without his Authority, than Baptism and the Lord's Supper may be temporary prescriptions, as well as the Lord's Prayer. Whatever Christ has instituted without limitation of time, does always oblige.  
2. That his not inserting his own Name into it, is no Argument at all, that he never intended it should be used after his Ascension. For to Pray in Christ's Name is to Pray in his Mediation, depending upon his Merits and Intercession for the acceptance of our Prayers; and therefore Prayers may be offered up in Christ's Name, tho' we do not name him. Thus without doubt the Disciples Prayed in his Name, Acts 4.24. tho' his Mediation is not mentioned. 'Tis true, his Name is not expressed in the Lord's Prayer; because when he gave it, he was not yet Ascended, and his Disciples were not to ask in his Name, till after his Ascension: but now that he is Ascended, we can as well offer it in his Name, as if it had been expressed in it. Nay 'tis so framed, that now after his Ascension, when the Doctrine of his Mediation was to be more fully explained, we cannot offer it at all, but in and through his Mediation. For God is peculiarly our Father in and through Jesus Christ. And therefore Christ's not inserting his own Name, does by no means prove, that he did not design it for a standing Form.  
3. That tho' the Scriptures do not mention the Apostles and Disciples using the Lord's Prayer, yet this is no argument either that they did not use it, or that they did not believe themselves obliged to use it. For we may as well conclude from the silence of Scripture, that they did not Baptise in the Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, tho' Christ had commanded them so to do; as we may conclude, that they did not use the Lord's Prayer, tho' Christ commanded them to say, Our Father, etc. Especially if we consider, that those who lived nearest the Apostolical Ages, and so were the most competent Judges of what was done in them, where the Scripture is silent, did always use this Form in their Public Prayers, and believe themselves obliged to do so. Now that this Prayer was looked upon as a standing Form, to be perpetually used, appears from Tertull. de Orat. St. Cyprian de Orat. Dom. St. Cyril, Cat. Mist. 5. St. Jerom. in Pelag. l. 3. St. Austin. Hom. 42.50. Epist. 59 St. Chrysost. de Simult. St. Gregory Ep. lib. 7. cap. 6. And to be sure, they who believed the Institution of it to be perpetually obliging, could not doubt, but that it was constantly used in the Apostolic Age. And methinks 'tis very strange, that had the Institution been temporary, the Church of Christ for Fifteen hundred Years, should never be wise enough to discover it; and it seems to me a very high presumption for us to determine against the constant belief and practice of the Church in all Ages, without the least warrant so to do, either from our Saviour or his Apostles.  
But it is Objected yet farther, that tho' Forms of God's appointing may and aught to be used, yet Forms of Man's composure ought not: and that we may as well appoint New Scripture for Public instruction, because the inspired persons did so; as we may appoint new Forms for Public worship, because they did so. But this objection also will be of no force, if we consider Four things.  
1. That this Objection allows the prescribing of Forms to be lawful in its own nature; for otherwise God must have done that which is unlawful in its own nature. Nay our Saviour's prescribing his Form was a tacit approbation of other Forms, that were prescribed before, and that not only by God, but by Men too. For the Jews used several Forms of human composure in their Temple and Synagogues in our Saviour's time, yet he was so far from disapproving them, that he prescribed a Form to his own Disciples; which Form, as Mr. Gregory has proved, he collected out of the Jewish Forms, in whose Books the several Parts and Clauses of it are Extant almost verbatim to this day. And certainly had he disapproved their Forms as evil and sinful, he would never have Collected his own Prayer out of them. Since therefore our Saviour's giving a Form in such circumstances signifies his approbation of other Forms, 'tis plain either that he approved what is evil, or that Forms are lawful.  
2. That this Objection must allow the prescribing of Public Forms to be not only lawful, but also useful. For otherwise God, who always Acts for wise Ends, and Uses the most proper means, would never have prescribed any Forms. And certainly what was once useful, is useful still. For 1. we are now dull and carnal enough to need Forms; and 2. our Saviour has prescribed one to be used in all Ages, which he would not have done, had it not been useful for the Gospel-state.  
3. That this Objection must also allow, that God's prescribing Forms by Inspired Persons may be lawfully imitated by us, provided we have the same reason for it. And therefore Governors may prescribe Forms as long as Forms are useful.  
4. That tho' Governors may prescribe Forms after God's Example, yet they may not prescribe them as Scripture, or Divine Inspiration. For as Spiritual Governors must take care to instruct the People after God's Example, but are not obliged to do it by Inspired Persons: so they may prescribe Forms of Prayer after God's Example, but cannot pretend to do it by Inspiration. They have God's Example for doing the Action; but they cannot pretend to Inspiration in the doing of it without manifest falsehood and presumption. And therefore, tho' God's Example will warrant for the one; yet it will not warrant them falsely to pretend to the other. Thus than it appears, that some Forms of Prayer are commanded in Holy Scripture; and that our Governors are Authorised by God's Example to prescribe others, when they judge them useful.  
II. Therefore, I am to prove, that tho' no Forms were prescribed, yet Forms are as lawful as conceived or Extempore Prayers. Certainly there is no command of God to pray Extempore; and therefore Forms have a better claim to Divine Authority, than they. 'Tis said indeed, that wheresoever we are commanded to Pray Vocally, we are commanded to Pray in our own Conceptions and words; but this is a great mistake. For certainly when God commanded Men to Pray by his own Forms, they did pray Vocally, tho' not in their own words. And here let me take notice, that Dissenters appropriate the Name of Prayer to Praying in their own words; and call the using a Form (not Prayer, but) Reading a Prayer. But surely the Levites did really Pray, when they used the Words of David and Asaph; and so did the Primitive Christians, when they said the Lord's Prayer; and if so, than a Form may be truly called a Vocal Prayer. For Vocal Prayer consists in the speaking of our devout affections to God whether with, or without a Form.  
But they pretend, that whatsoever instances there may be of Forms in Old Times, God has declared in the New Testament, that it is his Will, we should Pray by our own gift of utterance for the future. Now methinks, had it been the Will of God, that we should not Pray by Forms, 'tis very strange that in all the New Testament there should be no express prohibition of it. Especially since I have proved that the Jews had Forms, and Philo de Victim. p. 483. and the Modern Rabbins own the same; they were also a People most tenacious of their customs, and therefore needed to be forbidden the use of Forms, had our Lord designed to exclude them out of his Worship. Nay the Essenes', who of all the Sects of the Jews, did most readily embrace Christianity, had certain Forms of Prayer, as Josephus observes, De Bell. Jud. l. 2. c. 7. p. 783. Now when those that were most likely to receive the Christian Faith, were so addicted to Forms, can we imagine, that had Christ intended they should use them no longer, he would not have given them express warning of them? But when instead of so doing, he bids them say, Our Father, etc. how could they think, but that he designed they should still use a Form, as they did before? Were not that his design, 'tis strange, that he took no care to undeceive them.  
But that I may fully prove, that the Scripture does not command us to Pray without a Form; I shall examine the reasons for which the Dissenters think it does. God, say they, has promised us an ability to utter our minds in Vocal Prayer, and therefore to Pray by Forms of other Men's composure is contrary to his intention. But I shall afterwards prove, that this ability, which they pretend is promised for the purpose of Vocal Prayer, is a common gift, which God has no more appropriated to Prayer, than to any other end of utterance and elocution; and that therefore to omit the using it in Prayer, is no more contrary to the intention of God, than to omit the using it upon any other just and lawful occasion. However, because they urge some places of Scripture to prove, that 'tis designed merely for Vocal Prayer, I shall therefore consider them. 1. They urge Zach. 12.10. I will pour out upon the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and supplications. The Hebrew word, translated supplications, does always (say they) denote Vocal Prayer, and therefore pouring out the Spirit of supplications must imply communicating an ability to Pray Vocally. To this I answer, that the word is no more restrained to Vocal Prayer, than any other word that signifies Prayer in Scripture. 'Tis true we read, Psal. 28.2. Hear the voice of my supplication, when I cry unto thee; but the voice of my supplication does not necessarily denote Vocal Prayer. For 'tis a Hebrai●●, and may signify no more than my Supplication or Prayer. For so Gen. 4.10. 'tis said, The voice of thy Brother's blood cries, etc. Now the blood had no real voice to cry with, but cried just as mental Prayer does. In other places the word signifies both mental and vocal Prayer indifferently, Psal. 86.6. & 6.9. or Prayer in general, Jer. 31.9. But suppose the word were always used for Vocal Prayer, yet surely the Promise of pouring out the Spirit of supplications intends a much greater good than the gift of extempore utterance in Prayer, of which bad Men may have a greater share than the most devout. And what is that greater good, but the gift of Heavenly affections in Prayer? If it be urged, that God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son, crying, Abba Father. Gal. 4.6. and that we have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba Father, Rom. 8.15. and that these Texts prove us to be enabled to Pray Vocally by the Spirit, and that therefore we ought not to Pray by Forms; I answer, 1. That if these words oblige us to cry Vocally to God by our own gifts, than we are equally obliged in all our Vocal Prayers to cry to him in these words, Abba Father; because that is the cry which the Spirit enables us to make, and the Text is every whit as express for one as for the other. 2. I deny that crying here does necessarily denote Vocal Prayer. For how often do we find the word applied to things that have no Voice at all? Thus the stones would immediately cry out, Luke 19.40. and the Labourers hire is said to cry to God, James 5.4. And indeed crying to God has the same latitude with Prayer, which includes both Vocal and Mental. 3. Suppose that crying, Abba Father, by the Spirit, signifies Vocal Prayer; yet all that can be gathered from it is only this, that when we Pray Vocally, we are enabled by the Holy Spirit to address ourselves to God with assurance, as to a merciful Father; and this we may as well do in a Form as otherwise. For if we never cry Abba Father by the spirit, but when we word our own Prayers, we can no more be said to do it when we join with a public Extempore Prayer, than when we join with a public Form, because we word our own Prayers in neither.  
'Tis true, the Scripture speaks of a gift of utterance, which, say they, was given for Praying as well as Preaching; but I answer, that the gift of utterance was miraculous and particular to the Primitive Ages. This gift, says Saint Chrysostom Hom. 24. ad Eph. c. 6. is that which Christ promised, Mark 13.11. by which the Disciples spoke without premeditation, and what they spoke was the inspired Word of God; and this Gift no sober Dissenter will pretend to. The Apostles began to speak with tongues, as the spirit gave them utterance, Act. 2.4. and the Dissenters may as well pretend to the gift of Tongues, as that of Utterance, they being both extraordinary.  
But say they, tho' all Men have not the Gift of Praying Extempore, yet some have; and therefore God requires such to Pray by their gift and not by a Form. For he requires them not to neglect the gift, 1 Tim. 4.14. but to stir up the gift, 2 Tim. 1.6. and to Minister the gift, 1 Pet. 4.10. and that having gifts, etc. Rom. 12.6. and if Men are obliged to exercise their gifts in general, than they must exercise their gift of Praying Extempore in particular. Now to these things, I answer, First, That the gift bestowed upon Timothy was the gift of Episcopal power, which he is exhorted to exercise diligently. For at the first plantation of the Gospel, the Holy Ghost Pointed out the Men, that were to be Bishops, as the 
(f) Clem. 1 Epist. ad Corinth. Chrysost. in Act. 13.2.  Fathers testify. For this reason the gift is said to be given him by Prophecy. 'Twas given also with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery; and these two circumstances prove, that the gift was not the gift of Prophesying, but the gift of Episcopal Authority bestowed upon him by imposition of hands at God's particular Appointment. And now I pray, how does this Text prove, that we must use a gift of Vocal Prayer in our own words?  
As for 1 Pet. 4.10. Rom. 12.6. I Answer, 1. That there can be nothing in them against Praying by a Form; for than they would make as much against using the Lord's Prayer, as any other Form. 2. That the design of those Texts is to stir Men up to diligence in the exercise of those several Offices, viz. The Office of a Bishop, a Priest, a Deacon, and a Rich Man. For 'tis plain that the word Gift does oftentimes signify an Office; and tho' it may be said, that the relief of the Poor is rather the exercise of an Ability than an Office, yet I answer, that 'tis properly the exercise of an Office, because the very having Ability does as much put a Man into the Office of showing mercy to the Poor, as if God had appointed him to it by a solemn Ordination. 3. Supposing that by these gifts were not meant Offices, but only abilities, yet we are obliged so to exercise them, That all things may be done to Edification; for so the Apostle declares that those extraordinary Gifts, that were poured out in the Primitive Times, were to be used, 1 Cor. 14.2, 6, 19, 40. as 'tis particularly plain by the instance of the Gift of Tongues, vers. 23, 26, 28. Now if we are not to exercise our gifts, but as they tend to Edification, than we must not exercise the gift of Praying Extempore any farther than it tends to Edification. And since Praying by a Form in Public Worship does (as I shall afterwards prove) tend more to Edification, than Praying Extempore; therefore 'tis plain that we ought to suspend the use of the gift of conceived Prayer. Thus, I hope, I have made it appear that some Forms of Prayer are commanded in Scripture, and that those Texts which are urged against the use of forms of Prayer, do prove nothing against them; and therefore I think I may safely affirm, that the Scripture does warrant Forms of Prayer.  
I proceed now to show that Antiquity does the same. This I shall do, 1. by answering those Authorities, which are objected by the Dissenters against the use of Forms in the Primitive Ages. 2. By proving that they were used in those Ages, by a short Historical Account of the matter of Fact.  
1. Then 'tis objected, First that Justin Martyr says, Apol. 2. p. 98. That the Minister at the Communion Prayed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, say they, according to his ability; from whence they infer, that in his days the Ministers Prayed by their own gifts and abilities. To this I answer, that the words do signify with all his might, i. e. with his utmost fervency. For the same words are spoken of the People in the same Book, p. 60. who did not compose their own Prayer at the Eucharist; and the same Phrase is used in the same sense by Nazianzen, Orat. 3. 2dly, Because Tertullian in his Apology affirms, that Christians did Pray without a Monitor or Prompter, because they did Pray from their hearts; they think he alludes to a custom of the Heathen, who in their public worship had a Monitor to direct them in what words and to what God they were to Pray. Now since the Christians Prayed without a Monitor, therefore say they, they Prayed without any one to direct them what Form of words they were to pray in. To which I answer, 1. That without a Monitor cannot signify, without any one to dictate a Form of words. For in their public Prayers the Minister was the Mouth of the People; and therefore whether he Prayed by Form or extempore, his words were a Form to the People. Whatever therefore this obscure Phrase means, 'tis certain it cannot mean without a Form, unless it means without a Minister too. 2. It seems to me most probable, that by without a Monitor is meant, without any one to correct them, when either the People repeated or the Minister recited the public Prayers falsely. For 
(g) A. Gell. Noct. Att. l. 13. c. 21. Rosin. Antiq. l. 3. c. 33.  the Heathen Priests began their Sacrifices with a Form of Prayer, which began with an Invocation of Janus and Vesta, and proceeded with the invocations of all the greater Deities by name. Now that none of the greater God's might be pretermitted, and 
(h) Plin. l. 28. c. 2.  none of the Prayers falsely or disorderly recited or repeated, 
(i) Livia, l. 4.  one Priest read out of a Ritual, and another was appointed for a Public Monitor, to oversee and correct such mistakes as might be made. When therefore Tertullian says, We Pray without a Monitor, his meaning is not, that we Pray without a Priest to dictate our Prayers to us, whether out of a Book or Extempore; but that we Pray without one to oversee, to admonish the Priests or People, when they dictate or repeat falsely. Because, says he, we Pray from our hearts; that is, either by joining our affections and desires with the Priest without repeating the words, or by saying our Prayers by heart; so that we need none to correct us. For Tertullian affects to express the Greek; and therefore 'tis probable his de pectore, or from the heart may be a translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies to say by heart. So that Tertullian's words do rather argue for the use of Forms, than against them. The Third and last testimony against the Antiquity of Forms of Prayer, is that of Socrates Scholasticus, whose words, Hist. lib. 5. c. 22. they thus translate; Every where and in all worships of Prayer, there are not two to be found, that speak the same words. And therefore, say they, 'tis very unlikely, they should Pray by Forms. But we must observe, that he had been speaking of the different ceremonies and customs of the chief Churches; and then concludes, Every where and among all worships of Prayer, there are not two to be sound, (not that speak the same words) but that agree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the same thing. Where by worships of Prayer he means rites of Prayer, which the Churches differed in. And how does it follow, that because they did not use the same rites and ceremonies of Prayer, therefore they did not use Forms of Prayer? For even now we see there are different rites and ceremonies of Prayer among those Churches, which do yet agree in using Forms of Prayer.  
2. Therefore I am to prove, that Forms were used in the Primitive times, by a short Historical account of the matter of fact. 'Tis probable, that in the first Age there was a gift of Praying Extempore by immediate inspiration; and while this gift continued, perhaps there might be no other Form in public Worship, but only that of the Lord's Prayer. But 'tis probable, that upon the ceasing or abatement of it, Forms were composed after the method of those inspired Prayers. For 'tis most likely, that even from the Apostolical Age some part at least of the public Worship was performed in Forms of Prayer; because, so far as we can find, there never was any dispute among Christians concerning the lawfulness of Praying by a Form. For 'tis strange that, if Forms were an innovation, such a remarkable and public innovation should be introduced without the least contest or opposition. For tho' some innovations did creep in; yet every one of that public nature always found powerful adversaries to withstand it.  
But not to insist upon probabilities, we'll inquire into matter of fact. The Liturgies of Saint Peter, St. Mark and St. James, tho' corrupted by latter Ages, yet are doubtless of great antiquity, and probably even from the Apostles times. For besides many things, which have a strong relish of that Age, that of St. James was of great authority in the Church of Jerusalem in St. Cyril's time, who wrote a Comment upon it even in his younger years; and 'tis declared by 
(k) Allat. de Lit. Sti. Jac.  Proclus, and the 
(l) Concil. Trull. c. 32.  Sixth general Council to be of St. James' own Composure; and 'twas probably received in the Church of Jerusalem within 170 years after the Apostolical Age. And that there are Forms of Worship in it as ancient as the Apostles, seems highly probable; For First, all the Form Sursum corda is there, and in St. Cyril's Comment; and the same is in the Liturgies of Rome and Alexandria and the Constitutions of Clemens, which all agree are of great antiquity; and St. Cyprian, who was living within an 100 years after the Apostles, 
(m) De Orat. Dom.  mentions it as a Form then used and received; and St. Austin tells us, that Form is words derived from the very age of the Apostles. The same is asserted by Nicephorus of the Trisagium in particular, Hist. lib. 18. c. 53. 'Tis evident, that from that Primitive Age there was a Form of questions and answers prescribed in Baptism, from the questions and answers, which Tertull. De Resur. Carn. St. Cypr. 76.80. Origen in Numer. Hom. 5. speak of. And if the Minister may be limited to a Form of question, why not to a Form of Prayer, there being as great a necessity to prescribe for the latter as for the former?  
But that de facto there were Forms of Prayer, as well as Questions and Answers used in Baptism, Clemens' Constitutions affirm; and some of the Prayers are there inserted, l. 7. And that Christians did very early use Forms of Prayer in their public Worship, is evident from the Names given to public Prayers; for they are called the 
(n) Justin. Apol. 2. Ignat. Epist. ad Magn.  Common-Prayer, 
(o) Orig. cont. Celf. l. 6.  Constituted Prayers and 
(p) Cypr. de Laps. serm. 14.  Solemn Prayers; which last was the Title by which the Heathens distinguished their 
(q) Vid. Ovid. de fast. lib. 6. Stat. lib. 4. Senec. in Oedip. act. 2. scen. 2.  public Forms of Prayer, and consequently in the Language of that Age must signify a public Form. 
(r) De Spir. S. c. 27. & 29.  St. Basil fetches the Glory be to the Father, etc. from the tradition of the Apostles, and citys it from St. Clemens the Apostles Scholar, and from Dionysius of Alexandria, who was living in the year 200; and Clemens of Alexandria, who was living in the year 160, sets down these words as the Christian Form of Praising God, 
(s) Paedag.  Praising the Father and the Son with the Holy Ghost. So that this Form is older than the time of the Arians; for they are sharply 
(t) Theod. Hist. l. 2. c. 24.  reproved by the Orthodox Fathers for the alteration of it. And indeed a great part of the Primitive Worship consisted of Hymns, which must necessarily be composed into set Forms. Tertull. Apol. cap. 2. and before him Lucian in Philop. and Justin Martyr also, Epist. ad Zen. & Heren. speak of their singing such Hymns. They spend whole nights in watching and singing of Psalms, says Lucian; and Pliny says, that early in the Morning 'twas their manner to sing by turns a Hymn to Christ as God; which Hymn was doubtless of human composure, there being no Hymn to Christ in Scripture of that length, as to take up a considerable part of their public Service. Eusebius tells us, that very early there were various Psalms and Odes composed by Christians concerning the Divinity of Christ 
(u) Euseb. Hist. lib. 5. ; and that Paulus Samosatenus was condemned for suppressing those Hymns that were made in the Honour of Christ, as being the composition of Men of late days 
(w) ibid. Hist. lib. 7. ; tho' in all probability those Hymns were composed within much less than an hundred years after the Apostolical Age. But as for this Hymn which Pliny speaks of, it was earlier, for it could not be much above ten years after the death of St. John, that Pliny gave this account of the Christians to Trajan; and therefore to be sure the Hymn he there speaks of, was used in the Age of the Apostles. About the same time, Lucian makes mention of a Prayer which they used in their public Worship, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, beginning from the Father; which doubtless was the Lord's Prayer: and of a famous Hymn added to the end of their Service, 
(x) Lucian. Philop.  which in all probability was the Hymn that Pliny speaks of. Since therefore the Primitive Worship, did in a great measure consist of Hymns, which were Forms of Praise intermixed with Prayer, and some of these of human composure; this is an evident Testimony of the Primitive use of Forms. And doubtless, they who made no scruple of praying by Form in verse, could not but think it lawful to pray by Form in prose. Now that Praying in Meeter or composed Hymns was a very early practice in the Christian Church, is evident from the Apostolical Constitutions, where it is enjoined, Let the People sing the verses which answer adversly to one another 
(y) Constitut. Apost. l. 2. cap. 5. : which way of singing was so very ancient, that Eusebius 
(z) Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. 2. c. 171.  urges it as an Argument to prove the Essenes' Christians, because they sung by turns, answering one another; and how could they thus answer to one another in their Hymns and Prayers, unless they had constant Forms of Prayer? But that they had such Responsals in Prayer, is evident, because, when Julian for the credit of Gentilism would needs dress it up, 
(a) Soz. Hist. l. 5. c. 15.  after the Order of the Christian Worship; one thing wherein he sought to imitate it was in their constituted Prayers; that is, not in having constituted Forms of Prayer, for that the Heathen had before; but in having such constituted Forms as the Christians had; that is, as Nazianzen 
(b) Nazian. Orat. 1. p. 102.  explains it, a Form of Prayer to be said in parts; for this way of Praying in parts Nicephorus 
(c) Niceph. l. 13. c. 8.  derives from Ignatius, who was a Scholar of the Apostles. All which to me is a plain demonstration of the great Antiquity of Forms. And that in Constantine's time, the Church used public Forms of Prayer, is evident from that often-cited place of Eusebius, 
(d) Euseb. de Laud. Constant.  where he tells us of Constantine's composing Godly Prayers for the use of his Soldiers; and elsewhere tells us in particular what the Prayer was; We acknowledge thee, O God, alone, etc. 
(e) Id. de vit. Constant. c. 20.  which is a plain evidence that it was a set Form of words. But it's objected that this Form was composed only for the use of his Soldiers, who were a great part of them Heathens; and that Constantine's composing it, is a plain evidence, that at that time there were no public Forms in the Church; for if there had, what need Constantine have composed one? To which I answer, That this Form indeed was composed only for his Heathen Soldiers; for as for his Christian Soldiers, the story tells us, that he gave them liberty to go to Church 
(f) Ibid. c. 19 . And therefore all that can be gathered hence is, that the Christian Church had no Form of Prayers for Heathen Soldiers, which is no great wonder; for if they had, it's very unlikely that the Heathen Soldiers would have used it. But that they had Forms is evident, because he calls the Prayers which Constantine used in his Court, according to the manner of the Church of God;▪ 
(g) Ibid. c. 17.  Authorised Prayers; which is the same Title which he 
(h) Ibid. c. 18.  gave to that Form which he made for his Heathen Soldiers. And therefore if by the Authorised Prayers which he prescribed to his Soldiers, he meant a Form of Prayers, as 'tis evident he did: then by the Authorised Prayers which he used in his Court after the manner of the Church, he must mean a Form of Prayer also. And since he had a Form of Prayer in his Court after the manner of the Church, the Church must have a Form of Prayers too.  
'Tis plain then, that the three first Centuries had public Forms of Prayer; after which (not to insist upon the Liturgies of St. Basil, St. Chrysostom and St. Ambrose) we have undeniable testimonies of the same. See St. Chrysost. 2. ad Corinth. Homil. 18. St. Austin de Bapt. cont. Donat. lib. 6. and Concil. Carth. 3. c. 12. Concil. Milev. c. 12. Justin. Novel. 137. Pref. & 1, 2, 6. Nazian. Orat. in Basil 20. says, St. Basil composed Orders and Forms of Prayer: and St. Basil himself, Epist. 63. reciting the Manner of the public Service, that was used in the Monastical Oratories of his Institution, says, that nothing was done therein, but what was consonant and agreeable to all the Churches of God. Nay the Council of Laodicea, holden about the Year 364, expressly provides, That the same Liturgy, or Form of Prayers, should be always used both Morning and Evening, Can. 18. and this Canon is taken into the Collection of the Canons of the Catholic Church; which Collection was established in the General Council of Chalcedon, in the Year 451, by which establishment the whole Christian Church was obliged to the use of Liturgies, so far as the Authority of the General Council extends. And then in the Year 541, these Canons were made Imperial Laws by Justinian, Novel. 131. c. 1. See Zonar. and Balsam. on can. 18. See also Smectym. Answ. to the Remonst. p. 7. Grand. deb.. p. 11. and Concil. Laod. c. 15, 19 Thus for near 600 Years after Christ we have sufficient testimony of the public use of Forms of Prayer.  
And from henceforth, or a little after, down to Mr. Calvin's time, all are agreed, that no Prayers but established Liturgies were used. Nay Calvin, who Prayed Extempore after his Lecture, always used a Form before, Pref. ad Calv. Prael. in Min. Proph. and he composed a Form for the Sunday-Service, which was afterwards established at Geneva. Nay he says, for as much as concerns the Forms of Prayer, and Ecclesiastical Rites, I highly approve that it be determined so, as that it may not be lawful for the Ministers in their administration to vary from it; Ep. 87. Nor is there any one Reformed Church, but what has some public Form of Prayer; nor was the lawfulness of Forms ever called in question before. Nay Mr. Ball, Dr. Owen, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Norton and Mr. Tombs do 
(i) See Ball's Trial, Pref. etc. 1, 2, 3, 8. Baxter's Cure of Ch. Divis. p. 175. Owen's Work of the Spirit in Prayer▪ p. 220.222, 235. Norton's Answer to Apollon. c. 13.  expressly own them to be lawful; and this is said 
(k) Clark's Lives of 10 Divines, p. 255.  to be the tenant of all our (Dissenting) best, and most judicious Divines. It is very well known (says 
(l) Bradshaw's Life in Clark's Coll. in fol. p. 67.  one) that the flower of our own Divines went on in this way, when they might have done otherwise, if they had pleased, in their Prayers before Sermons; and we find Mr. Hildersham's Prayer before Sermon 
(m) See His Doctrine of Fasting and Prayer, Anno 1633·  Printed. This was so universally and constantly practised, that Mr. Clark 
(n) Collect. of 10 Lives, 4 to, p. 38.  tells us, that the first Man who brought conceived Prayer into use in those parts where he lived, was Mr. Sam. Cook, who died but in the Year 1649. Nay the chief Dissenting writers do not only assert, but they also undertake to prove the lawfulness of Forms 
(o) See Ball's Tri l. c. 2. Rogers' Tr. 223. Bryan's Dwelling with God, p. 307. Egerton's Practice of Christianity, c. 11. p. 691. Edit. 5.  from the nature, use and ends of Prayer; and charge the contrary opinion with Enthusiasm 
(p) Grave Confut. Epist. to the Reader. Contin. Morn. Exerc. p. 1006.  and Novelty 
(q) Priest, Serm. on Joh. 1.16. . They grant also, 1. That Forms are not only lawful, but that there are Footsteps of this way of Worship both in the Old and New Testament, as Mr. Tombs and others have showed, 
(r) Theodulia, p. 221. Baxt. Cure, p. 176. Ball's Trial. p. 128, 129. Grave confut. p. 12, 13.  and Mr. Ainsworth (that did otherwise argue against them) does confess 
(s) Annot. on Ex. 12.8. . 2. That they are very ancient in the Christian Church. The Christian Churches of ancient Times, for the space of this 1400 Years at least, if not from the Apostles Time, had their stinted Liturgies, saith Mr. Ball 
(t) Trial, p. 96, 106, 111, 138. & p. 80. : and 
(u) Tombes's Theodulia, p. 222.  they answer Objections to the contrary. 3. That in the best reformed, nay, in all reformed Churches, they are not only used and tolerated, but also 
(w) Ball's Trial, p. 108, etc. Rogers' Treatises, p. 224. Tombes's Theod. p. 234.  useful and expedient. 4. That those amongst us, to whom the use of the Common-Prayer has been most burdensome, have from time to time, professed their liking and approbation of a stinted Liturgy, as Mr. Ball assures us 
(x) Trial, p. 96, 106, 12. . That they thought it altogether unlawful to separate from Churches for the sake of stinted Forms and Liturgies, is not only frequently affirmed by Mr. Ball 
(y) Resp. ad Apol. c. 13. , but little less even by Mr. Norton, 
(z) Sacril. desert. p. 102.  who says, It is lawful to embrace Communion with Churches, where such Forms in public Worship are in use; neither does it lie as a Duty on a Believer, that he disjoin and separate himself from such a Church. And they give this reason for it, that then they must separate from all Churches. So Mr. Baxter 
(a) Defence, part 2. p. 65. See Ball's Trial, p. 131, Rogers's Tr. p. 224. , Is it not a high degree of Pride, to conclude, that almost all Christ 's Churches in the World, for these 13 hundred Years at least to this day, have offered such worship unto God, as that you are obliged to avoid it? And that almost all the Catholic Church on Earth this day, is below your Communion for using Forms? And that even Calvin, and the Presbyterians, Cartwright, Hildersham, and the Old Non-Conformists were unworthy your Communion?  
As for Praying Extempore, 'twas set up in England in opposition to our Liturgy. For in the Ninth Year of Q. Eliz. to seduce the People from the Church, and to serve the ends of Popery, one Friar Coming began to Pray Extempore with such fervour, that he deluded many, and was amply rewarded for it by the Pope. See Foxes and Firebrands, p. 7, etc. After him Tho. Heath did the same, p. 17. See also unreason. of sep.. pref. p. 11, etc. And I hope when the Dissenters have well considered, whom they join with, and whose cause they advance, by decrying our Liturgy and extolling Extempore Prayers, they will see cause to think better of Forms of Prayer.  
Secondly, I am now to answer the Dissenters Objections against Forms of Prayer.  
1. They pretend, that the Use of public Forms does deaden the Devotion of Prayer; whereas I doubt not to make it appear, that they do quicken Devotion much more than Extempore Prayers.  
'Tis plain that Forms of Prayer do fix the Minister's attention more than Extempore Prayers. For his matter and words being ready before him, he has nothing else to do but to attend his inward Devotion, which is the life of Prayer: whereas Praying Extempore forces him to attend to the Recollection of Matter, and invention of expressions; which must more or less divert him, it being impossible to attend to several things, as closely as he may to one. 'Tis true, he that uses a Form, may permit his thoughts to wander; but then the salt is in the Man, and not in the Form; for he converts that which in itself helps Devotion, into an occasion of indevotion. He that Prays Extempore is more bound to attend to words; but he that Prays by Form, has better opportunities of attending to the proper business of Prayer, viz. Contrition, Sense of our Wants and dependence upon God, etc. And by being an example of these in his Prayer, the Minister does very much excite the Devotion of the People.  
But 'tis Objected, that while his thoughts are employed in inventing the matter and words of his Prayer, they are well employed; because they are attending to the duty of Prayer, tho' they be not so fixed upon the inward Devotion of it, as they might be in the use of a Form. To this I answer, that to invent the matter and words of Prayer, is not to Pray, but to study a Prayer, which cannot be proved to be a part of our duty. But we believe, that when we Pray Devoutly by a Form, we discharge the whole duty of Prayer, tho' we do not invent the matter and words ourselves; and till we see the contrary proved, we shall always think so. If it be said, that Praying Extempore will not suffer the Minister's thoughts to wander; I answer, that if the Minister have Devout affections, they will keep his thoughts from wand'ring, when he Prays by Form, as much as when he Prays Extempore; but if he has not, he cannot utter his words from his affections either way.  
But 'tis pretended, that Praying Extempore does heighten the Minister's affections more than a Form. Because, say they, in reading a Form his affections follow his words, and are raised and excited by them; whereas in Praying Extempore his words follow his affections. But why may not a Man, who knows before hand what he is to Pray for, be Devoutly affected with it, before he expresses it in a Form, as well as before he expresses it Extempore? And why may not he that Prays Extempore, be as little affected with what he Prays for, before he has expressed it, as he that uses a Form? May not a Man's tongue run before his heart either way? But suppose it true, that in Extempore Prayer the words follow the affections, and that in a Form the affections follow the words; does it follow that Praying Extempore heightens the affections more than a Form? Why may not the affections, viz. desire, etc. which follow the words, be as great as those that go before? Especially since our Dissenters say, that expressive words do naturally quicken affections.  
If it be said, that the Minister cannot so well express his Devout affections in other men's words, as in his own; I answer, that he is the Mouth of the Congregation, and that his business is, not to express his own particular and extraordinary fervours, as the common case of the Congregation; but so to speak, as every honest and ordinary Christian may join with him. For 'tis as bad for him to express such heights of Devotion, as few or none of them are arrived to; as to confess in their names such sins, as few or none of them are guilty of. Now the common sense of the Congregation may be as well expressed in another Man's words as in his own; unless we suppose that Extempore words can more fitly express it, than those that are premeditated; which not sober Dissenter will affirm. But, say they, the Minister's Soul is so busied in reading a Form, that it cannot be so much affected, as when he Prays Extempore. Now I leave the Reader to judge, whether being busied about the Matter, Method and Expressions of Prayer, does not much more employ the Minister's Soul, than bare reading; that is, whether he that can read a Prayer without the least trouble, cannot read a Prayer more easily than invent one.  
However, they tell us, that Praying always in the same words, does cloy the Attention of the People; whereas the newness and variety of conceived Prayers does naturally awaken their Minds and keep them more sixth and intent. But I answer, that the matter of public Prayer is, and for the main will be, the same; and therefore if the matter fixed their minds, 'twould as well do it in the same, as in new expressions. But if it be the Phrase, that their minds are fixed on, there is nothing in it, but an amusement of their fancies, which does rather unfix them from the inward acts of Prayer, and distract their Devotion. Forms may be composed and pronounced as affectionately as Extempore Prayers, and may as well excite the People's Devotion; but novelty of method and expression does as much deaden the Devotion of those that are fixed upon it, as worldly business. That seeming Devotion, that is raised by the jingling of words, is not Devotion but Mechanism; for a Man may be strangely affected with the words of Prayer, who has not the least spark of true Devotion to the matter of it: but if the Mind does affect the matter of Prayer for itself, and not for the sake of the words, I cannot imagine, how new words should any way advantage its Devotion, unless they were to express new matter.  
Thus it appears, that even what is urged in behalf of Extempore Prayers, does plead much more for Forms; but then there are sundry advantages peculiar to Forms, which Extempore Prayers cannot pretend to. For 1. People may consider the matter of a Form, and endeavour to affect their minds with it before hand; and so they may Pray with greater preparation. 2. People may join in a Form with more understanding, than in an Extempore Prayer, wherein the Minister is forced to use such expressions as come first to hand; and sometimes he is forced to use a hard word, which half of the Congregation do not know, because an easier does not come to his mind; besides many other inconveniencies, which 'tis impossible always to avoid. Now in composing public Forms more care will be taken that the words may be intelligible, than there can be in Extempore Prayer. And truly, if the words be not intelligible, the People's Prayer must be as much interrupted as if the Minister spoke in an unknown tongue. 3. Men may join in a Form with much more Faith, and Hope of being heard, than they can in Extempore Prayer. For they may be satisfied before hand, that the matter of a Form is good; but they cannot be so satisfied of an Extempore Prayer; considering that the Minister is many times a stranger, and may be perhaps Erroneous, Rash, Ignorant, etc. And even those Ministers whom they know, may sometimes mistake their Passion for their Zeal, and reak their Anger or their Faction in their Prayers, or let drop an Error, before they are ware, or express themselves so, as an honest mind may not be able to join. So that in joining with an Extempore Prayer a Man must judge what is said, before he can consent to it: and if he meet with a rub, the Minister goes on in the mean time, and the Man is left behind at a loss, and perhaps confounded, before he can join again; and no sooner perhaps is he well fixed, but he is troubled again with the same inconveniency: all which is easily prevented by the use of Forms. 4. Forms do not divert the affections of the People from the Matter of Prayer, as Extempore Prayers do, which disturb Devotion, whenever the Minister hesitates, or blunders, or expresses himself improperly; for then some will be pitying, others contemning, others carping, etc. And if he perform well, some will admire his Phrase, Judgement, Readiness, etc. all which things do call off their minds from the Matter. 5. The Decency and solemnity of public Worship, which things are highly advantageous to the Devotion of the people are better secured by Forms, than by Extempore Prayers, where they depend wholly upon the Minister. For if he happens to be a Man of a bad memory, or apt to blunder, or be dull, etc. then the Devotion of the Congregation may be turned into scorn and laughter; and of this I have seen too many sad experiments. But suppose him to be an able and Pious person, yet he may be liable to indispositions of body, dulness, inadvertency, etc. with outward cares and accidents; and if he be, he must many times Pray confusedly, or with broken, indecent expressions, and omit a great deal of the matter. Sometimes he will be at a loss, and be forced to use fulsome repetitions; and how is it possible almost, but that a great deal of flat and empty nonsense, undigested conceptions and unadvised expressions should escape from his lips, before he is ware? And this, if he has a grain of modesty, must put him into greater confusion, and so amaze him, that he will be hardly able to recover himself. Now is it not a hard case that the Devotions of Five hundred or a thousand Persons must be disturbed by one Man's disorders? For they must either Pray after him, or not Pray at all. But all these evils are prevented by set public Forms. 6. Those that join in a Form, may be better secured of the reality and sincerity of their own Devotion. For they knowing beforehand the expressions of the Form, are not so much surprised with the Phrases; and therefore, if they find themselves affected, may more safely conclude, 'tis the Matter and not the words, that moves them. Whereas a Man that is tickled with the words of an Extempore Prayer may fancy himself to be very devout, when he has nothing of true Devotion in him. I might add more; but I think these things are enough to convince an unprejudiced person, that Forms of Prayer are so far from hindering, that they very much help Devotion.  
But if any Man shall still object, that he finds by experience, that Forms do actually deaden his Devotions; because his affections are flat and heavy, when he uses them, but he is almost transported when he hears a Man Pray Extempore; I beseech him to consider, whether his experience be not founded in prejudice, and whether his prejudice ought to prescribe to the whole Church. 'Tis certain, other Men find by experience, that joining with a Form does help their Devotion; so that here is experience against experience. Now since two contrary experiences cannot proceed from the nature of the thing, therefore one must proceed from the temper of the Man. Now I have proved, and many Men find by experience, that Forms do help Devotion; and therefore if he does not find the same, the fault must be in himself; and I doubt not, but if he will consider the matter impartially, he will soon be of the same opinion. For we have Scripture and Reason on our side; but he is led by his passions, which may be charmed and flattered, and will betray him into strong delusions. 'Tis plain, 'tis not the matter of the Extempore Prayer, that affects him; for that is the same as in a Form: and if he be taken with the chiming of words, 'tis but a sensitive delight; and he must not make a Division in the Church, only to gratify his fancy. Besides, I desire him strictly to examine his Conscience, whether he has not often been as dull at a conceived Prayer, as at the public Forms. If so, than the person is to be blamed, and not the Form; and he is guilty of a double iniquity, who divides the Church without sufficient cause, and charges his own formality upon a good and wholesome constitution.  
2. They pretend, that Praying in a Form of Words does stint and limit the Spirit of Prayer. But before I answer this Objection, it will be necessary to explain, 1. What it is that the Scripture attributes to the Spirit in Prayer. 2. What is meant by stinting or limiting the Spirit in Prayer.  
First Then, what is it that the Scripture attributes to the Spirit in Prayer? I answer, There are some things attributed to him, which were Extraordinary and Temporary; and others that were Ordinary, fixed and standing. The Extraordinary and Temporary were the immediate Inspiration of the matter of Prayer, and an ability to express it in known or unknown Languages. We read in the Old Testament of Prayers and Praises, which for the matter of them, were immediately inspired. Thus Prayed Hannah, who, as the Targum paraphrases it, Prayed by the Spirit of Prophecy, that is, by immediate Inspiration. For Praying and Praising by immediate Inspiration are frequently called Prophesying; 1 Sam. 10.5. Numb. 11.25. 1 Chron. 25.1. Luc. 1.67. for the matter of all those Prayers and Praises, together with those in the Book of Psalms, and sundry others recorded in Scripture, was immediately dictated by the Holy Ghost. But after the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, wherein the gift of Tongues was communicated, 'tis certain, that not only the matter, but the very Language of their Prayers was immediately Inspired. This gift was peculiar to the Primitive Ages of Christianity; because the design of it was, not only to enable the first planters of the Gospel to perform their office in the Languages of the several Nations they were sent to, but also to be a sign from God, as other Miracles were, for the confirmation of the Gospel. Tongues were for a sign— to them that believe not, 1 Cor. 14.22. and therefore since all Miracles were Extraordinary, and after a time to cease, certainly this Miraculous gift of Prayer was so too.  
However, because many Dissenters think it (not an extraordinary, but) a Standing Gift, which the Spirit will communicate to all successive Ages of the World; I desire them to consider, 1. That there is no promise of such a gift by virtue of the New Covenant, and therefore no reason to expect the continuance of it; and 'tis presumption to promise ourselves, what God has not promised us. For as for the Spirit of Supplications, Zac. 12.10. 'tis plain, that 'tis the same with the Spirit of Grace, or of inward Piety and devotion. But that there is no such Promise in the New Covenant, is evident from what is acknowledged on all hands; viz. That there are many good Christians, who could never pretend to any such Inspiration. For all good Christians have a Right to the blessings of the New Covenant; and I am very confident, 'twould be looked upon by all sober Dissenters, as a very rash and unjust censure, to affirm, that a Man cannot be a good Christian, who does not Pray by immediate Inspiration, but is always fain to depend either on his own invention, or a Form. 2. That as there is no Promise, so there is no need of any such immediate Inspiration. 'Tis true, the Spirit will assist us in all necessary things, wherein our duty and Spiritual Life are concerned; but 'tis an unwarrantable presumption to expect an immediate Inspiration in Prayer, because there is no necessity of it. For, 1. As for the Matter of our Prayers, the Holy Spirit has already sufficiently revealed it to us in the Gospel, and as plainly instructed us what we are to pray for, as he can be supposed to do by any immediate Inspiration. And therefore, to suppose after all, a necessity of immediate Inspiration, is in effect to suppose, that We have neither reason enough to understand the sense of plain Words, nor memory enough to retain it. But, say the Dissenters, We know not what to Pray for as we ought, but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groan which cannot be uttered, Rom. 8.26. and therefore we cannot in all cases know the Matter of our Prayers without immediate Inspiration. But I answer, that the words relate not to the matter, but to the Manner of our Prayers. What to Pray for as we ought, we know not; that is, we know not how to Pray with that fervency and resignation, which we ought, unless the Spirit assist us. 2. As for the words of Prayer, there is no necessity they should be immediately dictated to us, since we may use Forms; and those Forms (with small additions) may be adapted to all particular Cases and Circumstances. 3. If Prayers are Inspired, they are equal to Scripture, and are infallible and the Word of God; because whatever God inspires, must needs be so. But this, I am sure, no sober Dissenter will presume to say. 4. There is no sign of this immediate Inspiration remaining among us. Heretofore all Inspiration was attested by Miracles; but the pretended Inspiration of Prayer has no Miracles to warrant it. Whereas if the Inspiration be continued, 'tis requisite that proper signs should be continued, that so we may be able to distinguish that which is Divine from that which is Natural or Diabolical.  
If it be said, that the Scripture is sufficient to distinguish them; I answer, that tho' the Scripture may be sufficient to distinguish, whether the Matter of the Inspiration be true or false: yet it's not sufficient to distinguish the Inspiration itself, whether it be Divine or Natural, or Diabolical.  
For, 1. 'Tis certain, a Man may Pray agreeably to Scripture by Natural Inspiration, that is, by a Natural or accidental fervency of temper, as might be proved by many instances. And in this case how shall he know by Scripture, whether his present Inspiration be Natural or Divine? 'Twill be said perhaps; that God Inspires good Men with fervency in Prayer, and yet this fervency sometimes proceeds from temper of body; and why does not the want of a sign to distinguish, conclude against the Inspiration of fervency, as well as against the Inspiration of the Matter and Words of Prayer? I answer, that we have a Promise of the Spirit's assistance for the fervency of our Prayers, but not for the Matter or Words of them. Besides, we may easily distinguish, whether the Inspiration of fervency be Natural or Divine, by our own sense. If it be accompanied with a fixed and constant Devotion of Soul, 'tis Divine; but if it be only a sudden fit, and leaves us habitually indevout, we have just reason to think it Natural. But we cannot distinguish by Scripture between one and the other; for both may be agreeable to Scripture. And can it be imagined, that had God meant to continue the gift of Inspiration to us, he would have left us thus in the dark concerning it, without any certain sign to distinguish, whether it be from his Spirit, or from an ill-affected spleen, or a fever? 2. As for Diabolical Inspirations, we have sundry instances, such as Wier, Hacket, D. George and John Basilides Duke of Russia, who had such gifts of Prayer, as ravished the Auditors, and in the opinion of the most impartial seemed to exceed the power of Nature, and made many think them immediately Inspired by God. Now since by such Inspirations the Devil may sometimes serve his own ends, by recommending false Teachers, etc. we may reasonably suppose he does use that method. And since he may Inspire Men with such Matter of Prayer as is agreeable to Scripture, we cannot by Scripture certainly distinguish between his Inspiration and that of the Spirit. But surely 'tis blasphemy to think, that if God had continued this gift of Inspiration, he would leave us without a sign to distinguish it from that which is Diabolical. And since there is no sign, we have all the reason in the world to think the gift is ceased.  
But farther, we have not only no certain sign of the Divine Inspiration of conceived Prayers, but many very certain ones of the contrary: I will instance in four. 1. The great impertinence, nonsense, and rudeness (to say no worse) that are sometimes mingled with these Extempore Prayers, and which we cannot attribute to the Holy Ghost without blasphemy. 2. That they are so generally tinctured with the particular Opinions of those that offer them. Whether this be not so, I appeal to all the world; and if it be so, then surely they are not Inspired. For either we must suppose this gift of Inspiration to be consigned to one party, which would be to stint the Spirit with a witness; or else we must blasphemously say the Spirit Inspires contradictions, and indites contrary Prayers to Men of opposite Parties. 3. Another plain sign that conceived Prayers are not Inspired, is, that that which gives them the reputation of being so, is not so much the Matter, as the manner of expressing them. As for the Matter, I suppose the Dissenters will not deny, but our Forms may equal at least, if not excel their conceived Prayers: and therefore all the difference must be in the Manner. But are conceived Prayers the more Inspired, because the words are Extempore? Did God continue the gift for no other end, but that Men might ask those things Extempore, which they might as well have asked in a Form? Or are they more Inspired, because they do generally more enlarge, and express the same Matter over again in different words? Was the Spirit continued only to vary phrases? Our Saviour forbids us to use vain repetitions (or as Munster's Hebrew reads it, to multiply words above what is fit and seasonable) thinking we shall be heard for our much speaking; and therefore these enlargements are so far from being signs of their immediate Inspiration, that supposing the Spirit to be of the same mind with Christ, they are generally signs of the contrary. 4. That extraordinary manner and way of expressing them, for which they are thought to be Inspired, ordinarily proceeds from natural causes, viz. Natural Enthusiasm or present fervour of temper. For, 1. The Dissenters confess, it comes upon them much oftener in their public, than in their private Devotions. And the reason is plain, because the passions of the Congregation do so excite their affections, and the reverence of an Auditory obliges them so much to wreck their inventions, that their Spirits are many times transported into raptures. 2. They are not so fluent in the beginning, as when they have Prayed a while; the reason of which is this, because the Spirits do not move so briskly, till they are chafed and heated with Labour. Then do they naturally raise the fancy, and render the invention more copious and easy. And certainly 'tis unwarrantable to attribute that to Inspiration, which does so apparently proceed from natural causes.  
Thus have I shown, what the extraordinary operations of the Spirit are, and that they are not to be pretended to in these Times; I proceed in the next place to show very briefly, what those ordinary operations are, which he has Promised to continue to the end of the World. They are therefore the proper graces and affections of Prayer, such as shame, sorrow, hope, etc. But as for the expressions of Prayer, they are of no account with God, but as they signify to him the graces and affections of it. Now can any Man imagine, that those affections will be the less acceptable to God, because they are presented in a Form, and not Extempore? Will a Father deny Bread to his Child, because he asked it to day in the same words, that he did yesterday? Is God more taken with words, than with affections? Certainly his withdrawing the Inspiration of words, and continuing the Inspiration of affections, prove the contrary.  
Now that God does continue the Inspiration of Devout affections in Prayer, is manifest from Gal. 4.6. Judas 20. and Rom. 8.26. where the Spirit is said to make intercession for us with groans, which cannot be uttered, that is, with most flagrant affections. For these words do not, as some persons would persuade us, prove the Inspiration of the Words of Prayer; because the Inspiration of those things that are too big for words and cannot be uttered, cannot mean the Inspiration of words: but this Intercession of the Spirit signifies his exciting such affections, as make our Prayers acceptable. For as Christ, who is our Advocate in Heaven, enforces our Prayers with his own Intercessions: so the Spirit, who is our Advocate upon Earth, begets those affections, which render our Prayers prevalent. And these are the standing and ordinary operations, which the Scripture attributes to the Spirit in Prayer.  
Secondly, Stinting or limiting the Spirit is a phrase, that is never mentioned in Scripture or Antiquity; and therefore 'tis a very new objection against Forms of Prayer, which I have shown to be warranted both by Scripture and Antiquity. However, what the Dissenters mean by it is this; viz. that by confining ourselves to a Form of words, we (stint or limit, that is,) restrain the Spirit from giving us that assistance, which he ordinarily vouchsafes in conceived Prayer.  
And now having explained the Two foregoing particulars, the answer to this Objection will be very easy. For if the Spirit be stinted or restrained by Forms of Prayer, it must be either from Inspiring the words, or from exciting the affections of Prayer. But I have proved that Forms are so far from restraining the Devotion of Prayer, that they do very much promote and improve it; and as for the Words, I have proved, that since the first propagation of the Gospel the Spirit has withdrawn the immediate and Miraculous Inspiration of them. And since that cannot be stinted which is not, therefore the Inspiration of the Words of Prayer is not stinted by Forms.  
3. 'Tis Objected, that public Forms are a sinful neglect of the Ministerial gift of Prayer. For, the Dissenters say, the gift of Prayer is an ability to express our minds in Prayer, which God has given to Ministers, as a means of public Devotion; and therefore they may not omit the exercise of it, by using Forms of other men's Composure. Now to this I answer, 1. That supposing that 'tis a fault in Ministers to omit the exercise of their ability, yet the People are not to be charged with it. God will not reject the People's Devotions, because the Minister is to blame. He only is accountable for that; for the People do not join with him in his omission, but in that which is acceptable to God. 2. This gift of Prayer is either natural or acquired. For certainly 'tis not Inspired at Ordination; because the Scripture does not promise any such thing, nor is there any experience of it. Nay the Dissenting Ministers must own, that just before their Ordination they were as able to express the Devotions of a Congregation, as they were just after; which shows that they had no new ability to Pray Inspired in their Ordination. Now since this gift or ability is nothing more than a quickness of invention and speech, which is either natural, or acquired by art and practice; therefore 'tis no otherwise the gift of God, than our natural strength, or skill in History, or the like. All that God has Promised his Ministers, is to concur with their honest endeavours, as far as is necessary to the discharge of their Office: and to suppose that this cannot be done without Praying Extempore, is to take the Matter in question for granted. 3. This freedom of utterance is never called the gift of Prayer in Scripture. Praying in unknown Languages is once called a gift, but Praying in our own Language is never called so. Therefore 'tis plain that the gift of readiness of speech is not appropriated by God to Prayer, but left in common to all other honest uses, that it can be applied to; and it may as well be called the Gift of Pleading at the Bar, or of Disputing, or Conversation, as the gift of Prayer. Accordingly we find, that those who have this gift in Prayer, have it also upon other occasions; which proves, that 'tis not appropriated to Prayer. 4. Since this gift of expressing our minds is not appropriated to Prayer, it may be as lawfully omitted in Prayer, as in any other purpose which 'tis designed for. For if it be unlawful to omit the use of the gift of Elocution, than he who has the gift, may not lawfully use a Form in Petitioning his Prince, or in a Court of Justice: but if it be lawful to omit it in these cases, as a Man sees occasion, than it is equally lawful to omit it in Prayer. In short, if a Man has two gifts, he may use which he pleases; and since we have other means of Prayer, none is obliged to use his ability to pray Extempore. 5. Using a Form is as much a means of public Devotion as praying Extempore; because the end of public Prayer is at least as effectually served by a Form, as by a conceived Prayer. Now since there are two means of Prayer, and both cannot be used at the same time, therefore one may be lawfully omitted; and consequently the use of a Form, which is one means, is not a sinful neglect of the other.  
4. The last Objection is, that the Common Cases and wants of Christians cannot be so well expressed in one constant Form, as in conceived Prayers; because the circumstances of Men are infinitely variable, and require suitable Petitions and Thanksgivings, which the Minister cannot otherwise provide than by praying Extempore. To this I answer, 1. That the Common Cases and necessities of Christians are for the Main always the same, and therefore may be more fully comprehended in a Form, than in an Extempore Prayer. For public Prayers, which are offered up in the Name of the whole Congregation, ought not to descend to particular Cases, but only to the Common Cases of all, and what every one may truly and sincerely join with. Now a Form will express them much better than an Extempore Prayer, which is subject to many omissions. 2. Forms can make as good provision for Extraordinary cases, as Extempore Prayer. For, as for those that can be foreseen, such as the want of rain, fair weather, etc. there may be Forms composed for them aforehand: and as for others that cannot be fore-seen, Forms may be provided, when they happen; and this has ever been done in our Church. 3. If Forms must not be used, because they do not always reach Extraordinary Cases, certainly Extempore Prayers ought not to be used, because by reason of omissions, they will not always reach even Ordinary Cases. In a word, it appears that all Extraordinary Cases may be very well provided for by Forms; but supposing it otherwise, yet since it has been proved at large, that the use of Forms is upon sundry accounts of great advantage to the public Devotion, 'tis unreasonable to spoil the Church of them, and leave her to the mercy of Extempore effusions, only for the sake of a few contingencies, which may happen but very rarely, if at all, in a whole Age.  
III. I am now to prove in the last place, that the imposition of Forms may be lawfully complied with; and for this a very few words will suffice. For since the use of public Forms is lawful in itself, therefore it may be lawfully complied with; because I have shown in the Second Chapter, that a Man may lawfully do a lawful thing, when 'tis enjoined by Authority. And now I hope, it is evident to all impartial Readers, that Forms of Prayer are not only lawful, but expedient also.   

CHAP. IV. Objections against our Morning and Evening Service and Litany Answered.  
HAving justified Forms of Prayer in general, my duty and method oblige me to justify that of the Church of England in particular. I must confess, I have always thought the Liturgy of the Church of England to be such, as would rather have invited Protestants to our Communion, than have kept them from it. And I believe, if the Dissenters would seriously read over Dr. Beverege's Sermon concerning the Excellency and usefulness of the Common-Prayer, they would go near to be of the same mind. But alas! this very Liturgy is that which many persons are incensed against. It has been cried down as Idolatrous, Popish, Superstitious, etc. 'Tis true, we do not now so often hear those bitter exclamations of Rome and Babylon, Baal and Dagon; for the Common-Prayer is not now esteemed such an abominable thing, as some ignorant and heady Zealots were wont to count it: but yet some Objections are still insisted upon, to which I hope to return a fair answer.  
1. Then 'tis Objected, that the Confessions of sin in our Liturgy are too general; and that there are many particular sins, which ought to have been distinctly confessed, of which there is no mention. But I desire the Objectors to consider, that there is hardly any thing in public worship, which requires more caution and prudence in the ordering of it, than that confession of sin, which is to be made by the whole Congregation. 'Tis hard to prevent its being either too general or too particular. The reason is, because such different persons must join in it, and the sins of some are more numerous and grievous than the sins of others; so that all persons cannot possibly make the same particular confession. But I think our confessions, viz. the daily one and that in the Communion-Office, are so judiciously framed, as to avoid both extremes: and I am persuaded, all persons may profitably use them. However, the confession of sin after the Minister has recited each of the Ten Commandments, is as particular, as can reasonably be desired; and by this a Man may confess all his known offences in thought, word or deed. If a Man must not use a confession, that is possible to be mended, he must never confess at all: and if a Form of confession were composed by the wisest Dissenters, I suppose no more would be pretended, but that it might be profitably used. Now this may be said of our Form, and aught to end the dispute.  
Indeed there are examples of Jeremiah, Nehemiah, etc. confessing such sins as they were not guilty of: but this was done upon solemn humiliation for those known and public Idolatries of the Nation, which had brought God's heavy judgements upon them, or for common and scandalous transgressions afterward. They considered themselves as a part of the Community which had provoked God; and they bore a part in the Calamity and in the confession, as if they had offended as greatly as their Countrymen. But I conceive there is a great deal of difference between those confessions upon such public humiliations, and those that are fit for the Ordinary Service of the Church.  
I may add, that particular confessions are more properly the matter of private Devotion; and if we did seriously practise strict examination and secret contrition in our Closets, we should then find our affections prepared to comply with those more general confessions of sin, which we make with the whole Congregation. And we should then have less reason to complain, that those confessions are too general and not apt to move us; because this would cure the deadness of our hearts, which are commonly most to blame, when we find fault with the Means, that God has provided for us.  
2. The next Objection is the shortness of our Collects, by reason of which 'tis pretended, that the Prayer is often suddenly broken off, and then begun again: and this is thought not so agreeable to the gravity wherewith this duty ought to be performed, nor so likely a means of exciting Reverence and Devotion in the People, as one continued Form of Prayer, that might be as long as all those put together. To this I answer, 1. That the mere shortness of a Prayer is not to be blamed; since that would disparage the Form, which Christ taught his Disciples. 2. That 'twill be hard to prove, that many of these short Prayers being offered up to God one immediately after another, is either not so grave or not so edifying, as one continued Form. For the work of Praying is as much continued all the while, as if there were but one continued Form; because we pass from one Petition to another, or from one matter of invocation to another, as immediately as if the distinct Forms were all brought into the compass of one. Nay the attention of the People is rather helped by the frequency of saying Amen: and their Godly disposition of mind, which is the best thing in Prayer, may be kept alive and more effectually secured, by calling upon the Name of God and pleading the Merits of Christ so often as we do. Besides, the invocation of God somewhat often by his attributes, maintains in our minds a reverend sense of his Majestic Presence; which we all know, is needful to make us pray as we ought: and the frequency of mentioning Christ's Merits and Mediation, strengthens our faith and assurance that we shall be heard. 'Tis also the peculiar Character of Christian Devotion; and distinguishes us from the Papists, in declaring our detestation of calling upon God in the Name of Saints, or any other but that of Christ. If it be said that we say Amen, and break off our Prayers too often; I reply, that all wise and humble Men will submit themselves in that case to the judgement of their superiors.  
3. Some except against the repetition of the Lord's Prayer, and of Glory be to the Father, etc. and of Lord have mercy upon us, and the like; because they think our Saviour forbids it by saying, when ye pray, use not vain repetitions. But it appears by our Saviour's caution against vain repetitions, that some repetitions are not vain, and consequently not forbidden. This must be supposed, because he himself, when in his Agony, prayed thrice in the same words. Now Christ forbids the fault of the Heathens, whose vain repetitions proceeded from an affectation of speaking much, or from a belief that God would not help them, unless they repeated the same thing over in a tedious manner: but the repetition of good Prayers is nothing like their practice. Repetitions are not vain, if two things be regarded; 1. That the matter be very weighty, and apt to move those pious affections, which God is most pleased with in our Addresses to him; and in this respect, I dare say, our repetitions are secured from vanity. 2. That they be framed with judgement, that they come in fitly and in due place, and not too often. And these rules are observed in our Liturgy; for as none did ever blame the disposal of our repetitions, so none can justly blame the sequency of them. For our repetitions are very few; but if our number be too great, what shall we think of the 136 Psalms, where His mercy endureth forever, is repeated 26 times? To conclude this matter, I desire those, who do not yet approve our repetition of the Lord's Prayer, etc. to consider, whether it be so easy to spend the time it takes up more profitably, than by joining in good earnest with the Congregation in these Prayers ..  
4. Some persons dislike the Responsals of the Congregation, and the People's saying the Confessions and the Lord's Prayer after the Minister, and their alternate reciting the Psalms and Hymns, and some petitions in the daily Service. Now I beg these Men to consider, what has been often said, viz. that this way is apt to check a wand'ring Spirit, to help attention and quicken a lively zeal in God's Service, whilst we invite and provoke one another to pray and give thanks.  
They say indeed, that the Minister is appointed to be the mouth of the People in God's public Service: but to this I answer, 1. That granting the Minister to be appointed for the mouth of the People, yet it must not be so interpreted, as to make all Vocal Prayer and thanksgiving in Religious Assemblies unlawful to the People. For then the People must not say Amen, which is a short responsal to the Minister; nor must they join in singing Psalms, which oftentimes contain matter of Prayer. 2. The Scripture does not say, that the Minister is the mouth of the People to God, or that no Prayer must be offered up in Religious Assemblies, otherwise than by the mouth of the Minister. 'Tis true, the Minister is the mouth of the People in all those Prayers which he utters for them; and because these are many more than what the People themselves utter, he may be said to be their mouth to God comparatively, but not absolutely. 'Tis true also, that the Minister is appointed for the People in all public Services appertaining to God, if this be understood for the most part, or of all with little exception. Some public Services are pronounced by him only: and as for the rest, 'tis fit he should ever utter most of them; and that in those wherein the People have their part, he should ever go before and lead them, and guide the whole performance; which is all taken care for in our Liturgy.  
Nay the Dissenters themselves do not utterly debar the People from all Vocal Prayer and Thanksgiving of their own in God's solemn Worship. For they allow the People to sing Psalms; and why then may they not bear a part in the Hymns and Psalms by alternate responses? I cannot see, why singing or not singing should make such a difference. 'Twere better, if they were every where sung; because it is more suitable to the design of them, than bore reciting is: but if they be not sung, the next use of them, that is most agreeable to their nature and design, is reciting them by answering in turns, as the Custom is with us; for this is much nearer to singing, than the Minister's reciting all himself.  
But, say they, the People's verse is in a manner lost to some of the Congregation; since in the confused murmur of so many voices nothing can be distinctly heard To this I answer, that those who can read, may bring Books; and those that cannot, may attend to those that are near. Nay I have been credibly informed, that some devout People that could never read, have attained to an ability of reciting most of the Psalms without book, by often hearing them in those Churches where they are alternately recited. I shall add, that for the most part, the Psalms are recited alternately in those Churches only, where it may be reasonably presumed, that the whole Congregation can read, very few excepted.  
Now if the People may join in Vocal Praise, why may they not also join in Vocal Prayer? If it be said, there is some example or warrant in Scripture for the one, but not for the other; it seems to be a good answer, that there is such a parity of reason, as that the express warrant of Scripture for the one, is an employed warrant for the other. I have already shown, Chap. 3. that the People's joining in Vocal Prayer was very anciently practised; and if this was the Primitive way, 'tis probable, that it was the way in the Apostles times. I know, 'tis objected, that the People's speaking to God in the Church is disorderly, and a breaking in upon the Minister's office. But will they say, that the Children of Israel entrenched upon the Priest, when they all bowed themselves upon the Pavement, and worshipped the Lord, and praised him, saying, for he is good, for his mercy endureth for ever; 2 Chron. 7.3? Ecclesiastical Order is secured by the Minister's presiding in God's public Worship, and guiding the performance of it: but not to allow the People to make an Audible confession of sin after the Minister, nor to utter some few affectionate Petitions, and those very short, to which they are also invited and ●●ted by him, seems rather to favour of an affectation of undue superiority over the People, than to proceed from any fear of the Minister's office being invaded. Some urge, that Women are forbidden to speak in the Church, 1 Cor. 14.34. but this is strangely misapplyed to the Matter in hand. For 'tis plain, that the speaking mentioned by the Apostle, signifies nothing but Prophesying, Interpreting, Preaching and Instructing; and that the reason, why he will not allow this to the Woman, is, because Preaching implies Authority, whereas the Woman's part is obedience and subjection. They that will read the whole Chapter, will find that this is the meaning of St. Paul.  
5. I proceed in the next place to consider, whether there be any just cause to find fault with the reading of the Apocryphal Lessons in our Church. Now if Sermons and Catechising be allowable, besides the Word of God; why may not some Apocryphal Lessons be read, which contain excellent Rules of life? Especially since those Writings were greatly esteemed by the Church in its purest Ages, when they and other human writings also were publicly read, as well as the Scriptures: and those Chapters of the Old Testament, which are omitted, do either recite Genealogies, or the Rules of the Levitical Service, or matters of fact delivered in other Chapters that are read, or which are hard to be understood. If it be said, that because the Scripture is all of Divine Authority, 'tis more profitable to read any part of that, than any other good Lesson; I answer, that then no place will be left for Sermons, which are no more of Divine Authority, than the Apocryphal Lessons. There is no danger of any person's mistaking the Apocryphal Lessons for Canonical Scripture, because the Church speaks so plainly in her Sixth Article: nor do we read them otherwise, than the ancient Church did. I shall only add, that no Apocryphal Lesson is read upon any Lord's Day in the Year; and as for other exceptions, I refer the Reader to Dr. Falkener's Libertas Eccles. p. 164, etc.  
6. If any object against our Standing at the Creed; Mr. Baxter says, his judgement is for it, where it is required, and where not doing it would be aivisive and scandalous. Nay, elsewhere he says, that 'tis a convenient praising gesture, etc. See his Christ. Direct. p. 858.  
I proceed now to the Vindication of the Litany, against which 'tis pleaded, 1. That the People utter the Words of invocation in the Litany for the most part, the Minister all the while suggesting the matter of it to them. But this Objection is of no force, if what I have said concerning the lawfulness of allowing the People an interest in Vocal Prayer, be admitted. If it be said, that the People bear too considerable a part, to the disparagement of the Minister's office; I answer, that 'tis a great mistake; For 1. tho' the People say Good Lord deliver us, and We beseech thee to hear us Good Lord; yet the Minister says the other, and the far greater part of the Prayer. 2. They are but these Two short and known Petitions, which are excepted against: and if the People may be allowed any part in Vocal Prayer, I know of nothing more proper than these; nor are they repeated, but when they are applied to new and distinct matter. Besides, they relieve our attention, and cherish our warm affections in Prayer: and I could almost appeal to the keenest of our Adversaries, whether, if Good Lord deliver us were applied but once in gross to that part of the Litany, we should not be more apt to languish in the offering it up, than as it is now ordered. But, 3. 'Tis plain, that in those Prayers, the Minister has the principal and guiding part, in that he utters all the distinct matter of the Prayer, which the People do not; whereas he utters words of invocation as well as they. And consider, I pray, whether if the People were to utter that which is the Minister's part now, and the Minister to say that only which is theirs; we should not have more grievous complaints, that the Minister's authority was slighted in the whole design; since he seemed only to learn from the People, what the Congregation was to pray for.  
2. 'Tis Objected, that we pray to be delivered from all deadly sin, which seems to imply, that there are some sins which are not deadly. Now in answer to this, it is by some truly enough said, that these words do not necessarily imply a distinction between sins that are, and sins that are not deadly. But admitting that such a distinction were intended, yet we must observe, that tho' all sin be in its own nature deadly or damnable; yet through the Mercy of God and the Merits of Christ, sins of mere infirmity are not imputed, and therefore not deadly to us. But there are some sins so heinous, that he who commits them, is thereby put into a damnable state: and 'tis of such sins as these that this passage is to be understood; as appears by Deadly Sin being added to Fornication, from Fornication and all other Deadly Sin, Good Lord deliver us.  
3. Some are offended with our praying against Sudden Death. But why should we not by Sudden Death understand our being taken out of this World, when we are not fit to die? For sometimes a thing is said to be Sudden to us, when we are not prepared for it. And in this sense can any good Christian find fault with the Petition? But suppose that by Sudden Death we mean what is commonly understood by it, that is, a Death of which a Man has not the least warning by Sickness; are there not Reasons why even good Men may desire not to die suddenly? May they not, when they find themselves drawing towards their end, by their good Instructions and Admonitions, make Impressions upon their Friends, Companions, and Relations, to the bettering of them? May not their Counsels be then more effectual with them, than ever they were before? And is it not reasonable to believe they will be so? As for themselves, may not the warning they have of approaching Death be improved to make them more sit to die, than they were in their perfect Health? In a word, he that thinks himself to have sufficiently perfected holiness in the fear of God, and not to stand in need of those acts of Self-Examination, Humiliation, and Devotion, by which Good Men improve the Warning of Death, which Mortal Sickness or Extreme Age gives them; let him suspend his Act, and refuse to join with us, when we pray God to deliver us from sudden death·  
4. Some are offended, that we pray to be delivered By the Mystery of Christ's Holy Incarnation, etc. By his Agony and bloody Sweat, by his Cross and Passion, etc. And by the Coming of the Holy Ghost. Some say this is Swearing, others Conjuring, and I know not what. To these I answer, that when we say, By the Mystery of thy holy Incarnation, and by thy Cross and Passion, etc. Good Lord deliver us; we implore Christ, who has already showed such inestimable goodness towards us, by taking our Nature into his Divinity, to Die upon the Cross, to be Buried, to Rise again, to ascend into Heaven, and there to intercede with the Father for us, and by sending the Holy Ghost to qualify the Apostles for their great Work of carrying the Word of Salvation into the World: I say, we implore him who hath already done such mighty things for our Salvation, and we plead with him by that goodness which he has already given us such great demonstrations of, by those Wonders of Mercy that he has wrought for us, that he would now go on to deliver us by his powerful Grace from those Evils which we pray against. And this is so reasonable, so devout and affectionate, so humble and thankful a way of praying, that I am sorry that any who call themselves Believers should be so ignorant as not to understand it, or so profane and unlike what they pretend to be, as to deride it.  
To conclude, I must confess, that of all the Prayers in our Liturgy, that are of humane composition, I should be most unwilling to part with the Litany. It seems to be, what it was designed to be, A Form of Prayer apt to excite our most intense and fervent desires of God's Grace and Mercy. The whole office is framed, with respect both to matter and contrivance, for the raising of the utmost Devotion of good Christians, and for the warming of the coldest hearts by the heat of the Congregation. And in such a disposition it is most fit to express our Charity, by praying for others, even all sorts of men, as distinctly and particularly as public Prayers will bear.   

CHAP. V Of Infant-Baptism.  
BEfore I proceed to the Vindication of our Office of Baptism, I think it is proper to justify Infant-Baptism, which is practised by us, and disliked by some of the Dissenters. And that my Discourse concerning Infant-Baptism may be the better understood, I shall take the liberty of premising a few things.  
1. That the Original of the Jewish Church (considered purely as a Church) is to be dated from the Covenant which God made with Abraham; but that of the Jewish Commonwealth from the delivery of the Law by Moses. For that the Jewish Church and Commonwealth are distinct things, is plain, because the Apostle makes this distinction, Rom. 4.13. Gal. 3.17. And therefore,  
2. The way to find out the Nature of the Jewish Church is to consider the Nature of the Covenant made with Abraham, upon which the Jewish Church was founded. Now 'tis plain from Rom. 4. 9th to the 17th, and 9.6, etc. Gal. 3.5, etc. that the Covenant made with Abraham was a Spiritual Covenant, made with him as the Father of Believers, and with his Posterity, not as proceeding from him by Natural, but by Spiritual Generation, as heirs of his Faith. Hence says the Apostle, in the name of the Christians, We are the Circumcision, which worship God in the Spirit, and have no confidence in the Flesh, Phil. 3.3. and it is one God, which shall justify the Circumcision by Faith, and the Uncircumcision through Faith, Rom. 3.30. and if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's Seed, and heirs according to the Promise, Gal. 3.29. Nay 'twill farther appear, that this Covenant was made, not with Abraham's Natural, but his Spiritual Offspring, if we consider,  
3. That the initiatory Sacrament into it was Circumcision. For the Covenant is called the Covenant of Circumcision, Acts 7.8. and Circumcision on the other hand is called the Seal of the Righteousness of faith, Rom. 4.11. faith or faithful obedience being the condition of that Covenant, which God required of the Children of Abraham, and which they promised to perform. It also signified the Circumcision of the heart, Deut. 10.16. and 30.6. Rom. 2.28, 29.  
4. As to the Persons to be admitted into the Covenant, we have a very plain account at the institution of it, Gen. 17. from whence it appears, First, that the Children of Heathens were to be circumcised; (See Exod. 12.48, 49.) which also proves that the Promise was made, not to his Natural, but to his Spiritual Children. Hence in all Ages great numbers of Gentiles were admitted into the Jewish Church by Circumcision. Secondly, that persons of all Ages were to be Circumcised, and that God was so far from excluding Children from Circumcision, that he ordered that the Circumcision of them should not be deferred beyond the 8th day. God was pleased to be so gracious as to choose the Children with their Parents, and look upon them as holy upon their account. This was ground enough for their Admission into the Church, and for God to look upon them as Believers, tho' they could not make open profession of their faith.  
The Faith and consent of the Father or the Godfather, and of the Congregation under which he was Circumcised, was believed of Old by the Jews to be imputed to the Child as his own Faith and consent. See Seld. De Jure, lib. 2. c. 2. De Synedr. lib. 1. c. 3. And they had good ground in Scripture for this opinion; because the infidelity and disobedience of the Parents, in wilfully neglecting or despising the Circumcision, was imputed to the Children, who were esteemed and punished as breakers of the Covenant, when they were not Circumcised, Gen. 17.14. And therefore, if the act of Parents in neglecting to bring their Children to Circumcision was reputed theirs: much more their act in bringing them to it, might well be reputed as their act and deed. Thus Numb. 3.28. we find the keeping of the sanctuary imputed to the Males of the Cohathites, of a month old and upwards; because their Fathers actually kept it, and they were to be trained up to it. Thus Deut. 29.11, 12. the little ones are expressly said to enter into the Covenant with God, because the Men of Israel did so. Thus also, tho' Christ healed grown Persons for their own Faith, Matth. 9.29. yet he healed Children for the Faith of their Parents, or others who besought him for them; as it were imputing it to them for their own Faith; Mark 9.23. Matth. 8.13. John 4.50. Vid. Cassand. De Baptismo Infant. p. 729. Taylor of Baptiz. Inf. Great Exemplar, Part 1. Sect. 9  
5. The Church was the same for substance under the Law, as it was before it; and still remains the same for substance under the Gospel, as it was under the Law. For Abraham is still the Father of the faithful: and we that Believe under the Gospel, are as much his Children, in the true meaning of the words, as those that were Believers under the Law. Hence St. Peter, Epist. 1. calls Christians by those Titles, which God gave to the Jews, as to his peculiar People, viz. a Chosen Generation, Royal Priesthood, etc. and St. Paul compares the calling of them to the engrafting of the Wild Olive-tree into the Old Olive-tree's Stock, Rom. 11. Christ and his Apostles introduced as much of Judaisme into the Christian Church, as the nature of the Reformation would bear: and adhered as much as they could to the Old, both in the Matter and Form of the New Oeconomy. For the proof of this the Reader may consult Grot. Opusc. Tom. 3. p. 510, 520, etc. Hammond of Baptising Infants, Selden de Jure, l. 2. c. 2. de Synedr. l. 1. c. 3. Lightfoot's Horae Heb. p. 42. Hammond on Matth. 2.1, Alting. Dissert Septima de Proselyt. Mede's 1 B. disc. 43. 2 B. Christ. Sacrif. Cudworth on the Lord's Supper, Thorndike of Religious Assembl. Tailor's Great Exemplar. Part. 1. Disc. of Baptism. Numb. 11. Dodwell's One Altar and One Priesthood, Light●oot on 1 Cor. 5.4.  
Some things, I confess, they laid aside; but their Reasons for so doing were, 1. Because very many of the Jewish Rites were fulfilled in Christ; and this is so plain, that I need not prove it. 2. Because many of them were inconsistent with the Nature of Christianity; which was to be, 1. Manly, in opposition to the Law, which was but a Schoolmaster to bring them to Christ, Gal. 3.24. and the Jews were under it, as Children are under Tutors, Chap. 4.1, 2, 3, 4. for they had Childish understandings, and were like Children, to be instructed by Symbolical Lessons, viz. Washings, etc. 2. Free, in opposition to the servile Nature of the Jewish Church, which was loaded with numberless observances, of which the Jews were grown weary, and with which they had been for a long time heavy laden, when Christ called them to take his yoke upon them, which was to be so easy and light. 3. Universal, God enjoined the Jews many things, in opposition to the Neighbouring Idolatrous Nations; that there might be a mutual strangeness between them, and that by Ceremonial singularities they might be distinguished from the rest of the World: but then Christ coming to break down the Middle wall of Partition betwixt the Jews and Gentiles, and to abolish the enmity of ordinances that was betwixt them, that he might make peace between them, and reconcile them both into one body; it was requisite to this end, that he should abolish these, and all other distingishing characters betwixt them, which would have hindered the progress of the Gospel, because they were become so odious and ridiculous to the Gentile World. And this is the reason, why the bloody Rite of Circumcision is changed into the easy Rite of Baptism.  
6. Circumcision was a Sacrament of equal Significancy, Force and Perfection with Baptism; and Baptism succeeded in the room of it, not as an Antitype succeeds in the place of the Type, but as one positive institution succeeds in the place of another. For we must note, that strictly and properly speaking, there was the same difference betwixt the Type and the Antitype, as betwixt the shadow and the substance, or betwixt a Man and his picture in a Glass; insomuch that what was in the Type, did only represent something which did in a more perfect manner belong to the Antitype. Thus the blood of Sacrifices represented the blood of Christ, which does truly purge the Conscience from dead works; and the healing virtue of the Brazen Serpent was a Symbol of the healing virtue of Christ upon the Cross. But the case is not so betwixt Circumcision and Baptism; because Circumcision has no Symbolical likeness with Baptism, nor any thing belonging to it common to Baptism, which doth not as fully belong unto it, as unto Baptism itself.  
For, 1. Circumcision was heretofore a real Sacrament of Initiation into the Covenant of Grace, a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, and a confirmation of the Covenant betwixt God and Man, as much as Baptism is now. Baptism does nothing under the Gospel, which Circumcision did not as properly and effectually do under the Law: and therefore it could not be a Type of Baptism, any more than the Broad-Seal of England 300 years ago was a Type of this. And accordingly 'tis never mentioned in the New Testament as a Type of Baptism, nor Baptism as the Antitype of it: but succeeded in the room of it, not as the Antitype did in the place of the Type, but as one absolute Ordinance or positive Institution does in the place of another. 2. Circumcision was not a Type of Baptism, because a Type is an Exemplar appointed under the Old Testament to prefigure something under the New: but Baptism was itself of Jewish Institution under the Old Testament; and by consequence could not be Typifyed and prefigured by Circumcision, because it was used together with it in the Jewish Church. The Jewish Church made it a Ceremony of Initiating Proselytes under the Law; and our Saviour liking the Institution, continued the use of it, and made it the only Ceremony of Initiating Proselytes under the Gospel; superadding to it the complete nature of an Initiatory Sacrament, or the full force of Circumcision, as it was a sign of the Covenant, and a seal of the Righteousness of Faith.  
Having premised these Six things, I proceed to the main business, in treating of which I design to show, 1. That Infants are capable of Baptism. 2. That They are not excluded from Baptism by Christ. 3. That 'tis unlawful to separate from a Church, which appoints Infants to be baptised, 4. That 'tis the duty of Christian Parents to bring their Children unto Baptism. 5. That 'tis lawful to Communicate with Believers, who were Baptised in their Infancy.  
I. Then I shall show, that Infants are capable of Baptism. God commanded Infants to be Circumcised, as well as adult Persons; and surely, if they were capable of Circumcision, than they are also capable of Baptism. For the Two Covenants, of Circumcision and Baptism, are for substance the same, and the grace of those Covenants the very same; and therefore if the Initiation of Infants was then no absurdity, it can be none now. Nay, if Infants were admitted into the Church, when the entrance was more grievous and not without Blood; how unreasonable is it to assert, that they are now uncapable of admission into it, when the entrance is made more easy, and more agreeable to the weakness of a tender Child?  
'Tis said indeed, that Infants are uncapable of Baptism, because they cannot Answer the Ends of it; they cannot understand the Gospel, or Profess their Faith and Repentance, or submit to Baptism out of their own choice, nor can they have their Faith and Hope further strengthened in the use of it. But this way of arguing is very weak and fallacious, and reflecting upon the Wisdom of God.  
First, It is weak and fallacious, because it makes no distinction betwixt a strict Institution, which is Instituted by God for one, or a few ends, and precisely for persons of one sort; and an Institution of Latitude, which is Instituted by him for several ends, and for different sorts of Persons, differently qualified for those several ends. Of the first sort was the Jewish Ordinance of Fringes, which could only concern grown Persons, because they only were capable of answering the End, for which it was Instituted, viz. To look upon them and remember the Commandments of the Lord: and of the latter sort is the Holy Ordinance of Marriage, which was appointed for several ends, and for persons differently qualified for those several ends; insomuch that persons who are incapacitated as to some ends of Marriage, may yet honestly Marry, because they are capable of the rest. For this Reason, those who are not capacitated for the Procreation of Children, may Marry, because they are capable of answering another end, for which Marriage was Ordained. Now our Adversaries cannot Prove, that Baptism is a strict Institution, because it succeeded in the room of Circumcision, which was an Institution of Latitude; and because our Saviour was Baptised, who was less capable of Baptism, than Infants possibly can be. For John Baptised with the Baptism of Repentance, and thereby Sealed unto the People the Remission of their Sins. Now our Saviour was without sin, and yet he was Baptised; which shows, that a Man who is capable of some ends of Baptism, may be Baptised, tho' he is not capable of the rest.  
Secondly, 'Tis reflecting upon the Wisdom of God, because God Commanded young Babes to be Circumcised, tho' all the ends of Circumcision could not be answered by them. For, since there lies the same objection against Infant-circumcision as against Infant-baptism, therefore those Men who argue thus against Infant-baptism, do reproach the Divine Wisdom, which enjoined Infant-circumcision.  
Children are capable of all the ends of Baptism, as it is a Sign, to assure us of God's favour, and to consign to us the Benefits of the Covenant of Grace. They may be made Members of a Church, and adopted Heirs of Eternal Life; as well as they may be made Members of a Family, and adopted Heirs of a Temporal Estate. And if they are capable of the Benefits and Privileges of Christianity, why should not the sign of those Benefits and Privileges be applied to them? Suppose a Prince should send for an attainted traitor's Child, and in the presence of several Persons Assembled for that purpose, should say, You know the blood of this Child is attainted by his Father's Treason; by Law he has forfeited all Right to his Ancestors Estate and Titles, and is quite undone, tho' he be not sensible of his wretched condition. My Bowels of compassion yern upon him, and here I restore him to his Blood and Inheritance, to which hence forward he shall have as much Right, as if the Family had never been attainted. I justify him freely, and declare myself reconciled to him; and that no spot or imputation may hereafter lie upon him, I here before you all wash him with pure Water, to signify that he is cleansed from his original attainder and corruption of Blood, and that he is as fully restored to his Birthright, as if he had never been attainted. Suppose, I say, this were done for a poor attainted Infant; could any Man say, the action was insignificant and invalid, because that Child knew nothing of it? Or that he was incapable of the sign, when he was capable of being washed from the attainder, which was the chief thing signified thereby?  
Besides, tho' Abraham believed, and solemnly professed his Faith before he was Circumcised; yet Isaac was Circumcised, and entered into the Covenant with God, before he was able to understand what the condition of the Covenant was. And will any Man say he was Circumcised in vain, or that God commanded a foolish thing; tho' he was under the very same incapacity as to the ends of Circumcision, that Infants now are as to the ends of Baptism?  
If it be said, that Circumcision was more proper for Infants than Baptism, because it left a Mark in the Flesh, to instruct them what was done in their infancy, which Baptism does not; I answer, 1. That even the Mark of Circumcision was as insignificant during the nonage of the Child, as Baptism is to Christian Infants: neither afterwards could he tell what the meaning of that Character was, but by the instruction of others. And therefore according to their way of reasoning against Infant-Baptism, it ought to have been deferred till the full years of discretion, when the Circumcised person might have understood the Spiritual signification thereof. 2. Allowing that Circumcision was more proper for Infants than Baptism, yet we must consider that the Jews knew very well, that Baptism left no Mark upon the person. And therefore those who argue against Infant-Baptism, must condemn the Jewish Church, which for many Age's Baptised Infants and minor Proselytes into the Covenant, as well as actual Believers, and yet were never reproved for it by any Prophet; which we may presume they would have been, had baptismal initiation of Infants into the Covenant been so absurd, insignificant, and abusive a practice, as the Professors against Infant-Baptism pretend it is.  
II. I am to show, that Infants are not excluded from Baptism by Christ. That he never excluded them by any express prohibition, the Anabaptists themselves do grant, because there is no such prohibition to be found in the New Testament: but then they pretend, that it was Christ's intention, that none but grown persons should be Baptised, because the Gospel requires, that persons to be Baptised should, 1. be Taught, Matth. 28.29. 2. Believe, Mark 16.16. 3. Repent, Acts 2.38. But those and the like Texts do no more prove, that none but grown persons ought to be Baptised, than the Apostle's words, 2 Thess. 3.10. do prove, that none but grown persons ought to eat. For he requires that if any would not work, neither should he eat; now none but grown persons can work, and therefore by this way of arguing none but grown persons ought to eat. Again, suppose there were a Plague in any Country, and God should miraculously call 11 or 12 Men, and give them a Meditine against this Plague, and say; Go into such a Country, and call the People of it together, and Teach them the Virtues of this Medicine, and assure them, that he that believeth and taketh it from you, shall live, but he that believeth not shall die. Now since Children are capable of the Medicine, tho' they are ignorant of the Benefits of it; would any Man conclude, that it was God's intention, that none but grown persons should receive it, because they only could be called together, and be taught the Virtues of it, and believe or disbelieve them that brought it? No certainly. Wherefore, seeing Children, as I have proved, are capable of the Benefits of Baptism; and the Apostles, who were sent to Baptise all Nations, knew them to be capable of it, and to have received both Circumcision and Baptism in the Jewish Church: how should it be thought, but that it was Christ's intention, that Children as well as grown persons should be Baptised?  
Should God, in the days of David, have ordered some Prophets to go and Preach the Law to every Creature, saying, He that believeth, and is Circumcised and Baptised, shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned; would those Prophets have Circumcised and Baptised only grown persons, contrary to the practice of the Jewish Church? Or if in a short History of their Mission we should have read, that they Circumcised and Baptised as many Proselytes, as gladly received their word; would this have proved, that they did not also Circumcise and Baptise the Infants of those believing Proselytes, according to the Laws and Usages of their Mother-Church? Or should God bid 12 Men, of a Church that had always practised Infant-Baptism, go and Preach the Gospel in the Indies, saying, He that believeth and is Baptised, shall be saved; would those Men, that were bred up to the practice of Infant-Baptism, think it was God's intention, that Baptism should be denied to Infants? No certainly; and therefore by parity of Reason, the Apostles could not so understand their Commission, as to exclude Infants from Baptism.  
Now since our Saviour has not, either expressly or otherwise, excluded Infants from Baptism, certainly his Command to Baptise all Nations, does comprehend Infants as well as Men. For the Apostles lived under a dispensation, where Infants were initiated both by Circumcision and Baptism into the Church; and unless they had been instructed to the contrary, they must naturally understand their Commission of Baptising to have extended unto Infants, as well as actual Believers.  
Our Adversaries indeed put the greatest stress upon these words of our Saviour, Mark 16.16. He that believeth and is Baptised, shall be saved: but if they would well consider the next words, they would find, that Infants are not at all concerned in them; because it follows, but he that believeth not, shall be damned. The same want of Faith, which here excludes from Baptism, excludes also from Salvation: and therefore it cannot be understood of Infants, unless they will say, that the same incapacity of believing which excludes them from Baptism, excludes them from Salvation too. Wherefore 'tis plain, that the believing or not believing in that Text, is only to be understood of such as are in a capacity of hearing and believing the Gospel, that is, of grown persons; just as the words, John 3.36. He that believeth on the Son of God, hath Everlasting Life; and he that believeth not, shall not see Life, but the Wrath of God abideth on him.  
But they urge also, that Baptism is unprofitable for Infants, because putting away the filth of the Flesh, which is all that Infants are capable of, signifies nothing; but only the answer of a good Conscience towards God, of which, say they, Infants are wholly uncapable. To this I answer, that another Apostle tells us, that external Circumcision, which is all that infants are capable of, profiteth nothing without keeping the Law, which Infants could not keep: but that the inward Circumcision of the Heart and in the Spirit, was the true Circumcision, and yet Infants are uncapable of it. So that their way of arguing proves nothing, because it stretches the words of the Apostles beyond their just meaning; which was to let both Jews and Christians know, (not that their Infants were unprofitably Circumcised or Baptised, but) that there was no resting in external Circumcision or Baptism.  
But farther, had not the Church been always in possession of this practice, or could any time be showed on this side the Apostles, when it began; nay could it be proved that any one Church in the World did not Baptise Infants, or that any considerable number of Men (otherwise Orthodox) did decline the Baptising of them upon the same principles that these Men do now: then I should suspect, that their arguments are better than they really are, and that Infant-Baptism might possibly be a deviation from the Rule of Christ. But since it is so Universal and Ancient a practice, that there never was any Church, Ancient or Modern, which did not practise it; it can be nothing less than an Apostolical practice and tradition.  
If it be said, that False Apostles and False Teachers brought in Infant-Baptism in the very first Ages; I would fain know, how it came to pass that the very Companions and Contemporaries of the Apostles, and the Ancient Saints and Martyrs, who wrote against other Heresies, passed it over in silence, tho' we are sure from Irenaeus and Tertullian, that it was 
(a) See Suicerus in the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hammond on Matth. 19.28. John 3.5. Selden De Jure, lib. 2. c. 4. Vossius De Baptismo. p. 181.  practised in those early times. 'Tis impossible, that they should all consent in such a dangerous Error, or that they should all peaceably and tamely submit to it without opposition, or that such an alteration should be made without observation, no body can tell how or when. Certainly those places of the New Testament, which require a profession of Faith and Repentance in grown Persons before Baptism, were understood by the ancient Fathers: and yet they never concluded from thence, that Infants ought not to be Baptised. But if the Scriptures were doubtful in the case, I appeal to any Man, whether the harmonious practice of the ancient Churches, and the undivided consent of the Apostolical Fathers, be not the best interpreters of them. Let any modest Person judge, whether it be more likely, that so many famous Saints and Martyrs, so near the Apostles times, should conspire in the practice of Mock-Baptism, and of making so many Millions of Mock-Christians; or that a little Sect should be in a grievous Error. The brevity which I design, will not permit me to recite the Authorities of the ancients, and therefore I refer the Reader to Cassander, and Vossius De Baptism. Disp. 14. only I desire him to consider the following particulars.  
1. That 'tis hard to imagine, that God should suffer his Church to fall into such a dangerous practice, as our Adversaries think Infant-Baptism to be, which would in time. Unchurch it; and that even while Miracles were yet extant in the Church, and he bore them witness with signs and wonders and divers gifts of the Holy Ghost. And yet 'tis plain, that Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Cyprian, who are witnesses of Infant-Baptism in those days, do assure 
(b) See Irenaeus Adu. Haer. l. 2. c. 56, 57 Tertull. Apol. and ad Scapul. Origen adv. Celsum, Camb. p. 34, 62, 80, 124, 127, 334, 376. Cyprian ad Donat. and ad Magn. and ad Demetrian. p. 202. Edit. Rigalt.  us, that Miracles were then not Extraordinary in the Church.  
2. If Infant-Baptism was not an Apostolical Tradition, how came the 
(c) See Voss. Hist. Pelag. lib. 2. p. 2. Id. de Baptis. Disp. 13. Thes. 18. and Disp. 14. ●hes. 4. Cassand. Praef. ad Duc. Jul. p. 670. and Te●●im. vet. de Bapt. parv. p. 687.  Pelagians not to reject it for an innovation, when the Orthodox used it as an argument against them, that Infants were guilty of Original sin? But they were so far from doing this, that they practised it themselves, and owned it as necessary for children's obtaining the Kingdom of Heaven, tho' they denied that they were Baptised for the remission of Original sin.  
3. If Infant-baptism be not an Apostolical Tradition, how came all Churches 
(d) See Brerewood's Enquir. c. 20.23. Cassand. Expos. de Auctor. Consult. Bapt Inf. p. 692. Osor. l. 3. de Rebus gest. Eman. cit. a Voss. Disp. 14. de Bapt.  whatsoever, tho' they held no correspondence, but were original plantations of the Apostles, to practise it? One may easily imagine, that God might suffer all Churches to fall into the harmless practice of Infant-Communion; or that the Fathers of the Church might comply with the Religious fondness of the People in bringing their Children to the Lord's Supper, as we do with bringing them to Prayers: but that God should let them all (not preserving one for a Monument of Apostolical Purity) fall into a practice, which destroys the being of the Church, is a thousand times more incredible, than that the Apostles, without a prohibition from Christ to the contrary, should Baptise Infants according to the practice of the Jewish Church.  
4. Would not the Jewish Christians, who were offended at the neglect of Circumcision, have been much more offended, if the Apostles had excluded their Children from Baptism, as the Children of Unbelievers, and refused to Initiate them under the New Testament, as they had always been under the Old? Wherefore, since among their many complaints upon the alteration of the Jewish Customs, we never read that they complained of their children's being excluded from Baptism: we may better argue, that the Apostles Baptised their Children; than we may conclude from the want of an express example of Infant-Baptism, that they did not Baptise them.  
III. I am to prove, that 'tis unlawful to separate from a Church, which appoints Infant-Baptism. Now it appears from what I have already said, that Infant-Baptism is a lawful thing, and therefore 'tis a sin to separate from that Church which commands it; because the Church has authority to Ordain that, which may be done without sin.  
But farther, Infant-Baptism is not only lawful, but highly requisite also. For purgation by Water and the Spirit seem equally necessary, because Except a Man be born again of Water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, John 3.5. And 'tis reasonable to think, that Children are capable of entering into Covenant, because they are declared capable of the Kingdom of God, Mark 10.14. Nay we may justly conclude, that Children were Baptised upon the Conversion of their Parents, after the Custom of the Jewish Church, because the Apostles Baptised whole households, Acts 16.15, 33. 1 Cor. 1.16. For 'tis probable, that the federal holiness of Believers Children makes them candidates for Baptism, and gives them a right to it; because the Children of Believers are called Holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. To which I may add other Texts, Psal. 5.5. Rom. 3.23, 24. Joh. 3.5, 6. 2 Cor. 15.21, 22. and 5.14, 15. which have been alleged by the ancients, both before and after the Pelagian Controversy, to prove the Baptism of Infants necessary to wash away their original sin, which makes them obnoxious to eternal death. See Voss. Hist. Pelag. p. 1. Thes. 6. p. 2. l. 2. I say, it may be fairly concluded from these Texts, that Infant-Baptism is requisite: but then these Texts in conjunction with the practice of the ancient Church do demonstrate that 'tis requisite; because the Church in the next Age to the Apostles practised Infant-Baptism, as an Apostolical tradition, and by consequence, as an institution of Christ.  
I do not say, that Baptism is indispensably necessary to the Salvation of Infants, so that a Child dying unbaptised through the carelessness or superstition of the Parents, or through their mistaken belief of the unlawfulness of Infant-Baptism, is infallibly damned: but I affirm, that Infant-Baptism is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as being most agreeable to the Scripture, and the Apostolical practice, and the institution of Christ. And if Baptism be not only lawful but so highly requisite, as it appears to be; then certainly 'tis unlawful to separate from that Church which injoins it.  
iv In the next place I shall show, that 'tis the duty of Christian Parents to bring their Children to Baptism; and in doing this I must proceed, as I did in the foregoing particular. Since Infants are not uncapable of Baptism, nor excluded from it by Christ; nay, since there are good reasons to presume, that Christ at least allowed them Baptism as well as grown persons: therefore the command of the Church makes it the People's duty to bring their Children to Baptism, because 'tis lawful so to do.  
But farther, Infant-Baptism is highly expedient also. For, 1. it is very beneficial to the Infants, who are thereby solemnly consecrated to God, and made members of Christ's Mystical Body the Church. Besides, they being by Nature Children of Wrath, are by Baptism made the Children of Grace, and receive a right to eternal Life. I cannot deny, but they may be saved without Baptism by the uncovenanted Mercy of God: but then the hopes of God's mercy in extraordinary cases, ought not to make us less regardful of his sure, ordinary, and covenanted Mercies, and the appointed Means to which they are annexed. Nay, Infants do by Baptism acquire a present right unto all the Promises of the Gospel, and particularly to the promises of the Spirit's assistance, which they shall certainly receive, as soon and as fast, as their natural incapacity removes.  
Now, since these are the benefits of Baptism, and since Infants are capable of them; let any impartial Man judge, whether it is more for their benefit, that they should receive them by being Baptised in their infancy, or stay for them till they come to years of discretion. Is it better for a Child that has the Evil, to be touched for it while he is a Child, or to wait till he is of sufficient Age to be sensible of the benefit? Or is it best for a traitor's Child to be presently restored to his Blood and Estate, and his Prince's Favour, or to be kept in a mere capacity of being restored, till he is a man?  
I must add, that Baptism lays such an early pre-engagement upon Children, as without the highest baseness and ingratitude they cannot afterwards retract. For there is no person of common Ingenuity, Honour or Conscience, but will think himself bound to stand to the Obligation which he contracted in his Infancy; when he was so graciously admitted to so many blessings and privileges, before he could understand his own good, or do any thing himself towards the obtaining of them. And therefore the Wisdom of the Church is highly to be applauded, for bringing them under such a beneficial pre-engagement, and not leaving them to their own liberty at such years, when Flesh and Blood would be apt to find out so many shifts and excuses, and make them regret to be Baptised.  
2. Infant-Baptism is very Expedient, because it conduces much to the Wellbeing and Edification of the Church, in preventing those scandalous and shameful delays of Baptism, which grown Persons would be apt to make in these, as they did in former times to the great prejudice of Christianity.  
Since therefore Infant-Baptism is not only Lawful and commanded by the Church, but most Expedient in itself, and most agreeable to the practice of the Apostles and Primitive Christians, and to the Will of Christ; it must needs be concluded, that there lies the same obligation upon Parents to desire Baptism for their Children, as there does upon grown Persons to desire it for themselves. For what Authority soever exacts any thing concerning Children or Persons under the years of discretion, lays at least an implicit obligation upon Parents, to see that it be performed. For, if in the time of a general contagion, the Supreme Power should Command, that all Men, Women and Children, should every Morning take such an Antidote; that Command would oblige Parents to give it to their Children, as well as to take it themselves. Just so the Ordinance of Baptism being intended for Children as well as grown Persons, it must needs oblige the Parents to bring them to it.  
What I have here said about the obligation, which lies upon Parents to bring their Children to Baptism, concerns all Guardians, etc. to whose care Children are committed. And if any ask, at what time they are bound to bring them to Baptism? I answer, at any time; for the Gospel indulges a discretional latitude, but forbids the wilful neglect, and all unreasonable and needless delays thereof.  
V As to Communion with Believers, who were Baptised in their Infancy, 'tis certainly Lawful, and has ever been thought so; nay 'tis an exceeding great sin to refuse Communion with them, because that would be a disowning those to be Members of Christ's Body, whom he owns to be such.  
Nothing now remains, but that I take off two objections. First, 'Tis said that Infant-Communion may be practised, as well as Infant-Baptism. But I answer, 1. There is not equal Evidence for the Practice of Infant-Communion; because St. Cyprian is the first Author which they can produce for it, and then the Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and Cyril of Jerusalem, mention it towards the latter end of the Fourth Century, and St. Austin in the Fifth: whereas for Infant-Baptism we have the Authority of St. Cyprian and a whole Council of Fathers, over which he Presided, of Origen, Tertullian, Irenaeus, St. Jerom, St. Ambrose, St. Chrysostom, St. Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, and the Third Council of Carthage, who all speak of it as a thing generally practised, and most of them, as of a thing which ought to be practised in the Church. I may add, that none of the Four Testimonies for Infant-Communion speak of it, as of an Apostolical Tradition, as Origen does of Infant-Baptism. 2. There is not equal Reason for the Practice of it. For Persons of all Ages are capable of Baptism: but the Holy Eucharist is the Sacrament of Perfection, instituted for the remembrance of Christ's Death and Passion; which being an act of great Knowledge and Piety, Children are not capable to perform. Nor is there an equal concurrence of Tradition, or the Authority of so many Texts of Scripture for Infant-Communion; it being grounded only upon John 6.53. Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, ye have no life in you. Now 'tis doubtful whether this be meant of the Eucharist or no, because it was not as yet instituted: but if it be so to be understood, yet the sense of it ought to be regulated by the chief end of its Institution, Do this in remembrance of me. Nay, the Western Church, discerning the Mistake upon which Infant-Communion was grounded, have long since laid it aside, tho' they still continue the practice of Infant-Baptism.  
But in truth, the practice of Infant-Communion is so far from prejudicing the Cause of Infant-Baptism, that it mightily confirms it; because none were, or could be admitted to partake of the Holy Communion, till they were validly Baptised. And therefore the practice of Infant-Communion fully proves, that all the Churches, wherein it ever was, or still 
(e) As in the Greek, Russian, and Abyssin Churches, and among the Christians of St. Thomas in the Indies.  is practised, were of opinion, that the Baptism of Infants is as Valid and Lawful, as that of grown Persons.  
Secondly, 'tis objected, that Children who have not the use of Reason, cannot know what a Covenant means, and therefore they cannot contract and stipulate; tho' St. Peter says, the Baptism which saveth us, must have the Answer, or Restipulation of a good Conscience towards God. To this I Answer, 1. That this Objection is as strong against Infant-Circumcision, as against Infant-Baptism. 2. That God was pleased to Seal the Covenant of Grace unto Circumcised Infants upon an implicit and imputative sort of stipulation, which at years of understanding they were bound to own; because if they renounced it, the Covenant was as void, as if it had never been made. And therefore an implicit stipulation is sufficient for the Baptism of Infants; and St. Peter, 'tis likely, had not respect to all Baptism, or Baptism in general, but only to the Baptism of adult Proselytes, whom the Minister used to interrogate at the time of Baptism, much after the same manner as we interrogate adult Proselytes now. But it is plain that Tertullian 
(f) De Baptism. cap. 18.  makes mention of Sponsors or Sureties for Children at Baptism; and 'tis very probable, that the Apostles made Parents, etc. stipulate in the name of their 
(g) See Selden de Synedr. lib. 1. cap. 3.  Minors, when they Baptised them, as the Jews were wont to do; and 'tis certain, that our Saviour speaks of Children, that Believe in him, Matth. 18.6. And therefore St. Peter might also probably allude to all Baptism, because Children might be Answered for by other Persons.  
Thus, I hope, I have sufficiently justified the practice of Infant-Baptism, and shown, that it is by no means a sufficient excuse for separation from us.   

CHAP. VI Objections against our Form of Baptism, and particularly that of the sign of the Cross, Answered.  
I Proceed now to consider the Objections against our Form of Baptism.  
I. It is said, that all Baptised Infants are supposed to be regenerated, of which, some think, we cannot be certain. But since they are Baptised into Christ's Body, 1 Cor. 12.13. and into Christ, and have put on Christ, Gal. 3.27. and consequently are new Creatures, 2 Cor. 5.17. since, I say, they are Baptised for the Remission of sins, Acts 2.38. and since Baptism is called the Washing of regeneration, Tit. 3.5. therefore the Scripture, as well as our Church, supposes them to be regenerated; unless the Ordinances and Promises of God are of none effect towards them.  
II. 'Tis objected, that Godfathers and Godmothers have no Authority to Covenant or act in their names. To which I answer, 1. That the Sureties are procured by the Parents; and therefore, since 'tis granted that the Parents may act in behalf of the Infant, the Sureties have all that Authority which the Parents can give them. 2. The Church does hereby take great security, that the Infant shall be religiously brought up: inasmuch as, besides their Parents, an obligation is laid upon others also to take care of it. If the Parents should die or be negligent, the Sureties are engaged to admonish the Child, and have greater authority and better advantages of doing so, than other Persons. And in this Age, when the Duty of Christian reproof is so generally omitted, 'twere well if the defect were this way a little supplied: but 'tis by no means fit, that the opportunity thereof, and obligation thereto should be taken away. If it be said, this is seldom practised; I answer, that the goodness of a Rule is to be judged of by the good that is done where 'tis kept, and not where 'tis broken. And if the Dissenters have nothing to say, but that 'tis neglected; they may remove this objection themselves, by returning to the Church and increasing the number of those that observe it. Thus they shall have the benefit of the order of the Church, and the Church the benefit of their Examples.  
As for the Interrogatories put to the Sureties, and their Answers, they are a Solemn Declaration of what Baptism obliges us to; and that Infants do stand engaged to perform it, when they come to Age. This is the known meaning of the Contract; and therefore I see not, why it should be said to be liable to misunderstanding.  
III. But that which is most disliked, is the Cross in Baptism, against which 'tis objected, 1. That the sign of the Cross has been so notoriously abused by the Papists, that our retaining of it makes us partakers of their Superstitions and Idolatry. 2. That it seems a new Sacrament, and therefore is an invasion of Christ's right, who alone may institute Sacraments.  
As to the First pretence, tho' I readily acknowledge that the Cross has been notoriously abused by the Papists, yet this does not prove our retaining of it to be unlawful, if we consider Three things.  
1. That the use of this sign was common in the primitive times, and is more Ancient, than any of those Corruptions, for which we differ from the Papists. Tertullian 
(a) De Coron. Mil.  speaks of it, as of a practice which Tradition had introduced, Custom had confirmed, and the Believers faith had observed and maintained: which words, together with his frequent and familiar mention of it, make it very improbable, that he received it from the Montanists. Forty years after him, and about 200 after Christ, Origen 
(b) Hom. 2. in Psal. 38.  mentions those, who at their Baptism were signed with this sign: and about 100 years after, St. Basil 
(c) De Spir. S. c. 27.  gives this usage the Venerable Title of an Ecclesiastical constitution, or fixed Law of the Church, that had prevailed from the Apostles days, that those who believe in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, should be signed with the sign of the Cross.  
But of all the Fathers, St. Cyprian who was before St. Basil and very near (if not contemporary with) Tertullian himself, not only speaks very familiarly of the use of this sign, but has some expressions that would now seem very harsh and unwarrantable: and yet the authority of this Father has saved him from being questioned about it. He 
(d) See Cyprian. De Laps. p. 169. adv. Demet. p. 203. de Unit. p. 175.  tells us, that they are signed in the forehead with the Cross, who are thought worthy of the Lord; that Baptism is sanctified by the Cross; and that it completes every Sacrament. The great the antiquity of this usage is manifest; nay, the Fathers frequently use being signed in the forehead for being Baptised.  
I shall not instance in St. Cyril, St. Ambrose and St. Austin, who sprinkle their writings with the common mention of this Ceremony, and oftentimes frame arguments for a good Life, from this very sign upon their foreheads. Only I shall add this remark; that the first Christian Emperor Constantine the Great, had his directions probably from Heaven itself, to make this sign the great Banner in his Wars, with this encouragement, that by this he should overcome. That this Dream or Vision was from Heaven, and a thing of great reality, is evident from the success of that Prince's Army under it: and we cannot suppose, that our Blessed Lord would, by so immediate a revelation, countenance such a Rite as this, already used in the Church, if he had resented it before as superstitious or any way unwarrantable. I may add, that we ought not to be too petulant against that, which the Holy Spirit has sometimes signalised by very renowned Miracles; as those that consult the Ecclesiastical Histories of the best Authority, cannot but be convinced: and that those conceits of the Father's concerning this sign, which perhaps may be too fanciful, do confirm the ancient reception of it into the Primitive Church.  
If it be said, that the ancient Christians used this sign, because they lived amongst Jews and Heathens, to testify to both, that they made the Cross the Badge of their profession, and would not be ashamed of it, tho' 'twas a stumbling-block to the one and foolishness to the other: whereas we have no such occasion for it, who do universally profess Christianity; I Answer, 1. That this Objection supposes the sign to be lawful, and that it may be used upon weighty Reasons; and surely then the command of Authority may justify the practice of it. 2. That we have as just reason to use it as the Primitive Christians, because of the blasphemous Contempt that is generally cast upon the whole Scheme of Christianity, particularly the Merits of our Saviour's Cross and Passion, by the pretended Wits of our Age. So that St. Cyprian's 
(e) Epist. 56. ad Thiber.  words are now pertinent, Arm your Foreheads, that the Seal of God may be kept safe; as if he should have said, Remember the Badge you took upon you in Baptism, and so long as you have that upon your Foreheads, never be ashamed or laughed out of countenance as to the Memory of our Saviour's love, and the foundation of your hopes laid in his Death and Passion.  
I grant indeed, that the use of the Cross is an indifferent Ceremony, and that Baptism is, as our Church declares, complete without it: but what I contend for, is fully proved, viz. that the Cross was used in the first Ages of Christianity; from whence it follows, that tho' 'tis not necessary, yet 'tis warrantable.  
2. Our use of this sign is not in the least like the Popish use of it. For, 1. we admit of no visible Crucifixes; nor has any of our Writers ventured to say 
(f) Christian Direct. Eccles. Cas. p. 113. p. 875, 876.  with Mr. Baxter, that a Crucifix well befitteth the imagination and mind of a Believer; and that it is not unlawful to make an image (of a Crucifix) to be an Object or Medium of our consideration, exciting our minds to worship God. The sense of our Church is truly expressed by Mr. Hooker, who 
(g) Eccles. Pol. l. 5. p. 348.  says, That between the Cross which Superstition honoureth as Christ, and that Ceremony of the Cross which serveth only for a sign of remembrance, there is as plain and great a difference, as between those Brazen Images which Solomon made to bear up the Cistern of the Temple, and that which the Israelites in the Wilderness did adore. Ours is a mere transient sign, which abides not so long as to be capable of becoming an Object or Medium of worship, any more than any words we use in worship may do. 2. Our use even of this transient sign is nothing like the Popish use of it. For the Papists use it upon all occasions; and at Baptism they use it much oftener, and so differently from our way, that 'tis not used at the same time and with the same words that we use it with. This is evident from the Roman Ritual.  
3. Tho' the Church of Rome has notoriously abused this sign, yet 'tis not unlawful for us to continue the use of it, as I shall fully prove in the Eighth Chapter.  
As to the Second pretence, that the sign of the Cross is a new Sacrament, I answer, that we all agree, that a Sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and Spiritual Grace given to us, Ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and as a Pledge to assure us thereof. And therefore, since we never supposed, that the use of the Cross in Baptism could confer Grace, nor have ever made the least pretence to any Divine appointment for it; we ought not to be charged as introducing a New Sacrament.  
If it be said, that we make the Cross a sign betokening our Faith and Christian Courage, because we apply it in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the Faith o● Christ Crucified, etc. and that therefore we make it an outward sign of an inward and Spiritual Grace; I answer, that we own it to be a significant Ceremony, as all other Ceremonies are; for we do not account a Ceremony innocent, because 'tis insignificant and impertinent: but yet we deny it to be an outward and visible sign of an inward and Spiritual Grace. For our Ceremonies are not seals and assurances from God of his Grace to us, but hints and remembrances of some Obligation we are under with respect to him; and this kind of significant Usages has ever been taken up, without any imputation of introducing a New Sacrament.  
For, 1. the Jewish Church changed the posture of eating the Passover, from Standing to Sitting in token of their Rest and Security in the Land of Canaan. There was also an Altar of witness reared on the other side of Jordan; and the Synagogue-Worship, Rites of Marriage, Form of taking Oaths, etc. were significant; and yet they were all received in the purest times of the Jewish Church, and complied with by our Saviour himself 2. The Christian Church of the first Ages used the same liberty, as appears by the customs of the Holy Kiss and the Feasts of Charity. Tertullian, de Orat. speaks as if the public Service were imperfect, if it concluded not with the Holy Kiss; which was used in token of the mutual Communion and Fellowship, that Christians had with one another. The Feasts of Charity also signified the mutual Love and Communion of Christians, and the equal regard that God and our Saviour had towards all sorts and conditions of Men, when they were all to eat freely together at one Common meal. I might further instance in the Ceremony of insufflation, which was used as a sign of Breathing into them the good Spirit; and the Baptised Person's stripping off his Garment in token that he put off the Old Man; and the trine immersion, at the Mention of each Person of the Trinity, to signify the Belief of that great Article. Now all these things were anciently practised without any jealousy of invading the prerogative of Christ in instituting New Sacraments. 3. All the Reformed Churches, nay the very Dissenters themselves, do use some Symbolical actions in their most Religious Solemnities. For, 1. Their giving to the Baptised Infant a New Name seems to betoken its being made a New Creature. Nay the Dissenters generally give it some Scripture-name, or one that betokens a particular grace; and this is an outward and visible sign, and this too sometimes of an inward and spiritual grace; and yet they do not think it a New Sacrament. 2. The Dissenters plead for sitting at the Lord's Supper, because 'tis a Table-g●sture, and expresses Fellowship with Christ, etc. This is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace; and yet 'tis not accounted an additional Sacrament to that of the Lord's Supper. 4. And lastly, Suppose that an Independent, when he is admitted into their Church-Covenant, should signify his assent by holding up his hand, or the like; this is an outward and visible sign of no less than a new state of life, that is, of being made a Member of Christ's Church, and being engaged to all the duties and instated in all the Privileges of it: and yet this was never charged upon them by the Presbyterians, as introducing a New Sacrament. Now from all these instances 'tis evident, how unreasonable a thing it is, that our using the sign of the Cross, in token that hereafter he (the Infant) shall not be ashamed to confess the Faith of Christ crucified, etc. should be thought an adding of a New Sacrament of the Cross to that of Baptism.  
But 'tis objected, that our Convocation, c. 30. declares, That by the sign of the Cross the Infant is Dedicated, etc. Now, say they, Baptism is itself a Seal of Dedication to God, and therefore our Dedicating the Infant by our own invented way of the sign of the Cross, is adding a New Sacrament. To this I answer, that Dedication may properly signify a Confirmation of our first Dedication to God, and a Declaration of what the Church thinks of a Baptised Person; and the sign of the Cross is the Medium of this Declaration. That this is the meaning of our Church, is evident, if we compare the Office of Baptism and the Canon together. Both the Rubric and Canon say, that Baptism is complete without the sign of the Cross. It is expressly said, We receive this Child into the Congregation of Christ 's Flock, and upon that do sign it with the Cross; So that the Child is declared to be within the Congregation of Christ 's Flock, before 'tis signed with the Cross. Since therefore the Person is Dedicated in Baptism, and the Baptism is acknowledged complete without, or before the sign of the Cross; we cannot be thought to Dedicate in Baptism and to Dedicate by the Cross again: but the Dedication by the Cross must be something very distinct from the Dedication of Baptism; that is, the one is the sign of the Dedication, and the other the Dedication itself. So that this is plainly no other, than a Declaration the Church makes of what the Baptised Person is admitted to, and what engagement he lies under. Which Declaration is therefore made in the name of the Church in the Plural number, We receive this Child, etc. and do sign him with the sign of the Cross, etc. whereas in Baptism, the Minister alone, as the immediate Agent of Christ, pronounces in the singular number, I Baptise thee in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.  
From what has been said, I hope, it appears, that our Office of Baptism has nothing in it, that may in the least justify a separation from us.   

CHAP. VII. Objections against our Communion-Office, and particularly that of kneeling at the Sacrament, Answered.  
THO' the Communion-Office, for the Gravity and Holiness thereof, is preferred by the Dissenters before all other Offices in the Common-Prayer-Book, yet it has not past free from exception. For,  
I. 'Tis objected against it, that the Petition in the Prayer before Consecration, That our sinful Bodies may be made clean by his body, and our Souls washed by his most precious Blood, implies that the Blood of Christ has greater efficacy than his Body, inasmuch as the Soul is said to be cleansed by the Blood of Christ, and only the Body by Christ's Body. But I answer, that at the delivery of the Bread and Wine, the Priest says, The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy Body and Soul unto everlasting Life; and The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was, etc. And therefore 'tis plain, that our Church teaches, that the Sanctification and Salvation of our Souls and Bodies flow from the Body as well as the Blood of Christ. Nor does the mentioning of one alone exclude the other; for the Apostle speaks sometimes of the Bread alone, 1 Cor. 10.17. and sometimes of the Wine alone, 1 Cor. 12.13. and yet all Men must grant, that he meant both.  
II. 'Tis said, that Christ did not deliver the Elements into every Person's hands, with a Form of words recited to every one of them, as we do. But I answer, 1. That this does not appear from Christ's words; for the Evangelists may well be supposed to give a short account of the Institution, and then what might be particularly said or done to every one, would be sufficiently related in being said to be done or spoken to all. 2. Suppose that our practice does vary from this circumstance of the Institution, it may be as easily defended as celebrating the Lord's Supper at Dinnertime, and not at Supper, which the Dissenters themselves do not scruple. 3. Our Saviour commanded his Disciples, Matth. 28.19. to Teach all Nations Baptising them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. But will any Man think, that when great numbers are to be Baptised together, the Form of Baptising in the Name of the Father, etc. may not lawfully be expressed severally to every Person? And why then may not the same be done in the Lord's Supper? Wherefore the practice of our Church herein is no way unsuitable to the Institution of Christ, or the nature of the Sacrament; and the alteration of it would be for the worse, and abate the Solemnity of its Administration. See Falkner 's Libert. Eccles. p. 218, etc.  
III. The last and great objection is against the posture of kneeling at the Sacrament; and therefore I shall consider it largely, and endeavour to show,  
1. That Christ has not forbidden us to kneel at the Sacrament.  
2. That kneeling is not a deviation from his Example.  
3. That 'tis not unsuitable for its being no Table-gesture.  
4. That 'tis not contrary to the practice of the Church in the best and purest Ages.  
5. That kneeling is not therefore unlawful, because 'twas introduced by Idolaters, and is still notoriously abused by the Papists to Idolatrous ends and purposes.  
First then, Christ has not forbidden us to kneel at the Sacrament. For in all the Scriptures God has not given us any express command to determine our practice one way or other: and, if Authority did not restrain our Liberty, we might either sit, kneel or stand, without the least violation of the Law of God.  
The Apostles and Disciples of our Lord at the Institution of the Sacrament, which the Scripture relates in several places 
(a) Matth. 26.26, etc. Mark 14.22, etc. Luke 22.19. etc. 1 Cor. 11.23, etc.  were the Representatives of the whole Church, and are to be considered under a double capacity; either as Governors and Ministers, Entrusted by Christ with the Power of dispensing and administering the Sacrament, or as ordinary and Lay-communicants. If we consider them as Governors and Stewards of the Mysteries, their duty to which they are obliged by the express Command of their Lord, is to take the Bread into their hands, to Bless and Consecrate it to that Mysterious and Divine use to which he designed it, to break and distribute it; and so in the like manner to take and bless the Cup, and give it to their Fellow-Christians. But if we consider them as Private Men, and in common with all Believers, their duty was to take and receive the Bread and Wine, and to eat and drink in Commemoration of Christ's Love. But what syllable or shadow of a Command is there in all the History for the use of any gesture in the act of receiving? Since then the Holy Scripture is altogether silent as to this matter, it's silence is a full and clear demonstration, that kneeling is not repugnant to any express command of our Lord, because no gesture was ever commanded at all.  
But the Scotch Ministers Assembled at Perth, affirm that when our Lord Commanded his Disciples to do this, he did by those words Command them to use that Gesture, which he used at that time, as well as to take, eat, drink, etc. To this I answer, 1. That if our Lord did sit at the Institution (which we will suppose at present) yet there is no reason to think, that He intended by these words, do this, to oblige us to observe this Gesture only, and not several other circumstances, which he observed at the same time, as well as this. For Example, if the words may be Interpreted thus, Do this, that is, sit as Christ did; why not thus also, Do this, that is, Celebrate the Sacrament in an Upper-room, in a Private-house, late at night or in the evening, after a full Supper, in the Company of Twelve at most, and they only Men, with their Heads covered according to the Custom of those Countries, and with unleavened Bread? There lies as great an obligation upon us to observe all those circumstances in imitation of our Lord, as there does to sit. 2. Even the two last of those circumstances are generally allowed, but all the rest are mentioned in Scripture, and were most certainly observed by Christ: whereas the gesture used by them is not mentioned, and what it was is very disputable, as I shall afterwards prove. How then can any Man think himself obliged in Conscience to do what Christ is not expreslly said to do; and not obliged to do what the Scripture expressly says he did? 3. 'Tis clear from St. Paul, 1 Cor. 11.23, etc. that do this, respects only the Bread and Wine, which signify the Body and Blood of Christ, and actions that are specified by him, which are essential to the right and due Celebration of that Holy Feast. For when 'tis said, Do this in remembrance of me, and this do as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me, and as oft as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup, ye do show the Lord's Death till he come; 'tis plain, that do this, must be restrained to the Sacramental actions there mentioned, and not extended to the gesture, of which the Apostle speaks not a word. Our Lord Instituted the Sacrament in Remembrance of his Death and Passion, and not in Remembrance of his Gesture in Administering it: and consequently, do this, is a general Command, obliging us only to such particular actions and rites as he had instituted, and made necessary to be used in order to this great end, viz. to signify and represent his Death, and that bloody Sacrifice which he offered upon the Cross for us miserable Sinners.  
Nay the Practice of our Dissenters proves, that no particular gesture is commanded. For there are many serious and sincere Persons among them, who profess that (were they left to their liberty) they could use kneeling as well as any other gesture: but they think that an indifferent thing becomes unlawful, when 'tis enjoined by Authority. I have already confuted this opinion; but 'tis certain, that by granting they could use the posture of kneeling, were it not enjoined, and consequently that 'tis in its own nature indifferent; they do thereby grant that there is no Command for any particular posture.  
I must add, that the Reformed Churches of France, and those of Geneva and Helvetia stand, the Dutch generally sit, but in some places (as in West-Friesland) they stand. The Churches of the Bohemian and Augustane Confession, which spread through the large Kingdoms of Bohemia, Denmark, and Sweden, through Norway, the Dukedom of Saxony, Lithuania and Ducal Prussia in Poland, the Marquisate of Brandenburg in Germany, and several other places and free Cities in that Empire, do for the most part, if not all of them, retain the Gesture of Kneeling. The Bohemian Churches were Reformed by John hus and Jerom of Prague, who suffered Martyrdom at Constance about the year 1416. long before Luther's time, and those of the Ausbourg or Augustan Confessions were founded and reformed by Luther, and were the first Protestants properly so called. But these Churches so early reformed and of so large extent, did not only use the same Gesture that our Church injoins at the Sacrament; but they, together with those of the Helvetic Confession, did in three 
(b) 1. At Cracow, Anno Dom. 1573. 2. Petricow or Peterkaw. 1578. 3. Wiadislaw, 1583.  general Synods unanimously condemn the sitting Gesture (tho' they esteemed it in itself lawful) as being scandalous for this remarkable Reason, viz. because it was used by the Arians (as their Synods call the Socinians) in contempt of our Saviour's Divinity, who therefore placed themselves as Fellows with their Lord at his Table. And thereupon they entreat and exhort all Christians of their Communion to change sitting into kneeling or standing, both which Ceremonies we indifferently leave free, according as the custom of any Church has obtained, and we approve of their use without scandal and blame. Moreover they affirm, That these Socinians who deny Christ to be God, were the first that introduced Sitting at the Sacrament into their Churches, contrary to the practice of all the Evangelical Churches in Europe. Among all these Foreign Churches of the Reformation, there is but one that I can find which uses Sitting, and forbids Kneeling, for fear of Bread-worship; but yet in that Synod wherein they condemned Kneeling, they left it to the choice of their Churches to use Standing, Sitting, or an Ambulatory Gesture (as the French 
(c) Harmon. 4. Synods of Holl.  do) and at last conclude thus; These Articles are so settled by mutual consent, that if the good of the Churches require it, they may and aught to be changed, augmented or diminished. What now should be the ground and reason of this Variety both in Opinion and Practice touching the Gesture to be used at the Lord's Supper? Is it to be imagined that an Assembly of Learned and Pious Divines, met together on purpose to consult how to reform their Churches, according to the pure Word of God, should through weakness and inadvertency overlook an express Command of Christ for the perpetual use of any particular Gesture, if any such there had been? Or shall we be so uncharitable as to think, that all these eminent Churches wilfully past it by, and established what was most agreeable to their own fancies, contrary to the known Will of God? Would they have given liberty to all of their Communion to use several Gestures according to the Custom of their several Churches, if our Lord had tied them to observe but one? Would they declare (as the Dutch Synod doth) that what they enjoined might be altered, if the good of the Church so required; if so be Sitting had been expressly Commanded by our Lord, to be used by all Christians to the end of the World? No undoubtedly, they would not; we cannot either in Reason or Charity suppose it.  
The true Principle upon which all these Reformed Churches built, and by which they are able to reconcile all this seeming difference in this matter, is the very same with that which the Church of England goes by in her Synods and Convocations; viz. 
(d) Vid. Art. 34. observat. of the French and Dutch Divines on the Harmony of Confessions, Edit. Geneva 1681. Sect. 14. p. 120. In hoc etiam ritu (speaking of Kneeling at the Sacrament) suam cuique Ecclesiae libertatem salvam reliquendam arbitramur.  That as to Rites and Ceremonies of an indifferent nature, every National Church has Authority to institute, change and abolish them, as they in Prudence and Charity shall think most fit and conducive to the setting forth God's Glory, the Edification of their People, and the Decent and Reverend Administation of the Holy Sacrament. Whosoever therefore refuses to receive the Lord's Supper according to the Constitution of the Church of England, purely because Kneeling is contrary to the express Command of Christ, must condemn the Judgement and Practice of all the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas, who all agree in this, That the Gesture in the Act of Receiving is to be reckoned among things Indifferent; and that whether we sit, or kneel or stand, or Receive walking, we transgress no Law of God; and consequently they prove my Assertion true, That Kneeling is no more contrary to any express Command than any other Gesture; because they allow of all, as lawful in themselves to be used, which cannot consist with an express Command for the use of any one Gesture whatsoever.  
Upon the whole matter, I think we may certainly conclude, that there is not a tittle of a Command in the whole New Testament to oblige us to receive the Lord's Supper in any particular posture: and if any be so scrupulous, as not to receive it in any other Gesture, but what is expressly commanded, they must never receive it as long as they live.  
Secondly, I shall prove, that Kneeling is not a deviation from Christ's example. This will appear, if we consider, 1. that 'tis doubtful what Gesture our Saviour used at the Institution of the Sacrament. For the Scripture does not inform us what it was, and the Jews used variety of Gestures at the Passover; and therefore, since our Lord's Example cannot certainly be known in this Matter, our Church cannot be charged with deviation from it. 2. Those who Kneel at the Sacrament in compliance with the Orders of the Church, do manifestly follow the Example of Christ. For our Saviour complied with that Passover-gesture, which the Jews then used, tho' it was not the same that was used at the Institution in Egypt: and his compliance may teach us, not to be scrupulous about Gestures, but to conform to the innocent and prevailing customs of the Church, wheresoever we live. And if Christians did walk according to this rule, they would greatly promote the peace and welfare of the Church of Christ, and in so doing procure quiet and peace to themselves, with unspeakable comfort and satisfaction.  
But supposing our Lord did sit, as the Dissenters will have it; yet his bare example does not oblige all Christians to a like practice. 1. Because naked examples, without some rule or note added to them, to signify that 'tis God's Will to have them constantly followed, have not the force of Laws perpetually obliging the Conscience. And therefore, in this case, because no such note is to be found, we are not tied in Conscience to a strict imitation of Christ's Example. Thus the Example of our Saviour does not oblige us to defer our Baptism till the Age of 30 years, or not to receive the Sacrament till a little before death; and, I pray, what reason is there to follow his Example in sitting at the Sacrament, any more than in those particulars? 2. We are bound to imitate Christ in those things only which he has commanded: but where there is no command, there is no necessity. Indeed we must follow Christ and his Apostles; but in what? Why, in acting according to the Gospel-rule. An example may help to interpret a Law, but of itself it is no Law. Against a rule no example is a competent warrant: and if the example be according to the rule, 'tis not the Example, but the Rule, that is the Measure of our actions. 3. The bare Example of Christ is no warrant for us to go by, because he was an Extaordinary Person, and did many things which we cannot, and many which we must not do. He Fasted 40 Days and 40 Nights, wrought Miracles, etc. which we are not to pretend to. They say indeed, We are bound to imitate Christ and the commendable Example of his Apostles, in all things wherein it is not evident, they had special Reasons moving them thereunto, which do not concern us. But I would willingly be informed how we shall be ever able to know when they acted upon special Reasons, and what they were, that we may know our Duty, if a bare Example without any Rule obliges us. And if we guide ourselves by Scripture or Reason in this matter, than they are the measures of the Example. Besides, if we are not to imitate them in such things, as they were moved to do upon special Reasons, which did not concern us; then we are obliged to imitate their Examples in such things as they did upon general and common Reasons, which concern us as well as them, or we are not obliged at all by any Example: and if so, than those Reasons are to be our Rule, to which we are to reduce their Examples. Unless we find some general or common Reason, we have no Warrant (according to their own Principle) to follow their Examples: and when such Reasons do appear, then it's not the Example alone that obliges us, but Reason that approves the Example. To bring their own Rule to the case in hand, how do they know but our Lord was moved to Sat at the Sacrament by Special Reasons drawn from that Time and Place, or the Feast of the Passover, to which that Gesture was peculiar? How do they know, but that our Lord might have used another Gesture, if the Sacrament had been Instituted apart from the Passover?  
The necessity of the time made the Jews eat the Passover after one fashion in Egypt, which afterward ceasing, gave occasion to alter it in Canaan; and how do we know, but that our Lord complied with the present necessity, and that his Example (if he did Sat) was only temporary, and not designed for a Standing Law, perpetually obliging to a like Practice? If Christ acted upon special Reasons, than we are not obliged, by their own Rule: and if he did not, let them produce the Reasons if they can, which make this Example of Christ of general and perpetual use, and to oblige all Christians to follow it. 4. 'Tis absurd to talk of Christ's Example apart from all Law and Rule, and to make that alone a principle of duty distinct from the Precepts of the Gospel, because Christ himself always governed his actions by a Law. For if we consider him as a Man, he was obliged by the Natural Law, as a Jew by the Mosaic Law, as the Messiah by the Gospel-Law. He came to fulfil all Righteousness, and to Teach and Practise the whole Will of God. If therefore we look only to his Example, without considering the various capacities and relations he bore, both towards God and towards us, and the several Laws by which he stood bound, which were the Measures of his Actions; we shall miserably mistake our way, and act like Fools, when we do such things as he did pursuant to infinite Wisdom. Thus, if we should subject ourselves to the Law of Moses, as he did, we should thereby frustrate the great design of the Gospel: and yet even this we are obliged to do, if his Example alone be a sufficient warrant for our actions. Thus it appears that Christ's bare Example does not oblige us to do any thing, that is not commanded.  
I shall only add, that they who urge the Example of Christ against Kneeling at the Sacrament, do not follow it themselves. For our Saviour probably used a Leaning Gesture; and by what Authority do they change it to Sitting? Certainly, our changing the Gesture is as warrantable as theirs. Nor is it enough to say, that Sitting comes nearer our Saviour's Gesture than Kneeling; for if they keep to their own Rule, they must not vary at all. The Presbyterians (if one may argue from their Practices to their Principles) lay very little stress on this Argument taken from the Example of Christ. For tho' they generally choose to Sat, yet they do not condemn Standing as Sinful, or Unlawful in itself; and several are willing to receive it in that posture, in our Churches; which surely is every whit as wide from the Pattern our Lord is supposed to have set us, (whether he lay along or sat upright) as that which is enjoined and practised by the Church of England. There is too a Confessed variation allowed of and practised by the generality of Dissenters, both Presbyterians and Independents, from the Institution and Practice of Christ and his Apostles, in the other Sacrament of Baptism. For they have changed dipping into sprinkling; and 'tis strange, that those who scruple kneeling at the Lord's Supper, can allow of this greater change in Baptism. Why should not the Peace and unity of the Church, and Charity to the Public, prevail with them to kneel at the Lord's Supper; as much as mercy and tenderness to the Infant's Body, to sprinkle or pour water on the Face, contrary to the first Institution?  
Thirdly, kneeling is not therefore repugnant to the nature of the Lord's Supper, because 'tis no Table-Gesture. The Sacrament is a Supper; and therefore, say they, the Gesture at the Lord's Table ought to be the same, which we use and observe at our ordinary Tables, according to the custom and fashion of our Native Country: and by consequence, we ought to Sat, and not to Kneel, because sitting is the ordinary Table-gesture, according to the mode and fashion of England.  
Here, by the way, we may observe, that this Argument overthrows the two others drawn from the Command and Example of Christ. For, 1. Different Table-gestures are used in different Countries; and therefore, tho' Christ did Sat, yet we are not obliged to Sat after his Example, unless sitting be in our Country the common Table-gesture. 2. If the Nature of the Sacrament require a Table-gesture, and that gesture in particular which is customary; then God has not Commanded any particular gesture, because different Countries have different Table-gestures.  
However, I shall fu●ly Answer this Argument drawn from the Nature of the Sacrament, by showing, 1. What is the Nature of it. 2. That it does not absolutely require a common Table-gesture. 3. That Kneeling is very agreeable to the nature of the Lord's Supper, tho' 'tis no Table-gesture.  
1. Then, the Nature of the Sacrament is easily understood, if we consider that the Scripture calls it the Lord's Table and the Lord's Supper. The Greek Fathers call it a Feast and a Banquet, because of that Provision and Entertainment which our Lord has made for all worthy Receivers. 'Tis styled a Supper and a Feast, either because 'twas Instituted by Christ at Suppertime, or because it represents a Supper and a Feast; and so it is not of the same nature with a civil and ordinary Supper or Feast, tho' it bear the same name. Three things are essential to a Feast, Plenty, Good Company and Mirth: but the Plenty of the Lord's Supper is a Plenty of Spiritual Dainties; and the Company consists of the Three Persons of the Trinity, and good Christians; and the Mirth is wholly Spiritual. So that the Lord's Supper differs in its nature from civil Banquets, as much as Heaven and Earth, Body and Spirit differ in theirs. Farther, the Lord's Supper is a Feast upon a Sacrifice for Sin, wherein we are particularly to commemorate the Death of Christ. 'Twas also instituted in honour of our Lord, and to preserve an Eternal Memory of his wondrous Works, and to Bless and Praise our Great Benefactor. 'Tis also a Covenanting Rite between God and all worthy Communicants, and signifies that we are in a state of Peace and Friendship with him; that we own him to be our God, and swear Fidelity to him; we take the Sacrament upon it (as we ordinarily say) that we will not henceforth live unto ourselves, but to him alone that died for us. 'Tis also a means to convey to us the Merits of Christ's Death, and a Pledge to assure us thereof. Lastly, 'twas instituted to be a Bond of Union between Christians, to engage and dispose us to love one another, as our Lord loved us, who thought not his Life too dear, nor his Blood too much to part with for our sakes. This therefore being the Nature of the Sacrament, it follows,  
2. That it does not absolutely require a common Table-gesture. For if the Nature of the Sacrament, considered as a Feast, necessarily requires a Table-gesture; then the nature of the Sacrament, considered as a Feast, does as well require all other Formalities that are essential, either to all civil Feasts whatsoever, or to all Feasts as they obtain among us: and consequently we must carve and drink one to another, etc. at the Lord's Supper, as we always do at other Feasts. But this our Dissenters will by no means allow; nor do they think themselves obliged to observe all the other Formalities of a Feast, tho' they are as agreeable to the Nature of a Feast, as Sitting is.  
It's not agreeable to the Nature of a Feast, that one of the Guests, and the principal one too, should fill out the Wine, and break the Bread, and distribute it to the rest of the Society; but this the Dissenters generally allow of, and practise at the Holy Communion. It's not agreeable to the nature of a Feast to sit from the Table, dispersed up and down the Room. In all public Feasts there are several Tables provided, when one is not big enough to receive the Guests; and yet the Dissenters generally receive in their Pews, scattered up and down the Church, and think one Table is sufficient, tho' not capable of receiving the twentieth part of the Communicants in some large Parishes and numerous Assemblies. And where there are so few, that they may come up to, and sit at the Table, they generally are against it (especially the Presbyterians) and think they are not obliged to observe that formality, tho' constantly practised at common and civil Entertainments. It's by no means agreeable to the nature of a Feast to be sorrowful. To mourn and grieve at a Feast is as indecent and unsuitable, as to laugh at a Funeral. But sure our Dissenters will not say, that to come to the Sacrament with a penitent and broken spirit; to come with a hearty sorrow for all our Sin, which caused so much pain and torment to our dearest and greatest Friend, our ever blessed Redeemer; to reflect upon the Agonies of his Soul in the Garden, the bitterness of his deadly Cup, the Torture he endured on the Cross, with a deep Sympathy and Trouble for the occasion; they will not surely, I say, affirm, that such a disposition of Heart and Mind is improper and unsuitable to the Nature of this Feast, which we solemnize in Commemoration of his Death for our sakes.  
This Sacrament is also called the Lord's Supper; and consequently the nature of it requires the Evening, as the proper season for it: and yet our Dissenters make no scruple of Communicating at Noon.  
Again, the nature of the Lord's Supper does not necessarily require a Table-gesture, because 'tis not of the same nature with common and ordinary Feasts. For we cannot argue from Natural and Civil things to Spiritual; or conclude that, because they agree in their names, they are of the same nature. And therefore, tho' the Sacrament is a Feast; yet because 'tis a Spiritual Feast, and not of the same nature with common and ordinary Feasts, we must not think, that such a gesture as is necessary to the one, is also necessary to the other.  
I must add, that the nature of the Lord's Supper, considered as a Feast, does not necessarily require a common Table-gesture in order to right and worthy receiving; because the Dissenters grant, that it may be worthily received Standing, tho' Standing is no common Table-gesture.  
If any should yet urge, that no gesture besides Sitting is agreeable to the nature of the Sacrament, considered as a Feast; and that to use any other gesture would profane the Ordinance; I answer, that God calls the Passover a Feast, Exod. 12.14. and yet he commanded the Israelites to celebrate it with their Loins girt, their Shoes on their Feet, and their Staff in their Hands; which were all signs of haste, but no Table-gestures either among the Jews or the Egyptians. Now to say, that God enjoined Gestures unsuitable to that Ordinance, is to call his Wisdom in question: and to say, that the Feast of the Passover did in its nature admit of several Gestures, is to yield all that I desire; for then the Sacrament, considered as a Feast, will admit of several too, and consequently does not oblige us to observe only a Feast-gesture for the due celebration of it.  
3. Kneeling is very agreeable to the nature of the Lord's Supper, tho' 'tis no Table-gesture. 1. Because 'tis a very fit Gesture to express Reverence, Humility and Gratitude by; which Holy affections are requisite to the Sacrament. 2. Since Christ ought to be Adored at the Lord's Supper for his wonderful kindness to us, therefore whatsoever is fit to express our Veneration, is not unsuitable to the Sacrament; and consequently bowing the Knees is proper, because 'tis an external sign of Reverence. 3. Since lifting up our Hands and Eyes, and employing our Tongues in uttering God's Praises, are agreeable to the Lord's Supper; why should Kneeling be thought unsuitable, which is only Glorifying God with another part of our Body? 4. The Holy Sacrament was Instituted in remembrance of Christ's Death and Sufferings; and therefore I desire the Dissenters to consider his Gesture in the very extremity of his Passion, and to observe, that he then prayed Kneeling, Luke 22.41. And surely no sober Person will say, that 'tis improper to Kneel at the Sacrament, where we Commemorate those Sufferings, part of which he endured upon his bended Knees. 5. If we consider the benefits of the Sacrament, we cannot think Kneeling an unbecoming Gesture at it. If a grateful hearty sense of God's infinite Mercy through the Merits and Sufferings of his Son, and of the manifold Benefits which our Lord has purchased with his most precious Blood; If a Mind deeply humbled under the sense of our own Gild, and Unworthiness to receive any Mercy at all from the Hands of our Creator and Sovereign Lord, whom we have by numberless and heinous Crimes so highly provoked and incensed against us; If such an inward temper and disposition of Soul becomes us at this Holy Feast, (which I think no Man will deny) then surely the most humble and reverential Gesture of the Body will become us too. Why should not a submissive lowly deportment of body suit with this solemnity, as well as an humble lowly Mind? And this is that which our Church 
(e) See the Declaration at the end of the Communion Service in the B. of Com. Prayer.  declares to be the end of her Injunction, in requiring all the Communicants to Kneel, viz. for a signification of an humble and grateful acknowledgement of the Benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers. The Commemoration of the Death and Passion of the Son of God will strike a Man, almost naturally, into the humblest posture of Adoration: But if any reverence be due at such a time, I am sure Sitting is a very unfit posture to express it. In a word, whatsoever Gesture best answers the Principal ends of this Holy Feast, does best suit it's nature, and aught to be best esteemed of, if we will be guided by the nature of the thing: and that Kneeling does best answer the Nature and Ends of the Lord's Supper, I think, I have fully proved.  
I shall crave Leave to observe in the last place, that the Primitive Church had no such Notion of the necessity of a Table-gesture, as the Dissenters maintain. There is not the least mention made of the name Table, in any of their Writings, for the space of 200 years after Christ. For they call the Place, on which the Consecrated Elements stood, the Altar; and the Eucharist they call an Oblation and a Sacrifice: and what connexion, I Pray, is there between an Altar or a Sacrifice, and a Table-gesture? The Dissenters indeed 
(f) Dispute against Kneeling▪ arg 1. p. 6. ●6. etc.  say, that Kneeling or an Adoring-gesture is against the dignity of Guests, and debars us the Privileges and Prerogatives of the Lord's Table, such as social admittance and social entertainment; that it is against the purpose of Christ, whose intention was to dignify us by setting us at his Table; and much more of this nature: but 'tis plain that the Fathers thought otherwise, as the Phrases they use, and the Titles they give the Sacrament, plainly demonstrate. They call it as St. Paul doth, the Lord's Supper, the Kingly, Royal, and most Divine Supper, which import Deference, Distance, and Respect on our parts; the Dreadful Sacrifice, the Venerable and Unbloody Sacrifice, the Wonderful and Terrible Mysteries, the Royal, Spiritual, Holy, Formidable, Tremendous Table. The Bread and Wine after Consecration, are in their Language called the most Mysterious, most Holy Food and Nutriment, the most Holy things; and the place where the Table stood, the most Holy part of the Temple, in allusion to that of the Jewish Temple, to which the Jews paid the highest Reverence. The Bread in particular they styled the Bread of God; the Cup, the Holy and Mysterious, the Royal and Dreadful Cup. They advise the Communicants to Reverence these Holy Mysteries, to come with Fear and Trembling, with Sorrow and Shame, with silence and downcast Eyes, to keep their Joy within, and to approach the Table with all the Signs and Expressions of Reverence and Humility imaginable. How can these Speeches consist with that Social, Familiar carriage at the Sacrament, which the Patrons of the Table-gesture contend for, as the Privilege of Guests, and the Prerogative of the Lord's Table?  
Fourthly, I am to show that Kneeling at the Lord's Supper is not contrary to the general Practice of the Church in the first Ages. This I shall do by proving, 1. That it's highly probable, that the Primitive Church used to Kneel in the act of receiving the Holy Sacrament, as our custom at present is. 2. That it's most certain they used an Adoring Posture.  
First then, it's highly probable, that the Primitive Church used to Kneel in the act of receiving the Holy Sacrament. I have already shown, that the Scripture does not inform us, what Gesture was used at the Institution of the Lord's Supper: and I desire those, who contend for a common Table-gesture, and particularly Sitting, to observe, that the Primitive Church thought sitting to be a very irreverent Posture in the Service of God. The Laodicean Synod, finding great inconveniences to arise from the Love-Feasts, which were kept at the same time with the Lord's Supper, forbade the said Feasts, and the lying upon Couches in the Church, as their manner was at those Feasts. The same Practice was forbidden by the Council of Carthage, c. 28. and the Decree was Ratified by the sixth Trullian Council, c. 74. and that under the pain of Excommunication. Now the Reasons, upon which 'twas forbidden, were in all probability taken from the disorder and irreverence, the animosities and excess, that accompanied those Feasts.  
Justin Martyr, who lived in the Second Century, says, We rise up together and send up our Prayers, Apol. 2. from whence 'tis clear that they did not Sat: but in most other places they were not permitted to sit at all, not so much as at the Lessons or in Sermon-time; as appears plainly from what Philostorgius 
(g) Hist. Eccles. l. 3. p. 29.  observes of Theophilus an Indian Bishop, That among several irregularities, which he corrected in those Churches, he particularly Reformed this, That the People were wont to Sat, when the Lessons out of the Gospel were read unto them; and Sozomen 
(h) Hist. Eccles. l. 7. c. 19  notes it as a very unusual thing in the Bishop of Alexandria, that he did not rise up when the Gospels were read.  
Optatus Bishop of Milevis 
(i) De Schism. Donat. l. 4. See also Albaspin. not. in Optat.  citys a passage out of the 50. Psalms, and applies it home to Parmenianus the Donatist, after this manner; Thou sittest and speakest against thy Brother, etc. in which place God reproves him that sits and defames his Brother: and therefore such evil Teachers as you, says he, are more particularly pointed at in the Text, For the People are not Licenced to sit in the Church. Now if it had not been the general Custom to stand the whole time of Divine Service, and particularly at the Lessons and Sermons, Parmenianus might easily have retorted this Argument upon Optatus, as concluding nothing against him in particular, but what might be charged in common upon all private Christians, who sat in the Church as well as he.  

(k) De Orat. c. 12.  Tertullian reproves it as an ill custom, that some were wont to sit at Prayer; and a little further in the same Chapter he has these words; Add thereunto the Sin of irreverence, which the very Heathen, if they did perceive well and understand what we did, would take notice of. For if it be irreverent to sit in the presence of, and to confront, one whom you have a high respect and veneration for; how much more irreligious is this gesture in the sight of the living God, the Angel of Prayer yet standing by? Unless we think fit to upbraid God that Prayer has tired us. Eusebius also 
(l) De Vit. Constant. l. 4.  commends Constantine, because when he was present at a long Panegyric concerning Christ's Sepulchre, and was solicited to sit down, he refused to do so, saying, it was unfit to attend upon any Discourse concerning God with ease and softness, and that it was very consonant to Piety and Religion, that Discourses about Divine things should be heard standing.  
Thus much may suffice for satisfaction, that the ancient Church did by no means approve of Sitting, or a common Table-gesture, as fitting to be used in Divine Service, except at the Reading of the Lessons, and hearing of the Sermon; which too was only practised in some places; for in others the People were not allowed to sit at all in their Religious Assemblies. Which Custom is still observed in most, if not all the Eastern Churches at this day, wherein there are no Seats erected or allowed for the use of the People.  
Now if the Apostles had Taught and Established Sitting (not only as convenient, but) as necessary to be used in order to worthy receiving the Lord's Supper; 'tis most strange and unaccountable, 1. That there should be such an early and universal revolt of the Primitive Church from the Doctrine and Constitutions of the Apostles. 2. That so many Churches in distant Countries, being perfectly Free and Independent one upon another, should unanimously conspire together to introduce a novel-custom contrary to the Apostolical Practice and Order; and not only so, but that, 3. They should censure the practice and injunctions of inspired Men, as indecent and unfit to be followed and observed in the public Worship of God; and all this without any Person's taking notice, or complaining or opposing, either then or in the succeeding generations.  
As for Standing in the time of Divine Service, both at Prayers and at the Sacrament, 'tis so evident that the ancient Church did use it, that I shall not endeavour to prove it: and as for Kneeling, 'tis plain the Primitive Christians used that gesture also. For, tho' on Sundays and the Fifty days between Easter and Whitsunday they observed Standing; yet at other times they used the gesture of Kneeling at their public Devotions, as appears from the authorities cited at the 
(m) Conc. 1. Nic. c. 20. Resp. Quest. inter Opera Just. Mart. p. 468. Tertull. de Coron. Mil. c. 3. Epiphan. Expos. fid. Cath. p. 1105. Edit. Par. St. Jer. Prol. come. in Epist. ad Eph. St. Aust. Epist. 119. ad Jan. c. 15. Tertull. de Orat. c. 3.  bottom.  
Now since they were wont, in the first Ages of Christianity, to receive the Holy Sacrament every day; and since 
(n) See Tertull. Apol. c. 39 p. 47. St. Aust. Epist 118. Const. Apol. l. 2. c. 57 St. Chrysost. Hom. 1. in c. 2. Ep. 1. ad Tim. St. Ambros. de Sacram. l. 4. c. 5. Cave's Prim. Christ. c. 11. St. Cyril Catech. Mist. 5. St. Aust. Resp. ad Oros. Quest. 49. Tom. 4. p. 691. Basil. 1541. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. 6. c. 35.  it was delivered and received with a Form of Prayer, and that on those days when they constantly Prayed Kneeling; and since it is probable, that when they received the Sacrament, they did not alter the Praying-posture of the day; therefore I conclude, that they received the Sacrament Kneeling upon those days, on which they Prayed Kneeling. For, since Sitting was generally condemned as an indecent and irreverent gesture by the Primitive Church; and since no Man in his Wits will say, that Prostration, or lying flat upon the ground, was ever used in the act of receiving, or ever fit to be so; therefore the posture of receiving must be either standing or kneeling.  
And from hence I gather, that on their common and ordinary days (when there was no peculiar reason to invite or oblige them to Stand at the Sacrament) in all likelihood they used Kneeling, that is, the ordinary posture. They used one and the same posture (viz. Standing) both at their Prayers and at the Sacrament on the Lord's day, and for Fifty days after Easter, contrary to what was usual at other times; and why then should any Man think they did not observe one and the same posture at all other times? viz. that as at such times they did constantly Kneel at their Prayers, so they did also constantly Kneel at the Sacrament, which was given and received in a Prayer.  
From the strength of these Premises I may promise myself thus much success; that whosoever shall carefully weigh and peruse them with a teachable and unprejudiced mind, shall find himself much more inclined to believe the Primitive Church used at some times to Kneel (as we do) at the Holy Communion, than that they never did Kneel at all, or that such a posture was never used or heard of, but excluded from their Congregations, as some great Advocates for Sitting have confidently proclaimed it to the World.  
But Secondly, Suppose they never did Kneel as we do, yet this is most certain, that they received the Lord's Supper in an adoring posture; which is the same thing, and will sufficiently justify the present Practice of our Church, as being agreeable to that of pure Antiquity. For the proof of this, numerous Testimonies both of Greek and Latin Fathers might be alleged; but I will content myself (and, I hope, the Reader too) with a few of each sort, which are so plain and express, that he who will except against them, will also with the same face and assurance except against the Whiteness of Snow, and the Light of the Sun at Noonday.  
And first for the Greek Fathers, let the Testimony of 
(o) St. Cyril. Hierosol. Mystag. Catech. 5. versus finem, Paris. Edit. p. 244.  St. Cyril be heard, than which nothing can be more plain and express to our purpose. This holy Father in a place before cited, gives Instructions to Communicants, how to behave themselves when they approach the Lord's Table, and that in the act of receiving both the Bread and the Wine. At the receiving of the Cup he advises thus; Approach (says he) not rudely stretching forth thy hands, but bowing thyself, and in a posture of Worship and Adoration, saying Amen. To the same purpose 
(p) 24 Hom. Ep. ad Cor. p. 538. To. 9 Paris.  St. Chrysostom speaks in his Fourteenth Homily on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, where he provokes and excites the Christians of his time to an awful and reverential deportment at the Holy Communion, by the Example of the Wise Men, who adored our Saviour in his Infancy, after this manner; This Body the Wise Men revereneed even when it lay in the Manger, and approaching thereunto worshipped it with fear and great trembling. Let us therefore who are Citizens of Heaven, imitate at least these Barbarians. But thou seest this Body, not in a Manger, but on the Altar; not held by a Woman, but by the Priest, etc. Let us therefore stir up ourselves, and be horribly afraid, and manifest a much greater Reverence than those Barbarians, lest coming lightly, and at a venture, we heap fire on our Heads. The same Father in another place expressly bids them to fall down and Communicate, when the Table is made ready, and the King himself there: and in order to beget in their Minds great and awful Thoughts concerning that Holy and Mysterious Feast, he further exhorts them, 
(p) St. Chrys. Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes. in moral. p. 1151.  That when they saw the Chancel doors open, than they should suppose Heaven itself was unfolded from above, and that the Angels descended, to be Looker's on. I suppose he means, of their Courage and Behaviour at the Table of the Lord, and by giving their attendance to grace that Solemnity. With the Testimony of these Ancient Writers Theodoret agrees, who in a Dialogue between an Orthodox Christian and an Heretic, brings in Orthodoxus thus Discoursing of the Supper of the Lord. The mysterious Symbols or Signs in the Sacrament (viz. Bread and Wine) depart not from their proper Nature; for they continue in their former Essence, and keep their former Shape and Form, and approve themselves both to our sight and touch to be as they were before: 
(q) Dialog. 2. To. 4. p. 85. Paris. Edit.  but they are considered for such as they are made, (that is, in respect to their Spiritual signification, and that Divine use to which they were consecrated) and are believed and adored a● those very things which they are believed to be. Which words plainly import thus much, that the consecrated Elements were received with a Gesture of Adoration; and at the same time assure us, that such a Behaviour at the Lords supper was not founded upon the Doctrine of Transubstantiation. For there is not a more manifest instance in all the Ancients against that absurd Doctrine, which the Roman Church so obstinately believes at this very day, than what Theodoret gives us in the words abovementioned. Lastly, (to allege no more out of the Greek Fathers) that Story which Gregory Nazianzen 
(r) O●at. in laud. Gorgon. p. 187. Paris. Edit.  relates concerning Gorgonia, will much confirm what has been said, viz. That being sick, and having used several Medicines in vain at last she resolved upon this course. She went in the stillness of the Night to the public Church, and having with her some of the consecrated Elements which she had reserved at home, she fell down on her knees before the Altar, and with a loud voice prayed to him whom she Adored, and in conclusion was healed. I am not much concerned, whether the Reader will believe or censure this Miracle; but it's certain, that this famous Father has Recorded it and commends his Sister for the way she took for her Recovery. This is home to my purpose; and clearly discovers that Gorgonia did Kneel, or at least used a Posture of Adoration when she eaten the Sacramental Bread. And without doubt in Communicating she observed the same Posture that others generally did in public: She did that in her sickness, which all others used to do in their health, when they came to the Sacrament; that is, She Kneeled down. For it can't be supposed, that at this time, when she came to beg so great a Blessing of Almighty God in the public Church and at the Altar, called by the Ancients The Place of Prayer, she would be guilty of any misbehaviour, and make use of a singular Posture, different from what was generally used by Christians when they came to the same place to communicate, and pray over the great Propitiatory Sacrifice; which they looked upon as the most prevailing and effectual way of Praying, the most likely to render God favourable to them, and to prevail with him above all other Prayers which they offered at any other time, or in any other place. So much for the Authorities of the Greek Fathers, who were Men eminent for Learning and Piety in their Days, and great Lights and Ornaments in the Primitive Church. With these the Latin Fathers fully agree in their Judgements concerning our present Case. And of these I will only mention two (tho' more might be produced) and those very eminent and illustrious Persons, had in great veneration by the then present Age wherein they flourished, and by succeeding Generations. The first is 
(s) Ambros. de Sp. Sanct. l. 3. c. 12.  St. Ambrose Bishop of Milan, in a Book he wrote concerning the Holy Ghost, where enquiring after the meaning of the Pslamist, when he exhorts Men to exalt the Lord, and to worship his Footstool, he gives us the sense in these words: That it seems to belong unto the mystery of our Lord's Incarnation; and then goes on to show for what Reason it may be accommodated to that Mystery, and at last concludes thus; By the Footstool therefore is the Earth to be understood, and by the Earth the body of Christ, which at this day too we adore in the Sacrament, and which the Apostles worshipped in the Lord Jesus, etc. St. Austin (Bishop of Hippo) Comments, on the very same words and to the same purpose. For thus he resolves that Question, How or in what sense the Earth his Footstool may be worshipped without impiety? Because he took earth of the earth, for flesh is of the earth; and he took flesh of the flesh of Mary; and because he conversed here in the flesh, and gave us his very flesh to eat unto Salvation. Now there is none who eateth that flesh, but first worshippeth. We have found then how this Footstool may be adored; so that we are so far from sinning by adoring, that we really sin if we do not adore. In the Judgement therefore of these Primitive Bishops, we may lawfully adore at the Mysteries, tho' not the Mysteries themselves; at the Sacraments, tho' not the Sacraments themselves; the Creator in the Creature which is sanctified, not the Creature itself; as a late 
(t) Phil. Mornay du Plessis de Missa, l. 4. c. 7. p. 732.  Protestant Writer of great Learning and Quality among the French, distinguishes upon the forecited words of Saint Ambrose.  
I think it appears evident from these few Instances that the Primitive Christians used a posture of adoration at the Communion in the act of receiving. It were easy to bring a cloud of other Witnesses, if it were necessary so to do, either to prove or clear the Cause in hand: but since there is no need to clog the Discourse with numerous References and Appeals to Antiquity, it would but obscure the Argument, and tend in all likelihood rather to confound and distaste, than convince and gratify the Reader.  
By what has been already alleged, the practice of our Church in Kneeling at the Sacrament is sufficiently justified, as agreeable to the Customs and Practice of pure and Primitive Christianity. For if the Ancients did at the Sacrament use a Posture of Worship and Adoration, (which is very plain they did) then Kneeling is not repugnant to the practice of the Church in the first and purest Ages; no, tho' we should suppose that Kneeling was never practised among them: which will be plain, if we cast our Eyes a little upon that heavy Charge which some of the fiercest, but less prudent Adversaries of Kneeling have exhibited against it. They object against Kneeling, as being an adoring Gesture; for they affirm, 
(u) Gillesp. p. 166, 172. Altar. Damas'. p. 801. Rutherf. Divine Right of Ch. Gou. c. 1. Qu. 5. Sect. 1.3.  That to kneel in the act of Receiving, before the consecrated Bread and Wine, is formal Idolatry. So also to kneel before any Creature as a memorative object of God, tho' there be no intention of giving Divine Adoration to that Creature, is Idolatry. Now if the Primitive Christians may be supposed to prostrate themselves before the Altar upon their first approach to it in order to Receive, or immediately after they had Received the Bread and the Cup from the Hand of the Minister; or if they bowed their Heads and Bodies after a lowly manner, in the act of Receiving; or if they received it standing upright, and eaten and drank at the Holy Table with their Hands and Eyes lifted up to Heaven; then they incurred the Gild of Idolatry, as well as we who Kneel at the Lords supper, in the Judgement of those Scotch Casuists; and by Consequence, Kneeling at the Blessed Sacrament according to the Custom of our Church, is not contrary to the practice of the Christian Church in the first and purest Ages. For all those Postures before mentioned were Postures of Worship and Adoration, and used as such by the Primitive Christians; especially standing, which is allowed by the 
(w) Gillesp. Disp. against E. Po. C●r. p. 101. Disp. of Kneel. p. 93.  Patrons of sitting, to be anciently and generally used in time of Divine Worship, and particularly in the act of Receiving.  
To conclude all with an Instance in their own Case about a common Table-Gesture, let us suppose the Primitive Christians in some places did receive the Holy Sacrament sitting, or lying along upon Beds, according to the ancient Custom in those Eastern Countries, at their common and ordinary Tables; let us put the case that in other places they sat crosslegged on Carpets at the Sacrament, as the Persians and Turks eat at this day; or that they received standing in other places, after the common mode of Feasting; which we will suppose only at present. Could any Man now object with reason against the lawfulness of sitting upright at the Sacrament upon a Form or Chair (according to the Custom of England▪) as being contrary to the Practice of all the Ancients, who never sat at all? No certainly. For tho' they differ from the Ancients as to the site of their Bodies, and the particular manner of Receiving; yet they all consent in this, that they receive in a common Table-Gesture. They all observe the same Gesture at the Sacrament, that they constantly observed at their Civil Feasts and ordinary Entertainments in the several places of their abode. And so say I in the present Case; What tho' the Primitive Christians stood upright some of them at the Sacrament, and others bowed their Heads and Bodies in the act of Receiving, and none of them ever used Kneeling? Yet they and we do very well agree for all that, because we all receive in an adoring or worshipping Posture. It is one and the same thing variously expressed, according to the modes of the different Countries.  
Fifthly, and lastly, I am to Prove, that Kneeling is not therefore unlawful, because 'twas first introduced by Idolaters, and is still notoriously abused by the Papists to Idolatrous ends and purposes. This will appear, if we consider, 1. That it can never be proved, that Kneeling in the act of receiving was brought in by Idolaters, as is pretended. 2. That 'tis not sinful to use such things, as are or have been notoriously abused to Idolatry.  
I. Then, it can never be proved, that Kneeling in the act of receiving was brought in by Idolaters. I have already made it very probable, that the Primitive Christians received the Sacrament Kneeling; and I hope our Dissenters will not charge them with Idolatry. I know, that they pretend the Kneeling-posture was brought in by Honorius the Third; but that which he brought in, was a reverend Bow to the Sacrament, when the Priest elevates the Patten or Chalice, or when the Host is carried to any Sick Person; and not any Kneeling in the act of receiving. For these are the very words of the Decree, 
(x) Decret. Greg. l. 3. tit. 41. c. 10.  That the Priests should frequently instruct their People to Bow themselves reverently at the Elevation of the Host, when Mass was celebrated, and in like manner when the Priest carried it abroad to the Sick. Nay, as Bishop Stilling fleet 
(y) Unreasonab. of Separate. p. 15.  says, tho' Kneeling at the Elevation of the Host be strictly required by the Roman Church, yet in the act o● receiving it is not; as manifestly appears by the Pope's manner of receiving, which is not Kneeling, but either Sitting, as it was in Bonaventure 's time; or after the fashion o● Sitting, or a little Leaning upon his Throne, as he doth at this day.  
If any should ask, when the Gesture of Kneeling came in, I confess I cannot certainly tell: but this is no Argument against, but rather for the ancient and universal use of it. Novel-customs are easily traced to their Originals: but generally we cannot tell from whence the most ancient usages of any Country are derived.  
However, I am so far from thinking (as our Dissenters do) that Kneeling owes its birth to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, that I verily believe that the Kneeling or Adoring posture used by the ancient Christians in the act of receiving, did very much (among other things) conduce to beget and nurse up in the minds of superstitious and fanciful Men, a conceit, that Christ was really and corporally present at the Sacrament; which Notion, by subtle and inquisitive heads, was in a little time improved and explained after this manner: That after the Elements of Bread and Wine were consecrated, they were thereby changed into the substance of Christ's natural Body and Blood. This I am sure of, that the Patrons of Transubstantiation did very early make use of this very Argument, to prove that they taught and believed no more than the Primitive Bishops and Christians did. For what else could they intent or mean (say they) by that extraordinary Reverence and Devotion, which they manifested when they received the dreadful Mysteries (as they called the Bread and Wine) if they were bare and empty Signs only, and not changed into the very Body and Blood of Christ? Which is in effect the very Argument used by 
(z) Alger. de Sacramentis. l. 2. c. 3.  Algerus, a stout Champion for Transubstantiation. And 
(a) Costor. Enchirid. p. 353. Edit. 1590.  Costor, another Popish Writer, is so far from saying, even after Transubstantiation took place, that the Pope introduced it, that he resolves it into an ancient Custom continued from the Apostles times. But,  
II. Suppose it were otherwise, yet 'tis not sinful to use such things, as are or have been notoriously abused to Idolatry, as I shall show in the next Chapter. I shall only observe at present, that if it be sinful to kneel at the Sacrament, because that Gesture has been, and is notoriously abused by Papists to Idolatrous ends; then Sitting is also sinful, which is contended for with so much Zeal. For the Pope himself fits, in the act of receiving, as was before noted; and that for the same Reason (says a 
(b) Alex. Hales de Miss●, p. 2. quest. 10. p. 4.  Popish Author) which our Dissenters urge for Sitting, viz. because the Apostles sat at the first Institution of the Sacrament. And every Priest by the order of the Mass-Book, is to partake standing at the Altar, and not Kneeling there. Nay, if Kneeling be unlawful, because it has been abused to Idolatry; then we must never receive the Holy Sacrament. For we must receive in some convenient posture, such as Kneeling, Sitting, Discumbing, Standing; and yet every one of these, either has been or is, notoriously abused by Heathens and Papists to Idolatrous ends.  
I hope, I need not add, that it would be very unjust, to say, that our Kneeling is an act of Worship to the outward Elements; when the Church has declared this to be Idolatry to be Abhorred of all Faithful Christians.  
I shall conclude this Chapter with the opinions of the Dissenting Writers. Mr. Tombs has undertaken to show, that whatever the Gesture of our Saviour was, yet we are not obliged to it, Theod. p. 168. 'Tis granted by Mr. Bains, Christian Lett. 24. and Mr. Bayly, Disswas. c. 2, 6. that the nature of the Ordinance does not make Sitting necessary, or forbidden Kneeling; and Mr. Bains, ibid. grants that Kneeling is not Idolatrous; and Mr. Cartwright, who thought it inconvenient, yet did not think it unlawful, Harmon. on Luke, 22.14. Lastly, Mr. Baxter, Christian Dir. part 2. p. 111. quest. 3. sect. 40. says, For Kneeling, I never heard any thing yet to prove it unlawful. If there be any thing, it must be either some Word of God, or the nature of the Ordinance which is supposed to be contradicted. But, 1. there is no Word of God for any Gesture, nor against any. Christ 's Example can never be proved to oblige us more in this, than in many circumstances, that are confessed not obligatory; as that he delivered but to Ministers, and but to a Family, to Twelve, and after Supper, and on a Thursday- night, and in an upper-room, etc. and his Gesture was not such a Sitting as ours. And, 2. for the nature of the Ordinance, it is mixed: and if it be lawful to take a Pardon from the King upon our Knees, I know not what can make it unlawful to take a Sealed Pardon from Christ (by his Ambassador) upon our Knees.   

CHAP. VIII. The Objection of our Symbolising or Agreeing with the Church of Rome Answered.  
BUT, say the Dissenters, there is so great an agreement between your Church and the Church of Rome, that we cannot think communion with your Church to be Lawful. They tell us, that our first Reformers were indeed excellent and worthy Persons for the times they lived in; that what they did was very commendable, and a good Beginning; but they were forced to comply with the necessities of the Age, which would not bear a complete Reformation. They left a great deal of Popish trash in the Church, hoping by degrees to reconcile the Papists to it, or at least, that they might not make the Breach too wide, and too much prejudice or estrange them from it: but we now live under better means, have greater Light and Knowledge, and so a further and more perfect amendment is now necessary.  
Now I cannot but inwardly reverence the Judgement, as well as love the Temper of our first Reformers, who in their first Separations from Rome, were not nice or scrupulous beyond the just reasons of things. Doubtless they were in earnest enough, as to all true Zeal against the Corruptions of that Church, when they Sealed the well-grounded offence they took at them, with their warmest Blood; and cheerfully underwent all the hardships that the Primitive Christians signalised their Profession with, rather than they would intermix with Rome, in any usage of Worship or Article of Faith, that had the least favour of Idolatry, Superstition, or false Religion at all in it. And yet these Holy and Wise Men, when they had the Power and Opportunity of Reforming wholly in their hands, being equally jealous of Enthusiasm, as they were of Superstition, would not give themselves up to those fantastic Antipathies, as to abolish this or that Ceremony, merely because it had been in use among the Papists, if some other very substantial Reason did not plead against it. And verily, had they not always used these temperate and unbyass'd methods of Reformation, they would not so easily have justified themselves to their Adversaries, or the World; or have made it so evident (as by their Wise management they did) that what was done by them, was from the mere urgencies of Conscience and Reason, and not the wantonness of Change and Innovation. So that, where any mean honestly (as I doubt not but many of those do, that Dissent from us) they ought to have their Reason very well awake, that the mere charge of Popery upon any disputed point, may not so prejudice them in their inquiries into things, as to leave no room for mature Consideration.  
However, that I may fully answer this objection, drawn from our agreement with the Church of Rome, I shall endeavour to show, 1. That there is a vast distance between the Churches of England and Rome. 2. That a Church's Symbolising or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome, is no warrant for separation from the Church so agreeing. 3. That the agreement between the Churches of England and Rome, is in no wise such, as will make Communion with the Church of England unlawful.  
I. Then, I shall show that there is a vast distance between the Churches of England and Rome; as appears by our Church's having renounced all Communion with Rome, and utterly cast off the Pope's Power. But I shall descend to particulars, and show the vast distance between them,  
First, In all those Doctrines and Practices, whereby the Church of Rome deprives her Members of their due Liberty, and miserably enslaves them. For, 1. She denies them all judgement of discretion in matters of Religion, and binds them all, under pain of damnation, to Believe her infallible: but our Church permits us to prove all things, that we may hold fast that which is good; she disclaims all pretence to infallibility, and owns herself to be obnoxious to error in matters of Faith. 2. The Church of Rome imposes a most slavish drudgery in the vast multitudes of vain and childish, odd and uncouth Rites and Ceremonies, which a Man would wonder how they could invent. The like may be said of their cruel Penances, in imposing of which the Priests are arbitrary. But our Rites are exceeding few, plain, easy, grave and manly; founded on the Practice of the Church, long before Popery appeared in the World. Our Sacraments are but two; and consequently we are not burdened with the superstitious Fopperies of the other five Popish ones. In short, our Rites are agreeable to the Rules of doing things decently, and in order, and doing all things to Edification. Nor does our Church impose them (like the Church of Rome) as necessary, and as parts of Religion, but as merely indifferent and changeable things. As for our Penances, 'tis needless to show that they are not cruel, like those of Rome. 3. The Church of Rome subjects her Members by several of her Doctrines to enslaving passions. For instance, Purgatory subjects them to fear, and auricular confession to shame, and the dependence of the efficacy of the Sacraments upon the Priest's intention exposes them to great anxiety. But our Church rejects the Doctrines of Purgatory, and the dependence of the efficacy of the Sacraments upon the Priest's intention; and does not oblige her Members to Confess their sins to Men, but when for the relief of their Consciences, or making satisfaction, etc. it is their duty so to do. 4. The Church of Rome maintains Licentious Principles and Practices, which our Adversaries cannot charge upon the Church of England.  
Secondly, In all those Doctrines and Practices in which the Church of Rome is justly charged with plainly contradicting the Scripture. For instance, our Church rejects and utterly abhors the Popish Doctrines and Practices of Image-worship, invocation of Saints, Transubstantiation, Pardons, Indulgences, Sacrifice of the Mass, denying the Bible to the Vulgar, Prayers and Sacraments in an unknown Tongue, robbing the Laity of the Cup in the Lord's Supper, prohibiting Marriage to Priests, Merit, Supererogation, making simple Fornication a mere venial sin, damning all that are not of her Communion, etc. Nor is there any Church, that more severely condemns all instances of unrighteousness and immorality, than the Church of England does.  
Thirdly, In their public Prayers and Offices. To show this in all particulars would be a tedious task; therefore I shall instance only in the office of Infant-Baptism, by which the Reader may judge of the rest.  
Before they go into the Church, after many preparatory prescriptions, the Priest being dressed in a Surplice and purple Robe, calls the Infant, saying, what askest thou, etc. the Godfather answers, Faith. P. What shalt thou get by Faith? G. Eternal Life. P. If thou therefore, etc. Then the Priest blows three gentle puffs upon the Infant's face, and says, Go out of him, O unclean Spirit, etc. Then Crossing the Infant's Forehead and Breast, he saith, Receive the sign of the Cross, etc. Then he prays that God would always, etc. And after a long Prayer (the Priest laying his Hand on the Infant's Head) comes the idle and profane Form of the Benediction of Salt; viz. I conjure thee, O creature of Salt, in the Name, etc. with many Cross. Then he puts a little Salt into the Infant's mouth, saying, Take thou the Salt of Wisdom; (and adds most impiously) be it thy Propitiation unto Eternal Life. After the Pax tecum he prays, that this Infant, etc. Then the Devil is conjured again, and most woefully be-called. Then the Priest Crosses the Infant's Forehead, saying, And this sign, etc. Then he puts his Hand on the Infant's Head, and puts up a very good Prayer.  
Then he puts part of his Robe upon the Infant, and brings him within the Church, saying, Enter thou, etc. Then follow the Apostles Creed and the Paternoster. Then the Devil is conjured again; and the Priest takes spittle out of his mouth, and therewith touches the Infant's Ears and Nostrils, saying, etc. Then he conjures the Devil again, saying, Be packing, O Devil, etc. Then he asks the Infant, whether he renounces the Devil, etc. Then dipping his Thumb in Holy Oil, and anointing the Infant with it in his Breast and betwixt his shoulders, he says, I anoint thee, etc. Then he puts off his Purple Robe, and puts on another of White colour, and having asked four more questions, and received the answers, he pours water thrice upon the Child's Head, as he recites over it our Saviour's Form of Baptism. Then dipping his Thumb in the Chrism or Holy Ointment, he anoints the Infant upon the Crown of his Head in the figure of a Cross, and prays, O God Omnipotent, etc. Afterwards he takes a white linen cloth, and putting it on the Child's Head, says, Take the white garment, etc. Lastly, he puts into the Child's or his Godfather's Hand, a lighted Candle, saying, Receive the burning Lamp, etc. Besides those things which are in the Common Ritual, there are divers others added in the Pastoral, which I shall not mention. And now, if any Man will read our Office of Baptism, he will acknowledge, that no two things can be more unlike, than these two Offices are.  
Our Litany indeed has been Condemned by Dissenters, as savouring of Popish Superstition; but nothing is more false, if a Man compares it with the Popish one, the greater part of which consists in invocations of Saints and Angels. But the Brevity I am confined to in this Discourse, will not permit me to abide any longer upon this Argument.  
Fourthly, In the Books they receive for Canonical. For the Church of Rome takes all the Apocryphal Books into the Canon: but the Church of England takes only those, which the Primitive Church and all Protestants acknowledge. 'Tis true, she reads some part of the Apocryphal Books for instruction of manners: but she does not establish any Doctrine by them.  
Fifthly and Lastly, in the Authority on which they found their whole Religion. The Church of Rome found'st the Authority of the Scriptures upon her own infallibility; and the Authority of many of her own Doctrines on unwritten traditions and the Decrees of her Councils, which she will have to be no less inspired than the Prophets and Apostles: but the Church of England builds her whole Religion upon Scripture, which is her rule of Faith and Practice. She Reverences ancient general Councils: but does not think them infallible. And as for that Authority, which our Church claims in Controversies of Faith, by requiring subscription to 39 Articles, 'tis plain that she means no more Authority, than to oblige her Members to outward submission, when her decisions do not contradict any essentials of Faith or Manners; but not an authority to oblige Men to believe them infallibly true; and this is necessary for the Peace of any Church. 'Tis true, she thinks it convenient, that none should receive Orders, be admitted to Benefices, etc. but such as do believe them, not all as Articles of our Faith, but many as inferior truths; and she requires Subscription as a Test of this belief: but the Church of Rome requires all Persons under pain of damnation to believe all her false and wicked Doctrines, as much as the most undoubted Articles of Faith; as may be seen in the Creed of Pius the fourth.  
As to the Motives which our Church proposes for our belief of the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures, they are such as are found in the Scriptures themselves; viz. the excellency of them, and the Miracles which confirm them: and as to the truth of the Matters of fact, she places it (not in the testimony of any particular Church, but) in the Universal Tradition of Jews and Pagans, as well as of all Christians.  
II. I am to show, that a Church's symbolising or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome, is no warrant for separation from the Church so agreeing. The Dissenters tell us, that those things which are indifferent in their own nature, do cease to be indifferent and become sinful, if they have been used by the Church of Rome. For, say they, we read, Leu. 18.2. After the do of the Land of Egypt wherein ye dwell, shall ye not do, and after the do of the Land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do, neither shall ye walk in their Ordinances. Now, not to insist on the vast difference of our circumstances from those of the Israelites, I answer, that it is an absurd thing to imagine, that the Israelites were so bound up by God, as to be obliged to be unlike those People in all their actions. The things forbidden from verse 5 th'. to 24 th'. are not Indifferent, but Incestuous Copulations and acts of uncleaness; and God does expressly enough restrain that general Prohibition to those particulars, in saying, v. 24 th'. Defile not yourselves in any part of these things, for in all these the Nations are defiled, which I cast out before you. And they were therefore forbidden under the notion of things done after the do of the Egyptians and the Canaanites, because they were the do of those People, whom they were exceedingly prone to imitate, even in their greatest immoralities.  
If it be said, that in other places God forbids the Israelites to imitate the Heathens in things of an indifferent nature; I answer, 1. That supposing this were so, it does not from thence follow, that God intended to forbid such imitations in this place; the contrary being so manifest as we have seen. But, 2. That God has any where prohibited the Israelites to symbolise with Heathens, in things of a mere indifferent and innocent nature; I mean, that he has made it unlawful for them to observe any such Customs of the Heathens, merely upon the account of their being like them, is a very great mistake: Which will appear by considering those places which are produced for it. One is Deut. 14.2. You shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your Eyes for the dead. Now, as to the former of these prohibited things, who sees not, that 'tis unnatural, and therefore not indifferent? And as to the latter, viz. the disfiguring of themselves by cutting off their Eyebrows, this was not merely indifferent neither; it being a Custom at Funerals misbecoming the People of God; and which would make them look as if they sorrowed for the Dead as Men without Hope. Another place is Leu. 19.19. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a divers Kind; thou shalt not sow thy Ground with mingled Seed; nor shall a garment of linen and woollen come upon thee. But I answer, that tho' these things are indeed indifferent in their own nature, yet they are forbidden (not because the Heathens used them, but) because they were mystical instructions in moral duties.  
If it be objected also, that God forbade the Jews, Hos. 2.16, 17. to call him by the Name of Baali, which was a very good Name and signified only My Lord, because that word was abused in being the name of the Idol Baal; I answer, that God did not forbid the Name Baali, because an Idol was called by that Name; for he is called Baal in other places of the Hebrew Bible, and also Jah, which the Heathens used for an Idol: but because the word Baali signifies an unkind husband or Lord, such as Baal was to his worshippers; whereas God Promises he would be called Ishi, that is, a tenderly-loving husband; for he designed to be kind to his People Israel. I shall add, that Baalim in the next verse signifies Idols, which God there Promises to destroy. But, suppose that God forbade the Jews to call him Baal for the future, yet it might be because of their vehement inclination to the worship of Baal, lest by using it they should be tempted to worship him again: whereas our Ceremonies were used by the ancient Fathers without any Superstition or Idolatry, and we are not in danger of returning to Popery by retaining them.  
Well; but they say, it appears from Scripture-precepts and examples, that it is unlawful to symbolise with the Church of Rome in things, that have been notoriously abused in Idolatrous and grossly Superstitious Services. To this I answer,  
First, that it is not sinful to use those things which have been abused to Idolatry, as I shall prove by these following Arguments.  
1. No abuse of any Gesture, tho' it be in the most manifest Idolatry, doth render that Gesture simply evil, and for ever after unlawful to be used in the Worship of God upon that account. For the abuse of a thing supposes the lawful use of it; and if any thing otherwise lawful becomes sinful by an abuse of it, then it's plain that it is not in its own nature sinful, but by accident, and with respect to somewhat else. This is clear from Scripture; for if Rites and Ceremonies, after they have been abused by Idolaters, become absolutely evil, and unlawful to be used at all; then the Jews sinned in offering Sacrifice, erecting Altars, burning Incense to the God of Heaven, bowing down themselves before him, wearing a Linen Garment in the time of Divine Worship, and observing other Things and Rites which the Heathens observed in the worship of their false gods.  
If the Dissenters say, they except all such Rites as were commanded or approved of by God; I reply, that such an exception avails nothing. For if the abuse of a thing to Idolatry makes it absolutely sinful, and unlawful to be used at all, then it's impossible to destroy that Relation, and what has been once abused, must ever remain so; that is, an infinite Power can't undo what has been done, and clear it from ever having been abused. And therefore I conclude from the Command and Approbation of God, that a bare conformity with Idolaters in using those Rites in the Worship of the true God, which they practise in the worship of Idols, is not simply sinful, or formal Idolatry. For if it be; God had obliged the Children of Israel by his express Command to commit sin, and to do what he strictly and severely prohibited in other places. In truth, such a Position would plainly make God the Author of sin.  
2. This principle intrenches upon Christian liberty, if St. Paul himself may judge, who tells us, 1 Cor. 10.25, etc. that to the pure all things are pure; and affirms it lawful to eat of such things as had been offered up in Sacrifice to Idols, and to eat whatsoever was sold in the Shambles. And what reason is there, why a Gesture should be more defiled by Idolaters, than Meat which they had Offered up in Sacrifice to Idols? and why should one be sinful and Idolatrous to use, and not the other? Certainly St. Paul would never have granted them such a privilege, if he judged it Idolatrous to use what Idolaters had abused: especially considering that he in the same Chapter exhorts them earnestly to fly from Idolatry.  
3. This Principle subjects the Minds of Christians to infinite fears, scruples and perplexities: whereas the true and great design of the Gospel, is to breed in Men a filial cheerful frame of heart, the spirit of love, and of a sound or quiet mind; to give us a free, easy, comfortable access to God as to our Father; and to encourage every good Man to a diligent, constant, and frequent attendance upon his Worship, by the delight that follows it. But now, if nothing may be used by us without highly offending God, that either has been, or is abused to Idolatry; who sees not what trouble and distraction will arise in our Minds hereupon, when we meet together to worship God? It's well known that most of our Churches were erected by Idolatrous Papists, and as much defiled by Idolatry as any Gesture can be. They are dedicated to several Saints and Angels, whose Images were once set up and adored. Our Bells, Pews, Fonts, Desks, Churchyards, have been consecrated after a superstitious manner. Many Cups, Flagons, Dishes, Communion-Tables, have been given and used by Idolaters. What now is to be done? Perhaps all these things have been abused; and if certain information cannot be had, we can't worship in public without great disquiet of Mind.  
4. This Principle will destroy all public Worship. For if nothing must be used which has been, or is abused by Idolaters; it will be in the power of Idolaters, by engrossing all the outward marks and signs of that inward veneration and esteem which we own to God, to smother our Devotions, so as they shall never appear in the World; and by that means frustrate the very end and design of Religious Assemblies. And truly this work is already, by the strength of this Principle, very well effected. For kneeling at Prayers, and standing and sitting, and lifting up the Hands and Eyes to Heaven, and bowing of the Body, together with Prayer and Praise and Singing, have been all notoriously abused to Idolatry, and are so to this day. If the Dissenters say, they except such things as are necessary to be used in the Service of God, tho' they have been abused by Idolaters; I reply, that so long as the reasons hold to make any thing sinful, so long it is so. If the use or abuse of any thing by Idolaters make it simply evil; than it must for ever remain so, and no necessity whatsoever can make it lawful. So that this Principle drives us into such straits, that we must sin one way or other. For either we must not worship God in public, or we must be guilty of Idolatry if we do: and tho' of two Evils or Calamities the least is to be chosen, yet of two Sins neither is. Christian Religion flows from infinite Wisdom; and the Laws of God do not cross one another, but are even and consistent. We are never cast by God under a necessity of sinning, of transgressing one Law by the observance of another: but thus it must be, if we take up and stick to this Principle.  
5. The Dissenters condemn themselves in what they allow and practise, by the same Rule by which they condemn kneeling at the Sacrament, and other Rites of our Church. For they themselves did use, without scruple, such Places and Things and Postures as had been defiled and abused by Idolaters. They were wont to be bareheaded in time of Divine Worship, at Prayer and at the Sacrament; and so do Idolatrous Papists. They never affirmed, that it was sinful to kneel at our Prayers, both public and private; yet this Gesture the Papists use in their Prayers to the Virgin Mary, to the Cross, to Saints and Angels. They used our Churches, Churchyards, and Bells, and never thought they sinned against God by so doing; tho' they knew they had been abused. Nay, the Directory 
(a) Direct. of the day and place of worship.  declares, That such places are not subject to any such Pollution by any Superstition formerly used, and now laid aside, as may render them unlawful and inconvenient. Mr. Rutherford 
(b) Rutherf. of Scandal, Q. 5.6.  says of Bells grossly abused in time of Popery, That it is unreasonable and groundless, that thereupon they should be difused. Upon which the Reverend Dr. Falkner has this judicious Remark; The pretence of their convenient usefulness would be no better excuse on their behalf, than was the Plea for sparing the best of the Amalekites cattle, that they might be a Sacrifice, when God had devoted them to Destruction. For if God (as they say) had commanded, that all such Things and Rites should be utterly abolished, as were of Man's devising and had been abused to Idolatry; then the convenient usefulness of such Places and things will never bear them out.  
6. If this Principle were true, it would go nigh to throw a scorn upon all or most of the Reformations that have been made from the Church of Rome; for they do not seem to have governed themselves by this Rule. Some of them in their public Confessions 
(c) Confess. Bohem. Art. 15.  declaring, that they might lawfully retain such Rites and Ceremonies as are of advantage to Faith, the Worship of God, or Peace and Order in the Church, tho' they had been introduced by any Synod, or Bishop, or Pope, or any other.  
7. Nay, this Principle would render Christianity impracticable; because there is no Circumstance, no Instrument, no Ministry in Worship, but may have been some way or other abused by Pagan or Romish Idolatries. It would make every Garment, of what shape, or of what colour soever, unfit for use in our Religious Service; for not only the White, but the Red, the Green, and the Black, have been used (even for the significancy of their respective Colours) by the Gentile or Romanist, to very superstitious purposes in Divine Worship.  
Secondly, There is no express Precept of this nature, and the Texts alleged do not infer it. For, 1. Tho' some Churches are blamed for suffering some to teach the People to eat things sacrificed to Idols, Rev. 2.14, 20. yet the instance is impertinent, because that was no better than Communicating in Idol-worship, as the Gnostics did. But St. Paul declares, 1 Cor. 8. and chap. 10.27, 28, 29. that eating things offered to Idols without any respect to Idols in eating is unlawful upon no other account, but that of Scandal. 2. St. Jude's words, v. 23. hating even the garment spotted by the flesh, teach us indeed to be as cautious of temptations to sin, as of the Garments of infected Persons; but there is no danger, when they are well cleansed from infection. 3. Tho' the Jews were commanded to destroy Idols and the appurtenances of them, Deut. 7.25, 26. Is. 20.22. because they were so prodigiously inclined to Idolatry; yet surely the Dissenters will not say, we must destroy all things that have been abused to superstitious uses; for than we must destroy our Bells and Fonts and Churches. Therefore, as Mr. Calvin, upon the Second Commandment, says, We do not in the least scruple, whether we may lawfully use those Temples, Fonts and other Materials, which have been heretofore abused to Idolatrous and Superstitious uses. I acknowledge indeed, that we ought to remove such things as seem to nourish Idolatry; upon supposition, that we ourselves in opposing too evidently things in their own nature indifferent, be not too superstitious. It is equally superstitious to condemn things indifferent as unholy, and to command them as if they were holy.  
As for the example of Hezekiah's breaking in pieces the Brazen Serpent, because the Children of Israel burnt Incense to it, 2 Kings 18.4. it will not prove, that whatsoever has been notoriously defiled in Idolatrous or grossly Superstitious Services, aught to be abolished; and much less, that the not abolishing some such things, is a good ground for separation from the Church that neglects so to do. For,  
1. The Brazen Serpent was not only defiled, but an Idol itself, and that at the very time when it was destroyed. Nay, it was worshipped by the generality of the People; to those days the Children of Israel did burn Incense unto it; and there was little hope of their being reclaimed, while the Idol stood; and moreover, the use of it was ceased for which it was first erected. Now without doubt Governors ought to take away those indifferent things which have been abused, when the People are inclined to abuse them again; at least, if such abuse cannot probably be prevented by any other means: but then I deny that our Rites have been or are any temptation to Idolatry, or to the embracing of Popery.  
Had Hezekiah suffered the Brazen Serpent still to stand, no doubt private Persons (who have no Authority to make public Reformations) might lawfully have made use of it, to put them in mind of, and affect them with the wonderful mercy of God, expressed by it to their Forefathers; notwithstanding that many had formerly made an Idol of it, and did so at that very time. And much more might they have lawfully continued in the Communion of the Church, so long as there was no constraint laid upon them to join with them in their Idolatry; nor do we read of any that separated from the Church, while the Brazen Serpent was permitted to stand, as woefully abused as it was by the generality.  
2. If Example were a good way of Arguing, we find by Hezekiah's practice in other things, he did not think it an indispensable Duty, to abolish every thing that had been made use of to Idolatry; if it did not prove an immediate snare at that time. For as to the Temples, which Solomon had erected for no other end but the Worship of false Gods, 1 Kings 11.7. Hezekiah did not make it his business to destroy them, as being in his time forlorn and neglected things, of which no bad use was then made. Although indeed King Josiah afterwards (probably upon the increase of Idolatry, and renewed use of those places) found it expedient to lay them wholly waste, 2 Kings 23.13. Let not any, says 
(d) De Vitand. Superstitione.  Calvin, think me so austere or bound up, as to forbid a Christian without any exception, to accommodate himself to the Papists in any Ceremony or Observance; for it is not my purpose to condemn any thing, but what is clearly evil and openly vicious.  
III. I proceed now in the last place to show, that the Agreement between the Churches of England and Rome is in no wise such, as will make Communion with the Church of England unlawful. This I shall evince in the chief particulars, which our Dissenters take offence at.  
First Then, Episcopacy is so far from being an unlawful symbolising with the Church of Rome, that it is an Apostolical Institution; and shall we allow the Pope so much power, as to make that unlawful by his use, which the Apostles and their Disciples have recommended to us by theirs? Nay, 
(e) Bez. Episcop. du Moul. Past. off. Calv. Inst. lib. 4. cap. 4. Sect. 2. & Epist. ad Reg. Pol.  Beza, P. du Moulin, and Calvin grant, that this was the Government of all Churches in the World, from the Apostles times for about 1500 years together. Nor do I know how the Dissenters will defend the Observation of the Lord's Day, while they contend that Episcopacy cannot be concluded from the uninterrupted tradition of the Church from the Apostles times: or how those that separate upon the account of Episcopacy, can defend the lawfulness of Communicating with any Christian Church for about 1500 years together. I shall add no more upon this point; only I refer my Reader to Chillingworth's Institution of Episcopacy, and Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of separation, p. 244, etc.  
Secondly, Our symbolising with the Church of Rome in having set Forms of Prayer, is so far from being culpable, that 'tis highly commendable. For herein we symbolise with the Primitive Church; nor is any thing more expedient for the public Service of God, as I have already shown in the Third Chapter. Now if the Papists, nay if the Heathens used set Forms, because it was the fittest way for the Service of God; must we be forbidden to use them? Because they did well, are we therefore to do worse?  
Thirdly, Our Liturgy in particular does not so much symbolise with the Roman Service, as to cause a separation. For tho' some Collects are taken out of the Mass-Book; yet that is not enough to make them unlawful. For then the Lord's Prayer, the Psalms, and a great part of the Scripture besides, and the Creeds also must never be used.  
I know it has been said, that the Scriptures being of necessary use must be retained by us, tho' the Church of Rome retains them: but that there is not the same Reason for Forms, which are not necessary; and that in those we ought to go as far from that Church as we can. But what reason is there for this? For the danger that may happen to us in coming too near them, lies in things wherein they do ill, and not in things wherein they do well. No Man can show a good reason why those Passages in the Common-Prayer-Book, which are to be found in the Mass-Book, but which were used also by the Church before Romanism had corrupted it, are not as much to be valued, because they were once used by good Christians; as to be run down, because they have been since used by Superstitious and Idolatrous Men. If any Man would set himself to expose the Mass-Book, he would, I suppose, lay hold upon nothing but the Corruptions that are in it, and things that are obnoxious to just reproof; not on things that are justifiable, and may easily be defended. And the Reason of this is plain, because the Mass-Book is to blame for those parts of it only, but not for these.  
Lastly, Our symbolising with the Church of Rome in the use of Ceremonies will not justify a separation. For ours are scarce the hundredth part of hers: nor are ours imposed as necessary. If it be said, that Christ severely condemned the Jewish Traditions; I answer that he condemned only those by which they made the commandments of God of none effect, and in which they placed special holiness.  
But to descend to particulars; 1. The Surplice in the Church of Rome is solemnly hallowed, etc. but we use it only for Distinction and Uniformity, and place no more holiness in it, than in the hoods which denote Degrees. Besides, in the Primitive Church Ministers did officiate in White Garments; and Beza and Calvin were 
(f) Cont. Westph. Vol. 1. p. 55. Epist. ad Bull.  against contending about the Surplice; and, I pray, why is a Minister 's Linen Garment more Popish, than a Lawyer's Gown or a Judge's Robes? Our famous Hooker 
(g) Eccles. Pol. Book 5.228.  says, To solemn actions of Royalty and Justice, there suitable Ornaments are a beauty; are they only in Religion a stain? 2. The Cross in Baptism is not used by us, as 'tis by the Church of Rome. She enjoins numberless Cross in the Administration of that Sacrament; but we retain it in Conformity to the ancient practice, and have abolished all Superstitious abuses of it. 3. Kneeling at the Sacrament is required by us, only as a reverend Gesture; and the abuses of this kneeling in the Church of Rome are perfectly removed. The Papists indeed kneel to their Host, as to their God: but we do nothing like them; for we kneel not to the Bread and Wine, but at our Receiving of them. Now what they do on no reason, why may not we do on the best? especially when our Church declares, that Adoration of the of the Elements is Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians. As we are not to disuse the Holy Sacrament, because the Papists have made it an Idol: so we may continue our Reverence, tho' they have paid it Adoration. 4. The Ring in Marriage is most notoriously abused in the Church of Rome, as may be seen in their Office: but we practise no Superstition about it, and use it (not as a Sacramental sign, but) as a token of the Marriage Vow. Lastly, The Feasts and Fasts of our Church cannot be justly accounted Popish. For the time of Assembling is a Circumstance of our Worship that cannot be left to particular choice, but must be determined in Common; and what is to be done at that time, must be determined too in an Ordinary orderly Assembly: so that it must be left to the discretion of the Governors, when we are to keep a Festival, and when a Fast. As to the Keeping of the Lord's-Day, our Church was not at Liberty; unless she would have rashly departed from Apostolical observation, and the continued practice of all Ages and Places since the beginning of Christianity. As for the Keeping of Easter, she was under the like Obligation; the Annual Feast of the Resurrection, the Great Lord's-Day, being known to have been the Chief, and the Cause of all the Weekly. And as to the Fast of Good Friday, it was nigh as early as the Feast of the Resurrection. They lamented their Sins our Saviour died for on the Friday before, as constantly as they Commemorated His Rising again for our Salvation the Sunday after. And in Order to the keeping of those two Great Days with more Devotion, there was likewise in the Church some time beforehand set apart, for better Recollection and greater Preparation; the number of Days was in some places more, in some less. That of Forty, had obtained in the Western Country; and therefore was still kept: and would to God it were as Religiously observed, as it was Piously appointed. Whitsunday too, the Day on which the Holy Ghost descended, was observed always and Universally by the Ancient Church. Only the Nativity of our Saviour was of latter remembrance, but yet before Popery came in. 'Twas first observed in the Western Church; and afterwards taken up by the Eastern, in St. Chrysostom's time, as it stands recommended by him to the People of Antioch. Other times besides these, have been appointed for our Religious Assemblies; in which, besides the general Worship of God, the Examples of his Saints and Martyrs are gratefully remembered and piously proposed. Those Days are called commonly by the Name of the Person then particularly Commemorated: Not that the Worship is to the Saint, or that the Day is employed in his Honour; but because on the occasion of his Memory or Martyrdom we come together, as to pay our other Duties to our God, so to thank him for the Graces of his Servant, and to be Edified and Instructed by the Example. It is true, the Church heretofore, when God had been bountiful to them in the Number of his Saints, increased in some proportion the Days of his Worship; and it is to be Confessed that Popery had both acknowledged Saints to God, which he might not own, and gave the true Saints an Honour which they must disclaim: but with us the number of those Days is not greater than what the Affairs of the World may well comply with; and as the number of the Apostles is not large, so their Sanctity sure is unquestionable; and then on those Days we neither Beseech by their Merits, nor recommend ourselves to their Intercession. You see then how unreasonable the Objection of Popery is here too: But see to what absurdity it goes on. First, it is supposed Popery to keep a Day in the Memory of an Apostle; and than it is thought as Popish, to call him a Saint. A Great Person at Geneva, it seems, presumed it somewhat Popish to observe Sunday itself; and considered about changing the Day. Nay some are so perversely Superstitious on the other hand, as that That day, on which all the Christian World Remembers our Saviour's Bitter Passion, has seemed to them the fit for a Feast; and the time Universally now set apart for the Joyful Memory of his Blessed Nativity, the more proper for a Fast. This indeed is not like the Papists: No, it is like a Jew or a Heathen.  
To conclude, by Popery nothing can be meant, but the corruptions and usurpations of the Church of Rome. For the Faith of that Church was once as fair spoken of as its Errors are now; and had she continued in that purity, we ought to have been of her Communion: and now we are to departed from her no otherwise, than she shall be found to have departed from herself, and to have corrupted that Doctrine which was once delivered unto the Saints. As we must not receive the Evil for the sake of the Good, so we must not reject the Good for the sake of the Evil. We have not one Doctrine or Ceremony that is purely Popish: but we must part with the best things in our Religion, if all those things are sinful, which the Papists abuse. And as for the Papists themselves, we do not in the least countenance them in those things wherein they are wrong, by agreeing with them in those things wherein they are right.   

CHAP. IX. The Objection of Mixt-Communion Answered.  
SOme think that the Church is to consist of none but real Saints; and therefore finding many corrupt Members in the Church of England, they separate from her Communion, and set up Churches of their own, Consisting, in their judgement, of none but truly sanctify'd Persons. The Ground of this dangerous mistake is their false Notion of that holiness, which the Scripture applies to God's Church.  
Holiness in Scripture is twofold. 1. Inherent Holiness, and that can be in none properly but God, Angels and Men. In God Originally, as he is that Being, in whom all Excellencies do possess infinite Perfection; and hence he is called the Holy One of Israel. In Angels and Men by way of Participation. 2. Relative Holiness founded in a Separation of any thing from common uses, and an Appropriating it to the Service of God. Thus the Sabbath is holy, and Judea and Jerusalem are holy; and thus the Church is holy, that is, a Society separated from the World to serve God after a peculiar manner. Thus the Israelites, even when very much corrupted, were called God's holy People; Deut. 7.6. and the Apostles call the Churches by the name of Saints, tho' there were strange immoralities amongst them, because they were separated to God and in Covenant with him.  
Well; but did not Christ die, that the Church should be holy and without blemish, Eph. 5.27. that is, really holy? Yes. But then by Church we must understand not the whole Universal Church, but either that part of it which is really holy in this World, or that Church which shall be hereafter, when the corrupt Members shall be utterly cut off. Neither is this to make two Churches, but only to assign two different states of the same Church.  
This being premised, I shall prove these three Propositions; 1. That an external profession of the Christian Faith is enough to qualify a person to be admitted a Member of Christ's Church.  
2. That every such Member has a right to all the external privileges of the Church, till by the just censure of the Church he be excluded from those privileges.  
3. That some corrupt Members remaining in the Church is no just cause of separation from her.  
First then, an external Profession of the Christian Faith (made either by himself or by his Sureties) is enough to qualify a Person to be admitted a Member of Christ's Church. For, 1. This is the qualification prescribed by our Lord, Go, teach all Nations, that is, make Disciples of all Nations, Baptising them, etc. Matth. 28.19. Now the Pastors of the Church cannot know the sincerity of men's hearts, but their Profession of Christianity entitles them to baptism. By this Rule the Apostles acted whilst Christ was upon Earth, and Baptised more than were sincere; for of so many Persons that were Baptised, not above 120 continued with Christ to the last. 2. By the same Rule they acted afterwards; for St. Peter Baptised about 3000 in one day upon their professing the Word, Acts 2.41. tho' all would not probably prove sincere; and two of them, Ananias and Sapphira, were gross Hypocrites. St. Philip, Acts 8.12. Baptised both Men and Women at Samaria, and and amongst them was Simon Magus; whom the holy Deacon might justly suspect for his former practices, and whose Hypocrisy appeared afterwards. Such other Members of the Church were Demas, Hymeneus and Alexander, whose bare Profession Entitled them to that privilege. 3. Christ foretells 
(a) Matth. 3.12. and 13.24, etc. Joh. 15.1.  that his Church should consist of Good and Bad, by comparing it to a Field of Wheat and Tares, a Net of all sorts of Fishes, a Flour of Corn and Chaff, etc. St. Paul says, 
(b) Rom. 9.6.  they are not all Israel, that are of Israel; and Christ says, that many are called, but few chosen. 4. The many corrupt members 
(c) 1 Cor. 11.20, 21. 2 Cor. 12.20, 21. 1 Cor. 6. Gal. 3. Rev. 3.  of the Churches of Corinth, Galatia, and the seven Churches in Asia, prove the same. For if the Apostles themselves admitted mere formal Professors, we may conclude, that they thought it God's Will, that it should be so. 5. No other Rule in admitting Persons into the Church is practicable; since the Officers of Christ cannot make a certain judgement of men, because they themselves have short and fallible understandings.  
Secondly therefore, every such member has a right to all the External privileges of the Church, till by the just censure of the Church he be excluded from those privileges. By External privileges I mean only a Communion with the Church in the Word and Ordinances; for the pardon of sin and comforts of the Holy Ghost, etc. are Internal privileges, which belong to none but the truly Good, who are born not of water only, but of the Spirit. Now when a Man by gross and notorious wickedness has forfeited the Internal privileges of the Church, he ought by the censures of the Church to be excluded from the External privileges also: but till the sentence of the Church is passed upon him, we must not forsake the Church ourselves to avoid Communion with him; because, till then, his right to them remains inviolable, and that for several reasons.  
1. Because the Baptismal Covenant gives Men a right to God's Promises, as far as they perform the conditions. If a bare federal holiness gives Men a relation to God, than it gives them a title to the blessings that belong to that relation. Not that unworthy Men shall receive the special reward of the truly Good; but they are to be allowed the liberty to partake of those External blessings, which he in common bestows upon the whole family.  
2. Church-Membership necessarily implies Church-Communion, or else it signifies nothing. For to what purpose is a Man a Member of a Society, if he cannot enjoy the privileges of it?  
3. All the Jews were commanded to join in the public Worship, tho' I doubt many of them were wicked Livers; and therefore mere Circumcision was enough to put a Man into a capacity of Communicating with the Jewish Church in its most Solemn and Sacred Ordinances.  
4. It appears, that St. Paul makes the Number of those that received the Lord's Supper to be as great, as that of those that were Baptised. For they were all made to drink into one Spirit, 1 Cor. 12.13. that is, in the Cup of the blessed Sacrament, and all are partakers of one Bread, 10.17. and we read that they, all the 3000, Ananias and Sapphira being of the number, continued in the Apostles Doctrine, and in breaking of Bread and in Prayer, Acts 2.42.  
5. Church-Membership is in order to the Edification and Salvation of men's Souls; and this cannot be attained without being admitted to all the Acts and Offices of Church-Communion. For it is of mighty advantage to us to hear God's Word duly Preached, to have our prayers joined with those of other Christians, and our grace strengthened in the Holy Communion; and these things cannot be had, but in Church-Communion. Nay, our improvement in holiness is more to be ascribed to the operations of the Spirit, than to the External Administrations; and therefore, 
(d) Acts 2.47. Eph. 5.23. and 4.4.  since God Promises his Spirit to Believers only as they are Members of of his Church, and no otherwise than by the use and Ministry of his Word and Sacraments; since his ordinary method of saving Men is by adding them to the Church; since Chri●● suffered for us as incorporated into a Church, and the operations of the Spirit are confined to the Church; we see the necessity of holding actual communion with the Church in order to sanctification and salvation.  
But it may ●e said, that those who have only the Form and not the power of Godliness, are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ, and eat and drink their own damnation, when they receive the Sacrament, 1 Cor. 11.27, 29. and such men cannot have a right to that, in doing which they sin so heinously. Now to this I answer, 1. that in a strict sense the very best men are unworthy receivers; but, 2. those Members, that we have asserted to have a right to the External privileges of Christ's Church, are not guilty of that unworthiness which the Apostle speaks of. For we do not plead for the right of such open and scandalous sinners, whom St. Paul charges with Schism and Divisions, pride and contempt of their Brethren, sensuality and drunkenness. Such swine as these ought not indeed to come to the Holy Table of our Lord, because they have forfeited their right to it, and aught by the censures of the Church to be excluded.  
If it be said, that those receivers, who are destitute of saving grace, tho' they are free from scandalous sins, are yet in an unconve●ted condition; and that this Sacrament is not a converting, but confirming Ordinance; I answer, that taking conversion for turning Men to the profession of Christianity, ' t●s true that none but converted or Baptised Persons must receive the Sacrament: but if we take conversion for turning those who are already Baptised, to a serious practice of holiness, than this is a converting ordinance. For what more powerful motives to holiness can be found, than what the Sacrament represents to us; wherein the great love of God in Christ, and our Saviour's sufferings, and God's hatred of sin, and the dismal consequences of it are so lively set forth?  
Thirdly I proceed to show, that some corrupt Members remaining in the Church is no just cause of Separation from her. And,  
1. From the Example of the Jews. What sins could be greater than those of Eli's Sons, who arrived to such impudence in sinning, that they lay with the Women before the door of the Tabernacle? Yet did not Elkanah and Hannah refrain to come up to Shilo, and to join with them in public worship. Nay, they are said to transgress who refused to come, tho' they refused out of abhorrence of the Wickedness of those Men, 1 Sam. 2.17, 24. In Ahab's time, when almost all Israel were Idolaters, and halted betwixt God and Baal; yet then did the Prophet Elijah Summon all Israel to appear on Mount Carmel, and hold a Religious Communion with them in Preaching and Praying, and offering a miraculous Sacrifice. Neither did the Seven Thousand that had kept themselves upright, and not bowed their Knee to Baal, absent themselves because of the Idolatry of the rest; but they all came and joined in that public Worship performed by the Prophet, 1 Kings 18.39. and 19.18. In the Old Testament, when both Prince and Priests and People were very much depraved and debauched in their Manners, we do not find that the Prophets at any time exhorted the faithful and sincere to separate; or that they themselves set up any separate Meetings, but continued in Communion with the Church, Preaching to them and exhorting them to Repentance.  
2. From the Example of Christians. Many Members of the Churches of Corinth and Galatia, and the 7 Churches in Asia, were grown very scandalous; yet we do not read that good Men Separated from the Church, or that the Apostles commanded them so to do.  
3. From our Saviour's own Example, who did not separate from the Jewish Church, tho' the Scribes and Pharisees, who ruled in Ecclesiastical Matters at that time, had perverted the Law, corrupted the Worship of God, were blind guides and hypocrites, devoured widows houses, and had only a form of Godliness, Matth. 15.6, 7, 8. How careful was he, both by his Example and Precept, to forbid and discountenance a separation upon that account? They sit in Moses 's Seat, says he; all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do, Matth. 23.2, 3.  
4. From the Apostle's express command to hold Communion with the Church of Corinth, notwithstanding the many and great immoralities that were amongst the Members of it. 
(e) 1 Cor. 1.12, 13. and 3.3. and 5.1. and 11.18.  There were Schisms and Contentions amongst them, strife and envyings, fornication and incest, eating at the Idols Table, and coming not so soberly as became them to the Table of our Lord; yet does the Apostle not only not command them to separate, but approve their meeting together, and exhort them to continue it.  
But 
(f) 1 Cor. 11.28.  let a Man examine himself, and so let him eat of that Bread, and drink of that Cup. In these words the Apostle plainly solves the Case I am discoursing on, and shows what private Christians, in whose power it is not judicially to correct Vice, are to do, when they see so many vicious Members intruding to the blessed Sacrament; viz. not to abstain from it, but by preparation and examination of themselves to take care that they be not of their number. If to separate had been the way, the Apostle would then have managed his Discourse after this manner; There are many Schisms and strises in the Church, there is an incestuous Person not cast out, many proud contemners of their Brethren, Men of strange Opinions, of untamed Appetites, and unbridled Passions, and therefore I advise you not to come amongst them, nor to partake of the Holy Sacrament with them, lest you be infected with their Sores, and partake of their Judgements. But by advising Men to examine themselves, and then to come, he plainly intimates, that 'twas their Duty to continue in the Communion of the Church notwithstanding these; as if he had said, I do not mention the foul Enormities of some that come to this holy Table, to discourage you from coming, lest you should be polluted by their sins: but to excite you to a due care and examination of yourselves, that you be not polluted by any sinful Acts and Compliances of your own; and then there's no danger of being defiled by theirs.  
5. From the Nature of Church-Communion. I have already proved in the First Chapter, that every act of Church-Communion is an act of Communion with the whole Christian Church, and and all the Members of it, whether present or absent: and therefore those, who separate from a National Church for the sake of corrupt Professors, are Schismatics in doing so; and all their Prayers and Sacraments are not acts of Communion, but a Schismatical Combination. Because, tho' they could form a Society as pure and holy as they desire, yet they confine their Communion to their own select company, and exclude the whole body of Christians, all the World over, out of it. Their Communion is no larger, than their gathered Church; for if it be, than they must still Communicate with those Churches, which have corrupt Members, as all visible Churches on earth have.  
'Tis true, good Men must frequently exhort and advise corrupt and scandalous Members; they must reprove them with prudence, affection and calmness; they must bewail their sins and pray to God for their Reformation; they must as much, and as conveniently as may be, avoid their company, especially all familiarity with them; and if repeated admonitions, either private or before one or two more, will not do; then they must tell the Church, that by it's more public reproofs the scandalous Members may be reclaimed, or by its just censures cut off from the Communion. These things the Holy Scriptures command us to do, and the Primitive Christians practised accordingly. But if after all the endeavours of private Christians, some scandalous Members, through the defect of discipline, should remain in the Church; they cannot injure those Persons that are no way accessary to their sin. For no sin pollutes a Man, but that which is chosen by him. Noah and Lot were good, even amongst the wicked; nor did Judas defile our Saviour and his Apostles at the passover. The good and bad Communicate together (not in sin, but) in their common duty. To Communicate in a sin, is sin: but to Communicate with a sinner, in that which is not sinful, cannot be a sin.  
'Tis true, the Apostle says, 1 Cor. 5.6. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump; but this is a Proverbial speech, and shows only that sin, like leaven, is of a very spreading nature. The People are as a lump, and a wicked Person is as leaven amongst them: but, tho' the leaven is apt to convey itself through the whole lump, yet only those parts are actually leavened with it, that take the leaven; and so, tho' the sinner by his bad example is apt to infect others, yet those only are actually infected, who Communicate with him in sin. Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, says our Saviour; he does not advise his Disciples to leave their Assemblies, but to beware that they take no leaven of them. The incestuous Person was not cast out of the Church of Corinth; and yet the Apostle says, at least of some of them, ye are unleavened, 1 Cor. 5.7. And why may not the joint Prayers of the Church, and the examples of good Men, be as sovereign an antidote against the infection; as the bare company of wicked Men is of power to convey it? Especially considering that the sins of the wicked shall never be imputed to the righteous: but the Prayers of the righteous have obtained pardon for the wicked.  
If it be said, that the pollutions of sin were typifyed by the legal uncleanesses, and that every thing that the unclean Person touched, was made unclean; I answer, that those legal pollutions did not defile the whole Communion, but only those whom the unclean Person touched. For, 1. There was no Sacrifice appointed for any such pollution, as came upon all for the sin of some few. 2. Tho' the Prophets reproved the Priests for not separating the clean from the unclean, Ezek. 22.26. yet they never taught, that the whole Communion was polluted, because the unclean came into the Congregation through the neglect of the Priest's duty. As those that touched the unclean Person, were unclean: so those that have Fellowship with the wicked in their sins, are polluted. 3. When 'tis said, that the unclean Person, that did not purify himself, defiled the Tabernacle and polluted the sanctuary; the meaning is, that he did so to himself, but not to others; so does a wicked Man the Ordinances of God, in respect of himself, but not of others. The Prayers of the wicked, tho' joined with those of the Church, are an abomination unto God; whilst at the same time the Prayers of good Men go up as a sweet-smelling Savour, and are accepted by him. The Person that comes unworthily to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, eats and drinks Judgement to himself: but that hinders not, but that those who at the same time come better prepared, may do it to their own Eternal Comfort and Salvation. To the pure all things are pure: but to them that are defiled and unbelieving, is nothing pure; but even their Mind and Conscience is defiled, Tit. 1.15.  
I grant indeed, that the Apostle says, 2 Cor. 6.17. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing: but this makes nothing against my Assertion, if we consider, 1. the occasion of this Exhortation. For the Christian Corinthians lived in the midst of Heathens, by whom they were often invited to their Idol-Feasts, at which some of them did not scruple to eat things Sacrificed to Idols: but the Apostle persuades them not to go, not only upon the account of scandal to their weak Brethren, whose ignorance might suffer them to be drawn by their Example to go and eat at them, even in honour to the Idol; but also, because 'twas plain Idolatry so to do. For as we receive the Lord's Supper in honour of Christ: so they must be thought to eat in honour to the Idol; because the Sacrifice was offered to the Idol. But blessed be God, we live in a Christian Country, wherein there are no Idol-Feasts at all. 2. That the Persons, from whom they were to separate, were no better than unbelievers and Idolaters. But now, because Christians by the Apostle's command were to separate from the Assemblies of Heathen Idolaters, does it therefore follow that they must separate from the Assemblies of Christians, because some, who while they profess Christ, do not live like Christians, are present at them? Is there no difference between a Pagan or an Infidel, that denies Christ and worship's Devils; and an immoral Christian, who outwardly owns Christ and worships the true God? 3. That the unclean thing they were not to touch, was the abominable practices used by the Heathens in the Worship of their Gods. But now, because Christians are not to Communicate with Heathens in their filthy Mysteries, nor to partake with any sort of wicked Men in any Action that's Immoral; does it therefore follow, that they must not do their Duty, because sometimes it cannot be done but in their Company? Must they abstain from the public Worship of God and the Lord's Table, to which they are commanded; because Evil Men, who, till they repent, have nothing to do there, rudely intrude themselves?  
As for St. John's words, Revel. 18.4. Come out of her, my People, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues; they are a command to all Christians to forsake the Communion of Idolaters; and according to most Interpreters, those in particular of the Church of Rome: but the Text does not afford the Dissenters the least Plea to separate from us, who are Reformed from Popery, and retain nothing of it, but what it retains of the Gospel and the Primitive Church.  
I have nothing now to add, but that the eminent Dissenters do utterly 
(g) See Vines on the Sacrament, p. 235, 242. Platform, c. 14. §. 8. Brinsly's Arraignm. p. 37, 38. Jenkin on Judas v. 19 Baily's Dissuasive, p. 22. Sacred. desert. p. 97. Cawdrey's Reformation promoted, p. 131. Manton on Judas, p. 496. Cotton's Holiness of Church-Members, p. 2. Burroughs' Gospel-Worship. Serm. 11. p. 242.  disclaim this Plea of Mixt-Communion. Mr. Vines says it is Donastical; and others, as Mr. Brinsly, and Mr. Jenkin, that it's the common Plea or Pretence, which for the most part hath been taken up by all Schismatics, in defence of their Separation from the Church; and therefore that it is necessary the People should be untaught it, as Mr. Baxter advises. And as they do disclaim it, so they declare that those who separate upon this account, do it very unjustly; that the Scandals of Professors are ground of mourning, but not of Separation; that there may be a sufficient cause to cast out obstinate sinners, and yet not sufficient cause for one to leave the Church, tho' such be not cast out; that the suffering of profane and scandalous Livers to continue in the Church, and partake in the Sacrament, is doubtless a great sin; yet the Godly are not presently to separate from it. There is, says Mr. Burroughs, an error on both sides; either those that think it concerns them not at all with whom they come to the Sacrament, or those that if they do what they can to keep the Scandalous away, and yet they should be suffered to come, think that they themselves may not come to partake of it. This both the Presbyterians and Independents agree in, and endeavour 
(h) See Vines on the Sacrament, p. 31, 32, 44, 242, 246. Vindicat. of Presb. Gou. p. 134. Brinsly's Arraignm. p. 47. Firmin's Separ. Exam. p. 40. Cawdrey's Church-Re●or. p. 71. Tombes's Theod. p. 74. Hooker's Survey, Pref. A 3. Platform, c. 14. §. 8, 9 Grave Confut. part. 3. p. 53, 55. Burroughs' Gospel-worsh. Serm. 11. p. 236, 237. Ball's Trial, c. 10. p. 191, 250, 211. Jean's Discourse on the Lord's Supper. Rutherford's Right of Presbyt. Blake's Vindic. p. 235. Cotton's Inf. Bapt. p. 102. Cartwright on Proverb. Edwards's Apol. Baxter's Christian Direct, p. 707. Non-conformists not Schismatics, p. 16. Bains on the Ephes. c. 1. v. 1. p. 5.  to prove by several Arguments.  
Nay, they answer an Objection drawn from, 1 Cor. 5.11. If any Man that is called a Brother, be a Fornicator, etc. with such an one no not to eat; and tell us, First, That if it be meant of excluding such an one from Church-Communion, it must be done by the Church, and not by a private Person. But you are not commanded to separate from the Church, if they exclude him not. So Mr. Baxter, etc. Secondly, That it concerns not Religious, but Civil Communion; and that not all Civil Society or Commerce, but Familiar also. For which they produce several Reasons; 1. They argue from the Notion of eating Bread, which is a Token of Love and Friendship in the phrase of Scripture; not to partake of, or to be shut from the Table, is a sign of Familiarity broken off. So Mr. Ball, etc. 2. The eating which is here forbidden, is allowed to be with the Heathen: but it's the civil eating which is only allowed to be with an Heathen; therefore it's the civil eating which is forbidden to be with a Brother. So Mr. Jenkin, etc. 
(i) See Baxter's Defence part 2. p. 27. Ball's Trial, p. 200. Jenkin on Judas, v. 19 Cawdrey's Church-Reformat. p. 75, 122, 126. Brinsly's Arraignment, p. 40, 45, 48. Tombes' Theodul. p. 128, 167, 210. Grave Confut. part 1. p. 17, 18. & part 4. p. 57 Vines on the Sacrament, p. 219, 226, 333, 246. Cartwright's Def. of the Admon. p. 98, 99, 106. Goodwin on the Ephes. p. 487, 488. Blake's Vindic. c. 31. p. 236, 238. Gillisp. Nihil respondet, p. 33. Knutton's Queries. Throughton's Apol. p. 65. Baxter's Cure, Dir. 47. p. 231. Owen's Evangel. Love, c. 3. p. 77. Brian's Dwelling with God, Sermon. 6. p. 301. Firmin's Separate. Exam. p. 28. Collins' Provocator Provocatus, p. 144, 151. England's Remembrancer, Serm. 16. p. 454.  And as for other Objections, Mr. Baxter's answer is sufficient; If you mark all the Texts in the Gospel, you shall find that all the Separation which is commanded in such cases (besides our Separation from the Infidel and Idolatrous World, or Antichristian and Heretical Confederacies, and No-Churches) is but one of these two sorts; 1. Either that the Church cast out the impenitent by the Power of the Keys; or, 2. That private Men avoid all private Familiarity with them; but that the private Members should separate from the Church, because such Persons are not cast out of it, show me one Text to prove it if you can.  
To conclude, this objection of Mixt-Communion proves nothing but a supercilious Arrogance, and a great want of Charity in those that make it. What care they may take in their new way of Discipline, I cannot tell: but our Church has given the Minister a power of rejecting scandalous Sinners, 
(k) See Rubr. after the Communion.  and this is as much as can be done; for the close Hypocrite will escape the narrowest search. Every Man is charged to examine himself, and not another; and 'twould be well, if all would do so. For he that inquires seriously into his own sins, will find great cause to be humble and penitent: but he that is curious to pry into the miscarriages of others, will be apt to be vain, proud, selfconceited, and censorious; which will make him as unfit for the Table of the Lord, as any of those Faults which he so scornfully condemns in his Neighbours, that he esteems himself and the Ordinances of God polluted by their Company.   

CHAP. X. The Pretences of Purer Ordinances, and Better Edification among the Dissenters, Answered.  
WELL; but tho' our Communion be not sinful, yet they can find Purer Ordinances and Better Edification amongst the Dissenters; and therefore they may lawfully separate from the Church of England.  
But First, what Purer Ordinances would Men have than those of our Saviour's own Institution, without any corrupt and sinful mixtures to spoil their Virtue and Efficacy? The Purity of Divine Administrations must consist in their agreement with the Institution, that there is not any such defect or addition as altars their nature and destroys their Virtue: but he who thinks that the Sacraments lose their Efficacy, unless they be administered in that way which he likes best, is guilty of gross Superstition; and attributes the Virtue of Sacraments to the manner of their administration, not to their Divine Institution.  
Secondly, the pretence of better Edification will by no means justify separation. For this Edification must be understood, either of the whole Church, or of particular Christians. Now Edification is building up, and is applied to the whole Church, considered as God's House and Temple. This is the true Scripture Notion of it, as appears by many Texts, 1 Cor. 3.9, 10. and 8.1. and 14.5, 12. Eph. 2.21. and 4.12, 13, 15, 16. Matth. 21.42. Acts 4.11. 2 Cor. 10.8, 12, 19 and 13.10. Now it's an odd way of building up the Temple of God by dividing and separating the parts of it from each other. As for the Edification of particular Persons, which is also spoken of in Scripture, 1 Thess. 5.11. it is therefore called Edification, because it is an improvement of a Man's Spiritual Condition; and it is wrought in the Unity of the Church, and makes particular Christians one Spiritual House and Temple, by a firm close Union and Communion of all the parts of the Church; so that every Christian is Edified, as he grows up in all Christian Graces and Virtues in the Unity of the Church. And indeed, if our Growth in Grace be more owing to the assistance of God's Spirit, than to the external administrations, as St. Paul tells us, 1 Cor. 3.6, 7. and if the Spirit confines his influences to the Unity of the Church, there being but one Body and one Spirit, Eph. 4.4. than it does not seem a very likely way for Edification, to cut ourselves off from the Unity of Christ's Body. St. Judas, v. 19 seems to tell us, that true Edification was a stranger to those who separated from the common building: but those who kept to the Communion of the Church, built up themselves in their most Holy Faith, and Prayed in the Holy Ghost; and a Man may with greater assurance expect the Blessing of God, if he continue in the Church, than if he separate.  
But I shall examine this pretence at large; and show, that it is unlawful for any particular Christian to separate from the Church of England, because he thinks he can Edify better amongst the Dissenters. This I shall prove by Four Arguments.  
1. Because better Edification cannot be had in separate Meetings, than in our Churches; as will appear, if we consider, First, how fit our constitution is to Edify men's Souls; Secondly, that this constitution is well managed for Edification.  
First then, That our constitution is fit to Edify Souls, will appear, if we consider Four things. 1. Our Creeds contain all Fundamental Articles of Faith, that are necessary to Salvation; but we have no nice and obscure matters in them. We believe all that the early Christians in the first Three Hundred years thought needful; that is, all that Christ and his Apostles taught: and this Faith will sufficiently and effectually Edify the Souls of Men. 2. The necessity the Church lays upon a good Life and Works. The Articles of her Creed, when firmly believed, do plainly tend to make Men good. She declares, that without preparatory Virtues the most zealous devotion is not pleasing to God; and that it is but show, unless obedience follow. Such a Faith she lays down as Fundamental to Salvation, as produces excellent Virtues; and determines, that without Faith and Good Works no Man shall see God. Her Festivals commemorate the Virtues and recommend the Examples of Excellent Men. Her Ceremonies are decent; her Prayers are for Holiness; her Discipline is to force, and her Homilies to persuade Men to that Piety, which her whole constitution aims at. She tells Sinners plainly, that unless they repent, they must perish; and says that plain Virtues are the Ornament and Soul of our Faith. And certainly the Civil Interest of a Nation is Edified by such a Church, as teaches Men to perform the duties of their several relations so exactly. 3. She is fitly constituted to excite true Devotion; because she gives us true Notions of God and ourselves, by describing his attributes and our wants. Her Prayers are grave and of a due length; and she has proper Prayers for most particular occasions. She has Offices to quicken our affections and confirm our obedience. The Offices of the Lord's Supper, Baptism and Burial, are extremely good in their kind. Bring but an honest mind and good affections to all these parts of Devotion, and they will make the Church a Choir of Angels. 4. Her Order and Discipline are such, that she makes Religion neither slovenly, nor too gay. Wise and good Men have judged all her Ceremonies to be decent and useful; and they are of great Antiquity, and fit to make our Services comely. And truly, whilst we have Bodies, these outward helps are very convenient, if not necessary. Her Government is so well tempered, that her Members may not be dissolute, nor her Rulers insolent. And if all Vices are not chastised, the reason is, because unnecessary divisions have stopped her Discipline upon offenders. Her Government is Apostolical, Primitive and Universal. None of her parts or Offices give just cause for any to revolt from her; but considering all things, she is the best constituted Church in the World. If therefore 
(a) Heb. 6.1. 2 Pet. 3.18. Rom. 15.2. 1 Cor. 14.3.  Edification be going on to perfection, or growing in grace; if it is doing good to the Souls of Men; if it be to make plain the great things in Religion to the understandings of Men; than it is to be found in this Church.  
Secondly, that our Constitution is well managed for Edification, will appear if we consider, 1. That Pastors are not left to their Liberty, but strictly commanded under great temporal Penalties to direct their Flocks, to preserve Faith and a good Conscience with substantial Devotion, which will to the purpose Edify men's Souls, and effectually save them. 2. That these commands are obeyed by our Pastors. For this we appeal to good and wise Men in our Communion, who have honesty and judgement enough to confess that they have found it true; and to say that they are prejudiced, and want sincerity and knowledge to pass a judgement, is uncharitable. Our Protestant Neighbours have commended our Government, condemned the Separation, Magnified our Pastors, and wished they were under such a Discipline, and Translated many of our men's Works to Edify their People. Dissenters themselves own our Sermons to be really good. And tho' some few may not be able to answer the true design of Preaching, yet in general Men may Edify very well among us. Nor has there been for these many hundred years a Clergy so Learned, Pious, Prudent and Industrious to Edify men's Souls, as now is in the English Church.  
II. Because those who make this pretence, do commonly mistake better Edification. And surely▪ to desert the plain and great duty of Church-Communion for disputable or mistaken Edification, is to be guilty of the sin of Schism. Now the mistakes of these Men are principally three.  
1. In taking nice notions for Edifying truths. He that discourses about Angels, separated Souls, the situation of Paradise and Hell, etc. shall be thought a sounder Divine, than he that teaches the way of Salvation plainly, by Faith and a good Conversation. Such things pass with too many for saving truths; and many ignorant and corrupt Men, that espouse Parties and Interests, readily embrace them. The Apostle speaks of some that have itching ears, 2 Tim. 4.3. If the food, tho' wholesome and good, be not to their fancy, they complain of starving. Bring but an honest, sincere and teachable mind, and you may Edify in a worse Church than ours; but otherwise the best Doctrine will be insipid to you. Place Edification in the substantial things of Religion, in a right Faith and a holy Conversation, which our Church presses upon us under the penalty of eternal damnation; for these things alone do truly Edify the souls of Men, and to these all Religion tends. The Kingdom of Christ consists in righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy-Ghost, Rom. 14.17. Now such a Religion as this being so strongly enjoined and zealously taught in our Church, we need not complain for want of Edification; and the desire of other nourishment is spiritual pride and wantonness. Wherefore desire the sincere milk of the Word (the food of your understanding, and not of your fancy) that you may grow thereby. For if you had but such an increase of grace, as to hear meekly God's Word and to receive it with pure affection, you could not easily fail to bring forth the fruits of the Spirit. Therefore 'tis dangerous and sinful to give Men a Liberty to run from any established Church for better Edificaton, which is so often and easily mistaken. And may we not add, that when a quarrel arises from an unjust denial of the Minister's Dues, than he is called dull, and a better must be sought elsewhere. Thus one fault helps out another, and defamation must excuse the Schism.  
2. In taking the Opinions of parties for essential truths. This those Men do, that are wedded to a Party; and if we do not explain all things in their way, they cry, we destroy the Gospel truths, and that instead of being Edified they are weakened in their faith. The early and best Christians thought it sufficient to know Jesus and the Resurrection in their full extent; and it were well if Men were satisfied with this old way; otherwise they break the Peace of the Church and Obedience to Governors, which are the great things of Religion, upon the score of better Edification.  
3. In taking sudden heats and warmth, arising from melting tones and other arts, for Edification; whereas a bright or a lowering day, or a Dose of Physic can do the same things; and they have often happened in the worst of Men. According as these Heats and Bodily Passions are Stirred, so in some men's Opinion the Ministry is Edifying or Unprofitable. But sound and solid Reasoning is the true way to Edification; whereas the Silly and Weak, who are most subject to these Heats and Colds, are Inconstant, and turn round in all Religions. Such Persons being all sail, are the more easily tossed about with every wind of Doctrine.  
III. Because the pretence of better Edification will cause endless divisions in the Church. For since every Man must judge, and the Governor must not restrain him, therefore People may run from Teacher to Teacher to find out Better Edification, Ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth, 2 Tim. 3.7. And when once they have torn the Unity of the Church in pieces, than envy, detraction, strife, murmur, fierceness, and numberless other mischiefs will come in; and that which divided them from the Church, will crumble them into Endless Parties, to the joy of our Enemies. But all this would be avoided, if Men were sensible of the heinous nature of Schism, which the Apostles and all the ancient Christians have painted forth in the blackest colours.  
iv Because this is a discouragement to an honest and truly Christian Ministry. For if the Flock run from a Pastor, that instructs them rightly, upon pretence of better Edification; will it not cool his zeal, check his labours, and affront his Person and Office? And this may be done to the best Pastors, as well as to others; and the most judicious Dissenters have complained of it: tho' upon this principle it cannot be remedied, because the people must judge for themselves. And ought the Ministers to be scorned and discountenanced and have their Ministry rendered useless, for the fancies, peevishness and humour of the People? If it be said, that the Pastor is idle or unsound in Doctrine; I answer, that our Governors, upon a just and modest complaint will quicken the lazy and negligent, and correct the Heretical Pastor, and restore the Flock to true Edification.  
I may add, that the eminent Dissenters do declare, that the pretence of Better Edification is not a sufficient excuse for Separation, as those who have leisure may find in these Books of theirs which I have quoted 
(b) See Hildersh. Lect. 28, 29.54, 58, 66. Methermeneut. p. 71, 72, 74. Baxter's Cure, p. 359. his Defence, part 1. p. 85. his Farewell-Sermon. Continuat. of Morn. Exer. Serm. 4. Jenkin on Judas, v. 19 England's Remembrancer, Serm. 16. Burroughs' Irenic. c. 12, 23. Platform, Pref. p. 7. etc. 13. Ball's Trial, c. 4. Brinsly's Arraignment, p. 48. Cawdry's Independ. a Schism, p. 50. Vines on the Sacrament, p. 246. Tuckney's Serm. on Acts 9.31. Jus Diu. Min. Evangel. p. 11, 12. Letter of the Minist. in Old-Eng. to the Brethren in New-Eng. p. 13. nigh's Case of great use, p. 3, 25. Tombes' Theodul. c. 9 §. 8.  at the bottom.  
But after all that has been said, I know some Persons will object, that our Ministers are unedifying Preachers, for they cannot profit by their Sermons. Therefore I shall endeavour to give these Men full satisfaction; and I doubt not to demonstrate, that they may profit by our Sermons, if it be not their own fault.  
We are all agreed, that the Scriptures contain all things necessary to Salvation; and therefore when they are rightly opened and duly applied in a Sermon, so that the hearers improve in Christian Knowledge, or in Faith, or in well-doing, than they profit by that Sermon. Now if any Man do not improve in these by the help of our Sermons, the fault must be, either in the Matter of the Sermon, or in the manner of it.  
And as for the former of these, I can scarce think, that any Dissenter will except against our Sermons upon that account; they being taken out of the Scriptures, which were never better opened and applied, than in our Sermons. I am sure, all heavenly truths are faithfully declared in them. Matters of Controversy are rarely handled in our Pulpits; for the drift of our Preachers is to make the People good. They resolve Cases of Conscience, and press the motives to believe, and the arguments to convince Men of their duty. They condemn all Vices, recommend all Virtues, and apply the Promises and Threaten of the Gospel. And if Men cannot profit where such things are constantly well managed; I am sure the fault does not lie in the Matter of the Sermons, but somewhere else.  
If some say, that the Matter is good, but the manner is such, that they cannot reap the like benefit by them, as by the Non-Conformists Preaching; I answer, that the fault must then lie, either in the Composition or the Delivery. First, as to the Composition, I am confident, that never did Men more endeavour after clear method and plain Language, than our Preachers now do. If it be objected, that they do not keep the old method of Doctrine, Reason and Use; I answer, that they always choose it, when it is natural: but the ancient Doctors never observed any constant Rule; and yet the People profited much more, than they do now. Secondly, as to the Delivery, if it be objected that our Preachers are not vehement enough; I answer, that they are, when the Matter requires it; but vehemence loses its effect, if it be spent upon all things alike. Vehemence does not consist in the strength of voice, nor yet in that heat of temper, which makes some Men speak earnestly, when they are not so deeply affected, as some of cooler tempers are. Sedate Men may instruct and move by the help of serious consideration; and those affections that are raised without it, are little worth. But neither all your Men, nor all ours, have the same voice or the same temper; and therefore this can be no more hindrance to Edification among us, than among you. If reading of Sermons be objected, I answer, that some of our Preachers use no notes in the Pulpit, others read but little; and if a Man will but turn his head another way, and not look upon the Preacher, a Sermon that is read altogether, will sound as well, as if it were pronounced without book. If reading make a thing unprofitable; the Bible, when 'tis read, must be unprofitable, and it must be got without book to make it Edifying. Besides, some famous Preachers of your own read every word; and therefore you may profit by ours as well as by them.  
But I fear, that when Men complain they cannot profit by our Sermons, they mean nothing, but that our Preachers do not move their affections, as the Non-Conformists do. To this I could say much, but it will be sufficient to mention only three things. 1. Your Men and ours have several Talents, some for informing the judgement, others for moving the affections, and others for both. All your Men do not move you alike; and yet you make such account of all, that you think it a very disorderly thing for People to run from their own to another Minister (tho' of the same way) merely to have the affections more moved. Because, 2. It is far from profiting by Sermons, to be tickled for a while and never to grow the better for them. 3. The chief thing is this, that affections raised merely by the earnestness of the Preacher, are nothing comparable to those, which we raise by consideration and reflection upon what we have heard. And these affections our Sermons will certainly raise, if you will take a little pains with yourselves, and lay them close to your Consciences.  
Now since our Sermons cannot be blamed; I pray, consider where the fault must lie, if you cannot profit by them. I beseech you, in the fear of God, by whose Word we must one day be all judged, to consider impartially, and ask your Consciences such Questions as these. 1. Had you not some prejudice against the Minister you came to hear, either for his Conformity, or his strictness in it, and the like? If you had; such prejudices bar the heart so strongly against the most excellent instructions, that a Man will not profit by them. 2. Did you not come to Church but once or twice, and then conclude too hastily, that there was no good to be gotten there? and were you not willing to have this excuse for absenting yourself wholly from it? Had you attended much, perhaps you had never left it. Try again for some time; and when you are acquainted with your Minister's method and stile and way of reasoning, his Sermons may be clear, easy and awakening to you. The Scriptures themselves are obscure to the best of us, till we are acquainted with them; and if they had been treated, as our Sermons are, (I mean, rejected because they are not presently understood) they had been thrown away long since as unprofitable. 3. Did you not leave the Church, because, when you came, the Minister happened to Treat of a Subject cross to your opinion? Hasty persons fling away from those that contradict them; but had you had patience, you might have been profited and convinced by such Discourses. 4. Was not the Minister, when you chanced to go to Church, treating of some distasteful Subject, which you love not to hear of? Was it not Schism, or Disobedience to Governors? It is certain there are such sins, which are very dangerous, and he ought to Treat of them some time or other; and if he Preach of Unity and Obedience, may not you profit by it?  
I doubt you have heard some of your own Ministers speak harder words of Conformity and Conformists, than you would have had them, and you fancy you can profit even by those Sermons; why then should you leave our Ministers, because they press some duties more strictly than you like? Do not many of your own way complain of their unprofitableness under your own Ministers, which arises perhaps from a natural dulness? and will not prejudice, passion, and disaffection to the way of worship, or to any Christian Doctrine, hinder profiting much more than natural indisposition? So that if you complain of deadness and unprofitableness under our Ministry, it is no more than many do under your own. You should not rashly conclude our Ministry to be Unedifying, but rather suspect yourselves to be guilty.  
Those also who fancy, that tho' they can profit something by our Ministry, yet they can profit more by others, ought to consider the same things, and ask their own consciences the same questions. Does not this conceit arise from the foremention'd causes? Are you not more earnestly pressed in our Congregations to be throughly good, than in those where you think you profit more? This I must say, that if you do not grow more holy in all respects, you do but deceive yourselves with an opinion of profiting more by the Nonconforming Ministry than by ours. If you would attend at our Churches, you need not go any whither else for true Edification. There is no end of seeking better entertainment of the fancy; and the old Non-Conformists thought this a dangerous principle, that Men must go where they can profit most. And because the opinion of a famous Man of your own may prevail with you more than ours, I'll tell you what Mr. Hildersham says of men's leaving their own Pastors to hear others, Lect. 58. upon John 4.  
First he says, It is the ordinance of God that every Pastor should have his own Flock to attend, and every one of God's People should have a Pastor of his own to depend upon. Now they who dwell next together, should be of the same Congregation. And if thy own Pastor be a Man whose gift is approved by God's Church, and one who is conscionable in his place, and of unblamable life; tho' his gifts be far inferior to some others, yet take heed thou leave him not at any time with contempt of his Ministry, saying, I cannot profit by him. For a Man may be a true Minister, tho' his gifts be far inferior to many others. And you are bound to Love him and Reverence him, and thank God for him. And doubtless thou mayest profit by him, if the fault be not in thyself. Nay, there is never a Minister, that is of the most excellent gifts (if he have a godly heart,) but he can truly say, he never heard any faithful Minister in his life, that was so mean, but he could discern some gift in him, that was wanting in himself, and could profit by him. The fruit and profit that is to be received from the Ministry, depends not only, nor chief, upon the gifts of the Man that Preacheth, but upon the blessing that God is pleased to give unto his own ordinance. And God doth oft give a greater blessing to weaker, than to stronger means. And consider, the fault may be rather in thyself than in thy Teacher, that thou canst not profit. And indeed how is it possible thou shouldst profit by his Ministry, if thou come with prejudice, without any Reverence, and delight unto it? Some follow another pastor because of his human gifts, some only for variety's sake; some because they show more Zeal in their voice and gesture, and phrase of speech, and manner of delivery; tho' (haply) the Doctrine itself be nothing so wholesome, as the Doctrine of their own Pastor is. But he only makes right use of the benefit of hearing such as have more excellent gifts than his own Pastor, as learns thereby to like his own Pastor the better, and to profit more by him; As they use Physic well, whose appetite is amended, and who are by it made able to relish and like their ordinary food the better. These are his words who was of such note heretofore among Non-Conformists; and how come you to differ so much from the best of your own way in former days? The same Author speaking of the partial estimation of Ministers, says, this factious disposition in the hearers of God's Word hath in all Ages been the cause of much confusion in the Church of God, and greatly hindered the fruit of the Gospel of Christ, and made them uncapable of profit by the word. Lect. 66.  
O that you would ponder such profitable instructions! which were said on purpose to check that, which is since grown the prevailing humour. Yes, will some say, we might be persuaded to hear your Preachers constantly, but you can never justify the compelling us to it. But, says Mr. Hildersham, Lect. 52. it is certain, that where there is a good Ministry established, the Magistrate may and aught to compel all his Subjects to come and hear; notwithstanding all pretence of their Conscience to the contrary.  
In short, a Sermon is then profitable, when it strengthens faith and promotes holiness; but the best Sermon in the world, tho' indicted by the Spirit of God, will not profit, unless Men will attend without prejudice, passion, partiality, conceit and spiritual pride; and unless they will impartially consider those things, which are contrary to their present sense; for want of which, multitudes did not profit by our Saviour's Sermons, but were rather more exasperated by them. Consider, I beseech you, whether this be not your case; and submit unto what shall appear to be reason, after you have weighed the matter impartially. This I hope will bring you to Church; where if you do not presently find such profit, as is promised, you may conclude in Mr. Hildersham's words; First, either you have not sought it aright, not with earnestness, or not with a good heart: Or Secondly, if you have, and do not find it at first; yet you shall hereafter, if you seek it here with an honest heart.  
You would profit more by Sermons, if you would observe some Rules delivered by the same Author, Lect. 26. which now, alas! are generally neglected. One is, that at your coming into the Congregation, and during the whole time of your abode there, you would behave yourselves reverently. For an awful sense of God's presence would be an excellent preparation to receive benefit by his Service. Another Rule is, That we must all come to the beginning of God's public Worship, and tarry till all be done. Yea, it is the duty of God's People, saith he, to be in God's House before the beginning; for it becomes them to wait for the Minister of God, and not to let him wait for them. For he shows, that Men may profit by all parts of the Service; for (says he) as he that is away from any part of the Sermon, shall profit the less by that which he doth hear: so he ' that is away from any part of the Divine Service, gets the less good by that at which he is present. Nay, he says, Lect. 28. tho' we could receive no profit by the exercises used in our Assemblies, yet we must be present at them all, to do our homage unto God; and show the Reverend Respect we have to his Ordinances. A Third Rule is, that we ought to join with the Congregation in all the parts of God's Worship. For it is comely, that all things in God's Service should be done in good order, as if the whole Congregation were but one Man. And in several places he reproves with a great deal of zeal, Men's great carelessness in this. A Fourth Rule is, that we ought to teach our Children and Servants to show Reverence to the Sanctuary and public Worship of God. For God hates profaneness even in Children; and contempt done by any may bring God's Curse upon all. And certainly, says he, among other causes of the Plague, and other Judgements of God upon the Land, this is not the least, that God's public Worship is performed among us with so little Reverence and Devotion as it is.  
But I will transcribe no more; only I shall earnestly desire two things. First, that you would consider seriously, how you would have liked what I have transcribed from Mr. Hildersham, if one of our Men had Preached it; especially if he added, that for the Reverence of God's public Worship, care should be taken, that the place where the Congregation Assembleth, may be decent and comely; and that 'tis a foul sin and contempt of God's house, to be careless about the Neatness of it. If you would have thought it unprofitable; then consider, why such things as please out of one Man's mouth, should displease out of another's. Is it not manifest, that partiality makes you not profit by our Sermons? Or if you could not like such Discourses, either from Non-Conformists, or our Ministers; then are you not mistaken about profiting by Sermons, when you think those discourses unprofitable, which sober Men of all sides have thought necessary? For Mr. Hildersham says, Profaneness and Atheism hath made us too void of all care in beautifying the house of God.  
Secondly, If you think such a Sermon profitable, consider whether you have learned so much out of Scripture, as to study and observe those Rules. Do you, for instance, pay Reverence to God's house, and come at the beginning of Service, and stand up and kneel with the Congregation, & c? If you do not, than the fault is not in our Sermons, that you do not profit; for you do not profit by the Scriptures themselves, which plainly teach these things.  
To conclude, if we have all things necessary to the building us up in our most Holy Faith, in the Communion of the Church; it will be but a poor excuse for our Dividing from it, that we hoped to be better Edified: when we had no encouragement at all to hope it, as long as we continued in the state of Separation upon this Pretence. For it is the Blessing of God alone, and not any Man's Skill in dispensing them, that can make the word and ordinances any way beneficial to us. With the help of his grace, those means of Instruction which we undervalue most, may be profitable to our Salvation. Without it our Ears may be tickled, and our Fancies pleasantly entertained for the time; but we cannot be truly Edified by the most fluent and popular Tongue, or the most melting and pathetical Expressions in the World.   

CHAP. XI. The pretence of its being against one's Conscience to join with the Church of England, Answered.  
HAving Answered the most considerable Objections against our Communion, I am now to deal with such Persons as separate from us, tho' they have nothing to object against us; such as pretend that they are not satisfied in our way, that 'tis against their Conscience to join with us, or that they doubt of the lawfulness of our Communion, or at least they scruple it. But I shall show, that these excuses are utterly insignificant; and that they cannot escape the wrath of God, who commit a sin, and think to cover it by pretending Conscience for it.  
But before I enter upon these Matters, I shall lay down the Principles I mean to proceed upon, by treating distinctly on these Five Heads. 1. Of the Nature of Conscience. 2. Of the Rule of Conscience. 3. Of the Power of Human Laws to oblige the Conscience. And particularly, 4. In the instances of Church-Communion. 5. Of the Authority of Conscience; or how far a Man is obliged to be guided by it in his actions.  
I. Then, to find out the Nature of Conscience, let us consider what every Man doth really mean by that word, when he has occasion to use it. Now as to this, I observe, First, that a Man never speaks of his Conscience, but with respect to his own actions. We do not, for instance, make it a point of Conscience, whether a thing be true or false, or whether an accident be prosperous or unfortunate, or whether another Man has done well or ill. These things indeed may please or trouble us; but our Conscience is affected only with that, which is willingly done or left undone by us, or which we may do, or may forbear. Secondly, We never use the Word Conscience about our actions, but only so far as those actions are to be directed by some Law or Rule; with which if they agree, they are good, and if they disagree, they are evil. Thirdly, Our actions, as we concern our Conscience in them, are either already done, or not already done. But whether they are done or not done, whether past or future, they are either commanded by God, and so they are Duties; or forbidden by God, and so they are Sins; or neither commanded nor forbidden, and so they are indifferent actions. Our actions, I say, do not touch our Conscience, but as they fall under these considerations; and in all these respects we mean the same thing by Conscience. For,  
First, If the action be not already done, we think it either commanded by God, and say, we are bound in Conscience, or think it our duty to do it; or forbidden by God, and say, it is against our Conscience, or we think it a sin to do it; or else we think it is indifferent, and say, we may do it with a safe Conscience, that is, we believe the action may be done without transgressing any Law of God. This is undeniably every Man's meaning, when he talks of Conscience as to actions, that are not yet done. Secondly, If we speak of our actions, that are done and passed, saying, my Conscience bears me witness, or I am satisfied or troubled in Conscience for doing, what I have done; we mean nothing more than this, that reflecting upon our own actions, we find, that we have either done, as we are convinced we ought to do, and this is a satisfaction to us; or not done, as we ought to do, and the remembrance of this troubles us. But in all these Cases we mean the same thing by Conscience, to wit, our Judgement and Persuasion concerning what we ought to do, or ought not to do. Only in the first sort, Conscience is considered as the guide of actions to be done; and in the second sort, as the witness of those that are already done: but in both sorts Conscience is the same thing, to wit, the Judgement of a Man's mind concerning the Morality of his Actions.  
This is the true Notion of Conscience in general; but if we put Epithets to it, and talk of a good or evil Conscience, a tender Conscience, or the like, than it includes more than I am now concerned to give an account of.  
II. I proceed to the Rule of Conscience. It appears by what I have said, that Conscience must always have a Rule to follow. For, since Conscience is a Man's judgement about actions as good, or bad, or indifferent; it is certain, a Man must have some measure, by applying which, he may judge of what sort the action is. This Measure is the Rule of Conscience, and Conscience is no farther safe, than as it follows that Rule. Now this Measure or Rule of Conscience can be nothing else but the Law of God; because nothing can be a Duty, or Sin, but what is commanded or forbidden by God's Law; and that thing only is indifferent, which his Law neither commands nor forbids.  
Now by the Law of God, which is the Rule of Conscience, I mean God's Will for the Government of Men's actions; whether declared by Nature, or Revelation. By the Law of Nature I mean those Principles of Good and Evil, just and unjust, which God has written in our minds, and which every Man is naturally convinced of. Some things are eternally Good, as to Worship God, etc. and we know them to be our Duty; others are eternally Evil, and we know them to be Sins, by the light of Reason; and the Apostle says, the Gentiles had this Law written in their hearts. But Christians have the Law of Revelation too contained in the Scriptures; by which God does not make void the Law of Nature, but declare its Precepts more certainly and accurately, with greater strength, and greater rewards and punishments, than before. By this also he has perfected the Law of Nature, and obliged us to higher instances of Virtue, and added some positive Laws; as for instance, to believe in Christ, to pray to God in Christ's Name, to be Baptised and partake of the Lord's Supper.  
Thus than the Natural and Revealed Law of God is the great Rule of Conscience. Only we must remember, that by the Law of Nature is to be understood, not only the chief and general heads of it, but also the necessary deductions from these heads; and by the Revealed Law is to be understood, not only express Commands and Prohibitions, but also the necessary consequences of those commands and prohibitions. So that whatever is by direct inference or parity of reason commanded or forbidden, is a Duty or a Sin; tho' it be not commanded or forbidden in the Letter of the Law. And if it be neither commanded nor forbidden by the Letter of the Law, nor yet by inference or parity of reason; the thing is indifferent, and we may do it, or let it alone, with a safe Conscience.  
III. In the third place I must consider the power of Human Laws to oblige the Conscience; for in a secondary sense they are a part of the Rule of Conscience, by virtue of, and in subordination to the Laws of God. This I shall explain in four propositions.  
First, It is most certain, that God's Law Commands us to obey the Laws of Men. For all Society is founded in this Principal Law of Nature, that we must obey our Governors in all honest and just things. Otherwise no State, City or Family can subsist happily. And 'tis most evident, that God Commands us in Scripture to Obey them, that have the Rule over us, and to be Subject not only for Wrath, but also for Conscience sake. So that a Man is bound in duty to obey Human Laws, and consequently they are a part of the Rule of Conscience.  
Secondly, Human Laws do not bind the Conscience by any Virtue in themselves, but merely by Virtue of God's Law, who has commanded us both by Nature and Scripture, to obey our Superiors. Conscience is our judgement of our actions according to God's Law, and has no Superior but God alone: but yet we are bound in Conscience to obey Men, because therein we obey God.  
Thirdly, Human Laws do no farther bind the Conscience, than as they are agreeable to the Laws of God; so that when Men command any thing sinful, we must not obey. For God has not given any Man power to alter his Laws, or impose any thing inconsistent with them.  
Fourthly, Tho' Human Laws, generally speaking, bind the Conscience; yet I do not say, that every Human Law (tho' consistent with God's Law) does at all times and in all cases, oblige every Man's Conscience to active obedience to it, so as that he sins against God, if he transgress it. For than who could be innocent? But First, where the Public or some private Person shall suffer damage or inconvenience by our not observing the Law; or Secondly, where the Manner of our not obeying it argues contempt of Authority, or sets an ill example, there the transgression of a Human Law is sinful; and not in other cases. So that there are many cases, in which a Man may transgress a purely Human Law, and yet not be a sinner before God; provided, I say, there be no contempt of Authority, or ill example in it; for either of these makes it a sin. For this I insist upon, that God's Law and the public good require, that Authority be held sacred; and therefore when Governors insist upon a thing, tho' it be trifling or inconvenient, yet we must not even seem to contest the matter with them, provided it be not sinful. For to affront their Authority, or to encourage others by our example to do it, is a greater evil to the public, than our obedience to an inconvenient Law can easily be.  
iv I shall now consider the power of Human Laws to oblige the Conscience in the instance of Church-Communion. And here I affirm, That every Man is bound in Conscience to join with the Church established by Law in the place where he lives, so long as that Church is a true sound part of the Catholic Church, and nothing sinful is required as a condition of Communion with it. For I have already shown, that Men are bound to obey Human Laws, that are not contrary to the Laws of God; and therefore they must obey in Church-Matters; unless it can be showed, that God has forbidden Men to make Laws about Religion; which can never be done.  
But farther, I earnestly desire it may be well considered by Dissenters, that we are all really bound by the Laws of Jesus Christ and the Nature of his Religion, to preserve as much as in us lies, the Unity of the Church, which consists not only in professing the same faith, but joining together in the same worship. And therefore whoever breaks this Unity, doth really transgress the Laws of Jesus Christ, and is guilty of Schism, which is so much cautioned against, and so highly condemned in Scripture.  
Those therefore, who think they are no more bound to come to Church, than to obey any common Act of Parliament, are greatly mistaken; because they break not only the Law of Man, but the Law of God. For tho' all the circumstances of Worship are Human Institutions, yet the Public Worship itself, under Public Lawful Governors, is of Divine appointment; and no Man can renounce it without sinning against Christ as well as Human Laws.  
A Divine Law clothed with circumstances of Man's appointment, creates another kind of obligation, than a Law, that commands a thing perfectly indifferent. In the former case we must obey, because 'tis God's own Law; in the other we only obey Man, because God has obliged us in general to obey our Superiors.  
God commands every Subject to pay tribute to whom tribute is due: but Human Authority determines, out of what goods, and in what proportion he must pay. Now, because Human Authority interposes, if a Man can by fraud detain the King's right, does he incur no other guilt, than breaking an Act of Parliament, and being liable to penalties, if he be detected? Yes certainly; for Tribute being enjoined by God's Law, the Man is unjust, and breaks God's Law; and his willingness to suffer the penalties does not lessen his guilt. The Case is the same as to Church-Vnity; for tho' Human Laws prescribe particular circumstances and Forms of Worship: yet God's Laws oblige us to keep the Unity of the Church, as much as to pay the King his due. And that Man, that pays his just debts by such a method, as the Law of the Land declares to be unjust, may as well acquit himself from knavery before God; as that Man, that chooses a way of public worship in opposition to the Church-Laws, can acquit himself of Schism before God. Nay, separation from the Church is so much against the Law of God, that should Human Laws grant a Toleration, and call no Man to an account for separation from the established Church; yet such a separation would still be a Schism, and a Sin against God. For no Human Law can make that Lawful, which God's Law has forbidden.  
V It remains, that I speak of the Authority of Conscience, or how far a Man is obliged to be guided by his Conscience in his actions; that is, how far we are obliged to act or not act, when we are convinced in our judgement, that the action is commanded or forbidden by God. Now our judgement concerning what God has commanded, or forbidden, or left indifferent, is either right or wrong. If right, we are said to have a right Conscience; if wrong, we have an erroneous Conscience. There is also a doubting Conscience, when we know not well how to make any judgement at all; but of this I shall Treat in another place.  
Now if our Conscience or judgement be right, that is, according to God's Law, without doubt we are forever bound to act according to it; nor can we sin in doing so, whatever the consequence be. But the great question is, what we must do, when our Conscience is erroneous and mistaken; and to answer this, I lay down three Rules, which I think, may give any Man satisfaction.  
First, Where a Man is mistaken in his judgement, even in that case it is always a sin to act against it. Tho' we take a sin for a duty, or a duty for a sin: yet so long as we are thus persuaded, it will be a great crime to act against this persuasion. Because by so doing we act against the best light we have at present; and therefore our will is as wicked, as if it acted against a true light. Nothing but Conscience can guide our actions; and tho' an eroneous Conscience is a very bad and unsafe guide; yet still 'tis the only guide we have: and if we may lawfully refuse to be guided by it in one instance, we may with as much reason reject its guidance in all. What is a wilful sin, or a sin against knowledge, but acting otherwise, than we were convinced to be our duty? Is not that Man thought sincere, that acts as he believes; and that Man an hypocrite, that acts otherwise, whether his judgement be true or false? He, who being under a mistake, acts contrary to his judgement, would certainly upon the same temptation act contrary to it, were his judgement never so well informed. And therefore his Will being as bad in the one case as in the other, he is equally a sinner as to the Wilfulness of the Crime, tho' indeed in other respects there will be a great difference in the cases. Should a Jew turn Christian, or a Papist turn Protestant, while yet they believe their former Religions to be true, we should all believe them to be great Villains and Hypocrites; because they did it upon base principles, and in contradiction to their judgements. Nay we should all think more favourably of a Protestant, that being seduced by a cunning Papist, did really out of Conscience go over to the Romanists, than of such Persons. All this put together shows, that no Man can in any case act against his judgement, but he is guilty of sin in so doing.  
Secondly, The mistake of a Man's judgement may be of such a nature, that as it will be a sin to act against his judgement, so it will likewise be a sin to act according to it. For that action is good and a duty, which God has commanded, and that is a sin which he has forbidden. 'Tis not our Opinion, but his Law, that makes things good or evil. And therefore we shall be forever obliged to do some actions and forbear others, whatever our judgement be; because we cannot alter the Nature of things. For if the Moral goodness or badness of actions were to be measured by men's opinions; then duty and sin would be the most uncertain things in the world, and what is good or evil to day, would be the contrary to morrow, as any Man's opinion altars. But such consequences are intolerable; and therefore, tho' a Man does follow his judgement, yet he may be guilty of sin (and be damned for it too) if his judgement lead him to act against the Law of God.  
But it must be observed, that I do not say, that every action according to a mistaken judgement is sinful; but that a Man's mistake may be such, that it will be a sin to act either against it, or according to it. For a Man may often mistake, and yet not sin; provided his mistakes do not lead him to a breach of God's Law. For First, if a Man believe a thing to be commanded by God, which is neither commanded nor forbidden; as if he think himself obliged to Pray seven or three times a day; he is certainly mistaken, because God has bound him up to neither. And therefore, since God has not commanded the contrary, he may safely act according to his mistake; nay, so long as his mistake continues, he is bound to do so. Secondly, If a Man believe a thing to be forbidden by God, which is neither commanded nor forbidden; as if he think that God has forbidden him to play at Cards; in this case he may follow his false opinion without sin; nay he is bound to follow it. Because, since God has not forbidden it, 'tis no sin to follow his mistaken Conscience; but it is a sin to act against it. But then in other cases, when a Man thinks that to be sinful or indifferent, which God commands; or that to be Lawful or a Duty, which God forbids; here the mistake is dangerous, and it is a sin to act against his judgement, or according to it.  
Thirdly therefore, for the untying this great difficulty, I say, That the great thing to be attended to in this case of a Man's following a Mistaken Judgement, is the faultiness or innocence of the mistake upon which he acts; for according as this is, so will his guilt in acting according to it, be either greater or less, or none at all. If the mistake be such, as an honest minded Man might make; if he did his best to understand his duty, and wanted means to know it better; then we think him innocent, and not properly guilty of any sin, tho' the action is contrary to God's Law. For no Man is obliged to do more, than what is in his power to do; and whatever a Man is not obliged to do, it is no sin in him, if he do it not. Since he could not understand better, his mistake and acting according to his mistake are not sinful.  
The only point is this; whether the Man be to be blamed for his erroneous Conscience, or no. If the error be not his own fault, he doth not sin in acting according to it: but if he had power and opportunities of informing his Conscience better, and yet neglected so to do, tho' it was his duty; then the Man sins, while he acts contrary to God's Law under the mistake; and his sin is greater or less in proportion to his negligence. Thus you see, that God enables all Men to do their duty; and that none lie under a necessity of sinning, but those who wilfully embracing false Principles, fall into sin, whether they act according to their Conscience, or against it.  
Having now done with the Five Principles of my Discourse, I proceed to my first intended business; that is, to speak to the Case of those that separate from the Communion of the Church of England upon this pretence, That it is against their Conscience to join with us in it. And that I may clear this point, I shall do two things; First, I shall separate those who can plead Conscience for their Nonconformity, from those that cannot; for a great many that pretend Conscience, refuse Communion with us upon another Principle. Secondly, I shall inquire, how far this Plea of Conscience, when truly made, will justify any Dissenter, that continues in separation from the Church.  
First then, that I may Distinguish the true Pretenders to Conscience from the false ones, I shall lay down this proposition, that no Man can justly plead Conscience for his separation from the Church of England, or say, that it is against his Conscience to join in Communion with it, unless he is persuaded, that he cannot Communicate with us without sinning against God in so doing. For God's Law is the only Rule to judge, whether an action be a Duty or a Sin, or indifferent; and Conscience is nothing else, but a Man's judgement of an action, whether it be a Duty, or a Sin, or indifferent by that Rule. So that a Man cannot be bound in Conscience to do or forbear any action, unless he is persuaded, that God's Law has commanded or forbidden it; and therefore no Man can justly plead Conscience for Nonconformity, unless he is persuaded, that God's Law has forbidden him to join with us.  
If it be said, that a Man, who does not think our Communion directly sinful, may notwithstanding think it his duty to join constantly with others, for his greater Edification, or the like cause; I answer, that my proposition still holds, because he thinks, that he is bound by God's Law to join with others, which Law he must not break by leaving them to join with us. Again, If it be said, that a Man, who does not think our Communion unlawful, but only doubts of the lawfulness of it, may justly plead Conscience for Nonconformity, so long as his doubts remain; I answer, that if he thinks it a sin to do any thing with a doubting Conscience, than he thinks, that our Communion is forbidden by God, so long as his doubts remain: but if he does not think it a sin to act with a doubting Conscience, than it cannot go against his Conscience to join with us. So that my proposition remains true, that none can justly plead Conscience for Nonconformity, but those who think, that they cannot join with us without sin.  
Now since this proposition is so certainly true, how many Men's pretences to Conscience for their separating from us, are hereby cut off? For First, those that separate, either because they have been disobliged by some Churchman, or to please a Relation, or increase their Fortunes, or procure or regain a Reputation, or for any other worldly consideration, cannot plead Conscience for separation. Nor Secondly, can those Lay-People, who are resolved to hear their beloved Teachers in Conventicles, since they cannot hear them in our Churches, and who would join with us, if we would suffer those Godly Men to Preach; nor Thirdly, those who dislike Forms of Prayer, Ceremonies, etc. thinking them not convenient, tho' they do not judge them to be sinful; nor Fourthly, those who separate upon the account of Edification, or acquaintance with Persons of another persuasion; or because many Godly Persons condemn our way; all these, I say, cannot justly plead Conscience for their separation. Because neither fancy, nor example can be the Rule of any Man's Conscience, but only the Law of God: and therefore such Persons cannot justly plead Conscience, because they do not think our Communion to be forbidden by God's Law. Nor Fifthly, can those plead Conscience for their separation, who think that our Governors have encroached too much upon Christian Liberty, and laid too much stress upon indifferent things; for suppose the governor's be faulty in it, yet the Conscience of the Subject is not concerned, so long as the things commanded do not interfere with any Law of God. Nor Sixthly, can those justly plead Conscience for their separation, who can join with us sometimes both in Prayer and the Lord's Supper; for if our Communion be sinful, with what Conscience do they dare to join in it at all? and if it be lawful once, it is a duty always.  
But leaving these false pretenders, I proceed to the case of those, that can justly plead Conscience for their separation, or who think it a sin to join with us; for I shall consider the case of those that plead a doubting Conscience afterwards, in a particular discourse.  
Secondly therefore, I shall inquire how far this Plea of Conscience, when truly made, will justify any Dissenter, that continues in separation from the Church. For there are many, that say, they would join with us with all their hearts, but they are really persuaded, they cannot do it without sin. For they think, that it is against the command of Christ to use Forms of Prayer, the Cross in Baptism, kneeling at the Sacrament, and the like. And surely, say they, you would not have us join in these practices, which we verily believe to be sins. They are so well satisfied in their separation upon these accounts, that they think themselves safe, and that they are able to justify themselves to God and all the world.  
Now in answer to this, I grant, that if the things they except against, be really forbidden by God, than they are not to be blamed; for then separation from us is not a sin, but a duty. Nay, supposing that they think that to be forbidden, which is not really forbidden; yet so long as they think so, they cannot act against their mistaken Conscience without sin. But then the point we stand upon is this, that our Governors do require nothing that is forbidden by God; and therefore their thinking our Communion unlawful will not acquit them from being guilty of sin before God.  
I am not now to answer the particular objections against our establishments. This has been sufficiently done already in the several foregoing Chapters. The Point I am concerned in, is this, whether a Man's thinking our Communion to be unlawful, when indeed it is not unlawful, will justify his separation from it: and I answer, that a Man's false persuasion will not justify his breaking of God's Law. So that if God's Law does command me to hold Communion with the Church where I have no just cause to break it, my false persuasion will not acquit me from sin before God, if I separate from it without just cause.  
Tho' the truth of this appears from what I have said before, yet I shall further confirm it by ask this question. When St. Paul thought himself bound in duty to persecute Christians, was his persecution sinful, or no? Yes surely; for he calls himself the greatest of sinners for that very reason. And therefore a Man's thinking a thing to be a duty or lawful, will not acquit him before God for doing that thing, if it be against God's Law. So that it infinitely concerns all Dissenters to consider well, before they separate. For Schism is a crying sin, and as vehemently spoken against by Christ, and his Apostles, and the Fathers, as any sin whatever. Let Dissenters look to it, that they be not guilty of it; for their false persuasion, that our Communion is unlawful, will not make their separation to be no Schism.  
This matter will appear a little more evident, if we put the case in another instance, wherein we are not so nearly concerned. Suppose a Papist, that hearty believes Popery to be the only true Religion, does in obedience to it worship Images and the Host. This person would certainly abhor these practices, did he think them to be Idolatrous; but he believes them to be necessary duties. And yet we do all charge such Papists with Idolatry, tho' they disclaim it, and profess they do no more than their duty, when they give divine worship to such objects. And we charge them rightly in this; for if it be really Idolatry by God's word to do so; than it will be Idolatry in any Man to do so, let his opinion be what it will. For a Man's false opinion doth not alter the nature of things. Now the case is the same in the matter before us; for causeless separation is as properly Schism, as worshipping a Creature is Idolatry: and he is as much a Schismatic, who thinks it his duty to separate, as he is an Idolater, who thinks it his duty to worship a Creature. A Man's mistake, according to the greater or less culpability of it, will more or less excuse him before God in both instances: but it cannot change the nature either of Schism or Idolatry.  
But it will be said; What shall a Man do? He cannot Conform with a safe Conscience; and yet he sins, if he do not. I answer, he is to take all imaginable care to rectify his mistakes, and then he may do his duty without sinning against his Conscience. Now the only way of doing this, is by laying aside Pride, Passion, Interest and all other Carnal prepossessions, and endeavouring seriously and impartially to understand his duty; considering without prejudice, what can be said on both sides, advising with the wisest Men, and above all things seriously endeavouring to understand the Nature and spirit of the Christian Religion, practising all undoubted duties, and begging God's Assistance for the Matters in question.  
Well, but supposing a Man has done all this, and after all his endeavours is persuaded that he cannot join with us without sin; what shall this Man do? This is the great difficulty, and I have two things to say to it.  
First, We do hearty wish, that this was the Case of our Dissenters; for than I am persuaded, our scandalous divisions would presently be at an end. But alas! we fear they have not done their duty in this Matter; that they have not hearty endeavoured to satisfy themselves. If they had; surely they should, before they pronounced Conformity to be unlawful, be able to produce some one plain Text to prove it so. For the Texts they produce are such, as had they in the least examined them, could scarce have been wrested to such a sense. Nay, the generality of Dissenters do not seem to have much consulted their own Teachers in this affair. If they had, they would think better of our way than they do. For the most eminent of their own Ministers are ready to declare, that tho' some things may be inconvenient, yet a Lay-Person may lawfully join with us in all things; nay, they themselves are ready upon occasion to join in all the instances of Lay-Communion. In short, most of our Dissenters have taken up their opinions hand over head, and scarce think it possible for them to be in the wrong.  
Show us a Man, that has no end to serve by Religion, but only to go to heaven, and in the choice of his way is only concerned that it be the way that leads him thither; that is wonderfully solicitous about his duty, and will refuse no pains to understand it; that in the midst of Church-divisions is modest, humble and docible, and believes that he and his friends may be mistaken; that thinks his Governors may be wiser than himself, and that every opinion, that he has inconsiderately taken up, ought not to be maintained against Authority; a Man, that where his duty to God seems to thwart his duty to Man, endeavours to be truly informed; and to that end begs God's assistance, and uses the best helps and guides he can, hears and reads the arguments on both sides, and is biased neither way; I say, show us such a Man, and we readily grant, he has done his best to satisfy himself. But then we must add, that we believe, such a Man will soon think it, not only lawful, but his Duty also to Conform.  
Secondly, If a Man has really done his best to satisfy his Conscience, and yet thinks it a sin to Conform; tho' his separation be materially a Schism, yet he is not formally guilty of it. For all those that commit Schism, are not equally guilty of it, Those that separate to serve a turn, are horribly and inexcusably guilty of Schism; and those that separate through such mistakes, as they might have avoided if they had been careful, are very unblamable, and are bound, as they love their souls, to take more care of informing their Consciences, that so they may leave their sin: but when God, who searches the hearts, knows that a Man did his best, and had not means or opportunities of understanding better; then tho' the Man commit Schism, yet he is innocent of it. And God, who judgeth of Men by their inward sincerity, will impute it to his ignorance, and forgive it at the last day; especially if this innocently mistaken Man be careful in the following points.  
First, that he be not obstinate, but ready to receive Conviction. Secondly, That he separate no more, than he needs must; but comply in all those instances, where he is satisfied he may do it with a safe Conscience. Thirdly, That where he cannot comply, he patiently submit to the penalty of the Law; neither exclaiming at his Governors or the Magistrates, nor using illegal means to get more liberty, but living as a quiet and peaceable Subject. Fourthly, That he do not censure those of another persuasion, but show himself a good Neighbour and friendly to them. whoever observes these things, tho' he descent from us, I shall be loath to censure him as an ill Man, ill Subject, or ill Christian.  
But then all that I have said, does no more justify or lessen the sin of Schism, than the sin of Idolatry; for the case is the same in both, whether the Man be a deluded Dissenter, or a deluded Papist. And therefore, notwithstanding all that may be said concerning the innocence or excusableness of some men's mistakes about these matters; yet nevertheless, it infinitely concerns every Person, to have a care how he be engaged either in the one or the other.  
To conclude; I have shown how absolutely necessary 'tis, that every Man should endeavour to inform himself aright, before he disobey his Governors or separate from the Church; and that tho' something in our worship be really against his Conscience, yet separation may be a great sin, if a Man should prove to be mistaken in his Notions. And therefore every Dissenter ought presently to set about the true informing of his judgement, for fear he live in a grievous sin.  
Let him not satisfy himself with frivolous pretences. For tho' we agree in the rule of faith and manners; yet Schism is a dreadful sin, and a Man may be damned for that as certainly, as for heresy or drunkenness. Sure I am, the ancient Fathers thought so. What if the points of Conformity be matters of dispute? Who made them so? The Church of England would have been well pleased, if these Controversies had never been. We think a Man may be a very good Christian and go to heaven, that is not able to defend our Ceremonies, etc. but he that separates upon the account of them, is bound at the peril of his own Salvation, to use the best means he can, to be satisfied about them.  
To those that pretend, that these are subtle points above their capacity, I answer, that since they have understanding enough to find fault and separate, they ought to have honesty enough to seek satisfaction; which is all that we desire of them: otherwise they will never be able to answer to God or Man for the Mischiefs of Separation.  
We are bound, especially in this case, to prove all things, and hold fast that which is good. For no Man can disobey his Superiors without sin, unless after he has used his best endeavours, he finds their commands inconsistent with his duty to God. For a Man to disobey till he has done this, is an unwarrantable thing; and in the Case I now speak of, it is no less than the sin of Formal Criminal Schism.   

CHAP. XII. The pretence of a Doubting Conscience Answered.  
I Come now to the Case of those, who separate, because they doubt, whether they may lawfully Communicate with us or no; and who fear they should sin in doing any thing with a doubting Conscience. To this I might answer from the former Chapter; that if Communion with our Church be a Duty, no Man's doubts concerning the lawfulness of it, will justify his separation from it. For if a Man's settled Persuasion, that an action is unlawful, will not justify his omission of it, supposing that God commands it; much less will his bare doubt excuse him.  
But because this answer seems rather to cut the knot, than to untie it, I shall particularly examine this Plea of a doubting Conscience, by giving an account, First, Of the nature of a doubting Conscience. Secondly, Of the Rule of it. Thirdly, Of the Power that Human Laws have over it. Fourthly, Of its Authority, i. e. whether at all, or how far a Man is obliged by it.  
I. In speaking of the Nature of a doubting Conscience I shall Treat, 1. Of doubting in General. 2. Of such doubts as affect the Conscience. 3. Of the difference between the doubting and the scrupulous Conscience.  
First Then, A Man is said to doubt, when he cannot determine, whether the thing he is considering, be so, or be not so; he thinks the question probable on both sides, but cannot fix upon either. So that his mind is like a balance, when by reason of equal weight in both Scales, neither Scale comes to the bottom. 'Tis true, a Man may lean more to one side of the question, than the other; and yet be doubtful still; just as one Scale may have more Weight than the other, while yet that Weight is not able to carry it perfectly down: but when there is so much more evidence on one side, that the mind can determine itself, than the Man doubts no longer, but is said to be Persuaded; as the Balance is said to be fixed, when there is Weight enough to carry it down on either side. 'Tis true, a Man has not always the same degree of Persuasion. Sometimes the evidence is so strong, that he entirely assents without the least doubtfulness. This is Assurance or full Persuasion. At other times the evidence may gain an Assent, but not such as excludes all doubts of the contrary. This kind of Assent is called Opinion or probable Persuasion. So a greater or less Weight carries down the Scale with greater or less force and briskness. But still, in both these Cases, the Mind is determined, the Balance is turned, and the doubt is ended; tho' perhaps the Man is not perfectly free from all scruple about that thing.  
Secondly then, I shall Treat of such doubts as affect the Conscience. A Man may doubt of any thing, which he has to consider, but every doubt does not affect the Conscience. As a Man's Conscience is affected with nothing but his own actions, so his doubts do not affect his Conscience any farther, than they concern his own actions. And as his Conscience is not affected with his own actions any otherwise, than as they are commanded or forbidden by God's Laws; so his doubts concerning them affect his Conscience no otherwise, than as God's Law may be transgressed in them. So that, where a Man apprehends no danger of transgressing God's Law, his doubts about an action do not concern his Conscience.  
Thirdly, From what has been said 'tis easy to perceive the difference between the doubting and the Scrupulous Conscience. Every body knows, that when we speak of a Resolved Conscience, we mean, that the Man is satisfied, whether the action be a Duty or a Sin, or indifferent. Now the Scrupulous Conscience is a Conscience in some measure Resolved, but yet accompanied with a fear of acting according to that resolution. The Person is convinced, that the thing is fit to be done, and has nothing considerable to object, nor any new reasons to unsettle him; but yet when he comes to act, he is troubled with unaccountable fears. But the doubting Conscience is quite different, and is nothing else but the suspense of a Man's judgement in a question about the Duty or the Sin of an Action, occasioned by the equal (or near equal) probabilities on both sides. The resolved Conscience acts cheerfully; the scrupulous Conscience acts fearfully: but the doubtful Conscience is not satisfied at all, because of the equal appearances of reason on both sides. The Man that has either a resolved or a scrupulous Conscience, passes a judgement on the thing: but a doubting Conscience passes no judgement at all; for than it would no longer be a doubting Conscience.  
After all it must be acknowledged, that truly and strictly speaking, a doubting Conscience is no Conscience at all. For Conscience, as we have often said, is a Man's mind making a judgement about the morality of his actions: but a doubting Conscience wavers, and is a Man's mind making no judgement; and therefore it is not properly a Conscience. And we may as well say an unresolved resolution, as a Doubting Conscience. However, to comply with Custom, I follow the Common way of speaking.  
II. I proceed now to the Rule of a doubting Conscience; in speaking of which I shall show, First, what kind of Rule Conscience needs in a doubtful case. Secondly, what that Rule is.  
First then, by the Rule of a doubting Conscience I mean, not a Rule by which a Man may resolve all doubts concerning every point, so as to doubt no longer about it; but a Rule, by which he may determine in every doubtful case, so as to act with a safe Conscience, whether he can get rid of his doubts or not. A Rule, that determines, not whether a thing in general be lawful, or no; but what I am to do, where I doubt of the Lawfulness of the thing. For instance, the Rule of a doubting Conscience is not to determine, whether is be Lawful to play at Cards; but what I must do, if I doubt of the Lawfulness of playing at Cards.  
Before a Man acts, he ought to be satisfied, that that side of the action, he determines himself to, is, all things considered, the more fit and reasonable to be chosen: but it is absurd to say, that no Man must act, till he is able to untie all the difficulties, and resolve all the doubts, that may have been started about the Action. For this in many cases is utterly impossible; the Person may not have sufficient time or means for the doing it. And in such a case, a man cannot possibly do better, than to get satisfied by reason and advice, what is fittest for him to do in the present circumstances, and to proceed accordingly. And this is certainly the the usual way of proceeding among the most conscientious men. Thus have I shown what kind of Rule Conscience needs in a doubtful case.  
Secondly therefore, I shall show what that Rule is, first by giving an account of the general Rule itself; and then secondly, by applying it to the several Heads of doubtful cases.  
1. First then, since a Man never doubts but upon equal appearances of Reason on both sides, it is plain, that nothing ought to turn the Balance, but greater weight of Reason; and therefore the Rule of a doubting Conscience is, That in all doubtful cases, that side which, all things considered, doth appear more reasonable, is to be chosen.  
Some indeed say, that in doubtful cases the safer side is to be chosen: but I do purposely avoid the expressing it so, because the Rule is true or false, according as the word safer side is expounded.  
For First, if by safer side we mean that side which is more free from danger of sinning, I think the Rule will prove rather a Snare, than a Guide to a Man's mind. For if this Rule be true, most Persons do transgress it every day; nay the best of men do frequently expose themselves to such dangers of sinning, as they might have avoided; and this without any reproach from their own Conscience, or any censure from other men. He that avoids all entertainments, is certainly more free from the danger of intemperance, than others are; and yet when occasion serves, no Man makes any great scruple of going to them. We are not commanded to avoid all possible danger of sinning; but only to avoid all sin, when we are in danger. For otherwise, he that would be Religious, must forsake all worldly business, and retire to a Cloister.  
But to come more strictly to the point; there are many cases, in which the most honest Person does not think he is obliged to determine himself to that side of the action, on which he apprehends there is least danger of sinning. For First, greater probability will often turn the Balance against the greater safety. Thus if a Man scruple eating Blood, and afterwards by discoursing with a Learned Person be satisfied, that it is far more probable that he may Lawfully eat it, than that he is forbidden to eat it; I believe most men will think, that he may eat it with a quiet Conscience. And yet it is certainly more safe not to eat it; because many do question whether it be Lawful to do so, but all men grant it may be Lawfully forborn. Secondly, greater temporal advantages will have weight enough with a very honest Man to overbalance the greater safety. Thus if after the strictest inquiry a Man be not satisfied, that he owes a sum of Money, which another demands confidently and with great appearances of Reason; there are equal probabilities on both sides. If he pay the Money, perhaps his circumstances are such, that he wrongs his Wife and Children; and if he refuse to pay it, perhaps he detains another Man's right from him. In this case, since it is as probable that the demand is unjust, as that it is just; I believe most men will say, that he ought not to prejudice himself and his family, till it be either by Law adjudged, or he have more convincing proofs, that he ought to pay it. It appears therefore, that any Man (who is wise as well as good) may in many cases wave the safer for the more Prudent side; and consequently it is not always a Rule to a doubting Conscience to choose the safer side, or the side which is more free from danger of sinning.  
But Secondly, if by safer side we mean that which is freest from all dangers and inconveniences of all kinds whatsoever, and does best serve all the Spiritual and Temporal interests that a wise and good Man can propose; I freely grant, that it is the only Rule to a doubting Conscience to follow the safer side. For then the safer side is the more reasonable side, which, as I said before, is in all doubtful cases to be chosen.  
2. Having given an account of the general Rule of a doubting Conscience, I come now in the Second place to make application of it to the several Heads of doubtful cases. Now all doubts of Conscience are either single or double. It is a single doubt, when a Man doubts on one side, but is satisfied on the other. For instance, he doubts, whether it be Lawful to do the action, but is satisfied he may Lawfully omit it; or he doubts whether he may Lawfully omit it, but is satisfied he may Lawfully do it. It is a double doubt, when a Man doubts on both sides; when he is at a loss what to do, because he fears he may sin, whether he does the action or does it not.  
First, as to the case of a single doubt, we may thus apply the General Rule. When a Man doubts only on one side, it is more reasonable, if all other Considerations be equal, to choose that side which he hath no doubt of. In such a case we must not do what we doubt of; for it is unreasonable to run the risk of sinning, when a Man can without any inconveniency avoid it. If a Man doubt, whether it be Lawful for a Christian to go to Law, and cannot positively determine with himself, whether it be Lawful or Unlawful so to do; in this and all other suchlike cases the Rule is plain, that while he doubts, it is more reasonable to forbear; because he runs a hazard in venturing upon what he doubts of, but he runs no hazard in forbearing. But then if there be other Considerations to overbalance this Consideration of uncertainty; it will be more reasonable to choose that side, which I did before doubt of. Nay it is our Duty so to do; for if I doubt, I do by doubting own, that I cannot tell whether the action be Lawful or Unlawful; and surely then the weight of pressing Considerations ought to turn the Balance; otherwise I cannot answer to myself or the World, for the consequences that may ensue. Thus if I am Guardian to an Orphan, whose Estate is so entangled, that a Lawsuit is necessary for the clearing it; I am obliged, notwithstanding my doubt, to secure his Right by going to Law. To conclude; it is not only Lawful, but Advisable, to do that which we doubt of, if a great good may be compassed, or a great evil may be avoided by the doing of it.  
Secondly, in the case of a double doubt, when a Man fears he may sin, whether he do the action or does it not, it is in vain to say, he must get his doubt removed; for perhaps that may be impossible through want of time or good Counsel. He is therefore to follow the same Rule as in other doubtful Cases; that is to say, he is to act as reasonably as he can: and if he do this, I am sure he incurs no blame. But because the application of this General Rule is various, according to many circumstances that may happen, therefore I shall comprise all the varieties in these Four following Propositions.  
1. If the sin we are afraid of, appear equal on both sides, we must do that, which we doubt the least of; that is, we must do that which appears more probable to be free from the danger of sin. 2. If we think there is equal danger on both sides, we must do that which appears to be the less sin. 3. If we think the one side more probable, and the other less sinful; we must act according to the degree of the probability, or the sin. If there be much more probability on the one side than on the other, and but small difference between the sins; then we must act that which is more probable. But then, if the consequences on one side, if a Man should happen to be mistaken, be so terrible, that they overbalance all the probabilities on the other side; a wise Man will act that, which sets him free from these consequences. Thus if a Man be tried for his Life, and the Evidence against him be not so full as to create a persuasion in the Jury that he is Guilty; in this case, they should rather acquit him, notwithstanding some probabilities of his Gild, than run the hazard of doing Murder by condemning the innocent. 4. If a Man doubts equally on both sides, and the sin appear equal on both sides; then his own ease, or advantage, or reputation, or any other prudential inducements must determine him to do the action he doubts about, or to let it alone. When all is said, every Man in doubtful cases is left to his own discretion; and if he acts according to the best Reason he has, he is not culpable, tho' he be mistaken in his measures.  
But to render these Rules about a double doubt more intelligible and more useful, I shall give the Reader an instance of a Case, in which they are all applied. The case is this,  
Here is a Man, that thinks it his Duty to receive the Sacrament constantly, or at least frequently; but on the other side, tho' no grievous sin lies upon his Conscience unrepented of, yet by reason of his mistakes about the Nature and Ends of the Lord's Supper, and the dispositions that fit a Man for it, he is under great fears of his being unqualifyed for it. Now the question is, what this Man, who after all his endeavours cannot get over these difficulties, aught to do. For if he do not come to the Sacrament, he doubts he sins on that account; if he do come, he doubts he approaches unworthily, and so sins upon that account. Shall he receive the Sacrament doubting as he does? or shall he forbear it doubting as he does?  
Now a Man cannot resolve this question, but by applying the foregoing Rules after this manner.  
First, since the Man doubteth, that he sins, whether he come to the Sacrament or forbear; it must be considered, which side appears most likely to free him from sin. Now I am confident, he will think it more reasonable to come meanly prepared than customarily to abstain; because he is much more certain, that 'tis his duty to frequent it, than that he is unprepared for it. Indeed were he a debauched person, or had he been lately guilty of some notorious Sin, and came to the Lord's Table with that sin unrepented of; he had reason to dread unworthy receiving, as much as abstaining: but since the case is quite otherwise, since he is mistaken while he thinks himself unworthy; certainly he runs a greater danger by absenting himself, than by coming with his doubts about him. Because his doubts of his unworthiness, being only surmises, cannot possibly be so well grounded, as his doubts, that he sins by habitually abstaining, which is expressly forbidden by God's Law.  
Secondly, Tho' it can hardly be supposed in our case, yet let us suppose, that the Man has as much reason to believe, that he is an unworthy receiver, if he receive at all; as he has to believe, that it is a sin in him if he do not receive; the question than is, which is the least sin, to receive unworthily out of a sense of duty, or not to receive at all. For the least sin is to be chosen, when he cannot avoid both. For my part I think, that a Man, who obeys one known Law of God for Conscience sake, when he cannot do it without breaking another law in the manner of performance; I say, I think that that man, tho' he is not innocent, yet is far less guilty, than he who omits a known duty, and so breaks a known Law of God for Conscience sake. Suppose two Men, who know themselves to be unfit so much as to say their Prayers; one of these Men doth upon this account forbear all Prayers; the other dares not to forbear his usual offices, tho' he believes he performs them sinfully. Now I dare say, that all Men will think him the better Man, who says his Prayers; tho' both of them be very faulty. Because whatever a Man's indisposition be, he is obliged to do his duty as well as he can; and it is better to perform a duty after an ill manner, than wholly to omit it. Since therefore the greater sin is to be avoided, when a Man is under a necessity of committing one; it's more reasonable that a Man should come to the Sacrament, doubting of his unworthiness, than that he should habitually abstain from it.  
If it be said, that he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself; 1 Cor. 11.29. and that there cannot be a greater sin, than that which will actually damn a Man: I answer, that let the sin of receiving unworthily be as damnable, as we can reasonably suppose it; yet the sin of totally withdrawing from it, is much greater and more damnable. So that if he who partakes unworthily, doth eat and drink damnation to himself; he that partakes not at all, is so far from mending the matter, that he doth much increase that damnation. And certainly, did Men seriously consider what a sin it is to live without the Sacrament, and what dreadful consequences they bring upon themselves hereby, they would not look upon it as so slight a matter to neglect it: but what apprehensions soever they had of the sin and danger of receiving unworthily, they would think it more sinful and more dangerous not to receive at all.  
Thirdly, Suppose the Man takes all opportunities of receiving the Sacrament, tho' perhaps he is not often very well satisfied about his preparation: but since his last receiving he finds he has lived more loosely than he was wont, or he has been very lately guilty of some grievous sin; so that he thinks himself unfit to receive at his next usual time. Upon this he is in a great perplexity; for he thinks he has more reason to believe he sins, if he receives in these circumstances, than if he forbears; because he is more certain that God forbids him to receive unworthily, than he is certain, that God commands him to receive upon every opportunity. But then if he be really bound to receive upon every opportunity, he is sensible in that case, it is a greater sin to neglect this duty, than to perform it unworthily, so long still as he performs it out of Conscience. On one side he runs a greater danger of sinning; on the other, if he be mistaken, he sins in a greater degree. What now is the Man to do in this case.  
I answer; First, It is very reasonable that he should forbear receiving, once or twice, for his exercise of repentance and better preparation against another opportunity. Because, since we have no reason to think that God has commanded us to receive so many times a year, any more than that we should pray so many times a day; we are not obliged by an express Law to receive upon every opportunity: but there is an express law against receiving unworthily, and therefore there is greater danger in doing so. So that the consideration of the certain danger ought to over balance that of the greater sin; and the Man ought rather to defer his receiving, than to receive in his present circumstances. But Secondly, a Man must not habitually absent himself upon the the account of unworthiness. For I have shown, that there is more danger of sinning by not receiving at all, than by receiving unworthily; and there is a much greater sin in wholly withdrawing, than in coming with never so great fears of being unfit. And therefore he must receive frequently, tho' he be in danger of doing it unworthily; rather than not receive at all.  
Fourthly, if the Person think, that the danger of sinning and the sin itself are equal, whether he receive or no; then he is to consider the inducements of Prudence and Interest, and they are to turn the balance. And it is plain, that it is better to receive than to forbear, upon those accounts. For besides the temporal advantages of receiving, he reaps this Spiritual profit by it, viz. that he takes the best method of growing more worthy, and curing his doubts; whereas by absenting himself his doubts increase, and he is in great danger of losing that sense of Religion, which he now has.  
Thus have I shown how to apply all the Rules concerning a double doubt; and if I have dwelled too long upon this subject, I hope the frequency and importance of the case will excuse me.  
III. Having settled the Notion and Rule of a Doubting Conscience, I come now in the Third place to speak of the power of human Laws over a Doubting Conscience. And my assertion is, that wherever lawful Authority has commanded an action, that command is (generally speaking) a sufficient warrant for a Man to do that action, tho' he doubts whether in itself it be lawful or no. That I may speak clearly to this point, I shall, 1. premise some things. 2. show the grounds of my assertion. 3. answer the Objections brought against it.  
1. I premise Five things. First, That no Authority upon earth can oblige Men to do what God forbids, or to forbear what God commands. Secondly, If a Man thinks that thing, which his Governors oblige him to, is sinful; tho' he be mistaken, he cannot obey them without sinning. But then, if he be mistaken, he also sins in disobeying; if he be mistaken through his own fault. Thirdly, If a Man doubt, whether the action enjoined by Authority be sinful or no; yet if he think it unlawful to act against his private doubt, he cannot do that action without sin. But then if this Notion of his be false (as I shall show it is) he sins also in disobeying, if he be mistaken through his own fault. Fourthly, If a Man has been so extremely careless in learning his duty, that he doubts of the plainest matter; in such a case a Man is highly accountable for doing that which contradicts the Law of God, tho' he did it purely in obedience to that Authority which God has set over him, and purely in compliance with this true principle, that in doubtful cases we must be guided by our Superiors. For certainly, if a sinful thing be commanded, not only he that commands, but he that obeys also, must answer for it, whether he do it doubtingly, or with a persuasion of its lawfulness. Only we must remember, First, that this is true only in such cases where the Man might have known his duty, had he not been careless; for if a Man be ignorant or doubtful, because he wanted means or opportunities of informing himself, he is not guilty of sin before God, tho' he break God's Law. Secondly, that when this case happens, the sin doth not lie in obeying his Superiors with a doubting conscience; but in his doing that, which he would have known to be sinful, if he had been so careful as he should have been. For obeying his Superiors, whether with a doubt or without one, is no part of the sin. Fifthly I premise, that whatever the power of Superiors be for the overruling a private doubt; it must not destroy the truth, or take away the use of the foregoing Rules in the Case of a double Doubt. Because the case of obeying Superiors, when we doubt of the Lawfulness of their commands, is a double Doubt as properly as any other: and therefore, if it be two to one more probable, that the command is unlawful, than that it is lawful, we must not obey it by the first Rule. But then, tho' the Authority of Superiors alone will not turn the Balance; yet there are usually such considerations of the greater sin and more dreadful consequences of disobeying, as will outweigh all the probabilities on the other side, and make it more reasonable to obey. However, if the command be lawful, a man's false opinion that it is sinfiul, will not excuse him; unless his mistake be such as he could not rectify.  
These things being premised, the plain question is this; whether in the case of a pure doubt about the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an action, where the probabilities are on both sides pretty equal, and where likewise the Man concerned has done all that he was obliged to do for the satisfying himself; whether, I say, in this case the command of a lawful superior does not oblige the Man to do that of which he doubteth. I affirm, it does oblige him so to do; and therefore,  
2. I shall show the grounds of my assertion. And First, Modesty obliges us to pay as much deference to the judgement of our Superiors, as this comes to. If a doubt should arise about the lawfulness of any civil practice, we should without any great difficulty be determined by the judgement of a few Learned, Prudent and honest Persons, whom we think better able to judge of the case than ourselves; and does it not argue much self-conceit and great contempt of our Superiors, to refuse the same respect to their judgement, whose business it is to consult and command for the best?  
Secondly, Bishop Sanderson and other Casuists agree, that in all disputed cases, he that is in possession of the thing contended for, has the advantage of the other, that contends with him, supposing all other things be equal. Thus, if I am in possession of an Estate which another Claims, I cannot justly be dispossessed, till the other Man's Title appears to be better than mine. Now in our Case the Superior asserteth his right and commandeth; the Subject questioneth his right, because he doubts whether the command be not sinful: but since the superior is in possession of the Authority to command, the Subject must by no means by his disobedience dispossess him of that Authority, till he is convinced, that he has greater reason to disobey, than to obey. But this is impossible, because the reasons are supposed equal on both sides.  
Thirdly, Since in all doubtful Cases it is a common rule, that the safer side is to be chosen, 'tis certain, that 'tis safer to obey than to disobey in a doubtful case. For there is a plain Law of God that commands us to obey Superiors in all lawful things; and if the command be unlawful, the only hazard we run, is of transgressing some Law of God, which we did not know, and which perhaps we were not bound, or had not means to know: but in a doubtful case it is very uncertain, whether the Law of God forbidden the thing or no; and if the command be lawful, than we run the hazard of transgressing a plain Law which we cannot but know, and which is of the greatest importance to Mankind.  
Fourthly, Since in all cases we must do as we would have others do to us, let us consider whether we should not think it unreasonable for our own inferiors to contradict our Rules upon pretence of doubting about their being lawful. If a Parent should command his Son to sit uncovered before him, or a Master command his Servant to dress a Dinner on the Lord's-Day, and either of them should refuse to do so, because he is not satisfied that the thing is lawful; would not a Parent or a Master say, I am to judge what is fit for you to do, and you must not think by your foolish doubts and scruples to control my commands? I dare say, most Men will think this a very just reply. And if so, than our Superior also is to be obeyed in purely doubtful cases, notwithstanding our doubt. And if we think otherwise, it is because our own Liberty and Interest are concerned, and we are prejudiced in favour of ourselves.  
Fifthly, If Superiors may not determine in merely doubtful cases, their authority signifies nothing, nor can it secure the public happiness. For there is no indifferent thing, but some Person or other will doubt whether it be lawful; and if such a doubt be a just reason to deny obedience, what will be the consequence of such a principle, but perpetual confusions? For instance, if a Prince make War, and every ignorant and unexperienced Subject may lawfully withdraw his assistance, in case he doubts whether that War be lawful or no; what a sad case would that Kingdom be in? But these consequences are intolerable; and therefore the principle from whence they flow, must needs be thought intolerable also.  
3. Having thus proved my assertion, I come now to answer the arguments that are brought on the other side.  
First then they say, if the Superior must determine in every doubtful case, the inferior must often commit most grievous sins. As for instance; if a Man doubt whether Jehovah or Baal be the true God, and the Ruler command that Baal should be worshipped, the Man must renounce the true God. But this is no argument against us; for I have already said, that neither doubtfulness nor ignorance will excuse an action that is plainly sinful, tho' it be done in obedience to Authority; and I only assert, that the Superior is to overrule, when we doubt equally, whether an action be lawful or no, and have done our best to satisfy ourselves.  
Nay, this argument concludes as strongly against them, as against us. For if a Man doubt, whether Jehovah or Baal be the true God, and the Ruler command that Jehovah only should be worshipped; what advice would they give the doubting Man? If they say, he must obey the Ruler, they give up the cause; and if he must not obey the Ruler, he must worship Baal, and so be guilty of Idolatry.  
Secondly They say, that God has commanded us to obey our Superiors, not in all things, but in those things only, which are not contrary to his Law. So that when we are uncertain, whether the command be lawful, we are also uncertain, whether we are bound to obey; and therefore it is no more our duty to obey, than to disobey. But I answer, that I have already given many weighty reasons, why we should rather obey than disobey, when we equally doubt whether the command be lawful or no.  
But Thirdly, the principal argument is drawn from St. Paul's words, He that doubteth is damned, if he eat, because he eateth not of faith; for whatsoever is not of faith, is sin; Rom. 14.23. From whence they argue, that if it was a sin to eat any food, tho' in itself lawful to be eaten, so long as they doubted whether it was lawful or no; then by parity of reason it must be a sin to do any other action, so long as we doubt of the lawfulness of it; and if so, the Ruler's command will not make it lawful to do it. This is the great argument, and I shall give it a full answer; only I think it needful to premise a general account of the Text itself, before I take of the objection that is drawn from it.  
Now St. Paul discourses in this Chapter of the case of those Jewish Christians, who were persuaded, or at least thought it most probable, that they were bound to keep Moses' Laws concerning the observation of days and difference of meats; whereas other Christians, who were better instructed, made no scruple of eating any kind of food, tho' forbidden by the Law of Moses. If it be said, that the second verse intimates their total abstinence from flesh, and eating only herbs, which Moses' Law did not oblige them to; I answer (with some Fathers) that they thinking the Law still in force, chose to eat only herbs, that their way of living might pass rather for a Religious abstinence, than a legal observance; and so the other Christians might not reproach them for keeping the Law.  
As for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which we translate he that doubteth, it does as properly signify he that maketh a difference; and it is so used both in Scripture and other Writers. And therefore the Text is thus to be rendered, he that maketh a difference (between meats) is damned or condemned if he eat (any thing which he judgeth to be unclean) because he eateth not of faith. This rendering is put in the Margin of our Bibles, and is approved by most Latin Expositors. The word faith also in this and the foregoing verse, does not signify, in the large sense, a belief of the Christian Religion, but only a Man's assent to the lawfulness of any particular action, that he takes in hand. So that to have faith about an action, is to be persuaded that it is lawful; and to do an action not of faith, is to do that which we have reason to think is unlawful. And whereas St. Paul saith, he is damned if he eat, we must observe that he does not mean damnation in hell, but the condemnation of his own Conscience; so that the sense is this, He that maketh a difference between meats, and yet eateth, is condemned for it in his own Conscience; because he does that which he apprehends to be sinful.  
That Man will soon be satisfied of the truth of this interpretation, who considers that St. Paul had been persuading the stronger Christians, who thought it lawful to eat any sort of food, not to give scandal to the weak Christians, who thought otherwise. And he thus concludes his advice; Hast thou faith, art thou satisfied that it is lawful to eat any sort of food? have it to thyself before God, enjoy thy persuasion; but do not upon every occasion make use of it, lest thy weak Brother be emboldened by thy example to do that, which he thinks to be unlawful. 'Tis true, happy is he that condemneth not himself in that which he alloweth, happy is he that does not do what he thinks to be unlawful; but he that doubteth, that maketh a difference between meats, is damned or condemned in his Conscience, if he eat what he thinks it is not lawful to eat, because he eateth not of faith, and is not satisfied that it is lawful to eat it; and whatsoever is not of faith, whatsoever a Man thinks unlawful, is sin to him that thinks it so.  
Having thus given an account of the Text itself, I am now to consider the objection, which is drawn from it, and which, as I have already said, is this; If it was a sin to eat any food, tho' in itself lawful, so long as a Man doubted, whether it was lawful or no; then by parity of reason it must be a sin to do any other action, so long as we doubt of the lawfulness of it. But I answer, that this Text is nothing to the purpose; for St. Paul here speaks not of a Doubting Conscience, but of a Resolved Conscience only. For the Persons he speaks of, were not wavering in their minds; but were persuaded that those meats were unclean, because they thought the Law of Moses still in force. This is clear from the 2, 5, and 14 verses of this Chapter; I know (saith St. Paul) and am persuaded, ' that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.  
If it be said, that the word doubteth is used, and that to doubt of the unlawfulness of an action, is quite another thing, than to be persuaded of it; I answer, that the word may as properly be rendered, he that maketh a difference between meats, as he that doubteth. But tho' the word doubteth be retained, yet it is undeniably plain that St. Paul speaks of a doubt strengthened with so many probabilities, that it wanted but very little of a persuasion; or rather it was a persuasion with some mixture of doubtfulness. If the Man was not fully persuaded that it was a sin to eat, yet he thought it much more probable that it was a sin, than that it was not. For he could not be condemned of his own Conscience for eating, if he did not think his eating to be unlawful, and were not in some degree persuaded of it.  
Well, but the Apostle says, v. 5. One man esteemeth one day above another, another man esteemeth every day alike: let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. From whence 'tis plain, that a Man must be persuaded that the action is lawful, else he doth not act with a safe Conscience. And is not that the very same thing that is here said, He that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith, or with a full persuasion? The Apostle therefore by the former Text directs us to interpret this latter in the proper sense of doubting.  
But I answer, that St. Paul did not oblige them to get full persuasions in their several ways, for there was too much of that already amongst them; and 'twas nothing to his purpose to tell them, that if they acted without a full persuasion of the lawfulness of the action, they sinned against Conscience: but his design was to persuade them, quietly to permit each other to enjoy their several persuasions in those little matters without censuring one another. So that the words must be rendered, Let every one be filled with his own mind, or satisfied with his own persuasion. This indeed differs from our English Translation: but Grotius and the Vulgar Latin, as well as St. Chrysostom and Theodoret do thus interpret it; and moreover the matter requires it. For otherwise the precept is neither reasonable nor possible; since if there appears reason of doubting, it is in vain to command a man not to doubt. Nay it is then as much his duty to doubt, as in other cases to believe. Thus than it appears that these words (he that doubteth is damned if he eat) do not overthrow my assertion.  
But, tho' this is a true and substantial answer to the argument, yet I shall give another, which unties the difficulty upon the Dissenters own Principles. Supposing therefore (what is utterly false) that St. Paul speaks of a really doubting Person, and not of one that is persuaded; and that the Man did sin in eating those meats, of the lawfulness of which he doubted: yet it does not follow, that a Man sins in obeying Authority, where he doubts of the lawfulness of the command. For there is a vast disparity in the Cases; since the Man St. Paul speaks of, was at Liberty to forbear eating, and sinned in choosing to run a needless hazard of transgressing God's Law; but when the Superior commands, a Man is not at Liberty. In the former case the Man might forbear without any danger, but in the latter case there is greater danger in forbearing than in acting; and therefore he is Bound to act in the latter case, tho' it might be sin to act in the former.  
But further, the reason, why he that eateth doubtingly, sins in so doing, is this, because he eateth not of faith; and therefore St. Paul does not say, it is always sinful to act in a doubtful case; because there are some doubtful cases, wherein a Man may act with faith, notwithstanding his doubt. For he that is satisfied that he acts according to his duty in the present circumstances, does act with faith; and therefore when a Man is satisfied that it is more reasonable, all things considered, to do an action than to forbear it, and that it would be sinful in his circumstances to act otherwise; that Man does not sin in acting, tho' he act with some kind of doubt; because he acts in faith, being satisfied that he acts according to his duty in his present circumstances. Thus then 'tis plain, that to obey authority in a purely doubtful case is not sinful; because a Man may soon be satisfied, that it is not only more reasonable, but his duty so to do.  
If it be said, that a Man cannot have faith, that is, be satisfied about an action, and yet doubt of it at the same time; I answer, that the case often happens. A Man has often very great doubts about the lawfulness of an action in general, and yet may be satisfied, that considering the circumstances he is in, it may be lawfully done. All doubting is not contrary to faith. It is sufficient if the doubts be overbalanced. Tho' a Man's doubts be hard and troublesome, yet if he is persuaded, that all things considered, it is more advisable to do the action, than to forbear it; he has faith enough to act with a safe Conscience. Because he acts according to his best judgement, and more than this a Man cannot do.  
iv I am now to speak in the Fourth and last place of the authority of a doubting Conscience, and to inquire, whether at all, or how far a Man is obliged by it. I say therefore in general, that a doubting Conscience does not oblige at all. For a doubting Conscience is the suspense of a Man's judgement about a particular action; he doubts whether he be bound to do it or forbear it. Now to suppose that a Man thinks himself bound in Conscience, while he is disputing whether he is bound or no, is to suppose a contradiction. A Man cannot be bound in Conscience to do or forbear any action, but as he thinks that God's Law has commanded or forbidden it; and therefore he that is doubtful, whether it be commanded or forbidden, cannot be obliged in Conscience either way. There is no particular Law of God, which determines our actions one way or other in the case of a doubt; and the general Laws, whether natural or revealed, can oblige us to no more, than to endeavour to understand our duty as well as we can; and when we are at a loss, to act as reasonably as we can. He that does thus, acts with a safe Conscience, tho' he act doubtfully.  
Having thus largely discussed the case of a doubting Conscience, I think it will not be amiss to apply what has been said to the Case of our present Dissenters. There are several Persons, that are unsatisfied about the lawfulness of our Communion; some upon the account of Ceremonies, others of other things. None of them can say, that these things are unlawful; for that is the case of a resolved Conscience, with which we have nothing here to do: but they are uncertain, whether they be lawful or no; and so long as they thus doubt, they dare not join in our worship, fearing they should sin against God in so doing. Of these Persons some have a single doubt, that is, they doubt whether they may lawfully join with us, but they are satisfied they may lawfully separate from us: others have a double doubt, that is, they doubt whether they may lawfully join with us, and they doubt whether they may lawfully separate from us.  
As to the First of these sorts, tho' in a single doubt it is more safe to choose that side on which a Man has no doubt, than that on which he doubts; yet this Rule holds only in such cases, where a Man may forbear the action without danger of sinning, tho' he cannot do it without danger of sinning. But in our case 'tis evident, that as there may be sinning in Conforming, so there is certainly danger of sinning in not Conforming. Nor is it more safe to separate in case of a single doubt, than of a double one. For the Man who is satisfied in his mind, that he may lawfully cut himself off from the Communion of the Church, and live in constant disobedience to his Superiors (which things are directly contrary to God's Laws) must needs be grossly and criminally ignorant of his duty; and therefore his being satisfied about such sins will not excuse him; because he was able, and it was his duty to know better.  
Nay further, tho' God had left it indifferent, whether we keep the Unity of the Church and obey our Superiors or no; tho' the case were really that of a single doubt; tho' there was no danger in forbearing these things, but the only danger was in doing them; yet I say, it is more reasonable to Conform than to Separate notwithstanding. For tho' in a single doubt a Man is to choose that side on which he has no doubt, rather than that on which he doubts; yet this Rule (as I said before) does not hold, unless all other considerations be equal. And therefore if a great good may be obtained, or a great evil avoided by acting on the doubtful side, that consideration ought to turn the Balance, and overrule the doubt; as I showed in the Case of going to Law. And certainly, if weighty considerations ought to overbalance a single doubt in any case; then the considerations of the Peace of the Kingdom, the Security of Religion, and those many Public and Private Mischiefs that attend Separation, aught to prevail in this of ours, and oblige Men to Conform. And I wish this were well considered by our doubting Dissenters.  
As to the Second sort, who doubt both of the lawfulness of Conforming, and also of the lawfulness of separating from us; I say First, if the probabilities appear pretty equal on both sides, than it is their duty to obey Authority as I proved in the Third general Head of this Discourse. Secondly, if they think it more probable that they ought not to Conform, than that they ought; then, tho' the Authority of Superiors alone have not weight enough to turn the Balance, yet the consideration of the great sin and the more dreadful consequences of separation are sufficient, and aught to oblige them to Conform, as appears from the Third prop. about a double doubt, p. 256, 257.  
Now let any indifferent Man judge between us and our Dissenters. 'Tis plain, that the things they doubt of, are not directly forbidden by God. And if they are forbidden by consequences, those consequences are so obscure, that tho' such usages have ever been in the Christian Church, yet they were never condemned as sinful till our days. And even now these consequences are not discovered by our superiors; no, not by as great and good Divines of all persuasions, as any in the World. Nay the far greater number, and those as Pious and Able as any, do plainly own our injunctions to be innocent at least, if not Apostolical. So that if they are all mistaken, it can at most be but a sin of ignorance in an ordinary person, where so many of the best guides are mistaken, if he should transgress. But now on the other hand, if our Governors be in the right, and our Communion lawful; then how great a sin are they guilty of, in breaking the Laws of Church-Vnity, which are as plain as any in the Bible; and that in such instances, where the whole Catholic Church of Old, and the greatest and best part of the present Church, are of a different persuasion from them? The consequences also of their separation are most dreadful; for by it they deprive themselves of the ordinary means of Salvation, and keep up those discords and animosities in the Church, which have torn the bowels of it, and caused Atheism and Profaneness to overspread it; they affront their Governors, give scandal to all peaceable persons, and offer a very fair pretence to factious Men to practise against the best of Goverments. So they take the Most effectual course to ruin the best Church in the World, and with it the reformed Religion in this Kingdom. And now let any Man judge, whether any doubt about the lawfulness of our Communion, and all the probabilities of the doubt, have weight enough to Balance against such a sin and such consequences. Certainly an unconcerned Person will pronounce, that in such a case a Man is bound to Conform, rather than to Separate; and that is all I contend for.   

CHAP. XIII. The pretence of a Scrupulous Conscience Answered.  
I Proceed now to the pretence of a Scrupulous Conscience; in Treating of which I shall, 1. Show what I mean by it. 2. Observe some few things concerning it. 3. Offer some plain Rules and Means, by which we may best get rid of it.  
First then, Conscience is a Man's judgement concerning the Goodness or Evil or his Actions; and a Scrupulous Conscience is a Scrupulous judgement concerning things in their own nature indifferent; and consists either, 1. in strictly tying up ourselves to some things, which God has no where commanded; as the Pharisees made great Conscience of washing before meat, etc. and observed such usages as Religiously, as the most indisputable commands of God: or, 2. in a conscientious abstaining from some things, which are no ways unlawful; doubting and fearing where no fear is; thinking that God is as much offended by our eating some kind of Meats, or wearing some Garments, as by Adultery or Murder; and being more precise about little matters, than other Good Christians are, or ourselves ought to be.  
Secondly, Concerning this Scrupulous Conscience we may observe, 1. that it is a sickly temper of Mind, and a state of Infirmity, arising from a Want of right understanding our Religion, from Timerousness, Melancholy, and Prejudice. Now this is no more a Virtue or commendable Quality in us, than 'tis to be sickly and often indisposed. A good Conscience is firm and steady, well settled and resolved: but such needless scruples are at the best a sign of an ungoverned fancy and a weak judgement; just as the Niceness and Squeamishness of a Man's stomach, that distastes Wholesome Food, is a symptom of an unsound and unhealthy Body. 2. 'Tis often a sign of Hypocrisy; as 'twas in the Scribes and Pharisees, who strained at a Gnat and swallowed a Camel, and hoped to make amends for their gross Transgressions in other cases of far greater Weight and Moment, by their curiosity about some external Observances. They therefore who are so Scrupulous about little indifferent matters, aught to approve their Honesty and Sincerity by the most accurate diligence in the practice of all other Duties of Religion, which are plainly and undoubtedly such. They who pretend to such a tender Conscience above other Men, must know, that the World will watch them as to the fairness and justice of their Deal, the calmness of their Tempers, their Behaviour in their several Relations, their Modesty, Humility, Charity, Peaceableness, and the like. If in all these things they keep the same Tenor, use the same caution and circumspection, and be uniformly conscientious; than it must be acknowledged, that it is only Weakness or Ignorance that raiseth their Scruples, and not any vicious Principle; and the condition of those who are under the power of such Scruples, is much to be commiserated. But when I see a Man scrupling praying by a Book or Form, and yet living without any sense of God, or fear of him; afraid of a Ceremony in God's Worship, and not afraid of a plain damnable Sin, of Covetousness, rash censuring his Brethren, of Hatred and Strife, Faction and Schism, and disobedience to Superiors; when I see one that out of Conscience refuseth to kneel at the Sacrament, and yet dares totally neglect the Communion; who takes great care not to give offence to his weak Brother, but can freely speak evil of Dignities, and despise his lawful Governors: it is not then uncharitable to say, That it is not a dread of displeasing God, but some other End or Interest that acts and moves him; and that in pleading the Tenderness of his Conscience he is no other than a downright Hypocrite. 3. 'Tis excessively troublesome and vexatious. It robs a Man of that Peace and Satisfaction, which he might otherwise find in Religion, and makes his Condition continually uneasy and restless. 4. It's scruples are infinite and endless; for there is hardly any thing to be done, but some small exceptions may be started against it. Scrupulous Men go on from one Thing to another, till at Length they Scruple every thing. This is notorious amongst us; for those who have taken Offence at some things in our Church, and have thereupon separated from us, and associated themselves with a purer Congregation, have soon disliked something amongst them also; and then they would reform themselves farther, and after that refine themselves more still, till at last they have sunk down either into Quakerism, Popery, or Atheism. 5. This Needless scrupling has done unspeakable mischiefs to the Church of Christ, especially to the Reformed Church of England. In the great and necessary Truths of Religion we all profess to be agreed. We all worship the same God, believe in the same Lord and Saviour, have the same Baptism, the same Faith, the same Hope, the same common Interest: our Sacraments, as to the main, are rightly administered according to our Saviour's Institution; our Churches are acknowledged to be true Churches of Jesus Christ; but there are some Constitutions which chief respect outward Order, and the decent Performance of Divine Worship, against which Men have received strange Prejudices, on the account of them have raised a mighty noise and clamour against the Church, and have openly separated from her Communion; as if by renouncing of Popery we had only exchanged one idolatrous Service for another. About these Skirts and Borders, the dress and circumstances of Religion, has been all our quarrelling and contention; and these Differences have proceeded to such an height, as to beget immortal Feuds and Animosities, to break and crumble us into little Parties and Factions; whereby mutual Edification is hindered, our common Religion suffers Reproach, the Enemies of it are strengthened and encouraged, public Peace endangered, and brotherly Love, the Badge of Christ's Disciples, quite lost amongst us; and the continuance of these miserable Distractions amongst us upon such frivolous Accounts, is a matter of sad consideration, and forebodes great Evils in Church and State. I doubt not to say, that the Devil has fought more successfully against Religion under the Mask of a zealous Reformer, than under any other disguise whatever.  
Thirdly, I shall offer some plain Rules and Means, by which we may best get rid of a Scrupulous Conscience.  
1. We should Endeavour to have the most Honourable thoughts of God; for accordingly as we Conceive of His Nature, so shall we judge what Things are most Pleasing or most Offensive to Him. Now consider, I pray; Does not God principally Regard the Frame of our Minds in Prayer? or will He refuse to hear us, because He dislikes the Garment of the Minister? Does God regard any particular Gestures or Habits, which are neither Dishonourable to Him, nor Unsuitable to the Nature of the Religious performance, so far, as that the acceptance of our Worship should depend upon such Circumstances? To surmise any such Thing is surely to Dishonour God, as if he were a low, poor, humoursom Being; like a Father that should disinherit his Dutiful Child, only because he did not like his Complexion, or the Colour of his Hair. The Wiser and Greater any Person is, to whom we address ourselves, the less he will stand upon little Punctilios.  
Mean Thoughts of God are the true ground of all Superstition, when we think to court and please him by making great Conscience about little things; and so it has been truly observed, that there is far more Superstition in conscientious abstaining from that which God has no where forbidden, than there is in doing that which God has not commanded. A Man may certainly do what God has not commanded, and yet never think to flatter God by it, nor place any Religion in it: but he may do it only out of obedience to his Superiors, for outward Order and Decency, for which end our Ceremonies are appointed; and so there is no Superstition in them. But now a Man cannot out of Conscience refuse to do what God has not forbidden, and is by lawful Authority required of him; but he must think to please God by such abstaining: and in this conceit of pleasing or humouring God by indifferent things, consists the true Spirit of Superstition.  
2. We should lay out our Great Care and Zeal about the Necessary and Essential Duties of Religion; and this will make us less Concerned about Things of an Idifferent and Inferior Nature. St. Paul says; Rom. 14.17. The Kingdom of God is not Meat nor Drink, but Righteousness, Peace, and Joy in the Holy Ghost. What needs all this stir and bustle? this censuring, disputing and dividing, about Standing or Kneeling? These are not the great matters of our Faith; they are not worth so much Noise and Contention. The great stress and weight in our Religion is laid upon the Duties of a Righteous and Holy Life, and a Peaceable Spirit and Conversation; For, says St. Paul, ver. 18. he that in these things serveth Christ, is acceptable to God and approved of men. He that minds those Things most, on which the Efficacy of his Prayers for Christ's sake does Depend, will not Need new Phrases every time to raise his Affections: and the more a Man is concerned about the Necessary Preparation for the Sacrament, the less afraid will he be of offending God by Kneeling at it. For he will find, that True Religion consists in the Constant Practice of Holiness, Righteousness and Charity; which make a Man really Better, and more Like to God.  
3. If Men were but really Willing to receive satisfaction, this alone would half conquer their Scruples: but when they are fond of them, and nourish them, and will neither hear nor read what is to be said on the other side; there can be but Little Hopes of recovering them to a Right Apprehension of things. Would they come once to distrust their own Judgements, to suppose that they may perhaps be all this while mistaken; would they calmly and patiently hear, faithfully and impartially consider, what is said or written against them; as eagerly seek for satisfaction, as Men do for the cure of any Disease they are subject unto; would they, I say, thus diligently use all fit means and helps for the removal of their Scruples, before they troubled the Church with them; it would not prove so very difficult a Task to convince and settle such teachable Minds. When they have any Fear or Suspicion about their worldly concerns, they presently repair to those who are best skilled, and most able to resolve them; and in their judgement and determination they commonly acquiesce and satisfy themselves. Has any Man a Scruple about his Estate, whether it be firmly settled, or he has a true legal Title to it? The way he takes for satisfaction is to advise with Lawyers, the most eminent for Knowledge and Honesty in their Profession. If they agree in the same Opinion, this is the greatest assurance he can have, that it is right and safe. Thus is it with one that doubts whether such a custom or practice be for his Health; the opinion of known and experienced Physicians is the only proper means to determine him in such a Case. The reason is the same here. When any private Christian is troubled and perplexed with Fears and Scruples, that concern his Duty or the Worship of God; he ought in the first place to have recourse to the public Guides and Ministers of Religion, who are appointed by God, and are best fitted to direct and conduct him; I say, to come to them, not only to dispute with them, and pertly to oppose them; but with modesty to propound their doubts, and meekly to receive Instruction, humbly begging of God to open their Understandings, that they may see and embrace the truth, taking great care that no evil affection, love of a Party, or carnal Interest influence or bias their Judgements.  
I do not by this desire Men to pin their Faith upon the Priest's Sleeve; but only diligently to Attend to their Reasons and Arguments, and to give some due Regard to their Authority. For 'tis not so Absurd, as some may Imagine, for the Common People to take upon Trust from their Lawful Teachers, what they are not Competent Judges of themselves. But the difficulty is, how a private Christian shall govern himself, when the very Ministers of Religion disagree. By what Rule shall he choose his Guide? I answer, 1. If a Man be tolerably able to Judge for himself; let him impartially hear both sides, and think it no Shame to Change his Mind, when he sees good Reason for it. Could we thus prevail with the People diligently to examine the Merits of the cause, our Church would every day gain more Ground amongst all wise Men. For we care not how much Knowledge and Understanding our People have, so they be but humble and modest with it: nor do we desire Men to become our Proselytes any further, than we give them good Scripture and Reason for it. 2. As for those who are not capable of Judging, they had better Depend on those Ministers, who are Regularly and by the Laws of the Land set over them; than on any other Teachers, that they can choose for themselves.  
I speak now of these present Controversies about Forms and Ceremonies, which are above the sphere of Common People; not of such things as Concern the Salvation of all Men, which are plain and evident to the Meanest Capacities. When therefore in such Cases, about which we cannot easily satisfy ourselves, we follow the Advice of the Authorised Guides; if they chance to Misled us, we have something to say for ourselves; our error is more Excusable, as being occasioned by those, whose Judgement God commands us to respect: but when we choose Instructors according to our own Fancies, if we then prove to be in the wrong, and are betrayed into sin; we may Thank our own Wantonness for it, and are more severely Accountable for such mistakes. Thus if a Sick Person should miscarry under a Licenced Physician; he has this contentment, that he used the wisest means for Recovery: but if he will hearken only to Quacks, and then grow worse and worse; he must charge his own Folly as the Cause of his Ruin.  
4. We should throughly consider, what is the true Notion of Lawful; and how it differs from what is Necessary, and from what is Sinful. That is necessary, or our Duty, which God has expressly commanded; that is sinful which God has forbidden; that is lawful which God has not by any Law obliging us, either commanded or forbidden. For Where there is no Law, saith the Apostle, there is no Transgression, Rom. 4.15. There can be no Transgression, but either omitting what the Law commands, or doing what the Law forbids. For instance, If any Man can show where Kneeling at the Sacrament is forbidden in Scripture, and Sitting is required; where Praying by a Form is forbidden, and Extempore Prayers are enjoined; then indeed the Dispute would soon be at an end: but if neither the one nor other can be found, as most certainly they cannot, then Kneeling at the Sacrament, and reading Prayers out of a Book, must be reckoned amongst things lawful. And then there is no need of scrupling them, because they may be done without Sin: Nay, where they are required by our Superiors, it is our Duty to submit to them, because it is our Duty to obey them in all lawful things. This way of arguing is very plain and convincing, and cannot be evaded, but by giving another notion of lawful. And therefore it is commonly said, that nothing is lawful, especially in the Worship of God, which God himself has not prescribed and appointed, or that has been abused to evil Purposes: but having fully confuted these two Mistakes in the Second and Eighth Chapters, I shall pass them over here.  
5. I desire those who Scruple to comply with our Church, to consider that there never was, nor ever will be, any public Constitution, that will be every way unexceptionable. The best Policy, whether Civil or Ecclesiastical, that can be established, will have some flaws and defects, which must be born and tolerated. Some Inconveniences will in process of time arise, that never could be foreseen or provided against; and to make alteration upon every emergent difficulty, may be often of worse consequence, than the evil we pretend to cure by it. Let the Rules and Modes of Government, Discipline, Public Worship, be most exact and blameless; yet there will be faults in Governors and Ministers as long as they are but Men. We must not expect in this World a Church without spot or wrinkle, that consists only of Saints, in which nothing can be found amiss; especially by those who lie at the catch, and wait for an advantage against it. Men must be willing, if ever they would promote Peace and Unity, to put candid Constructions and Favourable Interpretations upon Things; and not strain them on purpose, that they may raise more considerable Objections against them.  
6. If these and the like Considerations will not conquer a Man's Scruples; then let him lay them aside, and act against them. But here I easily imagine some ready presently to ask me, Do you persuade us to Conform to the Orders of the Church, tho' we are not satisfied in our Minds concerning them? I answer, That I think this is the best Advice that can be given to such Scrupulous Persons. It would be an endless thing, and Communion with any Church would be altogether unpracticable, if every private Christian was obliged to suspend joining himself to it, till he was perfectly satisfied about the reasonableness and expediency of all that was required, or was in use in that Church. For indeed; private Persons are by no means proper Judges of what is fit and convenient in the Administration of Church-Goverment, Discipline, or public Worship, any more than they are of matters of State, or the Reasonableness of all Civil Laws. Things of a Public Nature belong to Superiors; and if they Appoint what is Indecent or Inconvenient, they only are Accountable for it: but 'tis not the Fault of Inferiors, who join with such Worship, or yield to such Injunctions (not plainly sinful) for the sake of Peace and Order.  
I do not by this encourage Men to venture blindfold on Sin, or to neglect any reasonable care of their Actions; but if People raise all the Difficulties and objections they can start, before they proceed to a Resolution about things that have no manifest Impiety in them, nor are plainly, nor by any easy consequence, contrary to the revealed Will of God; this cannot but occasion infinite Perplexity and Trouble to men's minds, and there are but few things they shall be able to do with a safe and quiet Conscience. Before we separate from a Church, or refuse to comply with its Orders, we ought to be fully satisfied and persuaded, that what is required, is forbidden by God; because by leaving the Communion of any Church, we pass Sentence upon it and condemn it, which ought not to be done upon light and doubtful Causes. But there is not the same necessity, that we should be thus fully satisfied about our Conformity to all things prescribed by the Church. We may presume them to be innocent, unless they plainly appear to us otherwise. If any one think, that this Principle will introduce Popery, and make People without any examination submit to every Thing, which their Superiors please to impose upon them; let him only Consider, that there are many things in Popery, which God has manifestly forbidden, which render our Separation from it necessary: whereas ours are at the worst only doubtful, or rather not so Good as might be Devised; and this surely makes a wide Difference in the Case.  
But does not St. Paul say, Rom. 14.14. I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him that esteemeth any thing unclean, it is unclean? Does he not say, He that doubteth, is damned if he eat, v. 23. and that whatsoever is not of faith, is sin? I answer, Yes. But then, when I speak of a Scrupulous Conscience, I suppose the Person tolerably well persuaded of the lawfulness of what is to be done: but yet he has some little Exceptions against it; he does not think it best and fittest all things considered. This is properly a Scruple; and is certainly the case of all those, who do sometimes join in our Worship; which they could not do, did they judge it absolutely sinful. So that, tho' it should be granted, that a Man cannot innocently do that, of which his Conscience doubts whether it be Lawful or no, which case I have discoursed of in the foregoing Chapter: yet a Man may, and in some cases is bound to do that, which is not Unlawful, tho' upon some other accounts he Scruples the doing of it. Now, if we have no very Weighty Reason for the doing of them; than it may be the safest way to forbear all such things, as we scruple at. Of such Cases the Apostle speaks in the forementioned places of eating or not eating some Meats; neither of them was required by Law. Eating was no Instance of Duty, nor was it any ways forbidden Christians. Where to do or not to do is perfectly at our own choice, it is best for a Man to forbear doing that which he has some suspicion of, tho' he be not sure that it is sinful. As suppose a Man have Scruples in his Mind about playing at Cards and Dice, or going to see stageplays, or putting out his Money to Usury; because there is no great Reason or Necessity for any of these things, and to be sure they may be innocently forborn, without any detriment to ourselves or others; tho' we do not judge them absolutely sinful, yet it is safest for him who cannot satisfy himself concerning the Goodness and Fitness of them, wholly to deny himself the use of them. But in these two cases it is most for the quiet of our Consciences, to act against, or notwithstanding our Fears and Scruples, when either our Superiors, to whom we own Obedience, have interposed their Commands, or when by it we prevent some great Evil or Mischie●.  
1. All Fears and Scruples only about the Conveniency and Expediency of Things, aught to be despised, when they come in Competition with the Duty of Obedience. Would Men but think themselves in Conscience bound to pay the same Duty and Respect to the Judgement and Authority of Magistrates and Governors, whether in Church or State, as they do expect their Servants and Children should to themselves; they would soon see the reasonableness of such Submissions. For all Government and Subjection would be very precarious and arbitrary, if every one that did not approve of a Law, or was not fully satisfied about the reasonableness of it, was thereby excepted from all Obligations to obey it. This is to give the Supreme Authority to the most humoursome or perverse sort of Christians; for, according to this Principle, no public Laws and Constitutions can be valid and binding, unless every scrupulous, tho' a very ignorant Conscience, consent to them.  
2. We are not to mind or stand upon our Scruples, when they probably occasion a great Evil, or general Mischief. They are not fit to be put in the balance with the Peace of the Church and Unity of Christians. Suppose for once, that our public way of Worship is not the best that can be devised; that many things might be amended in our Liturgy; that we could invent a more agreeable Establishment than this present is; (which yet no Man in the World can ever tell, for we cannot know all the Inconveniencies of any alteration, till it comes to be tried) yet granting all this, it cannot be thought so intolerable an Evil, as contempt of God's Solemn Worship, dividing into Sects and Parties, living in Debate, Contention, and Separation from one another. If there be some Rites and Customs amongst us not wisely chosen or determined, some Ceremonies against which just Exceptions may be made; yet to forsake the Communion of such a true Church of Jesus Christ, and set up a distinct Altar in opposition to it, to combine and associate into separate Congregations, is (as it is somewhere expressed) like knocking a Man on the Head, because his Teeth are rotten, or his Nails too long. How much more agreeable is it to the Christian Temper, to be willing to sacrifice all Doubts and Scruples to the Interests of public Order and Divine Charity? For better surely it is to serve God in a defective manner, to bear with many Disorders and Faults; than to break the Bond of Peace and Brotherly Communion.   

CHAP. XIV. The pretence of Scandal, or giving Offence to Weak Brethren, Answered.  
BUT there are some, who tell us, that they are indeed themselves sufficiently persuaded of the lawfulness of all that is enjoined by the Church of England; but then there are many other godly, but weaker Christians of another persuasion, with whom they have long been joined. And should they now totally forsake them and Conform; they should thereby give great offence to all those tender Consciences, which are not thus convinced of the lawfulness of holding Communion with our Church. Which sin, say they, is so very great, that our Saviour tells us, Matth. 18.6. Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea: and in St. Paul's account 'tis no less than spiritual murder, a destroying him for whom Christ died, Rom. 14.15.  
These Persons I design to answer in this Chapter, by showing that No private Christian (as the case now stands amongst us) is obliged to absent himself from his Parish-Church for fear of Offending or Scandalising his Weak Brethren. And this I shall do by enquiring, 1. What is the true Notion of a Weak Brother. 2. What it is to Offend such an one. 3. How far, and in what instances we are bound to consider the Weakness of our Brother.  
I. Then, a Weak Brother or weak in Faith in Scripture language denotes one newly converted to Christianity; and so neither throughly instructed in the Principles, nor well settled in the practice of it; the same whom our Saviour calls a little one, and the Apostle a babe in Christ, 1 Cor. 3.1. Conversion to Christianity is called our New-birth; and the Converts were for a while reckoned as in an infant State: and accordingly were to be most gently used, till by degrees, by the improvement of their knowledge, they came to be of full Age, Heb. 5.14. They were at first to be fed with Milk, to be taught the easiest and plainest Doctrines, and great Prudence and Caution was to be used toward them; lest they should suddenly fly back and repent of their change. For they having been Jews and Gentiles, retained still a great Love for many of their Old Customs and Opinions; they had mighty and inveterate prejudices to overcome; the Old Man was by degrees to be put off: and therefore they were at first treated with all the tenderness and condescension imaginable. The stronger and wiser Christians would not stand rigidly on any little Matters, but Tolerate many things, which were necessary afterwards to be done away; hoping that in time they might be brought off those mistakes they now laboured under. Hence I observe,  
1. That the Rules, which are laid down in Scripture concerning Weak Brethren, are not standing Laws equally obliging all Christians in all Ages: but were suited to the Infant-state of the Church, till Christianity had gotten firm footing in the World. The Apostle's design in all his compliances, was to win many to Christ; 1 Cor. 9.19. Now to do as St. Paul did, would always be the Duty and Wisdom of one in his circumstances, who was to spread Christianity amongst Heathens and Infidels: but his Directions and Practice do no more agree with our Times, wherein Christianity is the National Religion; than the same clothes which we did wear in our Infancy, would serve us now at our full Age. We ought indeed to remove every Straw out of children's way, lest they stumble and fall: but 'tis ridiculous to use the same care towards grown Men. There is not now amongst us any such competition between Two Religions: but every one learns Christianity as he does his Mother-Tongue. St. Paul would not take that Reward that was due to him for Preaching the Gospel, but himself laboured hard night and day, because he would not be chargeable to his Converts, 1 Thess. 2.9. and this he did for the furtherance of the Gospel, that all might see he did not serve his own Belly: but surely our Dissenters do not think themselves obliged by this Example, in places where public maintenance is settled on Ministers by Law, to refuse to take it, and earn their own Bread by some manual Occupation; tho' thereby they avoid giving Offence to Quakers, and those who call them Hirelings, and say they prophecy only for filthy lucre. In short, there are no such Weak Persons now amongst us, as those were for whom the Apostle provides; or as those little ones were, for whom our Saviour was so much concerned.  
2. The Dissenters, according to their weak opinion of themselves, are of all Men the farthest off from being Weak Christians in any sense. They who take upon themselves to be Teachers of others, wiser and better than their Neighbours, the only sober and godly Party, and are too apt to despise all other Christians as ignorant or profane; with what colour of Reason can they plead for any favour to be shown, or Regard to be had to them in compliance with their weakness? Tho' they love to argue against us from the Example of St. Paul's condescension to the ignorant Jews or Gentiles; yet it is apparent that they do not in other Cases willingly liken themselves to those weak Believers, or Babes in Christ. They have really better thoughts of themselves, and would be Leaders and Masters in Israel, and prescribe to their Governors, and give Laws to all others, and prefer their own private Opinion (which they call their Conscience) before the Judgement of the wisest Men, or the Determinations of their lawful Superiors. And if in all Instances we should deal with them as weak Persons, turn them back to their primer, advise them to learn their Catechism; they would think themselves highly wronged and injured. But the truth is, they ordinarily look upon their Opposition to the Orders of our Church, as the Effect of an higher Illumination, a greater Knowledge than others have attained unto. They rather count us the weak Christians, if some of them will allow us so much; for otherwise, if they do not take us for the weaker and worse Christians, Why do they separate from us? Why do they associate and combine together into distinct Congregations, as being purer, more select Christians than others? Now, tho' such Persons as these may be in truth very weak, of little Judgement or Goodness, notwithstanding this Conceit of themselves and their Party; yet these are not by any means to plead for Indulgence under that Character, nor to expect we should forego our Liberty, to please and humour them.  
3. Those who are really weak, that is, ignorant and injudicious, are to be born withal only for a time, till they have received better instruction: but we cannot be always Babes in Christ, without our own gross fault and neglect. Such as will not yield to the clearest reason, if it be against their Interest or their Party, can upon no account claim the privileges of Weak Persons. Of these our Saviour had no regard, who were so unreasonable and obstinate in their opposition, Matth. 15.14.  
Not that I would be so uncharitable as to condemn all, or the generality of Dissenters for being Malicious and wilful in their dissent from us: but however, 1. I beg them to examine, whether they have sincerely endeavoured to satisfy themselves, and have devoutly prayed to God to free their minds from prejudices and corrupt affections; for otherwise their Weakness is no more to be pitied, than that Man's sickness, who will not, tho' he may be cured. 2. I must say, that old and inveterate Mistakes, that have been a 1000 times answered and protested against, are not much to be heeded by us. If People will by no means be prevailed upon to lay aside their fancies, they do not deserve that compassion, which St. Paul prescribes towards Weak Brethren. In matters of a doubtful or suspicious nature, that are capable of being misunderstood and abused, yet if there be no Moral evil in them, and the doing of them is of some considerable consequence to me; I am bound to forbear them no longer, than till I have endeavoured to inform them rightly concerning the innocency of my action and intention, and given them notice of the evil, that might possibly happen to them. If I dig a pit or lay a block in the way, whereby others not knowing any thing of it, are hurt and wounded; I am guilty of causing them to fall: but if they are plainly and often told of it, and yet will run into the danger; they are then only to thank themselves. Now, if it be thus in Cases that are liable to suspicion and misinterpretation; it holds much more in the Orders of our Church, where the Offence arises not so much from the Nature of the Injunctions, as from men's gross ignorance, misconceit, or perverseness. This shall suffice to show, what is the true Notion of a Weak Brother.  
II. I am now to show, what it is to offend such an one. People are generally mistaken about the sense of offending or giving offence. For by it they commonly understand displeasing or grieving another, and making him angry with them; and so they think themselves bound in Conscience to forbear all those things, which Godly Persons do not like or approve of, or are contrary to their Fancy or Judgement. 'Tis true, there is one place, that seems to favour this conceit; Rom. 14.15. If thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. But it must be observed, that by grieving our Brother, is not meant displeasing, but wounding and hurting him: and so it is used to denote that which causeth grief or sorrow; and is the same with destroying, and putting a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall, v. 15, 21. To be offended or grieved is not to be troubled at what another has done out of pity and concern for his Soul: but to receive hurt ourselves from it, being drawn or deceived into some sin by it.  
But because many well-disposed People do think, that they must not do any thing, which good Men are displeased or grieved at, I desire them to consider a few things. 1. That to censure and condemn, and be displeased with the actions of those that differ from them, or refuse to join any longer with them in their separate Congregations, is a great instance of peevishness and uncharitableness; and is that very sin which St. Paul often warns his Weak Believers against, viz. that they should not rashly judge those, who understood their Christian Liberty better than themselves. At this rate any company of Men, that shall resolve to quarrel with all that do not do as they do, must oblige all to remain forever with them, for fear of giving them offence. If what I do, is not evil in itself; it cannot become such, because another Man is causelessly angry with me for doing of it. 2. They that pretend, that this fear of offending, that is, displeasing their Weak Brethren, hinders their compliance with the Church, ought seriously to examine themselves, whether it is not really only the care of their credit and reputation with that Party, or else the securing of some worldly interest, that keeps them from Conformity. 3. If to displease our Weak Brethren were the sinful offending him condemned by St. Paul; it would prove an intolerable yoke upon men's Consciences, and beget such endless perplexities, that we should not be able to do any thing, tho' never so indifferent, with a well-assured mind; since one or other will in this sense be scandalised at it. We shall anger some by doing, others by forbearing: and since those, who call themselves weak, are divided into several factions, each condemning all the other; 'tis impossible for us to comply with any one of them, but we shall thereby displease all the rest. 4. If we do nothing which may displease our Weak Brethren; we do submit our Judgements and Consciences to the conduct of the most ignorant and injudicious Christians: and yield them that authority over us, which we deny to our lawful Superiors. And 'tis strange, that those who think their Christian Liberty so much violated by the determinations of their Superiors about indifferent matters, should yet suffer themselves to be thus tied up by the passions of their Weak Brethren. Whatever condescension may be due to the Weak, yet 'twas never intended they should Govern the Wiser: and who can Govern more absolutely than those, whom none must displease?  
Since then Scandalising or giving offence does not signify doing something which another takes ill, I design to show what is the true meaning of it in Scripture. The Greek word which we translate Scandal or Offence, signifies either a Trap or Snare, or else more commonly something laid in the way of another, which occasions his stumbling or falling, by which he is bruised and hurt. And so, whatever it was that hindered Men from becoming Christ's Disciples, or made them entertain unworthy thoughts of their profession, or discouraged them in it, or tempted them to forsake it, is called a Scandal or Offence. It is sometimes rendered an occasion to fall, Rom. 14.13. occasion of stumbling, 1 Joh. 2.10. a stumbling block, Rev. 2.14. or a thing that doth offend, Matth. 13.41. in all which places there is the same original word. Hence to Offend or Scandalise any one, as 'tis commonly used in the 
(a) See Matth. 17.27. and 26.31. Mark 4.17. and 6.3. Joh. 6.61. 1. Cor. 1.23.  New Testament, is to do something which tends to fright him from Christianity, to make him think hardly of it, or is apt to make him Repent of his Conversion. So that in the most general sense, to Scandalise or Offend any one, is to give occasion to his sin, and consequently his Ruin and undoing; and this I suppose will be granted by all, that do not receive their opinions from the mere sound of words. Hence I observe Four things.  
1. The better Men are, the harder 'tis to Scandalise them. Those are not such Godly Persons, as they would be thought, who are so ready at all turns to be Offended. For how can they excel others in knowledge or goodness, who are so easily drawn or tempted to sin?  
2. That Man, that says, he shall be Scandalised at what another Man does, speaks falsely. For it is as much as to say, that he shall be led into sin ignorantly: whereas his saying so confutes his ignorance; for if he knows it to be a sin, he commits it wilfully.  
3. Since Offending or scandalising signifies tempting to sin, there can be no fear of Offending any one by Conforming to the Church; because there is nothing used in it, but what may be complied with without sin. For the Man that fears giving Offence to the Weak, is supposed to be satisfied himself, that Conformity is lawful: and how then should he fear that his example will tempt others to sin in doing an innocent action? If it be said, that tho' what I do is lawful, yet it may give occasion to others to do something else that is unlawful, and so I may become truly guilty of giving Offence; I answer, that we are accountable only for the Natural tendencies of our actions, and not for such consequences, as wicked or silly Men may draw from them; for at that rate a Man could not speak or do any thing without the guilt of giving Scandal. If it be said, that tho' I am satisfied myself, yet I may by my example tempt others that are not satisfied, or that think Conformity to be sinful, to follow me with a doubting or gainsaying Conscience; I answer, 1. that 'tis as unlawful to go to separate Meetings against one's Conscience, as to Conform against one's Conscience: and the Man ought to fear, lest he draw some to separate Meetings against their Conscience; as well as he fears the drawing of others to Church against their Conscience. The influence of his example is the same in both instances, and the danger of Scandal is equal; and therefore his own persuasion must determine his practice. 2. A Man that is satisfied himself, aught to endeavour to satisfy others, especially those whom he formerly persuaded to separation by his example; and when he has done thus, he has done what lies in his power to prevent the ill effect, and shall not be farther answerable for the consequences of what he doth.  
4. Since Scandalising is leading into sin, we may Scandalise others as soon by complying with them, as by thwarting their humour. St. Paul, who circumcised Timothy, Acts 16.3. in favour of the Weak Jews, lest they should have forsaken the Faith; refused to circumcise Titus, Gal. 2.3. (tho' he angered the Jews by it) lest they should think the Jewish Law still in force. And this he did, because the condition of the Persons was different. If he had pleased them, he had truly Scandalised them, by hardening them in their folly and ignorance. Mr. Baxter says (in his Cure of Church-Divisions) Many a time I have the rather gone to the Common-Prayers of the public Assemblies, for fear of being a Scandal to those same men, that called the going to them a Scandal; that is, for fear of hardening them in a sinful Separation and Error. Because I knew, that was not Scandal which they called Scandal; that is, displeasing them, and crossing their Opinions; but hardening them in an Error or other Sin, is true Scandalising. Understand this, or you will displease God under pretence of avoiding Scandal, p. 135. This surely aught to be well considered of by a sort of Men amongst us, who shall go to Church in the Morning, and to a Conventicle in the Afternoon; who halt between both, and would fain displease neither side, but indeed give real Offence to both. From all this, I think, it is very plain, that he, who is satisfied in his own mind of the lawfulness of Conformity, but is afraid of giving Offence by it, if he be true to his Principle, aught to hasten the faster to his Parish-Church, that he may not offend those very Dissenters, of whom he would seem to be so tender.  
III. In the last place I am to inquire how far, and in what instances we are bound to consider the Weakness of our Brethren. In answer to this I shall now suppose, notwithstanding all I have already said, that the Dissenters are truly weak Persons, and that there may be some danger of their being, through their own fault, Offended by our Conformity; yet taking this for granted, I shall plainly show, that he who is in his own mind convinced of the lawfulness of Conformity, ought not to forbear it for fear of giving such Offence to his Weak Brethren. For,  
First, Nothing that is sinful may be done to avoid others being Scandalised. We must not do evil, that good may come, Rom. 3.8. We must not commit the least sin ourselves, to prevent the greatest sin in another. The very best things may be perverted, and Christ himself is said to be set for the fall of many, Luke 2.24. but this does not cancel our obligations to obey God's Laws. If offence be taken at my doing any duty, those only that are offended are chargeable with it. Since those who fear giving Offence, do themselves think Conformity lawful; and since Conformity is enjoined; and since nothing is more plain from Scripture, than that we must obey our Superiors in all lawful things; therefore 'tis evident that we must not omit the duty of Conforming for fear of giving Offence.  
But 'tis Objected, that those Precepts which contain only rituals, are to give place to those which concern the welfare of men's Bodies, and much more to those which concern the welfare of their Souls: so that when both together cannot be observed, we must break the former to observe the latter. God will have mercy, and not sacrifice. Now if sacrifices prescribed by God himself, must give place to Acts of Mercy, much more must Human Inventions yield to them. To this I answer, that the commands of our Superiors do not bind us either in a case of absolute necessity, or when they plainly hinder any moral duty to God or our Neighbour: but this is only when the necessity is urgent and extreme, and the sin we must otherwise commit, evident and certain; and at last our obedience is dispensed withal only for that one time. We may be absent from Church to save the life of our Neighbour, or to quench the firing of his house: but 'twould be a pitiful pretence for the constant neglect of our public Prayers, because in the mean time our Neighbour's house may be fired, or his life invaded, and so he may stand in need of our help. Tho' this argument may serve to excuse the omission of something commanded by lawful Authority, in extraordinary cases which very rarely happen: yet to be sure it will not help those, who live in open disobedience to the Laws, only because they are loath to offend those who are not satisfied with what is appointed.  
But, say they, Scandal is Spiritual Murder: and if we must obey Authority, tho' Scandal follow; then, when Authority commands, we may murder the Soul of our Brother, and destroy him by our meats, for whom Christ died. But I answer, that wearing a Surplice, Kneeling at the Sacrament, etc. will not make Men forsake Christianity; which I have proved, is the only proper Scandalising our Brother, which St. Paul charges with the guilt of Soul-murther. Nay, this argument concludes as strongly against obedience to any other command of God, if a Brother be offended at it; as it does against submission to Superiors in things lawful. For 'tis not only the Law of Man, but the Law of God also, that is broken by disobedience to Superiors. We cannot be bound to transgress a plain Law of God for fear of some evil, that may chance to happen to some others through their own fault: because every one is bound to have a greater care of his own, than of others Salvation; and consequently to avoid sin in himself, than to prevent it in his Brethren. Nay, as Bishop Sanderson says, To allow Men, under pretence that some offence may be taken thereat, to disobey Laws and Constitutions made by those that are in Authority over us, is the next way to cut the Sinews of all Authority, and to bring both Magistrates and Laws into contempt; for what Law ever was made, or can be made so just and reasonable, but some Men or other either did, or might take offence thereat?  
If it be here asked, whether any Human Authority can make that action cease to be Scandalous, which if done without any such command, had been Scandalous; I answer, that no Authority can secure that others shall not be offended by what I do out of obedience to it: but than it frees me from blame, by making that my duty, which if I had otherwise done, might have been uncharitable.  
If it be said, that avoiding of Scandal is a main duty of charity; and that, if Superiors may appoint, how far I shall show my charity towards my Brother's Soul, than an earthly Court may cross the determinations of the Court of heaven; I answer, that here is no crossing the Determinations of God, since it is his express Will, that in all lawful things we should obey our Governors; and he who has made this our Duty, will not lay to our charge the Mischiefs, that may sometimes without our fault, through the folly and peevishness of Men, follow from it. And certainly it is as equal and reasonable, that our Superiors should appoint how far we shall exercise our Charity towards our Brethren; as it is, that the mistake and prejudice of any private Christians should set Bounds to their Power and Authority; or that every ignorant and froward Brother should determine, how far we shall be obedient to those whom God has set over us. But farther, duties of justice are of stricter obligation than duties of Charity. Now obedience to Superiors is a debt; and we injure them, if we do not pay it: but avoiding Scandal is a duty of charity; which indeed we are obliged to, as far as we can, but not till we have given to every one his due. It is therefore, says Bishop Sanderson, no more lawful for me to disobey the lawful command of a Superior, to prevent thereby the Offence of one or a few Brethren; than it is lawful for me to do one Man wrong, to do another Man a courtesy withal; or than it is lawful for me to rob the Exchequer to Relieve an Hospital.  
If it be replied, that tho' the care of not giving Offence be in respect of our Brother but a debt of Charity, yet in regard of God it is a legal debt, since he may, and does require it as due, and we do him wrong if we disobey him; I grant indeed, that we are required both to be obedient to Superiors, and to be Charitable to our Brother: but then I say, this is not the Charity which God requires, when I give what is none of my own. A servant must be Charitable to the Poor according to his ability: but he must not rob his Master to Relieve them. Our Superiors only must consider the danger of Scandal: but we must consider the duty we own them; this being a matter wherein we cannot show our charity without violating the right of our Superiors.  
Thus than it is plain, that they are things merely indifferent, not only in their own nature, but also in respect to us, in the use of which we are obliged to consider the Weakness of our Brethren. What is our duty, must be done, tho' Scandal follow it: but in matters, wherein our practice is not determined by any command, we ought so to exercise our Liberty, as to avoid (if possible) giving any Offence. 'Tis an undoubted part of Christian Charity, to endeavour by admonition, instruction, good example, and by the forbearance of things lawful, at which we foresee our Neighbour out of weakness will be apt to be Scandalised, to prevent his falling into any sin or mischief. After this manner do we profess ourselves ready to do or forbear any thing in our own power, to gain Dissenters to the Church: but we must not omit our duty for it.  
I shall only add, that this very Rule of yielding to our Brother in things indifferent, aught to have some restrictions; but I think there are no unalterable Rules to be laid down in this affair. For it being an exercise of Charity, must be determined by the measure of Prudence according to Circumstances: and we may as well go about to give certain Rules for Men's Charity in other Cases, and fix the proportion which every Man ought to give of his Estate towards the Relief of the Poor; as positively to tell how far a Man must deny himself in the use of indifferent things, and forego his own Liberty for the sake of his Brother. This whole matter (says Dr. Hammond, disc. of Scanned.) is to be referred to the Christian's Pious Discretion or Prudence; it being free to him either to abstain, or not to abstain, from any indifferent action (remaining such) according as that Piety and that Prudence shall represent it to be most Charitable and Beneficial to other men's Souls.  
Secondly, To avoid a less Scandal being taken by a few, we must not give a greater Offence, and of vastly more pernicious consequence, to a much bigger number of Persons. And if this matter were rightly considered; we should soon f●●d ourselves much more obliged, upon this account of Scandal, to join with our Church, than to separate from it. For, 1. Our separation hardens other Dissenters in their persuasion of the unlawfulness of Conformity. For they will think we separate upon the same reason with themselves; and this is true Scandalising them, or Confirming them in an evil cause. 2. Whatever Sect we join with, we Offend all the other Parties; who sometimes speak as hardly of one another, as of the Conformists. 3. Hereby great Offence is given to the Conformists. For this separation is a public condemning of the Church, and is apt to breed Scruples, distaste and prejudices, in the wellmeaning, but least-knowing Members of it. 4. Scandal is thereby given to Superiors, by bringing their Laws and Authority into contempt. And if it be so sinful to Offend a little one; what shall we think of Offending a Prince, a Parliament, & c! No Scandal taken at an indifferent thing can be so great, as both the sin and Scandal of confusion, and contempt of Authority. 5. Hereby Scandal is given to the Papists, who are hardened in their own way, because they only have Peace and Unity; and this is a mighty temptation to many wavering Christians to turn Papists. The Papists always hit us in the Teeth with our Divisions: whereas by our hearty Uniting with the Church of England, we may certainly wrest this Weapon out of their hands. 6. Separation is a Scandal to Religion in general. It prejudices Men against it as an uncertain thing, and matter of endless dispute; when they see what dangerous Quarrels commence from our Religious differences: and all the disorders they have caused, shall by some be charged upon Christianity itself. Thus our causeless separations open a wide door to Atheism, and all kind of Profaneness and Irreligion.   

The CONCLUSION, Containing an earnest Persuasive to Communion with the Established Church of England.  
AND now, having shown the Necessity of Maintaining constant Communion with the Church of England, and answered those pleas, by which the Dissenters endeavour to excuse their Separation from her; nothing remains, but that I add an earnest Persuasive to the practice of that, which I have proved to be a Christian Duty. I beseech you therefore with all the Earnestness that becomes a Matter of so great Importance, and with all the Kindness and Tenderness that becomes a Christian, to suffer the Word of Exhortation, & duly consider what I offer to you.  
I have shown you in the first Chap. of this Discourse, that Nothing but sinful Terms of Communion can justify a Separation; and therefore you must charge our Church with sinful terms of Communion, or else you cannot possibly defend your practice. Suppose that there were some things in our Constitution, that might be contrived better; yet every defect or supposed Corruption in a Church is not warrant enough to tear the Church in pieces. The question is not, Whether there be any thing in our Constitution, which a Man could wish to be altered: but whether any thing unlawful be appointed, which will make an alteration not only desirable, but necessary; & Whether you are bound to withdraw, till such Alteration be made. We separate from the Church of Rome, because She has corrupted the Main Principles of Religion, and requires her Members to join in these Corruptions: but this Charge cannot be fastened upon the Church of England, and therefore Separation from her must be unlawful.  
Mr. Ca●●●● 
(a) Institut. lib. 4. sect. 10, 11, 12.  says, that Wherever the Word of God is duly preached, and reverently attended to, and the true use of the Sacraments kept up, there is the plain appearance of a true Church, whose Authority no Man may safely despise, or reject its Admonitions, or resist its Counsels, or set at nought its Discipline; much less separate from it, and violate its Unity. For that our Lord has so great regard to the Communion of his Church, that he accounts him an Apostate from his Religion, who obstinately separates from any Christian Society, which keeps up the true Ministry of the Word and Sacraments; that such a separation is a denial of God and Christ; and that it is a dangerous and pernicious Temptation, so much as to think of separating from such a Church, the Communion whereof is never to be rejected, so long as it continues in the true Use of the Word and Sacraments. This is as plain and full a Determination of the Case, as if he had particularly designed it against your own practice. Nay, the Ministers of New-England tell you, that To separate from a Church for some Evil only conceived, or indeed in the Church, which might and should be tolerated, and healed with a Spirit of Meekness, and of which the Church is not yet convinced, tho' perhaps yourself be; for this or the like Reasons to withdraw from public Communion in Word, Seals or Censures, is unlawful and sinful.  
If you say, that the Governors may as well come down to you, by forbearing what you dislike, as you come up to the law, by doing what it requires; I beseech you to consider, Whether our Case will bear this Wantonness, and Whether such Expressions be consistent with your Duty. I do not think it hard, I confess, to make out the prudence of their Determinations: but I think it hard, that a Public Rule should not be thought Reason enough to justify things of this sort, and to oblige the People to Compliance without more ado. Certainly there is no prospect of Union, till Men learn Humility and Modesty, and are contented to be Governed. What is the Duty of Superiors in our Case, I cannot determine: but sure I am, that a Change (tho' in things perfectly indifferent) is no indifferent thing; and 'tis infinite odds, but if once they begin to change without necessity, there will never be an end of changing.  
But farther, I desire you to consider, that the most eminent even of your own Writers, do flatly condemn your Separation from the Church of England. For they acknowledge her to be a true Church, and 
(b) See Burroughs 's Iren. p. 184. Vind. of Presb. Gou. Brinsly's Arraignm. p. 16, 31. Corbet 's Plea for Lay-C●m. Newcomen 's Iren. Epist. to the Read. ●all's Trial, c. 7. Je●u●ba●l▪ p. 28.30. Throughton's Apol. p. 107. Robinson of the Lawful. of Hear. p. ult.  hold, that You are not to separate farther from a true Church, than the things you separate for, are unlawful, or conceived so to be; that is, they hold that you ought to go as far as you can, and do what you lawfully may, towards Communion with it. They 
(c) See Tombs 's Theod. Answer to Pref. Sect. 23. Blake's Vind. c. 31. Brinsly 's Arraignm. p. 50. Noyes 's Temple Meas. p. 78. Owen 's Evangel. Love, p. 76. Cotton on the 1 Epist. of John, p. 156. Baxter's Cure, dir. 5. Vines on the Sacram. p. 239. Corbet 's Acc. of Sep. p. 103. Jerubbaal, p. 12.  hold also, that You are not to separate from a Church for unlawful things, if the things accounted unlawful, are not of so heinous a Nature as to unchurch a Church, or are not imposed as necessary Terms of Communion. Nay they 
(d) See Brownists Confess. art. 36. Jenkin on Judas, v. 19 Allen's Life, p. 3. Engl. Remembrancer, Serm. 4, 14, 16. Ball 's Trial, p. 74, etc. 132, etc. 159, etc. 308. Platform of Discipl. c. 14. sect. 8. Hildersham on John, Lect. 35, 82. Brian 's Dwell. with God, p. 293, 294. Bradshaw's Unreason. of Sep. p. 103, 104. Nonconf. no schismat. p. 15. Cawdry 's Indep. a great schism, p. 192, 195. Owen 's Evang. Love, c. 3. Throughton 's Apol. p. 100 Vines on the Sacram. p. 242. Crofton's Hard way to Heaven, p. 36. Noyes's Temp. Meas. p. 78, 89. Davenport's Reply, p. 281. Cotton on 1 Epist. of John. p. 156. Calamy's Godly Man 's Ark, Epist. Ded. Allen 's Godly Man's Portion, p. 122, 127. B●ins on Ephes. 2.15. Contin. Morn. Exer. serm. 16. Baxter's Cure, dir. 35. Def. of his Cure, part. 1. p. 47. & part. 2. p. 171. Burroughs 's Iren. c. 23. Morton is Memorial, p. 78, etc. Blake's Vind. c. 31. Tombes', Theodul. answer to Pref. Sect. 25. Conf. Savoy, p. 12, 13. Calamy's Door of Truth opened, p. 7. Corbet's N. C. Plea, p. 6. Robinson 's Lawful. of Hear. p. 19, 23. nigh's Case of great & pres. Use, p. 10, 16, 18.  produce several arguments to prove, that Defects in Worship, if not essential, are no just reason for withdrawing from it. 1. Because to break of Communion for such Defects, would be to look after a greater Perfection, than this present state will admit of. 2. Our Saviour and his Apostles did not separate from defective Churches. 3. Christ doth still hold Communion with defective Churches, and so ought we. 4. To separate from such defective Churches, would destroy all Communion. Nor, 5. is it at all Warranted in scripture. Nor, 6. is it necessary, because a Person may communicate in the Worship without partaking in those Corruptions. Nay, 7. they urge that 'tis a duty to join with a defective Worship, where we can have no better.  
And as for our Injunctions in particular, they 
(e) See Lett. Min. of Old-Engl. p. 12, 13. Bryan's Devil. with God, p. 311. Troughton's Apol. c. 7. p. 68 Owen's Peace-Off. p. 17. Misch. of Impoes. Epist. Ded.  own them to be tolerable, and what no Church is without, more or less; that they are not sufficient to hinder Communion; and that they are but few. Nay farther, several of the old Non-Conformists zealously opposed Separation from the Church of England, and joined with it to their dying Day, tho' they could not conform as Ministers: and several of the Modern Non-Conformists have written for Communion with it, and have in print 
(f) See Baxter's Sacril. Desert. p. 75. Mr. J. Allen's Life, p. 111. Collins' Doctr. of Schism. p. 64. lies Reas. Account, etc. Hickman's Bonas. Vap. p. 113. Baxter's Plea for Peace, p. 240.  declared it to be their Duty and Practice.  
But besides the Sentiments of your own Teachers, there is greater Authority to be urged against you. For in those things, wherein you differ from us, you are condemned by the Practice of the Whole Catholic Church for fifteen hundred Years together; and surely this Consideration ought to prevail with Modest and Peaceable Men. This might afford a large field for Discourse: but I shall only hint at a few Particulars.  
1. We desire you to produce an Instance of any settled Church, that was without Episcopacy, till Calvin's time. The greatest Opposers of Episcopacy have been forced to grant, that it obtained in the Church within a few Years after the Apostolic age; and we are sure we can carry it higher, even to the Apostles themselves. There are but two Passages, and both of them not till the latter end of the fourth Century, that may seem to question Episcopal Authority. That of 
(g) In Epist. ad Tit. cap. 1.  St. Jerom, when improved to the utmost that it is capable of, only intimates Episcopacy not to be of Apostolical Institution. And very clear it is to those that are acquainted with St. Jerom's Writings, that he often wrote in haste, and did not always weigh things at the Beam, and forgot at one time what he had said at another; that many Expressions fell from him in the heat of Disputation, according to the warmth and eagerness of his Temper; and that he was particularly chased into this Assertion by the fierce opposition of the Deacons at Rome, who began to Usurp upon, and overtop the Presbyters; which tempted him to magnify and extol their Place and Dignity, as anciently equal to the Episcopal Office, and as containing in it the common Rights and Privileges of Priesthood. For at other times, when he wrote with cooler thoughts about him, he does plainly and frequently enough assert the Authority of Bishops over Presbyters; and did himself constantly live in Communion with, and Subjection to Bishops. The other passage is that of Aerius, who held indeed that a Bishop and a Presbyter differed nothing in Order, Dignity, or Power. But he was led into this Error merely through Envy and Emulation, being vexed to see that his Companion Eustatbius had gotten the Bishopric of Sebastia, which himself had aimed at. This made him start aside, and talk extravagantly: but the Church immediately branded him for an Heretic, and drove him and his Followers out of all Churches, and from all Cities and Villages. And Epiphanius, who was his Cotemporary, represents him as very little better than a Madman. 2. We desire you to name any Church, that did not constantly use Forms of Prayer in public Worship; but of this I have discoursed at large in the third Chapter. 3. Show us any Church, that did not always observe festivals in Commemoration of Christ and his Saints. 4. Name any one Church since the Apostles times, that had not its Rites and Ceremonies, as many (if not more) in Number, and as liable to Exception, as those that we use. Nay, there are few things (if any at all) required by us, which were not in use in the best Ages of Christianity. Nay farther, I could easily 
(h) See Durel 's View of the Goverm. etc. and Spirit's Cassend. Anglic. p. 123, etc.  show, that most (if not all) the Usages of our Church, are either practised in foreign Churches, or at least allowed of by the most Eminent and Learned Divines of the Reformation.  
Consider also, that Separation is the ready way to bring in Popery, as Mr. Baxter 
(i) Defence, p. 27, 52.  has proved. The Church of England is the great Bulwark against Popery, and therefore the Papists have used all possible Means to destroy it, and particularly by Divisions. They have attempted to pull it down by pretended Protestant hands; and have made use of you to bring about their own designs. In order hereunto they have upon all Occasions strenuously promoted the Separation, and mixed themselves with you; they have put on every Shape, that they might the better follow the Common Outery against the Church as Popish and Antichristian; spurring you on to call for a more pure and spiritual Way of Worship, and to clamour for Liberty and Toleration; as foreseeing, that when they had subverted all Order, and beaten you out of all sober Principles, you must be necessitated at last to centre in the Communion of the Romish Church. This trade they began almost in the very infancy of the Reformation; as appears by the 
(k) Foxes and Firebrands.  stories of Coming and Heath: and no doubt they held on the same in succeeding Times; as appears (besides all other Instances) by 
(l) See Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation, Pref. p. 20, etc.  Bellarini's Letter concerning the best Way of managing the Popish Interest in England upon the Restoration of King Charles the II. For therein it was advised to foment Fears and Jealousies of the King and Bishops; to asperse the Bishops and Ministers of the Church of England, and to represent its Doctrine and Worship as coming too near the Church of Rome; to second the factious in promoting an Indulgence, and to endeavour, that the Trade and Treasure of the Nation might be engrossed between themselves and other discontented Parties.  
We know how restless and industrious the Romish Faction has ever been; and the only visible security we have against the prevailing of it, lies in the firm Union of Protestants. And therefore I conjure you by all the kindness, which you pretend for the Protestant Religion, hearty to join in Communion with us. For the Common Enemy waits all Opportunities, and stands ready to enter at those breaches, which you are Making. You might condemn the Rashness of your own Counsels, and lament it, it may be, when it would be too late; if you should see Popery erected upon the ruins of that Church, which you yourselves had overthrown. It would be a sad addition to your Miseries, if the Gild and Shame of them too might be laid to your charge. With what remorse would you reflect upon it, (when the heat of your Passion was over) if the Protestant Profession should be farther endangered, and the Agents of Rome get greater advantages daily by those Distractions, which have been secretly managed by them, but openly carried on and maintained by yourselves? With what face would you look, to see the Papists, not only triumphing over you, but mocking and deriding you, for being so far imposed upon by their Cunning, as to be made the immediate instruments of your own Ruin? Therefore I beseech you not to act, as if you were prosecuting the Designs of the Conclave; and proceed just as if you were governed by the Decrees of the pretended Infallible Chair. You may be ashamed to look so much like Tools in the hands of the Jesuits; when you suffer yourselves to be guided by those Measures which they had taken, and talk and do as they would have you, as if you were immediately inspired from Rome.  
To these arguments I must add another, which I hope will prevail with you; viz. I cannot see, how you can avoid being self-condemned, if you continue in your Separation. For certain it is, that most of you have been at our Churches, and received the Sacrament there; and I am not willing to think, that you acted against your Consciences, or did it merely to secure a gainful Office, or a place of Trust, or to escape the Lash and Penalty of the Law. These are Ends so very Vile and Sordid; this is so horrible a Prostitution of the Holy Sacrament, the most venerable Mystery of our Religion; so deliberate a Way of sinning, even in the most solemn act of Worship; that I can hardly suspect any should be guilty of it, but Men of Profligate and Atheistical Minds. But then, why does not the same Principle, that brings you at one Time, bring you at another? Why can we never have your Company, but when Punishment or Advantage prompts you to it? We blame the Papists for dispensing with Oaths, and receiving the Sacrament to serve a turn, and to advance the Interest of their Cause: but God forbidden, that so heavy a Charge should ever lie at the Doors of Protestants; and especially those who would be thought most to abhor Popish practices; and who would take it ill to be accounted not to make as much, if not more, Conscience of their Ways, than other Men.  
Now I beseech you to reason a little; If our Communion be sinful, why did you enter into it? If it be lawful, why do you forsake it? Is it not that which the commands of Authority have tied upon you; which Commands you are bound to submit to, not only for Wrath, but also for Conscience sake? Are not the Peace and Unity of the Church, things that ought greatly to sway with all Sober, Humble and Considering Christians? If it be possible, says the Apostle, and as much as lies in you, live peaceably with all men. And shall Peace be broken only in the Church, where it ought to be kept most entire? And that by those who acknowledge it to be possible, and within their Power? Are you satisfied in your Conscience to join in Communion with us; and will you not do it for the sake of the Church of God? Will you refuse to do what is lawful, and (as the Case stands) necessary in order to Peace; only because Authority commands, and has made it your Duty? Let me entreat you, as you love your dear Redeemer, to do as much for the Peace of His Church, as for a Vote or Office; and to come to the Sacrament of his Body and Blood as Christians, and not as Politicians.  
Let these great truths sink into your hearts; and consider, I beseech you, what you are doing. Be well advised, before you venture upon that, which makes you guilty of a sin of the blackest Nature. Be not blinded by Prejudice or Passion, nor take Opinions upon trust: but search and examine into the truth. Consciences truly tender are willing and desirous to embrace all Opportunities of Resolution; and are ready to kiss the hand, that would bring them better Information. They will not neglect, much less thrust from them, the means that might ease them of their Doubts and Scruples. But it looks very oddly, that so many of you are no more concerned to understand the true State of the Church of England, and the Nature and Reasons of her Constitutions; that so few of you care to confer with those that are able to instruct you: but cry out, You are satisfied already; nay, some of you, to my knowledge, when desired to propose your Scruples, in order to the Giving you Satisfaction, have plainly and absolutely refused to do it. There is little reason to believe, that such Persons have ever read and examined, what the Church of England has to say for herself. Are there not many, that not only Scruple, but rail at the Book of Common-Prayer, that yet never heard it, nor perhaps ever read it, in all their Lives? And if this be not to speak evil of what they know not, I cannot tell what is.  
You generally forbear our Public Worship, upon no other ground, but because you prefer your own arbitrary way before it: whereas I may take the Confidence to affirm, that our Liturgy was made and revised with that Prudence and Moderation, that Care and Circumspection, that there is nothing now extant in that kind, that has been composed with greater Wisdom and Piety. If I should compare it with the Performances in the other way; (not to mention the many indecent, incoherent, irreverent Expressions, to say no worse, that might be collected) let any Extempore Prayer, made by the ablest of those, that magnify that way and despise ours, be taken in writing and published to the World; and I am confident, that one Man, without any great pains, may find more things really exceptionable in that single Prayer, in a short time; than the several Parties of Dissenters, with all the Diligence they have hitherto used, have been able to discover in the whole Service of our Church, in more than an hundred Years. And yet some of you, that seek industriously for Scruples in the Common-Prayer, will readily join in Extempore Prayers without any Scruple. This is such Partiality and unequal Dealing, as cannot easily be excused.  
'Tis true, the early Prepossession of a contrary Opinion, the powerful Prejudices of Education, an implicit and unexamined belief of what their Guides and Leaders teach them, have a strange force upon the minds of Men; so that in effect they no more doubt of the truth and goodness of the Cause they are engaged in, than they question the Articles of their Creed. These and the like are very dangerous and usual Mistakes, that do frequently proceed from the Prevalency of our Passions. Now the first step towards Concord in Opinion and Affections, is to dispose your Minds to a calm and teachable Temper; to be always ready to acknowledge the force of an Argument, tho' it contradict your persuasions never so much. Wherefore I do once and again entreat you, that laying aside all Pride, Partiality and Self-conceit, you would not think more highly of yourselves, and of your own way, than you ought to think. Truth makes the easiest entrance into Modest and Humble Minds. The Meek will he guide in judgement, the Meek will he teach his Way. The Spirit of God never rests upon the proud Man.  
But especially you must be very careful, that Secular Interest did not either engage you in the Separation at the beginning, or provoke you to continue in it. And there is the more reason to put you upon this Inquiry, not only because Secular Ends are very apt to mix with, and shelter themselves under the shadow of, Religion; but because this has been an old Artifice, made use of to promote Separation. Thus the Donatists upheld their Separation, and kept their Party fast together, by trading only within themselves, and employing none but those that would be of their side; nay and sometimes hiring Persons to be Baptised into their Party, as Crispin did the People of Mappalia. And how evident the same Policy is among our modern Quakers, is too notorious to need either Proof or Observation. Whoever looks into the Nation, must needs take notice how Interests are formed, and by what methods Parties and Factions are kept up; how many thousands of the poorer sort of you depend upon this or that Man for your Work and Livelihood; how many of you depend upon others for your Trade, whom accordingly those Men can readily Command, and do produce to give Votes and increase Parties on all public Occasions; and what little encouragement any Man finds from you, that deserts you, and comes over to the Church of England. Let me beseech you therefore impartially to examine yourselves; and to search, whether a worldly spirit be not at the bottom of your Zeal and Stifness. These, I confess, are Designs too base and sordid to be owned above-board: but Be not deceived, God is not mocked; Man looks to the outward Appearance, but God looks to the Heart. If you hope to gain and grow rich by your Separation; if you are ashamed or scorn to retract your Opinions; if you imagine you have more Light than the first Reformers, when indeed you are very ignorant; if you cannot endure to be opposed in any thing; if you murmur and repine at your Governors, when they require your Obedience, where you are unwilling to pay it; these are Signs, that your affections are turbulent and unruly: and while you are thus disposed, you can never be assured, but that Covetousness, Pride, and Impatience, might be the greatest Motives, that induced you to make a Separation, and the strongest Arguments that you have to maintain it.  
But above all things, I beseech you for the sake of your precious Souls, to consider the Heinous Nature and Gild of Schism; which is nothing else but the separating yourselves from a true Church, without any just occasion given. I doubt, you are not sufficiently sensible, how much you oppose that Spirit of Peace and Brotherly Love, which should diffuse itself through the whole Body of Christian People; when you suppose every slender Pretence enough to justify your departing from us, and setting up a Church against a Church. The Old Non-Conformists charged the People to be as tender of Church-Division, as they were of Drunkenness, Whoredom, or any other enormous Crimes; whereas you seem to think it a matter almost indifferent, and that you are left to your own choice to join with what Society of Christians you please. Which giddy principle, if it should prevail, would certainly throw us into an absolute Confusion; and introduce all the Errors and Mischiefs, that can be imagined. But our Blessed Lord founded but one Universal Church; and when he was ready to be Crucified for us, and prayed not for the Apostles alone, but for them also that should believe in him through their Word; one of the last Petitions which he then put up, amongst divers others to the same Purpose, was That they all may be One, as thou Father art in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us, that the World may believe that thou hast sent me. 'Tis plain this was to be a Visible Unity, that might be taken notice of in the World, and so become an Inducement to move Men to embrace the Christian Faith. Peace and Amity, and a good Correspondence betwixt the several Members of which they consist, is the only Beauty, Strength and Security of all Societies; and on the contrary, the nourishing of Animosities, and running into opposite Parties and Factions, does mightily weaken, and by degrees almost unavoidably draw on the Ruin and Dissolution of any Community, whether Civil or Sacred. Concord and Union therefore will be as necessary for the Preservation of the Church, as of the State. It has been known by too sad an Experience, as well in ours, as other Ages, what a pernicious Influence the Intestine Broils and Quarrels among Christians have had. They have been the great stumbling-block to Jews, Turks, and Heathens, and the main hindrance of their Conversion; they have made some among ourselves to become Doubtful and Sceptical in their Religion; they have led others into many dangerous Errors, that shake the very Foundations of our Faith; and some they have tempted to cast off the Natural sense they had of the Deity, and emboldened them to a professed Atheism. Therefore as you would avoid the hardening of Men in Atheism and Infidelity, and making the Prayer of our dying Saviour (as much as in you lies) wholly ineffectual; you ought to be exceeding cautious, that you do not wilfully Divide his Holy Catholic Church.  
You are often warned of this; and how many Arguments does St. Paul heap together to persuade you to keep the Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace? One Body and one Spirit, even as you are called in one Hope of your Calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all; Eph. 4.3, 4, 5, 6. And how pathetically does the same Apostle exhort you again to the same thing, by all the mutual Endearments that Christianity affords? If there be therefore any Consolation in Christ, if any Comfort in Love, if any Fellowship of the Spirit, if any Bowels and Mercies; fulfil ye my Joy, that ye be like minded, having the same Love, being of one Accord, of one Mind; Phil. 2.1, 2. These vehement Exhortations to Peace and Concord, do strictly oblige you to hold Communion with that Church, which requires nothing but what is lawful of you. They that have the same Articles of Faith, and hope to meet in the same Heaven, through the Merits of the same Lord; should not be afraid to come into the same Assemblies, and join seriously in sending up the same Prayers, and participating of the same Sacraments. Besides the many strict Precepts and other strong Obligations which you have to this Duty, our Saviour died, that he might gather together in One, the Children of God that were scattered abroad; John 11.52. And do you not then contradict this end of his Death, in setting those at Variance, whom he intended to Unite? Nay, may you not be said to Crucify the Son of God afresh, by mangling and dividing a sound and healthful part of that Body, of which he owns himself to be the Head? If indeed our Church did require you to profess any false Doctrine, or to do any thing contrary to any Divine Command; you were bound in such instances to withdraw from her: but since her Doctrine, Discipline and Worship are good and lawful; you are indispensably engaged to join in Communion with her. For, as I said before, and it cannot be inculcated too often, Nothing but the unlawfulness of joining with us can make a Separation Lawful.  
Let it pity you at least to see the ghastly wounds, that are still renewed by the continuance of our Divisions. Be persuaded to have some Compassion on a Bleeding Church, that is ready to faint, and in imminent Danger of being made a prey to her Enemies, by the unnatural Heats and Animosities of those, that should Support and Defend her. Why should you leave her thus Desolate and Forlorn, when her present Exigencies require your most Cordial Assistance? If the condition of her Communion were such as God's Laws did not allow; you might forsake her that had forsaken him: but since this cannot be Objected against her; since she exacts no forbidden thing of you, you ought to strengthen her Hands by an unanimous Agreement. Since the Substantials of Religion are the same, let not the Circumstances of external Order and Discipline be any longer an Occasion of Difference amongst us. And so shall we bring Glory to God, a happy Peace to a Divided Church, a considerable Security to the Protestant Religion; and probably defeat the subtle Practices of Rome, which now stands gaping after All, and hopes by our Distractions to repair the Losses she has suffered by the Reformation.  
May the Wisdom of Heaven make all wicked Purposes unsuccesful; and the Blessed Spirit of Love heal all our Breaches, and prosper the charitable Endeavours of those that follow after PEACE. Amen.   
THE END.