A VINDICATION OF THE REMARKS ON THE BISHOP of DERRY's DISCOURSE ABOUT Human Inventions, From what is Objected against them in the Admonition annexed to the Second Edition of that Discourse. By the Author of the REMARKS.  
LONDON: Printed for John Laurence at the Sign of the Angel in the Poultry. 1695.   

To the Dissenting Inhabitants of the Diocese of DERRY.  
SInce the Bishop of Derry has been pleased in his late Admonition to You, almost wholly to wave the Argument between Us, and to turn this Debate about your Worship into a Dispute about Matters of Fact; nay, since he has frequently appealed to your own Consciences for the Truth of what he has said concerning you, acknowledging, That it would be odd for him to think of imposing on you in matters you know so well, and that he can only hope to prevail on you by the Integrity of what he saith, [See Admonition, p. 141, 148, 158, 159, 187, 188.] I thought I could not reasonably refuse to concur with him in referring the decision of this part of our Controversy to yourselves, as the most competent and proper Judges, the Matters controverted relating to your own or your Ministers public practices. And I may do it with the greater assurance, because you'll find all that I now assert attested by your own Ministers, (besides the particulars relating to your Communions attested by such as are Elders, or principal Members in your Congregations.) And as they must doubtless know these Matters better than the Bishop can do, who is never present at their Worship; so I may justly presume they are not so prodigal of their Reputation to the World, as to avouch so many things as True, which all their Hearers could convict 'em of Falsehood in, if they were not. I confess 'tis something hard that the Bishop should thus put 'em to this double labour, of proving their Practice by Affidavits, as well as defending it by Arguments. But when one is once engaged with such unreasonable Disputants, there is no declining even such drudgery as this. For since the things which the Bishop objects against you are such as himself supposes, will prove scandalous to all that profess Christianity, If those Objections be founded on palpable misreports of your Practice, sure the just esteem of so many Christian Pastors and Churches deserves a modest Vindication. And indeed this Vindication had not been deferred so long, if the multiplicity of the Particulars to be enquired into had not retarded it beyond expectation; and your Ministers were unwilling to run into so many Mistakes as the Bishop has unhappily done, by giving too hasty accounts of these Matters upon slight Informations. I shall therefore freely leave this part of our Debate (which now lies between the Bishop and your own Ministers) to your impartial Examination. And that those excellent Churches you are Members of, may under the vigilant care of such laborious Pastors, improve their external Rest and Peace, by walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, and thereby be both edified and multiplied, is the hearty desire of  
Dear Brethren, Your affectionate Brother and Servant in our common Lord J. B.   

A VINDICATION OF THE Remarks, etc.  
In this Admonition of the Bishops we may consider the Introduction, The Three Heads he proposes to give an Account of: And The Reflections he adds on some Passages in the Remarks.  
IN the Introduction his Lordship is pleased to insinuate, tho' he does not venture directly to assert, 
Admon. Octavo Edit. p. 134.  That I have treated the Opinions and Practices of the established Church in a passionate and angry, in a scoffing and deriding manner. But since he has given no instances or proof of it, but referred it to the Reader's judgement, I shall with some confidence appeal to it also, as being well assured of the innocence of those Papers as to this particular. Only, since he alleges a passage in his Discourse against this way of treating Controversies, I hope I may take the liberty of reciting one of my own, wherein I had taken care to obviate this Objection. 'Tis Remarks, p. 142. I do fully concur with him in his Advice, Not to treat one another with scurrilous and unseemly Reflections; but I hope he will not account those such wherein a Man is justly reproved for gross misrepresentations of other Men's Opinions or Practices, or a trifling Argument is not always treated with grimace, but sometimes with the slight it deserves. Let but the Reader make me this reasonable allowance, and I shall not be very fearful of his censure on this account.  
For the Three Heads which the Bishop proposes to give an account of relating to the Remarks, I shall examine 'em in their order.  
I. He acquaints us with the true Motive that prevailed with him to publish his Book, in which these particulars are suggested.  
1. He tells us how much Ignorance he found among the poor People, Insomuch, as of 800 or more of the Dissenters Communion, whom he personally discoursed, he found not above four persons that could give any account of their Catechism, 
Admon. p. 135.  and only two that could repeat it.  
Now as to this matter of fact which the Bishop professes moved his compassion, I shall give him the Account sent me by the Dissenting Ministers that are in his Diocese, and I hope that Christian Charity which he so often professes, will render it very welcome to him, by assuring him that the generality of 'em are not so ignorant as be has mistaken 'em to be.  We can give no Account how many persons the Bishop has examined, but we know several whom he did examine that had the Assemblies Catechism, and could both give an account of it and repeat it, but would not, partly because they heard him so inveigh against it, that they judged he questioned 'em rather to affront than edify 'em; and partly because they were not free to subject themselves to an Examination he pretended to make as their Pastor. But to evidence how little ground he had to suppose 'em so generally ignorant of their Catechism. If we may be allowed to judge of other Congregations in the Diocese by those two in in the Parish of Temple-more (alias Derry) where he resides, and may be supposed to have examined the greatest number. We can on good grounds affirm there are in those two Congregations 600 who can give a good account of and repeat the Assembly's Catechism: And we know of few in any of our Congregations that cannot repeat the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments. 
Now if this Account of their own Ministers, who should be best acquainted with their own People, be true, the Bishop's Account is absolutely incredible, unless he has taken some extraordinary pains to pick out the most ignorant Dissenters of his Diocese, that by them he might pretend to judge of the rest. But any one that considers the genius of that People, and their particular dissatisfaction with his Lordship, will be easily inclined to believe this genuine Account of the Matter; That he has mistaken their Silence for their Ignorance, and concluded they could not repeat their Catechism, because they would not admit him to be their Catechiser.  2. He computes, that there being but nine Meetings in the Diocese, (and taking one Meetinghouse and one Lord's-day with another) not 300 at each Meeting, and there being 30000 Dissenters in the Diocese, 
Admon. p. 136.  it may be thence concluded, that only one in ten, or thereabouts, go to worship God any where on the Lord's-day. And this he professes was a great grief to him. 
Now as to this matter of fact, I hope the Bishop cannot take it unkindly that I endeavour to allay his grief, by offering him the following Account from the Dissenting Ministers in his Diocese.  In the Parish of Temple-more, alias Derry, there are two Meetings, in which there will be found above 2400. who ordinarily worship God every Lord's-day. For tho' every one of these does not attend every Lord's-day, because some of 'em must be left to secure their houses, yet these and more are ordinary Hearers, as the Ministers of those two Congregations can undeniably prove by their Examination Rolls. Nay, the least Congregation among us are ordinarily 600, and some above a 1000, that do worship God every Lord's-day together. So that where Ministers are settled in Parishes, we do not know of one in 20, that do not ordinarily attend on public worship. And for those which the Bishop saith have not been at any public worship these seven years, we know none such of our Communion. And for those places that are not furnished with Ministers, the Ministers that are settled supply 'em as frequently as their work in their own Congregations can allow. 
Now if this Account be true, the Bishop's Computation, and the Conclusion he draws from it, is far enough from being so. And that there are yet some Congregations that want Ministers, and can only have occasional supplies, is much more their grief, who are doing all they can to remedy it, than it can be supposed to be his Lordship's, who does all he can to lessen the number of their Meetings, by obliging his Tenants to suffer neither Ministers nor Meeting-houses to be upon his Land.  3. The Bishop pretends that his Book contains an Answer to what he found objected by those of the Dissenters, 
Admon. p. 137.  that he conversed with against the ordinary Lordsday worship in the established Church, and that he confined himself to what he had seen and known to be their Opinion and Practice. 
Ans. 'Tis evident by Mr. Craghead's Reply to his Discourse, which Taxes him with the same Calumnies as the Remarks, that if those Dissenters he Conversed with, gave him that Account he pretends of these matters; they were such as understood not the known Opinions or Practices of their own Teachers. As when they allege so many Reasons either against the lawfulness of all Forms of Prayer, and against joining in public worship where they are used, or against the public reading the Scriptures, or against all bodily worship, etc. And therefore if the Bp. had been ingenious in prosecuting what he now saith was his design, he should have told us, that he intended only by this Book to Correct the mistakes of a few Ignorant People, that neither knew the Judgement of their Pastors, nor the common Practice of the Congregations they Joined with. And that he intended not to charge the generality of the Dissenters, even not those of his own Diocese with those weak Opinions, and weaker Arguments and Objections which he endeavours to censure and confute. But he has been so far from doing this, that though in the Conclusion of his Book, he particularly Addresses himself to those of his Diocese; yet in his very Entrance on his Subject, he undertakes to represent the Practice of Dissenters in general, or (in his own terms) of them that differ from the Established Church. Nay, Where he supposes his charge only to be true of those in the North of Ireland, he takes care to confine it to them; and therefore he gives us just ground to conclude, that where he mentions the Dissenters without any such Restriction, he is to be understood as speaking of the whole Body of them, according to the very Titles of his several Chapters, Praise, Prayer, Hearing, Bodily Worship, how practist among Dissenters. And to Convince him of the Reasonableness of this, I shall put a Parallel case to him. Suppose I should write a Book about Ecclesiastical Discipline, how Practised in the Established Church, and among Dissenters; and in the Account of the Practice of the Established Church, should represent the sad neglect of all the Duties of their Function, both by Bishops and Priests; and accordingly should charge the Bishops with so many years' Nonresidence, in which there had been no Consecration of Churches, nor Confirmation of Children, nor Ordination of Priests, and the Priests with such neglect of their Cures, as a great many in the Diocese of Down and Connor were Accused of: And suppose I should particularly address this Book to the late Bishop and Clergy of that Diocese, Would his Lordship in this case think me  from the guilt of Calumniating, because I had particularly addressed this Discourse to them, when I have not in the Body of the Book confined my Accusations to them, but speak all along of the faults of the Conformable Bishops and Clergy in general, without any such particular limitation, or would he think me Ingenuous in producing such Arguments, as the Bishop and Clergy of the forementioned Diocese may allege to excuse themselves, as the common Reasonings of the Conforming Clergy: And yet, this were of the two more justifiable than the Bishop's management of this Charge against Dissenters, in which he has wronged the generality; even of those to whom he now pretends that this Discourse was confined, but much more the generality of the Dissenters, against whom the greatest part of his Book is levelled without any Distinction. I confess, to have told us plainly, that he only Confuted the weak Discourses he had met with among some few of the Dissenting Laity, would have lessened the Character of his Book, by supposing the cause of the Dissenters to be little concerned in it; and so probably the main Design of it, to blast the Reputation of the whole Party had been frustrated, by such an ingenuous Confession. But without such an ingenuous Confession, I do not see how 'tis possible to excuse his Discourse from untruth and disingenuity; either in attributing to Dissenters in general, what is peculiar to those in the North of Ireland (as in the Head of Frequent Communion) or in ascribing to a whole Party without distinction, so many Opinions, Arguments and Practices, as either none at all, or none but very Weak and Ignorant People are chargeable with; of which there are so many to be found in all Persuasions, that he who will measure the rest of their Communion by them, can never want matter enough to expose the Wisest and Soberest Body of Christians whatsoever. So that should we allow the truth of all his Lordship here suggests, (viz. that he truly represents what the Dissenters he Conversed with alleged to him.) It appears how little this signifies to clear him from the guilt of groundless Aspersions.  
II. The Bishop proposes to show, That I have granted the principal things designed in his Book. 
Admon. p. 138.   
As to these I assure him, That I see no reason to retract any of those Concessions I have really made; and if they will be of any use to reconcile sober Protestants to more charitable thoughts of each others Worship, I shall rejoice in it. But then I must desire him not to stretch them beyond their just Bounds, as he seems to do in the following Particulars.  
Thus, Tho I have owned sing in Prose (as opposed strict to Metre,) lawful in general, p. 10— yet as to the Practice of it in Cathedrals, whereby the main part of the Auditory is excluded from joining in the public Praises, through their incapacity to Sing them in Prose; I have censured it as disagreeable to the Apostle's Rule, of doing all to Edification, p. 23.  
So, Tho I have granted Responses in general lawful, yet I have censured the method of them in the Parish-Churches as applied to all Psalms, as not only unscriptural but unreasonable and disorderly, p. 23.  
As to the 4th Concession, Tho I think not those unscriptural Practices of Singing Psalms by a Choir, and of Responses in the Parish-Churches, to fall within the compass of what our Lord Censures, 7 Mark. 7. yet I think them a very defective and disorderly way of Worship; to which I judge the more Scriptural way practised among the Dissenters far preferable.  
For the 5th Concession, Tho I grant, Praying with or without a Form in general undetermined in Scripture, yet I do not think it only a matter of Conveniency: For I doubt not Praying with a Form is a Duty, to those who cannot Pray without it; and I think 'tis sinful to exclude necessary matters of Prayer by confining ourselves to a Form, when we can Pray without one.  
From Concession the 6th he draws a wrong Inference, which I had particularly obviated; viz. That because God prescribed a Form of Words to the Jews, in some extraordinary parts of Worship, therefore be does in particular command Christian Pastors and their Flocks to Pray to him in Forms, for that must be the sense of his Lordship's Inference, if it be any thing to his purpose: For I have challenged him to produce any Form prescribed to the Christian Church except the Lord's Prayer, or any particular Command for the constant use of that in public; and for its being sometimes used as a Form, the Westminster-Assembly in their larger Catechism, declare their Judgement for it.  
For Concession the 8th, I do not own (as his Lordship here alleges) that there is no reading of Scripture in the North of Ireland in the Winter Quarter; for though this Exercise is in some places forborn during the Winter Quarter, yet it is not in all, and particularly but in one Meeting in all his Lordship's Diocese, the rest continuing it through the whole Winter; of which I shall have occasion to take notice afterwards.  
For Concession the 9th, Tho I have owned that Bodily Worship is commanded in Scripture; yet I have not owned, but Censured it as practised by such as bow towards the East, or Altar, or at the Name of Jesus.  
For Concession the 10th, Tho I do not condemn kneeling in the Act of Receiving as unlawful, yet I have showed it to be disagreeable to Scripture Example, and by the strictness of the Bishop's own Rule unlawful to, p. 123.  
The third thing the Bishop proposes, is to show, That whereas there are several matters of Fact which he affirms, and I deny; the mistake lies on my side, 
Admon. p, 141.  notwithstanding I impute them to him with great assurance as falsehoods, etc.  
Answ. What I have charged him with as untruths, in reference to the Dissenters in general, it lies on me to make good; what relates to those in the North of Ireland, as I have asserted nothing but upon their Information, so I can produce no other vouchers than themselves: And sure I need not produce any other, since their Testimony concerning their own Practice, must by all reasonable Men be allowed to be of greater weight and credit than his Lordship's, who cannot pretend to know so well as themselves what is done by themselves.  
This premised I come to examine the matters of Fact, wherein the Bishop attempts to vindicate himself, though they are but a small part of what I have charged him with Misrepresenting.  
For the two first matters of Fact, I shall take the liberty to offer them in the same order, and in the very words of his Discourse, p. 83, 84. Edit. Quarto.  But the most sad and deplorable defect of your performance of this Duty, is the casting out the reading of the word of God from most of your public Assemblies, directly contrary to God's Institution and Ordinance for the Instruction of his Church; insomuch, that in many of your Meetings, setting aside a Verse or Two for a Text or Quotation at the Discretion of the Teacher, the Word of God is never publicly heard among them; this is matter of Fact and undeniable. And in all the Meetings of the North of Ireland, in a whole year perhaps there is not so much Scripture read as in one Day in our Church, by the strictest Enquiry I could make, Disc. p. 83, 84. And ib. p. 84. The Dissenters banish the word of God out of their Meetings.— Sure 'tis a sad thing, That a Man may go to most Meetings many years, and never hear one entire Chapter read in them. 
'Tis here obvious, That his main and positive Accusation is, That the Dissenters have cast the reading of the Word of God out of most of their Meetings, That setting aside a verse or two for a Text or Quotation at the Discretion of the Teacher, the Voice of God is in many of them never publicly heard among them: And that a Man may go to most Meetings many years, and never hear one entire Chapter read in them; and this Accusation he more particularly fixes on the Meetings in the North of Ireland.  
In opposition to this Accusation I had told him, 
Remarks, p. 92, 93.  'Tis the general Practice of the Dissenting Ministers in the North of Ireland, for about three quarters of the year, (for in the most, the Winter quarter is only excepted) to read every Morning an entire portion of Scripture, usually a whole Chapter, at least so much of one as they can go thro' with in an Exposition of half an hours length.  
The very same matter of Fact; The Reverend Mr. Craghead has affirmed in his Answer, and more largely, without excepting the Winter Quarter, since in his Diocese all the Dissenting Ministers except one continue their Lecturing thro' the whole year.  
Now this matter of Fact all the World must allow to be directly contrary to his severe charge; so that if it prove true, His Lordship could have no pretence to complain of my Reproving him, for offering such barefaced untruths for undeniable matters of Fact.  
Let's then inquire what he hath said to make good his Charge, and to that purpose he alleges Two Things.  
1. That the Reading the Scriptures should be so ordered, That the diligent Hearers may in a competent time be acquainted with the whole Body of them; Whereupon he challenges me to produce one Meeting in the North where this has been observed. 
Admon. p. 144.   
Answ. As to this Allegation, 'tis evident, That it concerns not the matter of Fact in Dispute at all, which is, Whether setting aside a verse or two for a Text or Quotation at the discretion of the Teacher, the voice of God is never publicly heard among them, and a Man may attend most Meetings many years, and never hear an entire Chapter read in them. For the Allegation concerns only the manner of Reading them, whereas the Accusation supposes them not Read at all, except a verse or two for a Text or Quotation, etc. so that I might justly dismiss any farther Consideration of it; but since the Bishop gives me this occasion to compare their Practice and ours, I shall suggest to him, That though we Read not so much of Scripture as they in such entire Portions as whole Chapters, yet we Read the Scriptures more regularly than they, and a Man may sooner hear them Read through in a Meeting, than he can in most of the Parish-Churches. To clear this I must premise, That in the generality of the Parish-Churches through the Kingdom, there is no Divine Service Read except on Sundays; Now if we consult the Calendar in the Common-Prayer-Book, we shall find, That (excepting the Psalms) there is never read from one generation to another, but about 104 Chapters of the Old Testament, and that in such order or rather disorder, as breaks the Coherence of the Sacred History: So that a Man may if he lived to 80 years, attend the Public Worship in most Parish-Churches all his Days, and never hear the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th. Chapter of Gen. and so on. See the Lessons proper for Sundays; and how is the New Testament Read? This Sunday we have the Matt. 1. and the Rom. 1. Read; the next Sunday the 8th of each, and next 15th. Four Months hence the 3d of Matt. and the 4th of Rom. So that in the generality of the Parish-Churches, the Scriptures are Read most confusedly; so that the Hearers are incapable of observing the admirable Connexion of its parts; and in most Parishes, the far greater part of them is never read at all: Whereas in the Meetings, 'tis the general Practice to Read on a Book in order; and though their Exposition hinder them from Reading so large a Portion, (for which there is abundant Compensation by their Expounding what is read from Parallel places of Scripture) yet they will in the course of some years be read all over, which they never are nor can be, in the generality of the Parish-Churches that are shut all the Week. But as this first Allegation had it been true, signifies nothing to the purpose 'tis brought for, so let us see whether the other be more considerable.  
2. The Bishop Appeals to ourselves, Whether any of, our Ministers ever read one Portion of Scripture, but what was either designed for a Text to a Lecture or Sermon or a Quotation. If any one pretend the contrary, he desires me to name the time and place that he may reprove those Informers, which I affirm have so grossly imposed on him; 
Admon. p. 144.  but till the time and place be named, his Assertion he saith is literally true, and in a larger sense than he expressed it.  
Ans. I must desire his Lordship to review this passage and tell us, Whether it be literally true, that except a verse or two for a Text or Quotation, the voice of God is never publicly heard in their Meetings, when 'tis (as Mr. Craghead informs him) their ordinary Practice to Lecture every Lord's Day, and usually to Read a whole Chapter, or divide a long one that's full of Textual difficulties. Is a whole Chapter or half a long one, only a verse or two for a Text? Nay is it literally true, That a Man may go to most Meetings many years, and never Hear an entire Chapter Read, when in the generality of them he shall most commonly Hear a whole one Read every Lord's Day? But what does he mean, when he challenges me to name the time and place in which any entire Portion of Scripture was Read, but what was either designed for a Text to a Lecture or a Sermon? What is this to the matter of Fact that he Ascerted? For besides that a Text to a Lecture is a new Phrase; Is a whole Chapter or half a long one, only a verse or two? Or is a whole Chapter never Read, because 'tis always read with a design to Expound it? Nay, is this so deplorable a fault as he has supposed it that we never Read an entire Portion of Scripture without intending to illustrate the sense of it, by comparing parallel Scriptures with it? (for that's all his Lordship can mean, by making it a Text to a Lecture) Is it not rather our great commendation, That the Scripture is always Interpreted as well as Read, and rather matter of Reproach to others that 'tis barely Read, without giving the People such help to understand it? And shall our extraordinary diligence be made our deplorable crime, and their sloth so great a virtue? And upon the whole, would it not have been more ingenuous in him to own that his Informers had grossly imposed upon him, then to persist in so plain a mistake, and then colour it over with an Apology, the weakness and unreasonableness whereof had been so largely and justly exposed in that part of the Remarks, to which he has not yet thought fit to give any Answer?  
But tho' the Bishop be in the wrong, as to the Substance of the Accusation, he seems very confident of what he has said to vindicate that Circumstance of it, viz. That in all the Meetings of the North, in a whole year, perhaps there is not so much Scripture read as in one day in the established Church. This he pretends to prove so fully, that by his Computation there appears to be four times more Scripture read in the established Church, than in all the Meetings of the North. To this purpose he pretends to take my own Computation of half a Chapter read in each Meeting for three quarters of a year; and so in the nine Meetings in his Diocese he computes 175 Chapters and a half to be read in a year.  
On the other hand, He computes 11 Psalms and 5 Chapters, and so in all 16 Chapters read in the 42 Parishes in his Diocese, 
Adm. p. 142, 143.  and consequently in all 672 every Lord's-day.  
This Computation at first view looks like Demonstration, but is indeed liable to manifold and just Exceptions.  
1. The Bishop here puts that sense on his words that was not the plain and obvious meaning of 'em.  
Their obvious sense is, That there is as much Scripture read in every Parish-Church in one Lord's-day, as in all the Meetings in the North in a year. And there was good reason to suppose he intended 'em in this sense, both because 'tis but the same Chapters are read in every Parish-Church through the Kingdom; and because, without this sense, his Lordship's words left us wholly in the dark how to judge of the truth of 'em, when he never told us, whether by the established Church he meant all the Parish Churches in the Kingdom, or only those in the North of Ireland, nor gave us any Account what proportion the number of the one, or the other, bore to the number of the Meetings, without which Particulars none could judge whether his Assertion were true or false; or if true, whether any matter of reproach, or no? For perhaps in the whole Kingdom the number of Meetings is not much more to that of Parish-Churches, than that of 1 to 52. But,  
2. If we allow his Lordship the sense that he now puts on his Assertion, yet his Computation will appear much too Liberal on his own side, and much more too scanty on the Dissenters.  
His Computation is too liberal on his own side. For,  
1. He takes a day, viz. the first of April in his Computation, on which there were several Psalms extraordinary used. For take the Psalms one with another, about five is the proportion of what is ordinarily used every Lord's-day, and 'twas only casual that eleven were then used, the eight first Psalms, as well as the three other, being short, and not above the proportion of four ordinary Chapters of five and twenty Verses long.  
2. He brings in eleven Psalms as Chapters Read for Instruction, (about which alone the present Dispute lies) whereas he himself supposes 'em to be used as Forms of Thanksgiving; and so does the Common-Prayer-Book, in which these are not proposed to be read as Lessons, but sung or said between the Minister and People. So that by a just Computation there remains only the five Chapters a day.  
And his Computation is as much too scanty on the Dissenters side: For tho' I have drawn such a Computation as he mentions, yet I have drawn it only as a Computation of what is read in an entire Portion; and indeed have drawn it much below the Truth: for there is more usually a whole Chapter read, and in the Meetings of his Diocese none but one, make any Exception of the Winter Quarter. But I was so far from designing this, as a Computation of all that is read, that I have, in the very words following those he quotes, 
Remark. p. 93.  told him, That I look on his Charge to be so unjust, that if we take the Scriptures to be read whenever they are verbatim recited to the People, and so compute all the parallel Passages of Scripture that occur in their Expositions and Sermons, (in which both the N. C. Ministers in general, and particularly those in the North, use not to be sparing in their Concordances.) I see little reason to doubt, but there is as much of Scripture read, or as much of the inspired Word of God proposed for the Instruction of the People in each Meeting, as in each Parish-Church. And this way of reading the Scripture I have shown to be most agreeable to the Pattern and Practice of the Apostles, and of the Christian Church in their time.  
Why then would the Bishop take no notice of this, which would have brought this Debate to a more fair and easy trial. For what is read this way among us, will amount to vastly more than what is read in an entire Portion. For take one Lord's-day with another, we may by a reasonable Computation allow, between the Portion read, and the parallel Texts in the Exposition, a Chapter and a half. And if we compute two Chapters more to each Sermon, there will be every Lord's-day five Chapters and a half read; and I do not here mention what Passages of Scripture occur in Catechising, tho' those will amount to a very considerable Portion, if put together. And for the Psalms, he has no more reason to bring them into the Computation, than I have to bring in all the Scriptural Expressions that occur in our Praises and Prayers, which I have also shown him are more agreeable to the directions of the New Testament.  
But to examine the Bishop's present Computation, if we allow him his eleven Psalms that are used as Forms of Thanksgiving, I hope he will allow us all that's strictly read for Instruction. And that he may not scruple my Computation, I'll only allow one Chapter between the Portion read and the Exposition of it; I'll only compute two Chapters more for the two Sermons preached every Lord's-day; and upon this Computation (which is really much less than is read) it will appear, That in nine Meetings, allowing a Chapter for the Lecture, there is read in the three quarters of the year 351; and allowing two Chapters each Lord's-day in the year for their Sermons, there is read 936 Chapters in a year: both these joined make up 1287. Whereas in 42 Parish-Churches the Bishop computes (with the 11 Psalms and all) only 672 Chapters; and if we should add 42 Chapters more for their Sermon, (for few preach more than once a day) this will make 714, which is a little more than half of what is read in those nine Meetings by the former Computation. But if this Computation were drawn to the utmost of Truth on the Dissenters side, (for since eight Meetings in his Diocese Lecture throughout the whole year, there are 104 Chapters to be added to the account, and as the Bishop reckons the Psalms, we should add all the Scriptural Passages that occur in our Thanksgivings) the Bishop's account would still appear the more wide from Truth. However, upon the lowest Computation he is really mistaken in this Matter of Fact, as he is apparently so in the foregoing, and has wronged 'em in the Circumstance as well as Substance of his Charge.  
The third Matter of Fact which the Bishop undertakes to vindicate, is his Assertion, That a Man may frequent the Meetings of the Dissenters all his life, 
Disc. p. 82.  and yet have no security, or hardly possibility, of learning from their public Teachings all the great Mysteries of his Religion.  
This I have indeed censured as a gross and shameless Accusation, and therefore was the more obliged to prove it so. To that purpose I not only told him, That the peculiar Mysteries of the Christian Religion were the ordinary subject of their Sermons, but that once a year at least they constantly went through all the necessary Articles of the Christian Religion in their Public Catechising, in which the Dissenting Ministers in the North were so particular, as to Examine every particular Person of whose knowledge there could be any occasion to doubt. 
Rem. p. 85, 86.  And sure one would think if this be true, there can be no Modesty in such a heinous Accusation, Let's then hear what the Bishop has offered to Vindicate himself.  
1. He proposes a Summary of the Principles of our Christian Religion, drawn rather from the Calendar than from the Apostles Creed, of which several Articles are omitted, because his Lordship could find no holidays for 'em.  
2. He tells us their Ministers have a certain time appointed every year for Teaching each of these Mysteries.  
3. That there lies no Obligation on the Dissenting Ministers to go through these Mysteries in any such time, nor in their whole lives.  
4. That he could not find upon Examination that their Ministers had done it.  
5. 
See Adm. p. 145, 146, 147.  He pretends that I endeavour to excuse this by putting him to produce Scriptural Command relating to it.  
Now I would desire him to review this, and tell us whether it signify any thing to take off the plain Evidence I have produced, of the injustice of his Accusation, viz. That their people are in public Teachings yearly Catechised, in which Exercise all the Mysteries of the Christian Religion, and particularly those mentioned by his Lordship, are explained to 'em. So that 'tis impossible they should attend their Meetings one year, but they'll have the opportunity of learning 'em. Is it not strange that the Bishop should overlook so clear a Demonstration against the Truth of his Charge, under this Head, to which it properly does belong? For if this be true, there needs nothing more to prove what he has said to be so gross a Calumny as I have represented it. His Lordship has indeed thought fit to take notice of this in another place, viz. p. 149. where he dare not downright deny it, but would gladly insinuate a strong suspicion against the Truth of it. His words are these: I leave this Matter of Fact with you, and know what you must conclude, and hope you will be so just to yourselves, as to determine of what credit this Author ought to be in his Relations. I will not derogate from your Ministers labours in Catechising their people; but notwithstanding their pains, there are some thousands of Men and Women in this Diocese that profess themselves of your Communion that were never Catechised by 'em, etc. Now either he means there are so many Persons that were never Catechised in those places where Ministers are settled, or in those where there are none. If he mean the latter, What's this to the purpose if it were true, as I do not find the Dissenting Ministers in his Diocese think it credible; if he mean the former, they do declare, They know of none that were never Catechised where there are Ministers settled; but all are ordinarily examined once in the year, if not oftener. So that if any such remain ignorant, 'tis not for want of their pains to instruct 'em. And since he leaves this Matter of Fact with 'em, to be determined upon their serious consideration, he may easily see how contrary their Judgement of it is to his; and if he would yield to their Testimony concerning their own Practice, I hope he'll be convinced there is some Credit due to my Relations, but none to his rash and mistaken Accusations.  
But besides that the necessary Principles of Religion are yearly explained in the Catechism, I have told him concerning the Dissenters in general, that tho' they have no other Rule to direct 'em herein than that of the Holy Scriptures, yet they do in their Sermons most frequently insist on the particular Mysteries of the Christian Religion, and can appeal to their People as witnesses thereof. And that this is true concerning the Dissenting Ministers in his Diocese, he may find Mr. Craghead's Account in these words, 
P. 75, 76.  relating to the  Charge. I declare upon certain knowledge, that what he has asserted is a most unjust Imputation, for which he has reason to ask forgiveness of God; and I do appeal to many Thousands now living, who are ordinarily witnesses to the contrary; and many of the Author's Persuasion know the contrary. With what Peace of Conscience can any Man thus impose on Strangers, and impress future Generations with that which is so far from Truth! it being publicly known that we ordinarily and orderly go through all the Heads of our Christian Faith in our Public Sermons. And what if this be nor particularly prescribed by the Directory? will it follow that 'tis not done? Or is not the Scripture a sufficient Directory for that purpose? And whereas the Bishop insinuates this suspicious Argument of our neglect, That he has seen many Sermons printed by our Party, and yet does not remember above two or three on these most necessary Subjects, (viz. the great Mysteries of our Religion). Is it not hence evident that he speaks at random of matters that he has little or no knowledge of? For I doubt not that instead of two or three, there are above two or three hundred Sermons published by N.C. Ministers on the principal Mysteries of the Christian Religion, (including those that he has mentioned). What does he think of the first Collection of Sermons in the Morning Exercise on the principal Heads of Christian Doctrine? Nay, some Divines have printed a large Body of Sermons on the particular Heads of the Assemblies Catechism; 176 of Mr. Watson's are now extant. How many of those Mysteries are fully treated of in the large Volumes of Dr. Manton's and Mr. Charnock's Sermons? Not to mention Mr. Baxter's, Mr. Ant. Burgesses, Dr. Bates', and many more. So that if the Bishop have met with no more than two or three, 'tis only because he was never conversant in their Writings. But why then should he throw about such severe Reproaches in the dark, and censure with such assurance what he is so entire a stranger to, and what any, that ever was in the least acquainted with their Writers, can show him his ignorance and indiscretion in? And if the Conformists have printed more, 'tis no wonder, when the Press has been more open to them, and they have had greater advantages for appearing in Public.  
And is it not strange the Bp. should pretend that I allege what he quotes (p. 146, 147.) as an excuse in this matter, when I expressly disclaim the alleging of it for that end, because we need no excuse, and only produce it as an argument ad hominem, which he was concerned to answer on the Principles he had laid down? So that upon the whole, the Bp. is obliged in all reason to do us right in this point, by owning so unhappy a Mistake, and wiping off an Aspersion, which as 'tis manifestly untrue, so 'tis highly injurious to the Reputation of his Brethren; since if it were believed, no Man that has any concern for his own Soul, would trust it to their Pastoral conduct, who are so grossly negligent of so necessary a Duty.  
The next Matter of Fact is, the Bishop had affirmed That not One in Ten of the Dissenters Children get their Catechism by heart, 
Disc. p. 83.  nor One in Five hundred retain it.  
On the contrary I suggested, That I believed upon a more accurate trial, he would find that as many of the Dissenters Children have got it by heart, 
Rem. p. 87.  as of others that have done so by the Church Catechism.  
To clear himself, the Bishop here alleges, That he has, besides grown People, Confirmed near a thousand Children, all above 13 years old, who could say the Church Catechism. And on the other hand, he tells us of many trials he made in whole Schools at a time, etc. among the Dissenters, and found that the generality could not go above a leaf or two in it; 
Adm. p. 47, 48.  and he doubts whether any at all after twenty retain it.  
Now in Answer hereto, the Dissenting Ministers in his Diocese declare, That there are several Thousands of their People, both old and young, that can repeat the whole Catechism. And how many there are in other Parishes may be in part computed from that of Temple-more, in which there are 600, or more, can repeat it. So that if his Lordship had so ill success in his trial, 'tis to be imputed either to the sullenness or the bashfulness of those he examined: For certainly their own Ministers should know this matter better than he; and since he appeals to them, they declare That they are assured he is mistaken in it.  
I come then to the fifth and principal Matter of Fact disputed, viz. Concerning the frequency of Celebrating the Lord's Supper.  
As to this the Bishop had appealed to the Dissenters in general without any distinction, Whether it were not a great thing among many of 'em, if once in a year or two a Communion be Celebrated in one of their Meetings; that among some, 'tis often omitted for several years together, and in some places for ten or more: and on this account severely upbraids 'em with rare or no Communion as their peculiar practice. Disc. p. 161, 162.  
In opposition to this Charge, I had told him, That for those Meetings in England and the South of Ireland, where Pastors are settled, the most of 'em constantly Celebrate the Lord's-Supper once a Month, others once in six Weeks or two Months, and a few every Lord's-Day, etc. From whence I inserted the injustice of this Accusation, since the generality of the Dissenting Ministers celebrate this Ordinance much more frequently than the generality of the Parish Ministers; and their Communions are ordinarily more numerous, as well as more frequent, than those in the Parish-Churches, allowing for the proportion which the Number of the Dissenters bears to that of the Conformable Laity.  
And now let us consider what the Bp. replies to this.  
First he says He is not much concerned in it, 
Adm. p. 155.  having addressed himself to those of his own Diocese. Answer, Can his Lordship with any reason pretend that he has asserted this only concerning the Dissenters of his own Diocese, when he does not only in the very entrance of his Book, propose to examine the several parts of Worship, as they are practised by those that differ from the established Church, or (as in the same page) by Protestant Dissenters— See Disc. p. 8.— But gives this very Chapter the Title of, The practice of Dissenters about frequency of Communicating. But of this I have said enough already to show him the unreasonableness of this Excuse.  
Secondly, He insinuates these Arguments against the probability of it: If this be true, (saith he) their practice is much altered from what it was formerly: For when the Churches were in their hands, it was quite otherwise. St. Warburgh's was a considerable Parish in the heart of Dublin, but had not the Lord's-Supper administered in it for Twelve Years; and I have heard the like of some other Churches in Dublin at that time. I find the same observed concerning the whole University of Oxford, from the Year 1648 to 1660. Antiq. Oxon. And he adds, that he was told, That the Dissenters in Waterford did not Communicate above once a year before the Troubles, if so often. Admon. p. 155.  
Answ. For what was practised either in Dublin or Oxford in Oliver's time, I neither know, nor am concerned with. But for this Assertion of mine concerning the present practice of those Meetings of Dissenters in England, and the South of Ireland, in which Pastors are settled, I need no Vouchers at all. 'Tis a Matter of Fact as easily known as our Public Assemblies are, and what we can produce as many Vouchers for as we have ordinary Hearers, there being always public notice given of our Communions. And if the Bishop dispute this Matter of Fact, he may next dispute, whether our Senses may be trusted in what we daily see and hear. For what he alleges concerning the practice of Dissenters in Waterford, of which he saith he had opportunity to inquire, it will appear by the account given me by Mr. Sinclare, 
See his Letter in the end.  who was at that time their Minister, that either his Enquiry was very slight, or his Informers very ignorant of the Matter; and that he has been as unhappily imposed on by 'em, as I shall now show him he has been by those on whose credit he has related what is practised in his whole Diocese.  
'Tis evident than he has wronged the main Body of the Dissenters in this Charge of their rare or no Communion.  
But there are some things relating to the practice of the Dissenters in the North of Ireland which I have asserted, and which the Bishop does very positively conclude me mistaken in.  
I had told him from their Information, 'Tis so far from being true, that 'tis rare if once in a year or two a Communion be celebrated in their Meetings; that 'tis universally usual in every Meeting where an Ordained Minister is settled, to have the Lords-Supper administered constantly once a year, and twice in the larger Towns. That when the Sacrament is administered in one Meeting, 'tis usual for most of the Members of neighbouring Parishes to frequent it. That the most serious People among them Communicate four or five times a year; and have the opportunity of doing so 10, 12, or 15 times, if they will take the advantage of Receiving it in Neighbouring Congregations, etc. And what I have here affirmed is the very account sent me from the Reverend Mr. Adair of Antrim, with the approbation of that Meeting: and I shall here subjoin this following Observation he makes in his own words; You know also, That where the Sacrament is Administered, two parts of the Receivers are usually strangers; by which it is evident, that once Administering according to the custom usual among Christians here, where they Communicate with each other in their several Congregations respectively, is equivalent to the Administering of it three or four times a year to each particular Congregation, where this way is not in use.  
Now as to this, the Bishop tells us, He has as good opportunity of informing himself in these matters, as any can have, and has been as diligent in his Inquiries, in his Progresses through his several Parishes, and on all occasions as he could; and he has the following Account returned him from many hands, and is satisfied there can be no great mistake in it.  
In these last seven years the Lord's Supper has been Celebrated among you, in Derry twice, in Clandermot once, in Ballindret once, at Ballikelly once, at Burt twice, at Ardstra once, at Ahadowy once, in all nine times, (Admon. p. 151, 152.) And p. 153. he adds a significant reason why he could not easily mistake in these matters, viz. Because their Sacraments are Administered with such a concourse of Spectators and Hearers, that they can hardly escape Observation. (Tho by the way, why the Bishop should suppose this an Abuse brought in by Popery, I do not understand; for I take it to be a very proper means of exciting in the Spectators Pious desires of becoming Communicants: And for the Practice of the Primitive Church in dismissing all that were not Communicants when they entered on the Celebration of this Ordinance: I know of no other occasion for it, than their care to conceal these Mysteries of their Religion from the Pagans; a reason that we are not concerned in.)  
But now, If after all this diligent Enquiry, the Bishop's Informers have grossly imposed on him in almost every particular of this Account: Nay, if the Account where it is true signify nothing to the purpose for which 'tis alleged, and appear highly disingenuous, than I hope he will think himself under some Obligation to distrust those Informers for the future, and will be more cautious of asserting any thing on their Credit, to the Reproach of his Brethren.  
And here I would premise, That there is an instance of Disingenuity in the Bishop's Method of comparing the Practice of the Dissenters with that of the Established Church, too obvious and palpable to be overlooked. In his accounts how oft the Sacrament has been Administered in the Established Church, he goes no farther back than the time of his own Advancement to the See of Derry, which was soon after the Troubles; but in his Accounts how oft it has been Administered by the Dissenters, he takes in seven years, though he knows well enough that for two of the seven at least, both the Ministers and People were scattered, and had no opportunity for Celebrating that Institution; and yet he is so imprudent as to make this a great aggravation of their neglect; That some of those sevon years being times of afflictions, required a more frequent Celebration of this comfortable Sacrament then ordinary; (See his Errata that refers to p. 27. l. 2.) as if he were ignorant, that some of their Ministers were fled to Scotland, others shut up in the Walls of Derry, and their People so dispersed, that they could not for any considerable time after the Raising that Siege make up any distinct Congregations again. And if the Bishop allege, that at least the Dissenters in Derry during the Siege should have had it Administered, I would desire him if he blame them on this Account, yet to be so impartial as to give the Conformists there a share in his Reproof; for those I have desired to inquire upon the place, could not learn that they Administered it any more than the other: So that those 2 years of public Troubles and Confusion, aught in all reason to be shut out of his Account. And how unfortunate he has been in his particular and exact Account he now pretends to give, will appear by the following one that the Dissenting Ministers of his Diocese have after a very particular enquiry given of the year 87, 88, 91, 92, 93, 94.  
In the year 87, 88 The Sacrament was Administered in Derry twice, in Donaghedee twice, in Drumrah twice, in Ardsta twice, in Vrney twice, in Donaghmore twice, in Lifford once, in Glendermot once, in all fourteen times.  
In the four last years since the troubles, the Sacrament was Administered.  
In Derry four times, in Burt thrice, in Ahadowy twice, in Ardstra twice, in Ballindret or Lifford once, in Mahara once, in Ballikelly once, in Donaghmore once, in Strabane once, in all sixteen times. So that for the last Six years, in which there can be any pretence for requiring the Administration of the Sacrament from 'em, it has instead of nine times been Administered 30. Nay, Tho we reckon the two years of the Troubles in which they had no opportunity, yet the year 88 falling within the compass of the seven mentioned by the Bishop, they had it 22 or 23 times.  
But I have a more just and severe Challenge against the Sincerity and Candour of this Account, which the Bishop's Informers have given him, viz. That they were not so honest as to acquaint him, that besides the two years of Troubles, in a great part of the other years, several of those Congregations had no Ministers at all, whom yet he makes accountable for the Sacrament during 7 years together; whereas that Ascertion of mine which the Bishop here undertakes to disprove, concerns only such Congregations where Ministers are settled. (For it were ridiculous to expect Sacraments where there are no Ministers to Celebrate them.) Now besides the two years of seven that are to be taken off from each Congregation, (for even Derry itself had no Ministers from the year 88 till after the Troubles) the following Congregations had no Ministers for the years hereafter mentioned.  
Glendermot or Clondermot had none at all since the Troubles, so that there has been a Minister there only one year of the seven, Ardstra had a Minister only two years since the Troubles, and in them two Sacraments, but had no Minister at all till after the Troubles. For Ballindret two Communions were appointed, but both prevented by their Ministers being visited with Sickness, and 'tis a year since he died, so that only one Sacrament could be Celebrated since the Troubles. For Ballikelly, their Minister besides long Sickness after the Siege of Derry, has been much in Scotland and elsewhere. For Strabane the Minister has not yet been two years there, and the true reason why the Sacrament was but seldom Administered there before, was (besides the Bodily Infirmities of their Minister) chief the violence of Persecution, which forced him out of that Parish. And yet such Blame the neglect, whose unchristian severity was the cause of it. For the other places which the Bishop has overlooked in his Account and I have added to mine, I must also add, That Mahara had but one Sacrament since the Troubles, because they have had a Minister but one year; and the same must be said of Donoghmore. For Donaghedee, Drumra and Urny, which had constant yearly Communions before the Troubles, they have none of them had any Minister since. Now by this Account it appears, that according to what was practised where Ministers have been settled, there would have been about 70 Communions Celebrated in the last seven years in the 10 Meetings now mentioned, if either the want of Ministers in places, or their Sickness, or the two years of Confusion and Troubles, or the like extraordinary Accidents had not prevented. So that for the Bishop not only to mistake nine times for about twenty three or thirty, but to charge these rare Communions on their Negligence in Administering this Ordinance, when they were wholly owing to these extraordinary occasions , is so highly disingenuous and unjust, that he ought not to suffer those that have so unhappily abused him in these matters, to pass without a severe Reproof. For since the Dissenting Ministers in the North, on the account of the extraordinary pains they take to prepare their People for the Sacrament, celebrate it so seldom in each Congregation as once a year, there was the greater reason they should not be wronged in the Accounts given of their Practice. So that in this Matter of Fact, I hope the Bishop will own and retract his mistake.  
For what I asserted concerning the Sacraments being twice a year administered in the larger Towns in the North, was intended, and is true of Belfast, Carickfergus, and Antrim.  
For what I have asserted concerning their Members Communicating four or five times a year, is true of the most devout and serious of them; and so is it, That they may have the opportunity of Communicating ten, or twelve, or fifteen times a year, within some miles of their respective Habitations.  
This indeed the Bishop concludes to be a great mistake. Because on this Supposition he thinks it will clearly follow, that not much above a hundred distinct Persons have Communicated in the Diocese these last seven years. For four times 7 makes 28; and 3600 (which his Lordship computes to be the full number of their Communicants in seven years) divided by 28, gives about 128; but this can by no means be true: Therefore (saith the Bishop) he is certainly misinformed in this particular. Admon. p. 153.  
Answ. The whole of this Computation depends on his two Suppositions, That the Sacrament has been Administered but nine times in seven years, and that one with another, only 400 have received at one time, and so 3600 in all. How great a mistake the former Supposition is, I have already shown; and how much greater the latter is, will appear from this one Passage, That in the Parish of Temple-more alone, (alias Derry) including the two Meetings of Derry and Burt, there have Communicated since the Troubles above 5000, which is above 1400 more than he supposes to have Communicated in all the Diocese in seven years. Nay, whereas he supposes, That near as many have received in the Cathedral, in three years past, as have Communicated with the Dissenters in his whole Diocese in twice that time. It appears that near 2000 more of the Dissenters have Received in the same Parish, in about the same time, than have Received at the Cathedral, notwithstanding the Sacrament being Administered there every Month (tho' by the way, the Dissenters of Derry think he has stretched the number of his Monthly Communicants beyond all just bounds, of which they can give very shrewd Evidence.) Since than his Computation of the number of Communicants among the Dissenters is so vastly wide from Truth, his Inference from it falls of course.  
For what I asserted concerning their having the opportunity of Communicating ten, or twelve, or fifteen times a year, within some miles of their respective Habitations, the Bishop concludes it to be a mistake; Because there being but nine Meetings in his Diocese, tho' each Member should communicate at each Meeting, he could but communicate nine times a year, and must sometimes travel forty miles for a Sacrament. Admon. p. 154, 155.  
Answ. I might here justly inquire, Why the Bishop should think the Dissenters of his Diocese so confined to it, that those that live near Meetings in another Diocese, may not take the opportunity of Communicating there. Does he think their Communion limited within the bounds of his Jurisdiction? But I must here acquaint him, That this Assertion of mine respects the generality of Meetings in the North; and therefore the truth of it is to be estimated from those parts where the main Body of the Dissenters are to be found. Now he cannot be ignorant that they are most numerous in the Counties of Antrim and Down. And therefore since he is pleased to arraign the Truth of the Assertion, I shall give him the following Demonstration of it, in reference to the Congregations that belong to the Meeting of Antrim, sent me by the Reverend M. W. Adair Minister of the Town of Antrim.  
I take Carn-castle, which is the most remote Congregation save one Northward in our Meeting, and within twelve miles they may Communicate at Glanarm, Blade, Ballimanoch, Coymer, Ballyraston, Ballyclare, Carmony, Dunagor, Lorn, I. Macgee, Broad-Island, Caricfergus twice, Temple-Patrick, and Carn-castle itself. In all fifteen times.  
I take Belfast, which is the farthest of our Meeting Southward, and I suppose within twelve miles they may yearly Communicate above twenty times; viz. at Belfast twice, at Caricfergus twice, Antrim twice, Holywood, Knock, Kirk-donold, Newton, Cumber, Killinchy, Donachadee, Tonochneer, Danmurry, Lisbon, Annahilt, Bangor, Carmony, Temple-Patrick, Ballyclare, Ballyraston, Dunnagor, upper Killade, lower Killade, Broad-Island, (which is within 11 miles.) In all 26 times.  
You may easily conceive that many places, or almost all in our Meeting which are towards the Centre, can have the Sacrament as often at least, and generally oftener than at Carn-castle.  
So that this Matter of Fact is true beyond all Exception, as I have asserted it, concerning the generality of their Meetings. And I am no way obliged to prove it, concerning every particular one in the remotest parts of the Province of Ulster.  
Again, whereas the Bishop had affirmed in his Discourse, That he could not compute that one in ten that go to their Meetings, ever Receive through the whole course of their Lives; and blames me for asserting the contrary, That there is not one in ten but do Communicate, except such as are withheld for want of competent knowledge, or on the account of Scandal, (or I might here add, through their own Scruples about their preparation for it) as if this were a great Reflection upon 'em; 
Admon. p. 154.  as if 19 in 20 were ignorant or scandalous. This will appear to be a very mistaken Account of this Matter, if we compare the number of Hearers in the two Meetings of Derry and Burt, with the number of Communicants. For their ordinary Hearers are about 2400. (Of which some part are supposed to be left at home every Lord's-day.) And yet in some of the Communions there since the Troubles, there have Communicated 984 Persons in one of those Meetings. So that we may compute about 1600 Communicants in both. Now tho' we allow a considerable deduction out of this number of Communicants, for the Strangers that may be supposed to have Received, yet the number of Communicants belonging to those two Congregations, compared with that part of their Hearers that are of Age to Receive, will sufficiently demonstrate that the Bishop's Computation, That not one in ten Receive, must be very wide from Truth.  
For the generality of the Dissenting Ministers administering this Sacrament far oftener than the generality of the Conforming Clergy, I did not, as the Bishop here groundlessly supposes, 
Admon. p. 151.  assert it concerning the Dissenting Ministers in the North of Ireland, but of those in England and the South of Ireland, (which make up the generality of 'em) concerning whom 'tis too apparently true to admit of being disputed.  
And for their pressing their People as much or more to it, if we may judge thereof by the success of their Exhortations, I think it past doubt, that take an equal number of Meetings and Parish-Churches, and according to the proportion of Hearers in the one and the other, the Communicants are far more Numerous in the Meetings than the Parish-Churches, even tho' the former are far more strict in their Admissions; and in the latter few are ever refused that desire to come. Of which, if the Bishop please, I shall produce him manifold Instances. And for what his Lordship affirms of their Sermons tending rather to deter poor weak Creatures from Receiving, than encourage 'em, by magnifying the difficulty and danger of the undertaking. I know no ground he has for this Assertion, unless it be, that they endeavour to deter all that are grossly ignorant or scandalous from profaning that Holy Institution; and dare not encourage any to approach to it, but such as in some measure understand the nature of it, and do not by a scandalous Life contradict those solemn Vows of Obedience which they there come to renew upon the memorial of a Crucified Saviour.  
As for this last Matter of Fact, in reference to this Head about a reputed Elder, (or as in his Errata he corrects it) Professor of thirty or forty years of Age that never Received, but disputes against it. Admon. p. 158. If the Bishop had pleased to name him, the truth of what he asserts might have been examined. But till we know who he is, we must let this matter lie undecided, unless we dispute in the dark.  
So that in the whole of this Debate which relates to the Sacrament, the mistake lies on the Bishop's side, even in reference to the North of Ireland; tho' he was obliged to make his Charge in his Discourse good concerning the Dissenters in general, without any such limitation.  
For the Bishop's being offended at my saying, That too many profligate sinners are admitted to the Communion in the Parish Churches, and his charging me on that account with being uncharitable and unjust, 
Admon. p. 156.  and challenging me to instance in some of his Diocese. I shall only reply, That I never yet met with any Person, before his Lordship, that doubted this Matter of Fact, and would not rather lament than dispute it. For 'tis no more than has been frequently owned by the best of their own Writers, and imputed to the present corruption or weakness of their Discipline. And tho' for naming particular instances I must beg the Bishop's pardon, yet I will allege what is equivalent to it. Does his Lordship think there are not profligate sinners in Military and Civil Employments in England? and yet the Sacrament-Test obliges 'em all to receive the Sacrament, and he knows they are not scrupled when they come. Nay, were not the common Soldiers since the Restoration in Dublin forced to receive, and driven to it by their Officers with Oaths and Curses, when nothing but the consciousness of their own wickedness deterred 'em? But as to this matter, I shall freely appeal to the common judgement of all sober Persons of his own Party, and fear not their Censure on this score; it being rather to be wished, for the honour of the Reformed Religion, that the evidence of this Truth were less notorious. Nay, to the judgement of the same Persons I would refer it, what ground there is for that Observation which the Bishop tells us some have made, That Enmity to the established Religion and Immoralities are gotten on one side in too many instances, of it be meant of the Dissenters. For besides that, the Dissenters have no Enmity at all to the established Religion, having Subscribed in England all the Doctrinal Articles of it: That the Members of their Communion, compared with those of the established Church are more generally guilty of Immoralities, is an Observation that I suppose will hardly pass current with any but such as have a faith to believe whatever their Interest or their Affection to a Party dictates to 'em.  
And since in reference to these Matters of Fact his Lordship requires me to produce my Vouchers, and charges me as writing upon none, or very partial Information, I shall so far comply with his Demand, as to produce the following Testimonial of the Truth of what I have said, in reference to the practice of the Dissenters in his Diocese, about whom our present Debate lies, from these three under-named Ministers in his Diocese, who have diligently examined these Matters of Fact, and whose Informations communicated to me, relating to 'em, were, together with these Papers, reviewed and approved by the whole Presbytery.  
WE the under-subscribers having perused these Papers of the Reverend Mr. Joseph Boyse, drawn up in Answer to that part of the Bishop of Derry's Admonition which concerns the practice of the Protestant Dissenters in this Diocese of Derry, do declare, Those Informations which we have given him relating to it, and to which he here refers, to be true; and hereby attest 'em as such to the World, in order to our just Vindication from the misrepresentation made of those Matters of Fact by the Bishop of Derry.  


Robert Craghead Minister of Derry.  
Andr. Ferguson Minister of Burt.  
Will. Homes Minister of Strabane.    
And for his Lordship's farther satisfaction, Whereas one of the most remarkable differences between his account and theirs, relates to the frequency of Celebrating the Lord's-Supper (his account supposing them guilty of very scandalous negligence) the Reverend Mr. Craghead has now in his hands, and is ready to produce whenever his Lordship desires it, particular Testimonials of this Account now given under the Hands of the Elders, and other Communicants of each Meeting. Nay, since the difference is most remarkable in reference to Derry itself, which he affirms has had the Sacrament but twice these seven years, whereas they assert it has been administered five times, (tho' for two of the seven years they had no Minister of their own;) and since the Bishop's Friends pretends to undeniable Evidence for the truth of this Matter of Fact, I shall (to shame, if possible, his Informers out of their Confidence) trouble the Reader with the following Certificate, as a Specimen of what shall be produced, if required, from the other Congregations.  
WE the under-named Subscribers having heard and read of several things charged on the People of the Presbyterian persuasion of this City and Suburbs, now under the Pastoral charge and care of the Reverend Mr. Robert Craghead, and formerly of the Reverend Mr. Robert Rule, for the honouring the great God who is a God of Truth; and in opposition to all those that have endeavoured to possess the minds of such as are Strangers to us, by speaking or writing contrary to Truth; We do hereby certify and give under our Hands, and are ready to make it farther appear, if need be, upon Oath, that from the time of our being under the charge and care of Mr. Robert Rule, as our Pastor, which commenced about the Year 1672. till the time of his being necessarily called to go for Scotland, which was A. D. 1688. we had the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper duly Administered by him once a year in his Congregation; excepting those wherein we were violently hindered by the severity of Persecution. And more particularly that the Reverend Mr. Robert Rule Administered that solemn Ordinance of the Lord's Supper to us in this place, in May 1687, and in April 1688. soon after which we were desolate of any fixed Minister, till it pleased the Lord our now Reverend Pastor, Mr. Craghead, was fixed among us in the year 1690; and he has since then Administered this Sacrament in this Congregation the 12th day of July 1691. On the 24th of July 1692. On the 14th day of May 1693. And on the 22d day of July 1694. The cause of our knowledge hereof is, that we were Members of this Congregation, and did then partake of that Ordinance. And we desire this may be compared with what is asserted in a Book, Entitled, An Admonition to the Dissenting Inhabitants of the Diocese of Derry, etc. p. 153. In Testimony of the Truth whereof we have hereunto set our Hands at London-Derry the 25th of September, 1694.  


Henry Long, Mayor.  
Alexander Lekey, Mayor Elect.  
James Wilson.  
Hugh Davey.  
Hugh Eadie.  
Edward Brooks.  
James Lenox.  
Horas Kennedy.  
Robert Harvey.  
Andrew Garven.  
Alexander Gourdon.  
John Cowan.  
Will. Mackie.  
John Harvey.    
And sure if the Bishop's Inquiries be so strangely unsuccessful in the very place where be resides, we may justly infer how little regard is due to those he made in other places. And upon the whole the unbiast Reader may judge, what ground his Lordship had to say, in reference to all these Matters of Fact, That concerning the Truth of what he had said, he need do no more than appeal to the Consciences of Dissenters. And that he must tell 'em, that what he wrote was from Sight, Experience, or certain Information; whereas he saith I had my Accounts of things only at second hand, and produce no Vouchers. Admon. p. 142. If he will stand to their Judgement to whose Consciences he has appealed, he may easily foresee his doom; for their Sight and Experience are quite contrary to his. And since he obliges me to produce Vouchers for what I have said, I hope he'll either yield this Point, or produce as credible ones as these.  
But before I dismiss this Head, it will be requisite to take some notice of those remarkable words wherewith the Bishop closes it, To conclude, (saith he) it were as easy to show, That Mr. B. is mistaken in every Matter of Fact, wherein he has charged me with falsehood, as in these; but the designed shortness of this Admonition will not give me leave to pursue 'em.  
Answ. I hope the Bishop will at length be convinced, That instead of vindicating his former Mistakes, he has only run into new ones, which are somewhat the less excusable, because he had so much time and leisure, as well as advice to correct 'em. And since most of them are very injurious to the good Name of his Brethren, common Justice should have obliged him, instead of Reprinting, to have Retracted 'em. But as he has had so little success in his endeavours to clear himself in the foregoing Particulars, so I something wonder that he should, with all this assurance, pretend that I have in all the other Instances groundlessly charged him with falsehood or mistakes. What! will his Lordship still go about to persuade us, 
Disc. p. 24.  That we have no other way of praising God, but by singing a verse or two of a Psalm? Or that the first Principle he ascribes to us about Prayer, is asserted in the Directory, when he himself tacitly corrects the mistake in this Second Edition of his Discourse? Or that he has truly represented the Judgement and Sense of the General Assembly in Scotland in their Directions concerning Family Worship? p. 44, 45, Will he still persuade us, That a considerable Body of Dissenters teach all Forms of Prayer to be unlawful, and affirm it sinful to join where any are used? p. 57 Or, that on the account of this Principle, the pious custom of Training up young People to a constant course of Devotion in their Morning and Evening secret Prayer, is too universally laid aside among the Dissenters; concerning the truth whereof, he confidently appeals to all of 'em? p. 64. Will he still affirm, That the Directory excludes all Bodily Worship? p. 128. Or, That the Dissenters in general do not stand up at their Thanksgivings, and generally sit at their Public Prayers? p. 129. And that they have not one visible Act of Adoration in their Assemblies, except the men's uncovering their Heads in Prayer? p. 130. Nay, will he still persist in it, That the Dissenters are taught ' that External Postures of Bodily Worship may in no case be practised? p. 137. That the Directory does not allow the People to signify their Consent by saying Amen to their Public Thanksgivings? p. 138. That as to Gestures, such as Kneeling, Standing, Bowing the Head, the Dissenters condemn 'em all as Relics of Idolatry and Superstition? That by turning all Bodily Worship out of their Assemblies, they are mere Spectators, not Joynt-worshippers? p. 138, 139. Or, That neglecting to kneel at the Sacrament has hardened them against all Reverence in other parts of Worship? p. 144. And to add no more, Will he still justify all as true concerning the Dissenters in general, which he has affirmed of 'em, without any distinction in reference to the Lord's Supper? p. 161, 162: Will the Bishop still think to persuade us that in all these Matters of Fact he has justly accused us, and we have no reason to complain of being Misrepresented and Abused? Does he think his bare word sufficient to bear down the Reputation of so considerable a Body of Protestants? Or would he have us silently bear the odium of so many grievous Reflections cast upon us, which we are sure of the injustice of, as we are that we know our own Opinions or Practices. His Lordship must therefore give us leave to be free with him on this occasion, and to demand once more, That he either make good his Charge against us in these Particulars, or honestly confess his being mistaken or misinformed about 'em. Which if he would once do, he will find us very ready, not only to forgive the wrong done us, but to entertain more favourable thoughts of his veracity and charity, than 'tis almost possible for us to do, while these mistakes in his Book and in his Admonition, stand unretracted.  
There are but Two things more which I think myself obliged to take notice of, before I come to consider the Exceptions he produces against some particular passages in the Remarks.  
The first is, That the Bishop tells me, I have nothing to do with him, and the Dissenters of his Diocese; and blames me for interposing myself without any Call or Reason, as well as Writing upon little or no Information. Admon. p. 158.  
To which I shall only offer a few Things in my own defence.  
1. I have already had occasion to show, That the Bishop's Discourse was in all just construction levelled against the Dissenters in general. Nay, he usually falls upon the Directory. which is a Book the generality of Dissenters have a great and just value for, (the Compilers of it having used great modesty and tenderness in its Composure, without following the imposing temper of those that required so peremptory a Declaration of Assent and Consent to all things contained in and prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer, and the Form of Ordaining Bishops, Priests and Deacons) So that since his Discourse is directed against what himself supposes to be the common Opinions and Practices of Dissenters, every Man among 'em had a just right to defend the Common Cause, and the Bishop has no just ground to complain of any one's interposing in it Nay,  
2. I had a very just Call to it; and that from the Dissenting Ministers of his own Diocese; who urged this Reason for it: That as the Bishop's Discourse might possess those that were strangers to the Dissenters, with ill apprehensions of 'em, if his Mistakes were not discovered; so few would read an Answer to it, if it came not out while the Matter was fresh in their minds; and they had less of leisure for such an undertaking at that time. And as I did not interpose without their desire, so neither did I write without particular Informations from 'em, to which I have exactly adhered, and from which I have yet seen no reason to recede.  
3. I had yet a more particular concern in the Bishop's Book; for tho' he would not vouchsafe an Answer to some former Papers of mine (showing the unreasonableness of his excluding us from the Catholic Church) yet he took the liberty to misrepresent the Principles laid down in 'em, and charged 'em as inconsistent with the Unity and Peace of the Church. So that I lay under a particular obligation to vindicate my Self, as well as under a common one to justify the common Opinions and Practices of Dissenters, which the Bishop had either misrepresented or argued against upon weak and insufficient grounds.  
The second the Bishop complains of, is, That I give him hard words, and speak hard things of him. Admon. p. 141, 142, 145, etc.  
Answ. I may, I think, in this Matter appeal to any equal Judges of things, Whether the Dissenters have not juster reason to complain of him, for saying so many hard and reproachful things of them without any just ground, than he to complain of me, only for telling him how greatly he has wronged us, and how little regard he has had to Truth in such a multitude of Particulars wherein he has unreasonably accused us. And indeed some of those Accusations tended so apparently to defame and render us odious, that it would have looked like a tacit confession of Gild, to have expressed no distaste at such disingenuous Treament. Nor do I understand that the Bishop had any great reason to expect the same deference to be paid to him, that would have been due to any other of his character, that had given any evidence of his Moderation and Charity. 'Tis true indeed, both his Discourse and Admonition (bating the many severe, but groundless Aspersions in 'em) have an air of mildness and temper in the style of 'em, and we often meet with friendly Appellations in 'em. But I take men's declared Opinions, and especially their Actions, to be a surer Indication of their Temper than the common Civilities that occur in their way of writing. Joab had very obliging Language towards Amasa in his mouth, Art thou in health my Brother? but he carried a sharp Tool in his hand, and he had no friendly design. We can lay little stress on any seeming expressions of a man's charity, who will not recall that virtual Sentence of Damnation he has publicly passed upon us, by denying us to be a part of the Catholic Church. We like not the gentle language of Writs the Excom. Cap. And we can perceive no extraordinary mildness and friendship in such Covenants inserted in Leases, as the following one: [And the said A. B. his Executors, etc. does by these Presents covenant to and with the said William Lord Bishop of Derry and his Successors, etc. for the time being, that neither he the said A. B. his Executors, etc. nor any of 'em, etc. shall or will Set, Let, or Demise the Premises, or any part thereof, to any Mass or Popish Priest, etc. or to any Minister or Teacher dissenting from the Church of Ireland. Neither shall wittingly or willingly suffer 'em to dwell or reside on any part, parcel or member thereof, but him or them shall endeavour to expel and keep from the same, so far as by the Laws of this Realm they shall be enabled.] So that if the Bishop have been reproved somewhat sharply for his unfair Dealing in this new Dispute, he has but furnished us with too just an Apology for it. And yet I know of no words given him so hard (how deserved soever) as those he has given the whole Body of Dissenters which have been wholly undeserved. And I am sure he will not find in the Remarks any such uncharitable Sentiments expressed concerning the established Church, as occur frequently in his Discourse concerning the Dissenters. And for what Touches himself only, he seems to have little reason of complaint, unless he can clear himself a little better in Matters of Fact than he has done in this Admonition.  
I come now to consider the Bishops few Exceptions against the Argumentative part of the Remarks.  
In his Entrance on which he alleges, That 'tis the design of the Remarks to hinder the Dissenters from joining with the established Church in their ordinary Lord's-Day Worship. 
Admon. p, 159.  Now I know no reason why his Lordship should pretend that to be my design, which I no where proposed as such: For all I professed to attempt was, the Vindication of our own worship from the weak charge of human Inventions, and the retorting his Arguments, where they were stronger against the Worship of the established Church than against ours. But if the Bishop here speak of occasional Communion with the established Church in her ordinary Lords-days Worship, 'tis strange that he should suppose it my design to hinder the Dissenters from it, when I expressly declare my own opinion for the lawfulness of it, Remarks p. 146. and urged him to express the same Charity towards us, which I perceive he cannot be so easily persuaded to.  
He farther premises, That it was incumbent on one that answered his Book, to justify our way of Worship, by showing that the manner of performing it, in the several parts of it, as distinguished from theirs, is warranted by Scripture Precept or Precedent, or by direct consequence from thence, etc. But (he saith) instead of undertaking this Task, Mr. B. argues against and condemns the Rule; whereas, as strict as it appears, he has justified all the particular ways of Worship in the established Church by it; and if I could have done the same for ours, I need not have declined it. Admon. p. 159, 160.  
Answ. If his Lordship had answered the Remarks, he would have had perhaps some pretence to have said this. But he has none now, when he himself is forced (as I shall show) to alter his own Rule, when I had so largely proved that our Worship, in most particular parts of it, was more agreeable to Scripture-Precept or Example than theirs; and also shown him that his Rule, as laid down by himself, would condemn all Churches in the World in which there were some circumstantial modes, and those very lawful, that neither express Scriptural Precept nor Pattern could be produced for, nor indeed could reasonably be expected. And therefore since the Bishop lays so great stress on this Matter, I shall carefully examine the Three Heads he suggests in reference to it.  
1. He saith, I give another Rule for the ordering God's Service.  
2. He saith, I endeavour to persuade the Dissenters that the greatest Exception they have against joining with the established Church is not matter of Worship.  
3. He saith, I allege that he has omitted to handle that part of Worship against which the Dissenters have the greatest Exception, and that because he could not defend it.  
1. He saith, I give another Rule for the ordering God's Service. And to that purpose he thus pretends to cite my own Expressions. As to his new Rule of Worship, you will find it in p. 7. in these words. Modes and Circumstances of Divine Worship,— tho' necessary in general by Divine Precept, yet are left in particular to be determined by Human Prudence. For tho' God has commanded Public Prayer, etc. yet what time or place we shall assemble in, in what order these parts of Worship shall be performed, etc. are left to Human Determination, only therein the general Rules of Scripture must be regarded. From whence his Lordship concludes, That 'tis my Rule or Principle. That all Modes of Worship whatever are left to Human Prudence, and particularly the determination of Time, Place, Order, Circumstances, Postures, and Utensils in all Cases. Against which he argues, That God has not only given us general Rules to praise him, pray to him, hear his Word, etc. but he has likewise given us many particular Rules and Examples concerning each of these, to which if we diligently attend, and mind the consequences of 'em, and apply 'em to the like cases, we may have sufficient Directions from Scripture to order our Worship, without having recourse to Human Prudence.  
Answ. If the Bishop please to review the Marks, he will find that he has plainly mistaken and misrepresented what they assert in reference to this matter, that he might have some pretence to find fault with it. For in the place he citys I am laying down no Rule at all, but only mentioning an improper sense of Human Inventions, as the Reader would have evidently perceived if the Bishop had not, by misciting my words, maimed 'em, and perverted the plain sense of 'em: For they run thus in the Remarks, p. 7. It remains only that I subjoin, in order to the clearing the state of this Controversy, That there is a very improper sense, in which this phrase of Human Inventions in the Worship of God may possibly be used, viz. To signify such Modes and Circumstances of Divine Worship, as tho' necessary in general by Divine Precept, yet are left in particular to be determined by Human Prudence, etc. Of which kind of Circumstantial Modes, I there produce several Instances relating to Time, Place, Orders, Utensils, etc. and would gladly know whether his Lordship can produce any particular Determination of 'em in Scripture for every particular Church, viz. What time of the Lord's-Day their Public Worship shall begin, what Place they shall assemble in, what Translation of the Bible they shall use; whether they shall begin with Prayer or Praise, or what Vessels they shall use in the Celebration of the Sacraments. But I do by no means suppose, That God has given no particular Directions at all in reference to the Modes of Worship, but the quite contrary; for 'tis one Instance I produce of Human Inventions. p. 55. That whereas every part of Worship enjoined by God as Prayer, Praise, etc. is capable of being performed in various Circumstantial Modes, if the Law of God expressly enjoin us any particular Mode, than to devise another of our own, exclusive of that which he has chosen and determined, is to bring in a sinful Human Invention into his Worship. As I instance there in Prayers in an unknown Tongue, Communicating without the Cup, Solitary Communions, etc. Such Modes then as God has determined by the particular Directions of his Word, I plainly exclude from the Determination of Human Prudence. Nay, so far am I from supposing that Human Prudence may Arbitrarily appoint any Modes of Worship that Men think fit, that I rank among sinful Inventions, p. 6. All such Rites and Ceremonies of men's own devising, as are no way warranted by any general Rules of Scripture, and yet made stated Appendages of any part of Divine Worship, and terms of Communion in it. All therefore that I assert is, That all those Circumstantial Modes of Worship, that are in general necessary by Divine Precept (because God's own Commands about his Worship cannot be executed without the determination of 'em) and yet are not in particular determined in Scripture, must be determined by Human Prudence; and that to call such Circumstantial Modes, when determined agreeable to the general Rules of Scripture, Human Inventions, is a very improper sense of the word, and to make 'em sinful, is a Principle fit only for the wildest Sectaries since it would condemn a great many prudential orders practised both by them and us, and indeed by all Churches in the World. And if the Bishop pretend to disprove this Assertion, he must produce us particular Precept or Pattern from Scripture, for his beginning Public Worship at nine or ten in the forenoon, rather than twelve, for his meeting at the Cathedral, rather than in another place; for his using the old Translation of the Psalms, and the new one of the rest of the Bible; for his using at the Sacrament Loaves rather than Cakes, and using one sort of Wine rather than another, and employing Pewter or Silver Vessels rather than Wooden or Golden ones. So that what I assert, is not only very innocent, and free from any such dangerous consequences as the Bishop suggests, but indeed too obvious and plain for any Man of sense to doubt of it; and his Lordship could never have begun any new Dispute about it, if he had not raised a mist by misunderstanding the sense of as clear Expressions as could well be used on this Subject. Since than he has so plainly mistaken in ascribing such a Rule to me as I no where laid down, but have so fully disclaimed, all the consequences he draws from it, either to his own Advantage, or our Prejudice, fall of course, and I am no way concerned in 'em as consequences drawn from any Opinion of mine: For 'tis plain, the Rules laid down in the Remarks do not justify all the Modes of Worship practised in the established Church, neither that way of singing the Prose Psalms that excludes the generality of the People, nor the Cathedral Music, nor the confining all Public Prayers to stinted Forms, nor reading the Apocryphas, nor bowing towards the East or Altar, or at the Name of Jesus, nor Reading one part of the Prayers where many of the People cannot hear 'em, nor the use of the Cross, or our sort of Sponsors in Baptism, nor so much as kneeling in the Act of Receiving. These and many more particular Modes are not defensible by any Rule I have laid down, tho' I have shown him that our own Practices are. Nay, no Rule I have laid down will defend all sort of holidays, nor any Determinations relating to Habits, Place or Utensils that are contrary to Edification, or to Order and Decency.  
But whereas the Bishop pretends, That 〈◊〉 those particular Rules and Directions he had produced from Scripture, 
Adm. p. 43, 44.  relating to the several parts of Worship, The Letter of Scripture is clearly on his side, and I have not opposed Scripture to Scripture, but have declined the literal sense in many cases without reason, and have preferred the determinations of Human Prudence in others, as being more for Edification than the Scripture Examples, and particularly in the singing of Psalms. I must needs on this occasion acquaint him, that I think the quite contrary to what he Asserts, will appear to any that impartially compare the Remarks and his Discourse together, at least I hope his Lordship does not expect we should take his peremptory Assertion for a proof of it: but since he supposes this Observation to be manifest in reference to that particular Mode of Praising God by singing of Psalms, I should add, that I think it not so ingenious in the Bishop to Assert this with such assurance, when I have in the Remarks taken such particular pains to show, That our ways of singing Psalms is most conformable to the only Precept in Scripture, that relates to the use of 'em in our Praises, 5 Eph. 19 3 Col. 16. to which he has yet vouchsafed no Answer. He has been told, That the Precept enjoins vocal singing, which bore saying 'em no way Answers, p. 13, 14. That since the Psalms of David were wrote in such sort of Metre and Verse as was then used, and since the knowledge of their Musical Tunes and Instruments is quite lost, to suppose us obliged to an exact imitation of 'em, were to suppose us obliged to impossibilities. That therefore the Command which obliges Christian Churches to sing Psalms, necessarily obliges us to turn 'em into such sort of Metre and Verse, as will best accommodate 'em to be sung by the People. Whereas to put 'em into no other Metre than the pointed Psalter in the Common-Prayer-Book, is to exclude the generality of the People from any capacity of complying with God's own Command for singing 'em. And as the Tunes of those pointed Psalms are quite different from Hebrew one's, so they are as much a Human Invention as the Tunes of the Common Metro-Versions, and therefore do set up that pointed Psalter in the Service-Book, whose Tunes the Body of the People cannot follow to the Exclusion of those Metre-Versions according to which they can join in singing Psalms, (as the Bishop seems to design) is in his language to set up an Human Invention to the violation of a Divine Command, by rendering the People's observance of it impracticable, p. 189, 190. And should not his Lordship in all equity and reason have attempted a clear refutation of this Argument, before he had ventured to say, That in this particular of singing Psalms, the Scripture is on his side, and that I prefer the determinations of Human Prudence before Scripture Examples; when I have so plainly shown him, That the Example or Pattern of Jewish singing is unimitable by us, because unknown to us, but that the Precepts of Scripture plainly obliges us to this way of singing, because 'tis most generally practicable among us. To what purpose is it to reason in these matters, if the Bishop think his bare Affirmation sufficient to weigh down all Arguments? And why does he call this Admon. p. 164. Our manner of singing Psalms, when 'tis theirs as well as ours; and tho' he has ventured to exclude it from being any substantial part of their Worship, and made it a mere Diversion, yet he has done it without any Authority or Commission from the established Church, by whom it seems allowed as a stated part of Worship.  
And as the Bishop has ascribed to me a Rule about Worship that I never laid down, so he stiffly pretends to adhere to his own, when yet what I had alleged against it, as unhappily worded by himself, has so far convinced him, that he found himself necessitated to enlarge it. He had before said, That all ways of Worship are displeasing to God that are not expressly contained in the Holy Scriptures, 
Disc. p. 3.  or warranted by Examples of Holy Men mentioned therein. He had used the phrase, ways of Worship, frequently to signify circumstantial Modes of it. I had told him, That if his words be taken in this strict sense, they contain such an Assertion, that if a man believed it, he would find it hard to join in any Assembly in the Christian World, and must renounce Communion with the Parish Churches. (For many circumstantial Modes of Worship are practised there, which are neither expressly contained in the Scriptures, nor warranted by any Examples of Holy Men that have used those particular circumstantial Modes, ex. gr. The singing Psalms as appointed in the Common-Prayer-Book, or in the Metre composed by Sternhold and Hopkins, the use of a stinted Liturgy in general, and particularly our English one, Reading the Apocrypha, bowing at the Name of Jesus, kneeling at the Sacrament, etc.) But his Lordship, instead of taking any notice of this objection against his Rule, very silently now extends it, 
Admon. p. 165.  only to make those things unlawful that are not contained in Scripture, or warranted by Example of Holy Men in it, or may not be deduced by clear consequence, or parity of Reason from them. Now 'tis evident that many things may be drawn by clear consequence and parity of reason from the Precepts of Scripture that are not expressly contained in 'em. And the same may be said of Scripture Examples. So that the Bishop has now really charged his Rule by this new comprehensive Addition to it, and as 'tis now laid down, 'tis much the same with what I have asserted, tho' I think not so clear. And now he will find, there's nothing in our Worship but what is easily justifiable by his own Rule in this just latitude: For our manner of singing itself, (which is the Instance he so often insists on) may be drawn by just consequence and by parity of reason, both from the Precepts and Examples of singing in the Holy Scriptures. For if we must sing Psalms, and that in a way most conducive to general Edification, we must use such Metre and Tunes as the People can join in: And if the Jews used such sort of Metre and Tunes as were most known and common among them, we may by parity of reason choose those that are most familiar to us. And now I hope the Bishop will, upon the review, see how little reason he had to except against this part of the Remarks, when they have really obliged him to reform and correct his own Rule, and bring it up to that I had laid down, tho' to conceal the matter, he has thought fit to misunderstand and pervert mine, or rather to coin a new one for me.  
2. The Bishop alleges, That I endeavour to persuade the Dissenters of his Diocese, that the greatest Exception against joining with the established Church, is not the matter of their Public ordinary Worship. On which he makes several Observations.  
Before I consider 'em, I must premise that 'tis true, I have told his Lordship that the Contest between the established Church and Dissenters, does not lie chief about their ordinary Lord's-Day Worship, but what occurs in other Offices, and chief about the corruptions and abuses of Discipline, and 'tis no more than has been frequently suggested by the most judicious N.C. Divines that have wrote on the Subject of our Differences. But why does he pretend that I dissuade any Dissenters from joining with the established Church (if he mean it concerning all occasional Communion with 'em) when I have so expressly declared my Judgement for it, and in vain urged him to the like declaration of his Charity towards us, and never pretend to allege our Differences in Reference to Worship or Discipline, as any Argument against such occasional Communion in their ordinary Lord's-Day Service. There is no reason then to pervert what I have offered to such an uncharitable purpose, so that his following Observations are founded on a mistaken supposition. And therefore I shall content myself with these short Remarks on 'em.  
1. I did then, and do still think it requisite to acquaint the Reader, that the Bishop had not in this Discourse so much as touched the Principal Matters in Difference between the established Church and the Dissenters, and particularly those to which this charge of Human Inventions does most properly belong. And whereas be now tells us, that if he writ about Discipline, we should be less pleased with his performance, 
Adm. p. 165, 166.  because he must look on the general Frame of our whole Constitution as a mere Human Creature, etc. I must so far agree with him. That if he treat that Subject in the same manner that he has done this about Worship, we shall certainly be less pleased with it, because all those faults that occur in the manner of handling this Subject, will be the more aggrevated if he repeat 'em on another.  
2. Whereas the Bishop pretends, I desire to shift ground, and thence presumes I apprehend some disadvantage in it. I do not find he has any reason for such a Triumph for my having avoided the consideration of any thing in his Book that carried the face of an Argument: Nor have I any need to multiply Matters of Controversy from any Answer that his Lordship has yet given to the Remarks. 
Admon. p. 46.  And whereas he saith, That I attempt not to justify their sitting at Prayers, nor their omitting to add their Amen to their Prayers, nor the manner and frequency of their Communion, nor their way of singing Psalms; I shall only add, That for sitting at Public Prayer, I was no more obliged to defend any particular persons in that posture that indulge it out of sloth, than he to defend the Toying or Laughing, that's too often used in their Churches: But his Lordship was obliged, either to defend his charging this upon our Opinion, as if we taught, That no postures of Reverence may be lawfully used; and condemned such as standing and kneeling as Relics of Idolatry; or else to retract so heinous Calumnies as these must be, if they are untrue and groundless. For adding Amen, I shall, if that will please the Bishop, concur with him that 'tis more agreeable to Scripture Pattern, that the People pronounce it more audibly; but I hope this omission signifies nothing to his Charge of Human Inventions. For the Matter of Celebrating the Lord's-Supper, if it refer to the posture, I hope the Bishop is convinced, that ours is more agreeable to Scripture Pattern. For the frequency of it, I hope he'll allow the generality of the Dissenters have much the advantage above the generality of the Parish Churches by communicating much oftener. And for what concerns the Practice of the Dissenters in his Diocese, it has been already considered in the Account of Matters of Fact, and I have there shown that their way of Administering it once a year, is equivalent to its being Administered thrice in the Parish Churches, as to the frequency of their Members Communicating. And for singing Psalms, I have already said enough to show him that our Practice needs no Reformation, but rather his unreasonable prejudices against this part of Divine Worship, common both to them and us.  
3. The Bishop need take no pains to prove, That my demands about the Reformation of the Discipline of the established Church, are not Arguments against all occasional Communion with 'em. For they were never propoed for that end; but then I must tell him, That where there are in a Kingdom two Parties, or Bodies of Protestants, in one of whom both the Worship and Discipline of Christ is more fully restored to its primitive simplicity and purity, in the other there are some defects and corruptions left in their Worship and Discipline almost entirely neglected or perverted and abused. I think every considerate Christian should prefer the stated Communion of that Party, in which necessary Reformation has made a happier progress, and those better Reform Churches, have no reason to subject themselves to those corruptions they have rejected. And moderate and wise men will separate from the Churches of neither Party, as if they were no true Churches, and no part of the Church Catholic, but will rather to show their regard to Truth, more statedly communicate with those on whose side it lies in the Matters in Difference, and yet to express their Charity, maintain occasional Communion with the other, so far as they can do it without Practising what themselves think unlawful.  
4. Whereas the Bishop is so much displeased with those Requests that I have offered to the Conforming Clergy, relating to those Practices wherein we chief desire some Reformation of their present Discipline, and thinks me very unreasonable in proposing 'em, and cannot see to what good purpose they can serve; I shall, to give him all the satisfaction I can, acquaint him with the true Reasons of my offering 'em.  
1. I take the Abuses, of which some Reformation is there requested, to be the chief Obstacles to that happy Union among us, which has been so long the earnest desire of all good men, and I hope I can most sincerely say my own. So that I think none who have that end in their Eye, can be reasonably blamed for humbly proposing to Public Consideration so proper and effectual means to attain it; from which I thought his Lordship's Discourse had some tendency to divert the minds of men by amusing 'em with a new Dispute of Human Inventions. And therefore I thought this a very suitable occasion to lay open the main grounds of our unhappy Differences, that if any charitable Persons should think of any attempts to compose them, they might by a true view of the Disease judge of the Remedy proper to heal it. And truly, till these Corruptions be reformed, I see as yet little reason to hope for any concord in our practice, tho' I would hope to see much greater in our mutual Affections.  
2. I take these to be abuses, which the generality of the most judicious and learned, as well as sober and charitable of the Conforming Clergy and Laity are sensible of, and would readily concur in their desires and endeavours to reform, if they had a fair opportunity for it, so that I did not believe these Requests would be any matter of just offence to them, nor do I yet find that they are. And for the offence of any that would perpetuate our Divisions, by keeping up those Corruptions that are the chief Engine of 'em, because they are serviceable to their Secular Interest, I think not myself much obliged to regard it. The Glory of God, and Concord of Christians are so much more valuable an Interest, that we may justly pursue it, tho' it should clash with the Humours, the Ambition or Avarice of Men, to which too many even of the Clergy, have too long Sacrificed the more precious Concernments both of the Church's Purity and Peace.  
There are two things indeed which the Bishop Accuses those Requests, of which I am concerned to consider,  
1. That some of 'em are founded on most unjust Representations of their Practices and Principles, which if truly Represented needs no Reformation, as may appear (saith he) from his adding to, 
Admon. p. 171.  and taking from our third and fourth Canons, p. 179. And may farther appear in the 2d, 3d, 4th, 7th, 8th, 11th, 12th, and 13th Requests. Now I have reviewed all these, and can see no such unjuct Representations in 'em. So that I think, his Lordship had been more just, if he had, either never advanced this Charge against me, or had taken the pains to prove it. Particularly, I cannot imagine, wherein I have added to these two Canons, in what I have cited of 'em, or why I must be said to take from 'em, because I only cite that part of 'em, which my Discourse there led me to take notice of.  
2. He is pleased to insinuate, That I give ill Language in those Requests; and to that purpose faith, That I expose the Kingdom and Protestant Inhabitants of it, as again, overspread with Swearing, Profanation of the Lord's-Day, Uncleanness, Pride, Luxury, etc. An Imputation (saith he) which I can by no means allow to be general; there being, I am persuaded by the goodness of God, a manifest abatement of these in this Diocese.  
Answ. I should be glad to hear of such an Abatement of these Sins in his Diocese, and doubt not if true, that the Dissenting Ministers have been no way negligent to contribute towards it. But if the Bishop deny the Truth of this Complaint, concerning the generality of the Protestants of this Kingdom, as 'tis there delivered, he sees with other eyes, than any sober Person I have yet conversed with. For Swearing and Profanation of the Lord's-Day, no good Man can converse in any part of the Kingdom, without being a sorrowful Ear and Eye-witness of it. Nor does there appear any considerable abatement of those other Crimes, from what was before, besides what the diminution of men's Estates have necessitated them to. So that I cannot imagine what ill Language it should be, to mention and lament the revival of these Vices, and request all Ministers to concur in their endeavours, to preserve or reclaim those under their care from 'em. And I fear that the generality of Protestants among us, need the loudest call we can give 'em to Repentance, instead of such an undeserved Commendation as tends to persuade 'em, there is not so great and general a necessity of it. The common guilt is too great and too deeply aggravated, to be either concealed or extenuated, and deserves a fuller Description and a severer Reproof than I had then occasion for.  
III. The third Allegation which the Bishop saith, I use to take off the force of his Book, is, That he hath omitted to handle that part of the Worship of the established Church, 
Admon. p. 54.  against which the Dissenters have the greatest Exception, and particularly what refers to Baptism.  
Answ. I felt no such force in his Book, as needed this new Dispute to take it off. But 'tis true enough, That the Debate about Human Inventions does more particularly concern Baptism, than the other parts of Worship his Lordship had insisted on.  
And therefore, since the Bishop has offered us something new on this Subject, I shall the more willingly address myself to the Examination of it, because the precedent part of the Admonition, has left the Argument between us almost wholly untouched, and contains little but such slight Cavils about it, as were in effect obviated in the Remarks themselves. And here  
I. The Bishop gives us the Reason why he omitted this part of Worship, viz.  
1." Because it was occasional, 
Admon. p. 172, 173.  not ordinary.  
1. Answ. But he knew that in a Discourse about the Inventions of Men in the Worship of God, it was proper to consider that part of Worship about which that Dispute chief lay.  
2. Because he found the Defects and Additions of our Directory so great in this Office, that they deserved a Discourse by themselves. 
Admon. p. 173, 174.  And accordingly he mentions these following Defects in the Directory.  
1. There is no express Covenant ordered in the Directory, to be made in the name of the Child Baptised, either by the Parent or any else, tho' there be no other way of engaging a Child that cannot Covenant for itself.  
2. There is no Profession of the Christian Faith required in the Directory from any Parent or Offerer of any Child.  
3. There is no solemn Recognition of the Vow of Baptism required from Persons Baptised in their Infancy, when they come to understand their Duty. As it is in Confirmation with us.  
4. The express words of the Covenant, are not prescribed out of the Word of God, but is left to the Discretion of every Minister, to impose what he will on the Baptised, etc.  
Answ. I know no great harm to the Cause of Dissenters, if we should own there are some Omissions in the Directory; especially when the Compilers, to avoid the rigorous and imposing humour, that had too long reigned in others, seem to have left many things to the discretion of particular Pastors, which they would not positively enjoin. And for these Defects which the Bishop has cited out of Mr. Baxter's Treatise of Infant Baptism, they are not so material as his Lordship seems to imagine, and are easily supplied by every Minister that thinks more express Professions requisite than are there positively enjoined.  
As to the first, The making of an Express Covenant in the name of the Child, if the Bishop mean by it, that the Parent should explicitly profess his Dedicating his Child to God, and bringing it thereby under a Solemn Obligation to the Duties of his Covenant, this is really included in that Profession he is required by the Directory to make of his desire to have it Baptised: and accordingly 'tis usual for the Ministers to propose the Question more fully to this purpose; Do you profess your desire of having this Child dedicated by Baptism to the Faith, Worship and Service of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? But if he mean that the Parent or Offerer of the Child should make such a Profession in the Child's name, as our Sponsors are ordered to do in the Common-Prayer-Book, 'tis so far from being a Defect in our Directory that it enjoins no such thing, that 'tis no small Blemish of the Office of Baptism in the Service-Book, that it requires such a Profession from 'em, as personating the Child they present. And that his Lordship may be assured Mr. Baxter intended no such Express Covenanting in the name of the Child as this is, I shall produce his own words (and the rather because I take them to carry great weight and force in 'em) in his N. Conformity stated, etc. he brings in the Lawyer ask, What is your fourth Objection against our way of Baptism? To which the Minister thus Answers: That in personating the Child, they say, that they (and so he by them) doth at present believe, renounce and desire, etc. falsely intimating that Infants are at present bound to do this by another. And yet the same Men plead that God doth not accept him for the Faith of his Parents, when as God requireth no Faith or Repentance of Infants, but only that they be the Seed of Penitent Believers devoted to Christ. And in the Catechism 'tis said, that (Repentance and Faith are required of Persons to be Baptised; and that Infants who cannot perform these, are Baptised because they promise 'em by their Sureties, which Promise when they come to Age, themselves are bound to perform.) Where note, that the former Common-Prayer-Book had [They perform 'em by their Sureties] They perceived that having said Faith and Repentance are requisite, Infants they saw must have at present what is requisite at present. And they knew that they had them not themselves, and so were fain to hold that the Sureties Faith and Repentance was theirs, and a performance of that required Condition. But the Makers of the new Book saw that this would not hold, and so they say," [Tho' Faith and Repentance be required of Persons to be Baptised, yet Infants are Baptised because they promise 'em by their Sureties to be hereafter performed,] amending the former Error by a greater or a double one: 1. Granting Faith and Repentance are pre-requisite, and yet confessing that Infants have neither of their own or Sureties for 'em, and yet are to be Baptised. 2. Or making a Promise Future Faith and Repentance to be Present Faith and Repentance. 3. Or tho' Faith and Repentance be requisite in those that are to be Baptised, yet God will at present justify and save all that have it not in Infancy, because they promise it hereafter. All plain Contradictions; as if they said, 'Tis requisite in Persons to be Baptised, and 'tis not requisite. L— How would you have 'em have answered these? M. Professed Faith and Repentance are requisite in adult Persons to be Baptised; and in Infants, that they be the Seed of the Faithful, devoted by them to God in Christ, according to his offered Covenant of Grace.  
Thus far that accurate Divine, from whom his Lordship may learn, That the modesty of the Compilers of the Directory, which made their Orders about this Matter, seem defective by leaving some Particulars to the prudence and liberty of particular Ministers, is far more excusable, than the assurance of those who impose in such solemn Professions, things so confused and inconsistent. If there be any defect in their Orders, 'tis easily supplied; but the mistakes of the Service-Book are remedilessly imposed on all that Administer this Ordinance according to it.  
For the second Defect, viz. That there is in the Directory no Profession of the Christian Faith required from the Parent or Offerer of any Child; I think there is such a virtual Profession required by the Directory, when it enjoins the Minister to require from the Parent, a solemn Promise to bring up his Child in the knowledge of the Grounds of the Christian Religion, and in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord. For this implys his owning himself the Christian Religion; besides that his being a known Professor of it, is presupposed to his children's Admission to that Ordinance. Nor does the Directory hinder the Minister from requiring a more express Profession from the Parent, of the Christian Faith, where it is doubtful whether he own it or no. And I am sure the Form of Baptism drawn up by the N. C. Divines at the Savoy-Conference, in their Proposals for Accommodation, does expressly require it; and I have observed it ordinarily required, at least in general terms.  
For the third and fourth Defects of the Directory, That there is no solemn Recognition of the Vow of Baptism required of Persons Baptised in Infancy, when they come to understand their Duty, as there is in the Confirmation practised in the established Church; and that the express words of the Covenant are not prescribed out of the Word of God. Tho' I take this to be an Omission, and therefore have both myself practised, and known many others practise that Confirmation recommended in the Reformed Liturgy, drawn up by the N. C. Divines at the Savoy-Conference, (according to which no Person Baptised is admitted to the Lord's Supper, till at years of discretion, not only understand the Baptismal Covenant, but with his own mouth, and with his own consent openly before the Church, ratify and confirm it, and promise his faithful observance of it to the end. In which Liturgy there is also an excellent Form of the Baptismal Covenant, drawn up as agreeable to the Scripture as any I have yet seen) yet I think this Omission of the Directory, far more excusable than what the Common-Prayer-Book imposes in reference to Confirmation, of which they have both made something too like a Sacrament, and also turned a very useful practice, and agreeable to the general Rules of Scripture into a Childish Formality, as I had occasion to show in the Remarks. 'Tis easier to supply such Defects, than to remove such unreasonable Impositions.  
I shall conclude this Head, with observing that the Bishop has, of all Men, the least reason to blame the Directory for these Defects: For unless he could produce express Scriptural Precepts or Pattern for these things, which he saith the Directory has omitted, (as I think no Man can do it) he must, according to his former Principles, censure 'em for Human Inventions, and rather commend the Directory for omitting them.  
For the Bishop's Charge against the Directory, for requiring Additional Conditions contrary to Scripture Precedents, of which he gives us only one Instance, viz. It's ordering that Baptism be not Administered in private Places, 
Admon. p. 174.  but in the place of Public Worship, and in the face of the Congregation. I suppose the Bishop will grant that it should ordinarily be Administered in Public; and if these words of the Directory were intended in the strictest sense they are capable of, I am sure the generality of Dissenters have receded from the rigour of this Rule.  
II. The Bishop comes to show that my Argument against the Cross is of no force.  
Of this he only gives us this short Account, Admon. p. 175. His great Objection against it is, That we make a new Human Sacrament, and then it must be a Human Invention. And upon this the Bishop proceeds to give us a new Account of his own concerning the Nature of a Sacrament, and endeavours to show that the Cross is not made a Sacrament by 'em, according to that Account. Now tho' I should have thought it fairer to have proposed the Argument in the same manner I had done, yet in order to the bringing this Debate to some issue, I shall do these two things.  
1. I shall set the Argument I had proposed against the Cross in Baptism, in its due light, by giving as distinct and clear an Account as I can, of the Nature of those Parts of Positive Worship which we call Sacraments, and applying it to the Subject in dispute.  
2. I shall show the insufficiency of the Bishop's Answer to this Argument.  
1. I shall set the Argument I had proposed against the Cross in Baptism in its due light, by giving a distinct and clear Account of the Nature of those Parts of Positive Worship which we call Sacraments, and applying it to the Subject in dispute:  
And this is the more necessary, not only because the uncertain signification of the word Sacrament has involved this Subject in great obscurity and confusion, but especially because the Account which the Bishop gives of it, (when he supposes us ill-instructed in it, and proposes to inform us better) seems to me not only indistinct, but also very lame and defective, omitting several considerable uses of Sacraments, which were the chief strength of this Argument against the Cross.  
There are two Ordinances of Positive Worship prescribed in the New Testament, viz. Baptism and the Lord's-Supper: There have been two Names invented and frequently used among Christian Writers, to signify the common nature of these two Institutions, that of Mysteries in the Greek Church, and that of Sacraments in the Latin, a word probably borrowed from the Military Oath which Soldiers took with certain Rites appointed for that end, and which was called the Military Sacrament. But 'tis the thing itself we are concerned to inquire into. Now if we can fix upon the true general Notion, wherein these two Ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's-Supper agree, we may thence easily infer what a Divine Sacrament is: For of that I am now speaking.  
And if we attentively consider this Matter, we may soon observe, that those two Ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper agree in this, that they are Foederal Rites, or Sacred Ceremonies instituted by God for Public Solemnising the Covenant between him and us. And on the other hand, in this they differ, that the former is the Sacred Rite, whereby that Covenant is first publicly Entered into; the latter is that whereby 'tis Renewed. And accordingly these Positive Institutions under the Gospel, succeed in the place of two parallel Ordinances, or foederal Rites under the Old Testament, viz. Circumcision and the Feasts upon Sacrifices. By the former the Israelites were initiated into that Covenant made with Abraham and his Seed: By the latter their League of Amity and Peace with God, was (upon the Atonement made by Sacrifices) renewed by these Feasts upon 'em. Of which more may occur anon.  
Now these Sacred Rites that are appointed by God, both in our first public Entrance into the Covenant, and our public Renewal of it at the Lord's Table, are designed for several uses, and principally for the three following.  
1. As representing signs for Instruction.  
2. As obliging signs to Confirm and Ratify the Covenant Entered into.  
3. As distinguishing Signs or Badges of our Profession, and the Relations we thereby are invested in.  
All these uses of 'em must be carefully and distinctly considered.  
1. These Sacred Rites are used in these two Ordinances, as Representing Signs for Instruction. (The infinitely wise God condescending herein to our infirmity and weakness.)  
Thus washing with Water, which is the Rite appointed in Baptism, is by its resemblance instructive to us, both concerning the Privileges and Duties of the Covenant we enter into.  
Concerning the Privileges, Thus 'tis designed to represent our Natural pollution and defilement, and the necessity of the Regenerating and Purifying Virtue of the Holy Spirit. And hence we are said to be born of Water and the Holy Spirit, 
3 John 5.  i. e. form to a new and divine Life by that sanctifying efficacy of the Holy Spirit, which is compared to the purifying Virtue of Water. And elsewhere in allusion to this Baptismal Rite, we are said to be Saved by the Laver of Regeneration, and the Renewing of the Holy Ghost, 3 Tit. 5.  
Nay, this Rite seems also designed to instruct us concerning our Gild, as well as Pollution, and of the necessity of our being Cleansed from it by the Laver of our Mediatour's Blood. For the most judicious Expositors understand those words of Ananias concerning the Remission of Sins, when he saith to Saul upon his Conversion, Arise and be Baptised, and wash away thy Sins, (or be thou washed from thy Sins, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) calling on the Name of the Lord Jesus, 22 Acts 16. And accordingly such a cleansing virtue is ascribed to the Redeemer's blood, and that Expression of his Washing us from our Sins, in it, seems to carry an Allusion to this Sacred Baptismal Rite. See 1 John 1.7. 1 Rev. 5.  
The same Sacred Rite is designed to represent our Duty to us, viz. To renounce the Defilements of Sin and of the World, and to consecrate ourselves to a Life of Holiness, as Christ's purified peculiar People. And this use of it the Bishop omits in his Account. To this Rite those Expressions seem to refer, Such were some of you, but ye are washed, ye are sanctified, 1 Cor. 6.11. And thus the Apostle supposes in our Baptism, that there is a Resemblance of our Dying with Christ, and our Rising with him, that should instruct us in our Duty, to Die to Sin, and Live to Righteousness, 6 Rom. 3, 4, 5. 2 Col. 12. For our Dying to Sin and Walking in newness of Life, is not signified in Baptism as the Benefit conferred by God, as the Bishop seems to suppose, but rather as the Duty required from us, tho' the renewing and purifying efficacy of the Holy Spirit, whereby we are enabled to do so, is signified as a Benefit which we receive from God.  
The same I might observe concerning that other Institution of the Lord's Supper, in whose Sacred Rites there is not only a Commemorative Representation of the Death of Christ, but also an Instructive Representation of our Spiritual Communion with him in his Body and Blood, (viz. in the precious Fruits of his Sacrifice,) and of those Duties or Exercises of our Faith and Devotion to him, by which we are said to Eat his Flesh and Drink his Blood, 6 John 53, 54.  
I might observe the same concerning those two parallel Institutions under the Old Testament, Circumcision and Religious Feasts upon Sacrifices. But this use of Sacraments being so obvious, I shall not insist any farther upon it, but only add, That tho' I suppose all Sacramental Signs to be Representing one's, and to carry such an Instructive Resemblance and Allusion, yet I do not suppose all barely instructive Signs to be Sacramental or Foederal one's. For there seems to be more requisite to such  
2. The Sacred Rites in Baptism and the Lord's Supper are intended also as obliging Signs to Confirm and Ratify that Covenant that is then Entered into or Renewed between God and us.  
'Tis evidently so in Baptism; for the Sacred Rite there used is both,  
1. An obliging Sign on God's part; whereby he confirms and ratifies the Promises of his Covenant to all that are interessed therein, even that grand comprehensive Promise of being the God of the Faithful, and of their Seed, and particularly that eminent Promise of the Remission of Sins. See 17 Gen. 7, 11. and compare it with 2 Acts 38, 39 Repent and be Baptised every one of you for the Remission of Sins, and ye shall receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost; for the Promise is to you and your Children, etc. And our being Baptised into the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, implys his engagement to be a reconciled Father, Redeemer and Sanctifier, to all that sincerely devote themselves to him.  
So in that other Foederal Rite of the Lord's Supper, 
22 Luke 20.  'tis said of the Cup, That 'tis the New Testament in the Blood of Christ, i. e. This Sacred Memorial of his Blood is like an Authentic Seal set to the New Testament, wherein so many precious Legacies are conveyed to us as the Fruits of his Death and Sacrifice.  
And the same may also be observed concerning Circumcision, both in the place forequoted 17 Gen. 7, 11— and in its being called by the Apostle Paul the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, (viz. of that right to impunity and life, which Abraham was as a Believer entitled to through the Merits of that Redeemer, who was his promised Seed) 4 Rom. 11.  
So in their Religious Feasts upon Sacrifices, God's admitting the Offerers or Guests to his Table, was a solemn Ratification of the League of Amity and Peace renewed between 'em, through the virtue of that future atoning Sacrifice of Christ, of which the Legal ones were only Types and Figures.  
2. This Sacred Rite of washing with Water in Baptism, is no less an obliging Sign from us to God, whereby we bind ourselves to the Duties of his Covenant.  
Now this important use of a Sacrament, the Bishop not only omits in his Description of it, but plainly Denies that it belongs to its nature. For Admon. p. 180. he asserts it to me a Mistake concerning Sacraments, to suppose. That they are Signs from us to God; whereas he affirms 'em to be wholly (for only) Signs from God to us: I confess this seems very surprising, because if this be a Mistake, 'tis such a Mistake as he himself has run into in his Discourse: For there p. 4. he gives this reason, Why the Celebration of the Sacraments is a part of Outward Worship, viz. because in them we not only express our dependence on God for his grace, but likewise oblige and bind ourselves to serve him. Now how this can be true, without making the Sacramental Rite a Sign from us to God, of that obligation to his Service, I cannot comprehend. So that his Lordship seems to me in this Particular inconsistent with himself, and speaks more accurately of these Matters, where his Partiality to his Cause does not misled his Judgement. But since he now asserts this to be a Mistake, and demands some place of Scripture to prove this Notion, of a Sacraments being a Sign from us to God, (See Admon. p. 180.) I shall endeavour herein to give him all reasonable satisfaction.  
And this Account of Sacraments I shall particularly prove, in reference to Baptism, which is the Sacrament in dispute.  
That Baptism is a Sign from us to God of our Obligation to the Duties of his Covenant, as well as a Sign from God to us of the Truth of his Promises, is evident from the Apostle Peter's excellent Description of that Internal and Saving Baptism which the External Washing is the Sign of, viz. 
1 Pet. 3.25.  That 'tis not the putting away the filth of the Flesh, (i. e. Baptism is not merely or principally that) but the Answer of a good Conscience towards God. Which words manifestly allude to the Covenant-Transaction that passes between the great God and the Adult Person baptised, (for of such the Apostle here speaks) and to the Questions that were to that end proposed to such as received this Seal of God's Covenant. They were asked, If they believed in the Lord Jesus with all their heart? (See 8 Acts 37.) or, as some ancient Christian Writers propose the Question, If they recounced the Devil and his Angels, the World and its Pomp's? If they believed in, If they devoted themselves to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? etc. And their sincere Profession and Promise of doing so, which in Baptism they ratified by this External Rite of Washing with Water, is that which the Apostle here calls the Answer of a good Conscience towards God. So that the Apostle was so far from supposing that Baptism was not a Sign from us to God, that he rather defines it by this part of its end and use, viz. To be a Solemn Rite whereby we profess to engage our Hearts to the Duties of his Covenant. And indeed since Baptism is the Solemnising a mutual Covenant between the Blessed God on the one part, and ourselves or our Seed on the other, it is first a Sign from us to God, of our Consent to the proposed Terms of his Covenant, before it can be a Sign from him to us, of our or our children's interest in those Benefits of his Covenant that presuppose our consent as the Condition thereof. 'Tis the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins, 1 Mark 4. and is therefore first a Sign of our Repentance towards God, before it can be a Sign from him of the Remission of Sins. And so 'tis proposed by the Apostle Peter at the first time we read of its Administration to his Adult Converts, 2 Acts 38, 39 Repent and be Baptised every one of you in the Name of Christ for the Remission of Sins, for the Promise is unto you and your Children. Where they were by Baptism first to profess their Repentance towards God, and Faith in our Lord Jesus, and then receive the promised Benefit, Remission of Sins. Nay, Christ's own Command to his Apostles, first, to Disciple or Proselyte all Nations, and then to Baptise 'em, plainly implys that one great use of Baptism was to be a solemn Bond upon 'em, to the Duties of that Christian Profession they had embraced, and the Baptising 'em in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, has been always supposed to imply a Solemn Dedication of 'em by this Sacred Rite to the Faith, Worship, and Service of that Blessed Trinity, into whose Name they are Baptised. There is in that Institution a Seal set to the Covenant of God on our part, as well as on his: To which 'tis not improbable that those words of the Apostle Paul refer, 2 Tim. 2.19.— Nevertheless the Foundation (or as some reader the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Tabula contractus, the Covenant) of God stands sure, having this Seal (on God's part) The Lord knows them that are his; and (this Seal on our part) Let him that names the Name of Christ depart from iniquity. As the Covenant is mutual, so the External Rite is intended to ratify our Restipulation as well as God's Promise, and accordingly our breach of the Baptismal Covenant by Apostasy or Infidelity is Perjury, and therefore so often in the Scripture Language represented by the breach of the Conjugal Vow, that the Adulteress is guilty of. And this Notion of Baptism as an obliging Sign from God to us, is the more unreasonably denied by the Bishop, if we consider, that 'tis this very use of Baptism, that chief occasioned the Name of a Sacrament being given to it, because Baptism was reckoned (like the Military Oath of the Roman Soldiers) as a solemn Listing the Person Baptised into the Service and Warfare of Christ against the World, the Flesh, and the Devil. So that the Bishop has excluded that from the nature and notion of a Sacrament, which was the chief, if not the only ground, of this Rite of the Christian Religion being called one.  
And it were as easy to show the same concerning the other Institutions that are called Sacraments. Thus as Circumcision was a Token of the Covenant between God and Abraham and his Seed in their Generations; so 'twas an obliging Sign on their part, as well as on God's part. It obliged them to receive and obey the Revelations of the Divine Will to 'em. And hence, after the delivery of the Law of Moses, Circumcision was an External Bond on those that received it to observe that Law; as the Apostle Paul plainly intimates to us, 5 Gal. 3.— He that was Circumcised made himself a Debtor to the Law to do it; i. e. brought himself under a solemn Tie thereto by this External Rite.  
That the Feasts upon Sacrifices under the Law were Foederal Rites (in allusion to the general Custom of those Eastern Nations, to Confirm mutual Covenants by Eating and Drinking together; See 26 Gen. 30, 31.31 Gen. 44, 45, 46. 9 Jos. 14.41 Psal. 9.5 Lam. 6. Obad. 7. v.) is so largely proved by the Learned Dr. Cudworth in his excellent Treatise on the Lord's Supper and Feast upon a Sacrifice, that I shall refer the Reader to it for fuller satisfaction. And that one passage in the 50 Psalms v. 5. is sufficient to put it out of doubt; Gather my Saints together, those that have made a Covenant with me by Sacrifice. Now the Covenant was made and celebrated, not merely by Offering it up, but chief by their Religious Feast upon it.  
And as the Lord's Supper succeeds in the place and stead of those Jewish Feasts upon Sacrifices, so 'tis evidently designed as such a Foederal Rite, whereby we renew our League of Peace with God, upon the Memorials of the Atoning Sacrifice of his own Son by our renewed Consent to the Terms of his Covenant: And hence the Apostle Paul warns his Corinthian Converts against the Idolatrous Practice of Feasting in the Temples of the Heathen Idols, as inconsistent with the Obligations which their Feasting at the Lord's Table had laid upon 'em to be the Worshippers of the only true God, who was too jealous of his own Honour to admit of any Rival in it. See 1 Cor. 10 ch. from the fourteenth to the twenty third verse.  
3. These Foederal Rites of Baptism and the Lord's Supper must be considered as intended also to be distinguishing Signs of our Christian Profession, and the Relations which we are thereby invested in.  
Thus our Baptism is the honourable Badge of our Discipleship, whereby we are discriminated from the Infidel World. We do hereby put on the Livery of Christ, (as those words of the Apostle Paul imply,— 3 Gal. 27. For a many of you as have been Baptised into Christ, have put on Christ) And therefore he adds, they were no more to be distinguished into Jew or Greek, etc. but all were one in Christ Jesus. This one Livery was to be the common Sign of their belonging to him as their one Lord and Master. And accordingly, our partaking of one External Baptism, is made a Mark and Character of those that belonged to that one visible Body, or Church of which Christ is the Lord and Head, as our partaking of one Internal Baptism is the certain Mark of our belonging to the one invisible Church, or mystical Body of Christ. See 1 Eph. 4, 5, 6. To the same purpose we read elsewhere, that we are by one Spirit baptised into one Body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free, and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. The latter words, of being made to drink into one Spirit, according to the general consent of the best Expositors, refer to the Lord's Supper, as the former do to Baptism. And the words plainly imply, that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are the Symbol and the Bond of our External Communion, as Members of the visible Church, as by partaking of the sanctifying Operations of the same Holy Spirit, we become Members of one mystical Body of Christ. So that by our Baptism we are incorporated into the Christian Community, and thereby discriminated in our right to its External Privileges from them that are without, who are yet Aliens and Foreigners. And so by the Lord's Supper we are, as partakers of Christ's Holy Table, distinguished from them that partake of the Table of Devils, and are in fellowship (or Communion) with them— 1 Cor. 10.20, 21.  
Thus was Circumcision the discriminating Mark of these that embraced the Faith of Abraham, from such as were Aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, and Strangers to the Covenants of Promise. Circumcised and Uncircumcised was equivalent to one that did, or did not own the Jewish Religion.  
Having thus far cleared the general Nature and Uses of these two Institutions in the Christian Religion which we call Sacraments, (for all the particular uses of each of 'em, I am not now concerned to consider) I come to apply this Account to the Matter in Debate.  
And accordingly, 'tis obvious to any that shall consider the foregoing Account, that there is one Use of these Foederal or Sacramental Rites that does necessarily presuppose Divine Institution, viz. Their being obliging signs on God's part to ratify his Promises. For it were too absurd for any to imagine that God will oblige himself by signs he never appointed for that end. And therefore the Papists themselves pretend their new Sacraments to be Divine ones, by feigning God's Institution for 'em.  
When therefore I speak of a Human Sacrament, I mean no more by it, than an External Rite set up by mere Human Authority, without any pretence of Divine Institution, for several Sacramental Uses, such as conconstitute it as truly a part of Religious Worship as Baptism and the Lord's Supper are. So that it wants nothing but God's Instituting it to be a Seal to his part of the Covenant, as Men have made it a Seal to their part, to render it as proper a Sacrament as either of the two former. And 'tis only in this sense that I suppose the Cross to be made a Human Sacrament by the established Church. 'Tis made by 'em a Sacrament, as far as Men can make one of a Religious Rite that they can pretend no Divine Authority for. And this is sufficient to prove it a sinful Human Invention, as I shall now show, in prosecuting the Particulars here suggested.  
I. The Cross is set up for several Sacramental Uses, even the like Uses as Baptism and the Lord's Supper are appointed for.  
For according to the foregoing Account of these Foederal or Sacramental Rites,  
1. 'Tis set up as a Representing or Instructive sign. And that both in the Duties and the Benefits of the New Covenant.  
'Tis set up as Instructive in the Duties of it. And this the Bishop grants when he owns, (Admon. p. 178.) That the Cross is used to signify the Return we ought to make to God, for the Benefits received in Baptism. And indeed the words of the Service-Book put this out of doubt: We sign this Child, etc. in token that he shall not be ashamed to Confess the Faith of Christ crucified, etc.  
'Tis set up as Instructive in the Benefits of the New Covenant. This indeed the Bishop denys in the place last quoted; and tells us, The Cross is not used by 'em to signify any Grace or Benefit communicated from God. But I think there is just ground to conclude the contrary from the Reason which the Convocation alleges for Retaining the use of the Sign of the Cross, viz. That the Holy Ghost by the Mouth of the Apostles did honour the name of the Cross so far, that under it he comprehended not only Christ crucified, but the force, effect and merit of his Death and Passion, with all the comforts, fruits and promises we receive or expect thereby. See the Thirtieth Canon of the Church of England. Now I would gladly know what this Reason can signify to vindicate their retaining the use of the Cross, unless they supposed it a fit external Sign to signify the same things which the Holy Ghost had honoured the Name of the Cross to signify. And this Inference seems the more just, from the account they give of this Ceremony of Crossing, as practised by the Primitive Christians, viz. That they signed their Children with the Sign of the Cross when they were Christened, to dedicate 'em by that Badge to his Service, whose Benefits bestowed on 'em in Baptism, the name of the Cross did represent. And consequently, the Sign of it is designed to represent too.  
But,  
2. Which is more considerable, The Cross is made by the established Church an obliging and ratifying sign on our part, to bind us to the Duties of God's Covenant, even to the same which Baptism is appointed to oblige us to, viz. To confess boldly the Faith of Christ crucified, To fight manfully under his Banner against the Flesh, the World, and the Devil, and to continue Christ's faithful Soldiers and Servants to our lives end. And I may still renew the Question proposed in the Remarks, What more peculiar Duties of the New Covenant could Baptism oblige us to? And to put the matter, if possible, out of doubt, the Infant is expressly said in the Canon to be by this Badge dedicated to the Service of Christ. 
See Coll. of Cases, 2d Edit p. 377, 378.  I know indeed the ingenious Author of the Case relating to the Cross in Baptism, distinguishes here between and immediate and proper, and an improper and declarative Dedication, and accordingly would persuade us that the Convocation only designed the latter; partly, because they refer to the words used in the Service Book when the Child is crossed, partly because they suppose the Child dedicated by Baptism before, and suppose Baptism complete without the sign of the Cross.  
But I see not that either of these Reasons warrant us to take the words of the Convocation in so very strained and improper a sense as this is, viz. That when they affirm the Cross to be a lawful outward Ceremony, and honourable Badge whereby the Infant is dedicated to the Service of him that died on the Cross, they should mean no more than that 'tis a lawful outward Ceremony and honourable Badge, to declare that the Infant has been dedicated to Christ by another outward Ceremony and honourable Badge before. For 'tis evident that the words used when the Child is signed with the sign of the Cross, do as fully and directly express a proper immediate Dedication, as the words used when 'tis Baptised, and therefore we have no reason from them to apply so unusual and odd a sense to the words of the Canon, and the Convocations supposing Baptism complete without the sign of the Cross; does no way Argue that they designed not a proper renewed Dedication by the Cross; for tho' we are dedicated by Baptism, yet we properly renew that Dedication as oft as we attend the Lord's Table. And the Romish Church does in, their Ritual, 
See Rit. Rom. Paris 1635. p. 7.  suppose no more necessary by Divine Right to this Sacrament than we do, and speak of their Ceremonies as only pertaining to the Solemnity of that Sacrament, yet they use several other Rites for proper immediate Dedication, besides that of washing with water  
3. The Cross is made a distinguishing sign of our Christian Profession, and the Relations we are thereby invested in.  
For this evidently follows from its being made the Honourable Badge of our Dedication to the Service of a crucified Saviour. So that by being crossed, we do truly (according to the established Church) wear the Livery of Christ, as by being Baptised. And this former Paternal sign is as effectually made the common Symbol and Tessera of our Discipleship, the mark of our belonging to him as our Lord and Master, as the latter can be.  
II. Now from hence I farther infer, That the Cross is made as much a Sacrament as Men can make any sign of their own, for which they can produce no Divine Institution. 'Tis set up for most of the same uses as Baptism, nay for such uses as do constitute it a proper part of positive Worship, that has no stamp of Divine Authority, and consequently 'tis made a sinful Human Invention. For if (as the Bishop himself supposes) all ways of Worship are displeasing to God, that are not expressly contained in the Holy Scriptures, nor warranted by the Examples of Holy Man therein, or (as he now adds) that cannot be by parity of Reason deduced thence; much more are all parts of Worship truly displeasing to him, (and such as our Saviour justly censures for vain Worship) that are no way Instituted. And yet, that all those Rites in Religious Worship, whereby we oblige and bind ourselves to serve God, or (which is the same) Dedicate ourselves to his Service, are a proper part of Positive Worship, is evident from the Bishop's own confession, who (p. 4. of his Discourse) does therefore make the Sacraments to be a part of outward Worship, not only on the account of our expressing therein, our dependence on the grace of God, but likewise on the account of obliging and binding ourselves by 'em to serve him. And doubtless, it does as properly belong to God alone to appoint the Religious Rites whereby we bind ourselves to his Service, as to the Supreme Magistrate to appoint the Ceremonies used in our taking the Oath of Fidelity and Allegiance. Nay it belongs to him alone to appoint the Honourable Badge of our Discipleship, who receives us into his Holy Covenant; and no inferior Pastors are any more authorised to superadd any other Rite for this use, to that he has Instituted already, than the Servant of any great Prince is warranted of his own Head to prescribe to his Fellow-servants the wearing of a new Livery, as an Honourable Badge of their belonging to such a Master, besides that which he has appointed of his own choosing. To set up External Rites for such Sacramental uses as these, viz. not only to instruct us in the Privileges and Duties of the New Covenant, but to oblige and bind us to 'em, and to be the Honourable Badge of our Christian Profession, when God has already instituted other Rites for these very ends, is a piece of Presumption we dare not be guilty of: 'Tis an offering him a part of Worship which has no stamp of his Authority, which therefore we have no reason to hope he will accept; nay, which there is no shadow of Reason for, if his own Foederal Rites be sufficient for all the ends they are appointed for.  
Having thus stared my Argument, I come  
II. To show the insufficiency of the Bishop's Answer to this Argument.  
All that I can find, he has directly replied to my Argument, is only this; That the whole force of it seems to proceed from two Mistakes concerning the nature of Sacraments: First, As if they were signs from us to God, and not wholly from God to us. Secondly, As if we were to learn the true Nature of Sacraments from the Schools and partial Definitions of interessed Disputants, and not from the Holy Scriptures Hence, saith the Bishop, he has not given us one place of Scripture, to prove his imperfect Account of a Sacrament.  
As to this Answer to the Argument, I need do no more for the Refutation of it, than refer the Reader to the foregoing Account of a Sacrament, wherein I fully proved concerning Sacraments in general, and particularly that of Baptism, that they are as truly and properly signs from us to God, as from God to us; nay, that they cannot be the latter without being the former. And this I have proved, not from the Dictates of the Schools, but from the Oracles of God; having quoted no other Human Authority but his own, and I hope he will not reckon himself one of those Partial and Interessed Disputants he speaks of. So that 'tis not the force of my Argument, but of his Answer, that proceeds from a Mistake.  
But I suppose his Lordship may lay more stress upon his Account of a Sacrament, and his Application of it to vindicate the Cross, which therefore I shall also briefly consider.  
To this purpose he acquaints us, There are Three things necessary to make up a Sacrament.  
First, An outward visible sign instituted by God, signifying some Spiritual Grace we expect from him.  
Secondly, An Obligation on God by some Promise of his to grant us that Spiritual Grace or Benefit whenever we duly use the visible Sign.  
Thirdly, Our use of this visible Sign, without which we are not to expect the Spiritual Benefit if we wilfully neglect it.  
Accordingly the Bishop thinks me obliged to prove that These things concur in the Cross in Baptism, viz That the established Church teaches that the Cross is instituted by God to signify some Spiritual Grace we expect from him, and that he has obliged himself by Promise to grant us that Spiritual Grace upon the use of the Cross, and will deprive us thereof if we neglect it.  
Now to show the insufficiency and weakness of this Answer, I need only suggest these two things.  
I. The Bishop has in this Account of Sacraments omitted several of those uses and ends for which they were appointed, and particularly those from whence the force of this Argument is derived. For he neither considers their being made representing signs to instruct us in the duties of the New Covenant, nor (which should have been chief observed) their being obliging signs to bind us to 'em, nor their being distinguishing badges of our Profession and Communion. And yet these are very important uses of those Foederal Rites of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and such as chief occasioned their being called Sacraments.  
2. He expects I should prove that which my Argument no way obliges me to, viz. That the established Church teaches, that God has obliged himself by Promise to grant us some Spiritual Benefit upon our use of the sign of the Cross, and will deny that Benefit to all that neglect that sign. Now tho' he might justly have expected me to prove this, if I had said, That the established Church feigns the Cross to be a Sacrament of God's appointment, and uses it as such; yet 'tis evident from the foregoing Account, that 'tis unreasonable to expect it in what I call a Human Sacrament. For when I suppose it made a Human Sacrament, I intent no more, then that 'tis made a Sacrament as far as Men can make one of a Religious Rite of their own. Now they may make it a sacred Foederal Rite to oblige and bind themselves to God's service; tho' 'tis absurd to expect they should make it a Rite to oblige God to confer his Benefits. And their setting it up to this former Sacramental use (as well as other uses aforementioned) is sufficient, as I have shown him from his own Principles, to make it a sinful Human Invention, as every part of Worship is that has no stamp of Divine Authority. So that I can easily allow the Bishop, without any prejudice to my Argument, That to be a Seal of God's part of the Covenant, is so necessary to a true and Divine Sacrament, that what wants that, is but the lifeless Image of one. But Men may presumptuously appoint Rites of their own to so many Sacramental uses as shall as truly render 'em Parts of Divine Worship as Divine Sacraments are, tho' they do not suppose God obliged to confer his Benefits on all that use them. And by doing so, they set up such vain Worship as our Saviour condemns, as only taught by the Precepts of Men, 15 Matth. 8, 9 compared with 29 Isai. 13. So that the Bishop here only cavils at the name of Human Sacraments, while he overlooks the plain force and stress of the Argument, which depends not on the Name at all, but on the Uses, for which the Cross is appointed. And I have showed 'tis appointed for all but that one that necessarily supposes Divine Institution.  
But because the Bishop now pretends to a Divine Warrant for the use of the Cross to those purposes for which he supposes it appointed by the established Church, 'tis requisite I should consider what he has offered on that Head.  
II. The Bishop undertakes to show, That the use of the Cross in Baptism is warranted by Scripture.  
His Argument to prove this is drawn out to a considerable length, from p. 181. to p. 187. And that I may not wrong him in contracting it, I shall take this method in what I shall offer against it.  
First, I shall show, That the Bishop's Argument does not reach the main use of the Cross, which he was concerned to defend.  
Secondly, I shall show that the fame Argument will justify many other Rites added by the Romish Church to Baptism, and other parts of Worship, which they have rejected as well as we.  
Thirdly, I shall consider the distinct Propositions the Bishop has laid down, and show where I judge the Argument in 'em to be weak and unconcluding.  
First, I shall show that the Bishop's Argument does not reach the main use the Cross which he was concerned to defend.  
For he was chief obliged to defend the Cross' being made a Dedicating sign, whereby we bind ourselves to the service of Christ, and thereby a common distinguishing Badge of our Christian Profession; whereas in his Argument he attempts to prove no more, than that the Scripture does warrant our using it as an Instructive sign to signify or express this particular Duty of our Glorying in the sufferings of Christ. Now tho' I do not think he has produced us any clear Scriptural warrant for this very use of the sign of the Cross, yet if he had, what he has said falls very far short of justifying those two other more important uses of it, which are more peculiar to Foederal or Sacramental Rites, viz. It's being a Rite of Dedication to the Service of Christ, and thereby the Livery or Badge of the Christian Profession.  
Secondly, I shall show that the Bishop's Argument will serve as well to justify many other Rites which the Romish Church has added to Baptism and other parts of Worship.  
As to Baptism, a Papist may from the Bishop's Argument draw the following Plea for several other Ceremonies added to it by the Roman Ritual; such as the Priests putting salt into the mouth of the Infant, his anointing his ears and nostrils with spittle, his putting a lighted Taper into the Infants or Godfathers hand, his putting a white Garment on him, etc.  
We are obliged (saith the Bishop) to express the inward sense of our Minds concerning God by outward means, the Scriptures command to express it by our Actions as well as Words; as to these outward Actions, we are to use such as the general Custom of our Country has made significant in the like Cases. Thus because making the sign of the Cross is an Action, which universal Custom has applied to signify our glorying in the sufferings of Christ, and 'tis proper to make a Profession of doing so in our Baptism, Therefore the Scriptures warrant our use of it in general, and particularly at that time. Admon. p. 181, 182, 183.  
Since then (may the Papists in Italy or Spain argue) 'tis our Duty to savour the things of God; To have our Lips seasoned with Wisdom and Grace; To open our Ears to the Doctrine of Christ as becomes his Disciples; To preserve our Garments clean by immaculate Purity of Life, that we may appear faultless before the Tribunal of Christ; To walk in the Light by a blameless observance of our Baptismal Vows, that we may with the wise Virgins be admitted to the Heavenly Nuptials; Nay, since 'tis as proper to make a Profession of all this in our Baptism, as of Glorying in the sufferings of Christ: And since the Scriptures warrant us to make that Profession not only by Words, but also by such Actions as the Universal custom of our Country has made significant to those Uses, we are thereby warranted to use all the Rites forementioned in the Celebration of Baptism, since by the universal custom of our Country, 
See Rit. Rom.  they are applied to signify our obligation to these undoubted Duties of Christianity.  
Nay, the Bishop's Argument will go farther: For since 'tis as lawful to profess our Glorying in the sufferings of Christ in other parts of Religious Worship as in Baptism, and universal custom has applied this Action to signify our doing so, why do we not imitate, instead of blaming the Papists, for their so frequently crossing themselves in all their Devotions? Or rather, since the Scriptures command us to express the inward religious sense of our Minds by Actions; nay, since (as the Bishop asserts) Scripture-Presidents, not only warrant but oblige us to use such actions as well as words, as by universal custom signify our glorying in the sufferings of Christ. How come we to lay aside so pious a custom, so commendable, nay so necessary an Expression of our devout respect to a crucified Saviour, which we are not only warranted but obliged to use?  
Nay, as the Romish Church has in other parts of Divine Worship introduced a great number of Actions or Rites to express some part or other of our Christian Duty or Devotion, and those Actions are rendered significant to that purpose by universal custom among those of that Church, 'tis plain by this Argument, that all those Rites are warranted by Scripture, and our first Reformers seem to have been very unreasonable in their Rejection of 'em. So that this lose way of Reasoning will serve to worse purposes than I hope his Lordship ever designed it: For it will altogether as well fit the mouth of a Papist, for justifying his observance of most of those numerous Rites and Ceremonies (or in his Lordship's language, significant Actions) which their Church has enjoined, as it does his for justifying the Cross in Baptism. If the Bishop should pretend that the numerousness of those Rites is the only fault of 'em, he would do well to acquaint us where we may stop, what number of 'em is innocent, and what becomes sinfully excessive.  
Thirdly, I come to examine the Propositions the Bishop has laid down for proving the use of the Cross in Baptism to be warranted by Scripture, and show wherein I think his Argument in 'em weak and unconcluding.  
That we are, according to Proposition the first, to express our inward Reverence or Worship of God by outward Means, such as Praise, Prayer, etc. will be freely granted.  
That we are, according to Proposition the second and third, to express that inward Worship in general, by such bodily Gestures, as either nature or civil custom direct us to, and render most fit to represent and testify it to others by, will be also owned. But I cannot so easily grant, That the Scriptures warrant our expressing the sense of our Minds in all Religious Things or Matters by significant Actions. The particular Duties we own to God are almost numberless; and if we were warranted by Scripture to express the Thoughts and Sense of our Mind, as to each of 'em, by some significant Rite and Ceremony, the Romish Church would be sufficiently authorised by Scripture in her introducing such a load of significant Rites and Ceremonies into Christian Religion, 
Admon. p. 181.  especially if (as the Bishop observes) such significant Actions be more effectual, and sincere expressions of the sense of our Minds then words.  
Tho' then the Scriptures enjoin Bodily Worship in general, and consequently warrant all such devout Postures as either nature or civil custom has taught us to express it by, as bowing, prostration, kneeling, standing, and (in these parts of the world) the men's being uncovered, yet they do not warrant us to contrive distinct significant Actions to express each distinct part of inward Worship, as one to express our Faith in God, another to express our Love to him, another our Hope, another our subjection to his Authority, another our resignation to his disposal, another our dread of his Justice, etc. So tho' we may testify our Worship of Christ as the Incarnate Word, by the forementioned Postures of Devotion, yet the Scriptures no where warrant our contriving one significant Action or Rite to express but Believing his Gospel, another to express our Reliance on the virtue of his Merits and Sacrifice, another to signify out subjection to his Royal Authority, another to declare out glorying in his Cross or Sufferings. Besides the Religious Postures that are expressive of Worship in general, the Scriptures require no other External Rites as Signs of our particular respect to him, besides those of being Baptised in his Name, and commemorating his Death by receiving the Bread and Wine as the sacred Memorials of it. Therefore,  
As to the fourth and fifth Proposition, Tho' 'tis our duty to glory in the sufferings of Christ, yet the Scripture does not warrant (much less oblige us, as the Bishop adds) to contrive any particular Rite or Ceremony to signify it, any more than to contrive such a Rite do signify but belief of his Gospel, or dependence on his Mediation, or subjection to his Government. The Scriptures command our expressing our inward Worship by Reverence in our Bodily Postures, and consequently uncovering the Head is to us a Particular included in that general Precept. But the Scripture no where commands us to signify this particular Duty of glorying in the sufferings of Christ by any External Rites, and therefore does not warrant any particular Rite for that end; for that would have been to have left a Gap open for bringing in an endless Train of such significant Rites of our own devising, into Christian Religion, even such as would have made the Yoke of Christianity as heavy as that of Judaisme once was.  
As to the sixth and seventh Proposition, it plainly follows from what has been suggested, That if the Scripture neither oblige nor warrant us to contrive an External Rite for signifying our glorying in the Cross of Christ, much less does it warrant our use of it in Baptism where there is an External Rite appointed by Christ himself, sufficiently expressive of the whole of our Duty to him. What if the same Authority that set up this very sign of the Cross, had appointed leaning on a material Cross, to signify our Faith and Reliance on the Merits of a crucified Saviour, and kissing a Sceptre to signify our Homage to him as a King, etc. and had introduced these Rites into the Office of Baptism? Can they justly pretend the Scripture warranted them, because it enjoins Faith in a crucified Saviour, and subjection to him as our exalted Head and Lord? And yet these would be as fit Actions to signify these Duties, as the making that a cry sign to express our glorying in the sufferings of Christ. But the Scriptures have given no countenance to such foolish Inventions of our own, nor opened any such door to our Fancies, which if indulged this way, will soon prove very fruitful in such Superstitious Devices; as the Church has learned by the sad experience of so many Ages, in which the multiplicity of such Rites (or in the Bishop's language significant Actions) had almost eaten out the Vitals of Religion.  
For the eighth Proposition, I shall consider the particular Instances of such significant Rites in religious Worship, for which the Bishop produces Scriptural-Presidents, and by which he thinks this Ceremony of Crossing equally warranted.  
For that of Christ's washing his Disciples feet. I cannot see what it should signify to his purpose: For who doubts but Christ might teach his Disciples Humility, by practising before their eyes a common, but in him a most condescending Instance of it; or, that he might improve that occasion, (as he did almost all occurrents) to remind 'em of the Necessity of being washed in his Blood, or purified by his Grace. But what's this to our appointing a new External Badge of our Dedication to Christ, besides that he has appointed already?  
For the second Rite of Dipping entirely under Water in Baptism, if the Bp. had proved both that the words of the Apostle did certainly refer to the Practice of Dipping under Water, assigning this Spiritual signification to that particular Rite, and yet that the Christians of that Age had arbitrarily, and without any warrant from Christ or his Apostles, set up this Mode of Baptising as a religious Rite, to signify their obligation to die to sin, and live to righteousness, in conformity to the Death and Resurrection of Christ, then indeed this Instance had signified something to his purpose; but unless he prove both these Particulars, it signifies nothing.  
And the same Answer may be applied to the next Rite, viz. The change of . He should have first proved that the Apostles words do certainly refer to such a Religious Rite practised in Baptism to signify our obligation to put off the old Man, and put on the new; and then proved this was a Rite merely introdued by arbitrary custom, without any warrant from Christ.  
For if the Apostles expressions refer to these two Rites as used to these purposes, it will be much more reasonable to conclude that they are a part of the Ordinance of Baptism, and consequently should still be retained and used by us; (unless we suppose that as to the former, that Maxim of our Saviour will warrant our Omission of it in this colder Climate, That God will have Mercy and not Sacrifice) And on this supposition the Bishop can draw no Argument from hence to his purpose.  
For the Feasts of Charity and the Holy Kiss, I do not see that they were Religious Rites at all, but rather real Expressions of their mutual Charity. If the richer sort in a Congregation should on the Lord's Day invite the poor to Dinner, this would be such a real instance of their Love, (agreeable to our Saviour's advice about Feasting, Luke 14.12, 13, 14.) as those Feasts of Charity were, but it would be no such symbol of their spiritual communion as their Feasting as the Table of the Lord is. And the same may most probably be said of the Holy Kiss, which being then a common instance of mutual Respect and Amity among Persons in their ordinary Assemblies, was therefore innocently continued in their Religious ones. As no doubt we may there pay the same Marks of our Respect and Friendship to each other when the Public Worship is over that we do on other occasions of meeting together. Nay, if we suppose these two to have been Religious Rites yet it will be then more reasonable to suppose they had a temporary Institution, than that they had no other warrant than mere arbitrary custom. And upon either of these Suppositions there can be no show of any Argument drawn from 'em, to prove that the Scripture warrants us to institute a Religious Rite of our own, as an honourable Badge whereby we are dedicated to the service of a crucified Saviour, when Christ himself has instituted one for that use. For this is that which the Bishop was concerned to produce a scriptural warrant for. And therefore I may justly add here, that tho' the Bishop's Argument had proved that the Scriptures warrant us to express our glorying in the sufferings of Christ, by crossing ourselves as the Primitive Christians did in their common Conversation, yet this would not prove that they warrant us to use it as a Religious Rite in Baptism for our solemn Dedication to the Service of Christ, because that is a needless doing that over again by a Rite of our own devising, which is sufficiently done before by a Rite of Christ's Institution. Whereas this is the thing in question, and which to us looks like sinful Presumption.  
But before I dismiss the Argument of the Bishop's, 'tis requisite I should consider those two significant Ceremonies among the Dissenters, which he thinks liable to the same Exceptions as the use of the Cross in Baptism, viz Their giving their Children names at their Baptism, and giving Tickets to Communicants.  
For the former significant Ceremony, viz. Of giving names to Children at their Baptism, The Bishop tells us, it signifies their giving up their Names to Christ, and engaging 'em to be his Servants. So that our Names are a lasting Token and Badge to us of our Dedication to the Service of Christ, and an Obligation on us to behave ourselves accordingly. Admon. p. 184.  
Answ. It seems somewhat strange the Bishop should so positively assert; that we give our Children a Name at Baptism for any such purpose as this. For we use it not as any Religious Ceremony at all, much less as an External Sign or Token of giving up their Names to Christ, and engaging 'em to be his Servants. This is all suggested by his own fancy without any ground; for we know of no other use of this practice in Baptism, then that the Person baptised may be notified to the Congregation, by being called by his Name. And for the Bishop's remark on God's giving Abraham a new Name at his Circumcision, in allusion to the custom of Masters giving their Servants a new name upon their admission into their Families; besides that, 'tis asserted without any proof, (there being no such reason, but a different one, assigned by God himself, for changing his Name from Abram to Abraham, 17 Gen. 4, 5.) yet if it were true, I know not what use it can be to his purpose: for if he would infer from it, That this is a Scriptural warrant for giving Names to Children at Baptism, as a Token of their Admission into God's Family, he makes it a significant Ceremony of God's own appointment, and consequently can draw no Argument from it, to justify the use of the Cross as a Ceremony arbitrarily appointed by Men, to signify their Dedication to Christ.  
For the other significant Ceremony, which the Bishop saith, the Dissenters have added to the Lord's Supper, and which he desires 'em to reflect on, viz. Giving of Tickets to such as are to be admitted thereto. 'Tis, I confess, a very dangerous one, in which he has found out abundance of very strange and mysterious significations. For in this Ceremony he tells us, There is an outward and visible Sign, a Ticket. Secondly, An inward Spiritual Grace, our Aptitude and Title to the Lord's Supper and Communion of Saints, found upon our Examination when we receive the Ticket. Thirdly, 'Tis a Badge and Token whereby privileged Members are distinguished from those that are without. Lastly, 'Tis a sort of necessary Term of Communion, since those that neglect this Badge, shall not be admitted to the Sacrament.  
Answ. If all these wonderful spiritual significations assigned to this poor Ticket prove merely the product of the Bishop's Imagination, than I hope there can be no Argument drawn from it to patronise the Cross. The Ticket is I confess an outward and visible sign, but I could never learn before that it was a sign of any thing more, then that the Person that brought it, was allowed by the Minister to Communicate at that time, and did not intrude there without his permission. But how it should come to signify a Man's qualifications for Receiving, or his title to any spiritual Benefits that belong to worthy Communicants, is very hard to conceive. All that can be said of it is, that 'tis probable the Minister would not have given him leave to Communicate by giving him a Ticket, if he had not known him to be a Member of his own or some other Congregation. And the Bishop farther mistakes in making the Ticket a Badge to distinguish privileged Members from those that are without; for there may be many present as spectators at Communions that are Members, and have not Tickets at present, because they do not at present Receive. Nor would any Man's having a Ticket secure his Admission, if he were known to be no Member of that or some other Congregation. Nay, the Ticket is no necessary Term of Communion neither, since no man that is a noted Member of that, or any other Congregation, would be refused, tho' he should have no Ticket, or left it behind him. It's plain, that the giving those Tickets is a circumstance that genuinely falls within the Apostles Rule of doing all things decently and in order. Now in such multitudes as in the North of Ireland ordinarily frequent their Communions, there cannot be a more easy and orderly expedient to distinguish the Communicants from mere Spectators, and prevent any Persons from intruding into the Communion of particular Churches without leave, than this of giving Tickets to such as they allow to Receive at that time. So that the general Rule of Scripture , does oblige 'em to use this or some other method of the like kind; for the decent and orderly celebration of that Holy Institution, and preventing the contrary confusion and disorder. But I hope the Bishop will not pretend, that Baptism cannot be decently and orderly performed without using the sign of the Cross, as an Honourable Badge whereby the Person baptised is dedicated to the service of a crucified Saviour, and therefore the Cross, is no way warranted by that rule of order and decency, as the forementioned custom evidently is. If indeed this perilous Ticket had had a Cross upon it, and the Persons that brought it were ordered to wear it upon their Breasts or Foreheads as a sign whereby they publicly professed their Remembrance of and renewed Dedication of themselves to the service of a crucified Saviour, as the adult Members of his Church, the Bishop might then have had some pretence to have compared these two customs together. But as they are really practised, there is no more resemblance between 'em, then between a prudential Mode of ordering Christ's own Institution in general necessary, and virtually included in his own Rule of order, and an unnecessary Religious Rite unwarrantably added by Man, to Christ's Institution, to some of the same uses as he had appointed another already; and any one that pleases may easily discern a wide difference between these two.  
I shall only add here, that as the Bishop has failed of producing us any clear Scriptural warrant for the Cross, (and consequently aught by his own Rule on that very score to discard it as a Human Invention) so he has not so much as attempted to vindicate that other Human Invention of Godfathers and Godmothers, set up to exclude the Public Promise of Parents, for the pious Education of their own Children, and to enter into rash Vows, which few ever perform, which I take to be the more dangerous corruption of the two. See Remarks p. 167, 168, 169.  
As to the Bishop's Conclusion I shall only observe,  
1. I do not find that he has made good his Charge of Human Inventions against the Dissenters in any one particular instance of their Worship, notwithstanding all the assurance wherewith he had asserted, Disc. p 187. That they were so strangely misled as to content themselves to meet together, perhaps for some years with a design to worship God, when one could hardly ever see any thing of God's immediate appointment in their Meetings. For this the Bp. there saith, was manifestly the case of the Dissenters in his thoughts. And he still takes the same for granted, Admon. p. 188. That the worship of Dissenters has no express warrant of Scripture for it. And now to advance so terrible and comprehensive a Charge, and not prove the Truth of it in any one particular Instance, seems to us a very unadvised, as well as a very uncharitable attempt. Nay, 'tis strange, that (except that of Crossing) he has not so much as endeavoured to vindicate one practice of the established Church from his own Arguments when retorted upon himself.  
2. Since the Bishop threatens us, if the Matters of Fact be disputed, to produce his Vouchers and Authorities, we must now desire him either to do so, or own those Mistakes whereby he has highly injured the Reputation of his Brethren. And I hope he will take care that the Testimony of his Vouchers be as credible as that of those I have produced. And he need not spare to produce 'em out of tenderness to the Dissenters of his Diocese, for they desire no other tenderness in this point, besides that of speaking nothing but Truth of 'em.  
3. I think his Caution against the Remarks which he here gives very unfair, unless he had proved, instead of barely asserting, That my Arguments are not founded on Scripture, and that my Answers to his Proofs contradict the Letter of Scripture. I hope his Lordship will excuse us, tho' we are unwilling to take all this for granted on no other evidence than his bare word.  
Lastly, I hope he will find nothing in these Papers contrary to a spirit of meekness, or savouring of passion, And tho' the Dissenters of his Diocese, cannot carry their civility to so high a strain as to thank him for his Book, as he does them for the entertainment they have given it, yet they can readily comply with his Request to 'em, Not to be offended with him for telling 'em the truth. For the chief offence they took at his Book, was not his reasoning against their Opinions and Practices, but his giving so untrue an Account of 'em. And therefore they cannot altogether assent to what his Lordship insinuates in these following words: Remember nothing is more apt to provoke Mankind then Truth. And if you meet with any Book in Answer to mine, that discovers the writer to have been in a Passion when he wrote it, you may look on it as a probable Argument of the truth of what I have proposed. And if upon reading what I have wrote, you find any motion in yourselves towards Passion, consider well whether it proceed not from the same cause, namely my declaring the truth to you. For they think there is one thing more apt to provoke even the mildest and best of Men, and that is, to be unjustly accured to the world, and yet, when the Accuser is admonished of his mistakes, to have the Accusation renewed, and be appealed to themselves as Evidences for what they as certainly know to be untrue, as they know their own Judgement and Practice. For in this case they think it no probable Argument of Gild in the accused, if they should express some just displeasure against such ill usage. And yet I hope he will find even this extraordinary provocation has not drawn out any language that looks like passion. But yet as the Bp. expects we should allow plain-dealing to be a part of his character, so I hope he will not deny us the same liberty of dealing plainly with him, not only in vindicating our Opinions and Practices where we think his objections against 'em invalid, but especially in clearing both from such misrepresentations as we think manifestly groundless and injurious, and in desiring an ingenuous Retraction of 'em, as an act which a regard to Justice as well as Truth should prompt him to. For common Justice forbids our ascribing to our Brethren Opinions and Practices which are none of theirs; nay, it forbids our receiving and publishing mistaken Accounts of 'em, from the informations of others, when a little care and diligence might have enabled us to discover the falsehood of 'em. And consequently the same Principle should prompt us to do right to the Reputation of our Brethren, when we have, through our unwary credulity, or in the heat of opposition spoken or written of 'em what is not true, and yet what if believed, would tempt others to very unjust and uncharitable apprehensions of their Judgement and Practice. And when his Lordship has given the Dissenters of his Diocese this evidence of his Justice towards 'em, they will then be more ready to believe his sincerity in studying their good.  
And now if these Papers contribute any thing to reconcile his Lp. and those whom his Book and Admonition may have misled, to more charitable thoughts of our Worship, and to caution us in such Debates as these to be more strict in observing that excellent Rule of the Apostles, To speak the truth in love, Eph. 4.15. I shall not think my pains in writing 'em wholly lost. For tho' in the Matters in dispute between us, it becomes every good man as to his own practice, to adhere impartially to the rule of the Holy Scriptures as far as he understands it; yet nothing is more plain, then that those great Truths and Duties of Christianity wherein we are agreed, are of incomparably greater moment and importance than those wherein we differ. And as 'tis our unity in those more important Truths and Duties that chief recommends us to the acceptance of our blessed Lord; so that alone is sufficient to endear us to one another; and for those smaller Differences among us that are so fully consistent with a happy Unity in these essentials of our Religion, however they may now distinguish us into Parties, yet they can never be reasonably thought to exclude the Churches on either side from the Communion of the Church Catholic; much less will they exclude the truly pious Members on either side from the Heavenly Society. How little then should those Differences tend to disunite our affections, or to obstruct our amicable endeavours to advance the common Interest of Practical Holiness? how should we rejoice to see that blessed work prosper in each others hands? how entirely should Charity govern all our debates in the points wherein we disagree, and make us unwilling to misrepresent each others opinions or practices, when we calmly reason against 'em? how strongly should it prompt us to treat each other in all respects as brethren, in whom we behold the image of our great Master stamped, tho' we may not see the inscription of this or that party, which we judge to be the most happily reformed, or the best constituted and modelled? how much more zealous should we be to proselyte Men to the substance and power of Religion, then to any external Modes of Worship and Discipline? And how hearty should we join in that Apostolical Benediction, Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, Amen. 6 Eph. 24.   

Mr. Sinclare's Letter referred to p. 14.  
SIR,  
THe Argumentative and Historical parts of the Bishop of Derry's Admonition, seem both of a piece as to the many apparent mistakes in 'em. A satisfactory Answer to the former is justly expected from yourself. But for the latter, as its necessary to make use of the Information of others, who, I am confident, will be more faithful to you, thou the Bishop's Informers have been to him: so I shall readily comply with your desire, to give a true and certain account of the practice of Dissenters in Waterford before the late Troubles; which was so very different from that which his Lordship gives, when he says, p. 32. He had opportunity to inquire, and was told they did not Communicate above once a year, if so often: That (as he hath taught us in the former page) we may thence conclude the probability of what he says concerning others.  
This account I'm more concerned and better enabled to give you with greater assurance, because I preached to 'em at that time, and have also carefully preserved a Memorial of such things in my Diary, which are as followeth.  
I was Ordained a Pastor to that People about a year and a half before the Troubles, and Administered the Lords Supper five times in thirteen Months of that time, viz. Decemb. 18. 1687. May 6. 1688. July 1. 88 Oct. 28. 88 Jan. 27. 88 besides four times more I Administered that Sacrament the same year to another Congregation, that was supplied by some neighbouring Ministers and myself. And I can assure you, that those Ministers gave the Communion more frequently, most of 'em once a Month, some of 'em once in two Months to their own Congregations.  
But that I may conceal nothing from you, that the Bishop's Information may possibly be supposed to reach unto, I shall acquaint you, that tho' the Dissenters in Waterford, both before I came among 'em, and while I preached to 'em only as a Candidate, had no fixed Pastor, yet even then they had the Communion Administered to 'em oftener than once a year, by some of the aforesaid Ministers that used to visit them for that end, and many of the People used also to Communicate frequently with these Ministers in their own Congregations.  
I shall further suggest to you, that the reason of my preaching to 'em for some time as a Candidate only, was the extreme discouragement I met with there from the severities of some that called themselves Protestants, for we were frequently disturbed in our public worship, and 6 times forced to change the place of our Meeting: the best part of the Auditory was for a whole Sabbath detained prisoners by armed men, and towards evening, I was conveyed by a strong Guard through a throng of Papists, who rejoiced to see Protestants doing that drudgery for 'em; and several times besides that, I was brought before the Magistrate, and instead of being accused, was only reviled and threatened. But at last they attempted, the common practice of that time, to accuse me of Plots and when they were shamefully disappointed and vented their rage against me, the then Mayor hardly rescued me from 'em. But soon after another Mayor succeeded that was for their purpose, and joined with some of 'em, to expose me after this manner: The Military Governor rudely assulted me in the Mayor's house (where I came to see some friends take horse, for he kept a public Inn) and dragged me into the streets, where the Soldiers received more, the rude Officers pulled off my Hat, and forced me to go bareheaded through the chief parts of the City, with two Drums tabering before me, till they sent me over the River, with a threatening Message to the Inns on the other side, if they should dare to entertain me. This forced me to complain to the L. Clarendon then L. Lieutenant, who being fully convinced of my Persecutors malice, and the miseries I had suffered gave his Order that I should return peaceably to my habitation, and be safely protected in it. And having then some hope of ease from the violence of my adversaries, I accepted the call of the people and was Ordained, among 'em by some of the neighbouring Ministers, and administered the Communion for the time I continued with 'em as is abovementioned; and I am assured that the same Congregation hath the Sacrament administered to 'em 6 times a year by their present Pastor Mr. Cock. This I judge sufficient to vindicate our practice from what we are accused of, and being a Matter of Fact so generally known. I could produce many witnesses (if it were needful) to confirm this Testimony of,  
Sir, your Affectionate Brother and Servant, Alexander Sinclare.   

THE CONTENTS.  

THe Bishop's Introduction considered, p. 1  
His Three Heads examined.  
1. That relating to the Motives of writing his Book, from p. 4. to 7  
2. That relating to the Concessions made in the Remarks. p. 7. to 9  
3. That relating to Matters of Fact, from p. 8, to 38  
His other Exceptions against the Remarks considered.  
Two relating to the Author examined, p. 37. to 40  
That relating to the Rule of Worship which the Bishop pretends to be laid down in the Remarks, answered from p. 40. to 48  
His Exception against the Requests offered to the Conf. Clergy Answered, from p. 48. to 53  
His Exceptions relating to what the Remarks' object against the Cross in Baptism.  
The Bishop's Objections against the Directory in reference to Baptism, considered from p. 53. to 58  
The Argument proposed in the Remarks against the Cross, more fully stated, from p. 58. to 73.  
The Bishop's Answer to this Argument examined. p. 73. to 76  
The Bishop's Argument to prove the use of the Cross in Baptism warranted by Scripture, answered from p. 76. to 86  
Remarks on the Bishop's Conclusion.  
Mr. Sinclare's Letter concerning the Practice of Dissenters in Waterford, as to the frequency of their Communions.    

POSTSCRIPT.  
WHereas the Bishop, Admon. p. 69. asserts, That some, who have been found unqualified and insufficient for Learning by them, are received as Preachers among the Dissenters, after being rejected by them. And adds, That he has a notorious Example thereof since he came to this Diocese. The Dissenting Ministers of his Diocese Declare they know of no such Person. And if the Bishop (as there is some ground to conjecture) mean Mr. Sq. he declares he was never Examined as to his Learning by them; and (besides that, he is no Preacher in that part of the Kingdom) most that know him) think that if his Lordship should reject all those of his Clergy that are not Mr. Sq.'s Superiors in Learning, he must exclude a great many of those that are now in his Diocese.  
FINIS.